Delta Sportswear, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employe if serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application , in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Serv-
ice Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room
2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street , Cincinnati , Ohio 45202 , Telephone
684-3627.
Delta Sportswear , Inc. and San Francisco Joint Board , Interna-
tional Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case 20-
CA-3497. August 1, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 7, 1966, Trial Examiner David London issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiners Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the `Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting brief. The General Counsel and
the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and supporting briefs. Respond-
ent filed answering briefs to the cross-exceptions of the General
Counsel and to the exceptions of the Charging Party.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error ix as committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs,'
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as
modified herein.
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent threatened employees with discharge or other reprisal if
they should engage in a lawful strike. We find merit in this exception.
I We find no merit in the contentions by the Respondent that vaiions credibility findings
of the Trial Examiner are erroneous, as the clear pieponderanee of all the relevant evidence
does not demonstrate that such findings are incorrect Standard Dry Nall Products, lac,
91 NLIRP, 344. enfd 1,88 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
The General Counsel and the Charging Party both except to the failure of the Trial
Examiner to find violations of Section 8(a) (1) on the barns of alleged interrogations of
employee Spate by Supervisor Pullen and of employee wood by Plant Manager Tauber
Since lurthcr findings of section 8(a) (1) won](] be merely cumulatiNe and would not
broaden the remedy ordered herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon these allegations.
160 NLRB No. 30
DELTA SPORTSWEAR, INC. 301
The record discloses that at the close of the General Counsel's case
in brief, the Trial Examiner granted the Respondent's motion to dis-
miss the allegation in subparagraph VI(n) of the complaint which
was as follows : "on or about . . . Tauber threatened employees with
discharge because of their Union membership or activities." In view
of the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the only supporting allegation
in the complaint for this finding,2 and the fact that Respondent con-
sequently did not introduce evidence on the matter, we shall dismiss
the allegation that Respondent threatened employees with discharge
if they engaged in a lawful strike.
We find merit in the General Counsel's and Charging Party's
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that Respondent's
institution of a bonus system during the critical period constituted a
violation of Section 8 (a) (1).
On February 23, 1965, the day after union activity started at
Respondent's plant, Plant Manager Tauber announced to employees
in the inspection department that a bonus system would be instituted.
The Trial Examiner found this action of the Respondent to be in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1). We agree.
On March 17, 1965, the Respondent actually put into effect this
bonus system enabling employees in its inspection department to
obtain increased earnings. In our opinion, the actual payment of the
bonuses, like the announcement thereof, was for the purpose of dis-
couraging employees from engaging in union activities and thus
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had imposed an
oral rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union activities
on its premises during nonworking time.
Employee Willey testified that during an interview on February 22,
1965, with Tauber, in his office, he told her that "during breaktime"
the Company was paying her, and she "could not solicit for the
union during that time." During this same conversation Tauber ques-
tioned Willey about her union activities and, as found by the Trial
Examiner, violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. We cannot, without
more, equate this single conversation to creation of a broad no-
solicitation rule applicable to all employees which would be in dero-
gation of Respondent's valid posted rules.3 Accordingly, we do not
a The record discloses that the Trial Examiner, based his finding on the testimony of
employee Krule This witness on direct examination testified that Respondent ' s Plant
Manager Tauber, had stated employees could be "fired" if they went "on strike " How-
ever , on cross-examination this witness testified that Tauber did not, at the time, say the
employees could be "discharged " but could be "replaced " and "in her own mind" the
two words meant the same thing.
I The Respondent ' s valid posted rules prohibited " solicitation . .. during working
time" and there is testimony by certain employees that they were told that the no-
solicitation rule did not apply to breaktime or other nonworking time
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that, by the statement to Willey, Respondent thereby promul-
gated an illegal rule prohibiting -union activities on its premises dur-
ing nonworking time.4 Nonetheless, the limitation of Willey's right
to engage in union activity during nonworking time violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Delete subparagraph 1(c) of the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order and reletter subparagraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) as
(c), (d), (e), and (f) consecutively.
[Substitute for relettered (e) [formerly subparagraph (f)], the
following :
["(e) Warning employees that they cannot discuss union matters
or solicit on behalf of a labor organization during nonworking time
on company premises."
[Substitute for relettered (d) [formerly subparagraph (f)], the
following :
1"(d) Promising or instituting a bonus, or promising better job
opportunities if employees reject a union as their collective-
bargaining representative."
[2. Delete subparagraph 2(a) and reletter subparagraph 2(b) and
(c) as (a) and (b), respectively.
[Amend Trial Examiner's proposed notice to employees (Appen-
dix) by:
[1. Adding at the end of the first paragraph the following :
[", or engage in union activities." b
[2. Delete the second paragraph.
[3. Delete the fourth paragraph and substitute the following:
[WE WILL NOT promise or grant our employees a bonus, better
job opportunities, or other inducement if they would reject the
above-named Union or any other labor organization as their
collective-bargaining representative.]
* Great Dane Trailers, Inc, 159 537.
6 The Trial Examiner , inadvertently , failed to conform his proposed notice to paragraph
1(b) of his proposed Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed March 8, 1965, by San Francisco Joint Board, International
Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO (the Union), and thereafter twice
amended, the General Counsel, on May 7, 1965, issued a complaint against
Respondent Delta Sportswear, Inc., alleging that Respondent had engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (the Act). Respondent duly filed an answer to said complaint denying that
it was guilty of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was
V
DELTA SPORTSWEAR, INC. 303
held herein before Trial Examiner David London at Stockton, California, on Decem-
ber 14-16, 1965, following which the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs
which have been duly considered. Motions, on which ruling was reserved during
the hearing, are disposed of in accordance with the findings and, conclusions that
follow.
-On the entire record in the .case, and my _ observation of the witnesses who testified,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF, FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, Respondent has been a California corporation with
an office and place of business located in Lodi, California, where it is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of garments. In the course and conduct of its business
operations during the calendar year preceding the filing of the complaint herein,
Respondent sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000- to Catalina, Inc.,
an affiliated • company doing business in the State of California. Catalina, Inc.,
annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of California. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is
engaged in commerce, and in operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
San Francisco' Joint Board, International Ladies Gament Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, is and has been at all times relevant herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
NJ. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In November 1964, during nonworking time, 20-30 of approximately 80-90
women employed by Respondent began talking about union representation. During
the latter part of that month, Amy Armstrong, who Respondent admits is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act, came to the worktable of Lola Myers and, in
the presence of another employee, Mary Johnson, asked Myers whether she had
heard of any union activity or talk. When Myers replied affirmatively, Armstrong
asked her to name the girls who had been so engaged and Myers told her "it was
just a bunch of girls." Armstrong then told her that Peter Tauber, Respondent's
plant manager, "`would close the plant down before he would let the Union in."
When Myers told her that she had heard that they would be fired if they talked
about the Union, Armstrong answered: "I don't know about you're being fired, but
the plant would be closed down if the Union would come in." Though Armstrong
denied making the statements attributed to her, .a denial which I do not credit, she
admitted that in November-December 1964, she had been informed by another
supervisor of the "possibility of a union" for Respondent's employees and, because
she considered it her "responsibility to try to find out who was behind it," she
talked to another employee "to see if she knew anything about it."
Tauber testified that in November 1964 he learned of organizational activity
among Respondent's employees. It was not, however, until February 22, 1965, that
there was any open manifestation of the Charging Union's campaign to organize
Respondent's employees and at which time they learned that the Union' s literature
or authorization cards would be distributed after work on that day. During that
afternoon , Sally Willey, employed as an inspector and the alleged discriminatee
herein, was directed to go to Tauber's office by Sandra Castellon, her supervisor.
There, Tauber asked Willey whether she belonged to a union and whether she liked
her job. During their conversation, Tauber told her "that the plant would close
down if the Union came in," that Respondent was paying her during " breaktime,"
and that she could not solicit for the Union during that period. When Willey told
him that the women were unhappy about wages, Tauber told her that he was trying
to get a bonus for them from his superiors in Los Angeles and that he would tell
the other inspectors about his efforts in that direction.
During the same day, Tauber called employee Mary Johnson to his office and
asked her what she knew about the Union, who had started it, what was said about
it, and asked her to keep her "eyes and ears open and let him know what [she]
could find out."
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shortly thereafter , Tauber called the entire group of inspectors to a meeting near
the cafeteria and told them of his efforts to provide them with a bonus. He then
began talking about the Union and told them that if it came in he "would close
the plant down" and that Catalina , a corporate affiliate of Respondent , "would not
tolerate a union," that if the Union did come in , "all the girls that were employed
would be discharged and new girls would come in."
During the afternoon of February 23,1 while employee Patricia Wheeler was in
the lunchroom during a coffee break, she overheard Tauber , who was seated about
3 feet away with Duke, the plant engineer, "discussing the commotion around the
plant about the Union ." During the course of their conversation , she overheard
Tauber tell Duke "that he would close the plant before he would let the Union
come in."
During the morning of February 25, Tauber called employee Kathleen Kurle to
his office and accused her of causing a disturbance in the plants She asked what
he was referring to and he told her it was the Union, whereupon Kurle admitted
that she was the one who had called the Union . Tauber next asked her "who else
was in on it" with her and she replied that she had done it herself . During the
course of the conversation , which lasted approximately 4 hours through the lunch
period , Tauber asked Kurle why she had called the Union and she told him it was
because of the fringe benefits and higher wages that she could get through the
Union . Tauber thereupon assured her that Respondent would be able to offer "these
same things ." When Kurle stated that the employees could not wait , Tauber asked
what she would do if he closed the plant and stated that if the employees "walked
out he could fire [them ] and hire new help ," In an endeavor to win her over to his
side, Tauber asked if she would like a better job as an instructor . Though the sug-
gestion sounded attractive to Kurle, she declined it because she did not want her
"fellow employees to think that [ she] had secured a job through them ." About a
week later, Tauber again asked her if she was interested , this time , in an office job.
After discussing the matter with her husband , she notified Tauber that she was not
interested.
On March 8 , Angela Himmrich , and two other employees , who "didn 't quite
understand what was going on" about the Union , went to Tauber's office and told
him they had heard that the Union was trying to come into the plant. He told them
he could not volunteer any information but would be glad to answer any question.
However, during the course of the meeting which lasted approximately an hour,
Tauber told them that he "would leave rather than work on a union job ." Himm-
rich informed Tauber that she was against the Union and told him there was going
to be a union meeting that evening and asked him whether she should attend. Tau-
ber replied affirmatively . Himmrich asked whether he was going to attend and he
answered that he did not know but would call his lawyer and let her know that
evening. He called her at home later , told her that his lawyer had informed him
he could not attend , but asked that she go to the meeting and find out,' she could
not "recall if he said who or how many people were there, but that he would talk
to [her] the next day." The following morning, Tauber called her to his office and
asked whether she had attended the meeting . She replied that she had been accused
by some of the girls of being a "stooley." Tauber thereupon told her to leave the
office but , before she departed , he asked her if there were at least 20 or more people
in attendance at that meeting. She answered that there were.
The findings in the preceding paragraphs are based on the credited testimony of
the employees involved . Neither Armstrong nor Tauber impressed me as a truthful
witness and I do not credit their denials of the accusations leveled against them as
found above. Both impressed me as having but a single purpose in testifying-to
absolve Respondent of all liability herein . Tauber, though denying that he threatened
to close the plant if the Union was successful in its campaign , admitted that he
told the employees that if the Union did come in he would gladly give up his job
and leave the plant, even though it caused him inconvenience and substantial
expense.
By reason of all the foregoing I find and conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct : ( 1) interrogating its employ-
ees concerning their union membership or activities , (2) threatening them that the
plant would be closed or shut down if a union became their bargaining representa-
1All reference to dates herein are to the year 1965, unless otherwise noted.
2Iiurle was in Respondent ' s employment from September 1964 to August 2, 1965
DELTA SPORTSWEAR, INC. 305
tive, (3) threatening them that they would be fired if they "walked out" on strike,
(4) requesting that they engage in surveillance of union meetings, (5) promising
a bonus or better job opportunities if they should reject the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative, and (6) prohibiting union activities on its premises during
nonworking time.
Except as found above, the General Counsel has failed to establish by the neces-
sary preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was guilty of the further viola-
tions of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, alleged in the complaint. Though the testimony
establishes that Tauber and Supervisor Castellon were guilty of further conduct
alleged to be prohibited by the Act, I cannot conclude that such conduct was, in
law, violative thereof. Thus, with respect to Tauber, the other conduct attributed to
him occurred during a management meeting attended only by supervisors and
instructors. The conduct attributed to Castellon cannot, under present Board law, be
deemed to be violative of the Act.
In the representation proceedings involving this same Respondent, Case 20-RC-
6355, of which I have taken official notice, the Board, acting through its duly
authorized Regional Director, determined that Castellon, though a seasonal super-
visor, was an employee "eligible to vote" as a member of an appropriate unit of
employees at an approaching election . In that status , the Board has repeatedly
held 3 that an employer is not "responsible for the antiunion conduct of a super-
visor included in the unit, in the absence of evidence that the employer encouraged,
authorized, or ratified the supervisor's activities or acted in such manner as to lead
employees reasonably to believe that the supervisor was acting for and on behalf of
management." Montgomery Ward and Company, Incorporated, 115 NLRB 645;
Breckenridge Gasoline Company, supra; Hy Plains Dressed Beef, Inc., 146 NLRB
1253, 1254. Here, there was no evidence that Respondent encouraged, authorized,
or ratified Castellon 's conduct . Indeed , and though it appears incongruous in view
of Tauber's similar conduct which I have found to be violative of the Act, the Gen-
eral Counsel's own testimony establishes that at the employees' meeting Tauber
repudiated Castellon's conduct and criticized her for it. In any event, were I to find
Castellon's conduct to be violative of the Act, the remedy for Respondent's viola-
tions which I hereafter recommend would be no broader.
The Discharge of Willey
Sally Willey was employed by Respondent as an inspector from December 1964
until March 1, 1965. She testified that she first became aware that the Union was
seeking to organize Respondent's employees on February 22 and that a meeting for
that purpose was to be held that evening. She did not attend that meeting but signed
a union card on February 23 and mailed it 2 or 3 days later. She admitted that
thereafter, during her work time, she talked about the Union to five employees. One
of these employees, to whom she talked on March 24 was Kay Helm, a garment
folder stationed 5-10 feet behind Willey. Willey testified that Helm told her that
"she didn't want [the Union] in there, [that] she would lose her job and every-
thing," and that she, Willey, warned Helm that "she better shut her mouth before
somebody shut it for her." Helm testified that Willey's threat was not to "tell the
higher ups or [she'd] get it." I credit Helm's testimony. In any event, whatever the
threat, my observation of both Helm and Willey while testifying convinced me that
Helm was genuinely and seriously frightened thereby, a fright characterized by her
as one which "scared [her] to death" and caused her to begin crying.4
Castellon came to Helm's work station and asked why she was so upset. Helm
told her there was talk about the Union and Castellon "wanted to know what it
was all about." Helm refused to do so because she was "too scared . . . of what
would happen to [her] if [she] told." Castellon next inquired whether Helm wanted
to go to Tauber's office and Helm asked whether she had to do so. Castellon
answered that Tauber "would want to know sooner or later what was going on,"
following which the two women went to Tauber's office. There, while still crying,
3 See, however , the dissent of Members Jenkins and Panning in Breckenridge Gasoline
Company, 127 NLRB 1462, 1463.
4 Helm was 1S years old , 5 feet 2 inches tall , weighing 98 pounds , and Impressed me
as an extremely timid girl . Willey, 32 years old, was slightly taller, and weighed 135-140
pounds.
257-551-67-vol. 160-21
306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Helm told Tauber "there was talk about the Union," that Willey had threatened
her and repeated Willey's threat. Tauber told her that because she was so upset she
could go home, that he would "get to the bottom of what actually took place," and
that he would not "tolerate threats of this kind or any kind in the plant."
Earlier that day, before she threatened Helm, Willey asked Lola Wood, also
employed as a garment folder, what she thought about the Union. Upon receiving
a noncommittal reply, Willey said: "If anyone or Kay [Helm] squeals, I will knock
the living out of her," and then went directly to Helm 's station . Though
Wood could not overhear the conversation between Willey and Helm, the latter
immediately thereafter came to Wood's station and told her that Willey had threat-
ened her and that she was scared.
Willey testified that shortly after Helm walked out of Tauber's office, she asked
Castellon, her supervisor, whether Helm had told Tauber that Willey "was going to
beat her up" and Castellon answered that it was true. Willey admitted that there-
upon she said to Castellon : "Kay better stop lying or I am liable to knock the
out of her." 5 Castellon reported the threat to Tauber.
After Helm left the building that day, Tauber asked Wood to come to his office.
He told her that she did not have to answer his questions , and asked if she knew
anything about the union deal, and "what happened that day." Wood told him that
"a girl" had been threatened but declined his request to identify the parties involved
until she had time to think it over. That evening, when she drove to the plant with
her husband to show Tauber a new car they had purchased, she told-Tauber that
it was Willey who made the threat and repeated the obscene threat Willey made
earlier that day. Though Tauber decided that evening to discharge Willey he called
his counsel in Los Angeles on the following day, February 25, and discussed the
Willey matter with him. Tauber asked that he come to Lodi on the following day,
Friday, but was informed that it would be impossible to do so before Saturday, at
which time the Willey matter was discussed by the two men.6 On the following
Monday morning, March 1, Tauber told Willey that he was discharging her for two
reasons: "One , soliciting for the Union on company time; two, threatening another
employee."
Though the record establishes that Willey solicited support for the Union from at
least four or five girls, she admitted that these conversations occurred during work-
ing time, an activity not protected by the Act and specifically prohibited by
Respondent 's posted rules? Respondent , therefore , had the right to discharge Willey
for engaging in union activity during working time. Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing
Co., 138 NLRB 615. Willey was also subject to lawful discharge for making the
threats to cause Helm physical harm , which conduct was likewise prohibited by
Respondent 's rules. Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company , 115 NLRB 356,
364-365; The Frohman Manufacturing Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 1308; 1325-26;
Russell-Newman Manufacturing Company, Inc., 135 NLRB 1. My only task there-
fore is to determine whether, in fact, Respondent discharged Willey for either or
both of these reasons or, as contended by the General Counsel , that both reasons
are mere pretexts and that Willey was discharged because of her union activity and
"so as to demonstrate to other employees the consequences of union activity."
Willy testified that , though employed by Respondent since December 1964, she
first became aware that a union was trying to organize Respondent 's employees on
February 22, but did not attend the union meeting held that evening . Her interest
in, and activity on behalf of, the Union therefore covered a brief span of but a day
or two. The extent of Willey 's union interest and activity was minimal compared to
Kurle who admitted to Tauber on February 25 that she was the one who "had
started the Union and called them up." Notwithstanding this role, Respondent con-
tinued Kurle's employment throughout the season and into the "off season" that
followed when Respondent operated with a substantially reduced staff. Nor was
there any evidence that Respondent discharged or discriminated against any other
employee for engaging in union activities.
Membership in, or activities on behalf of, a union does not, perforce , immunize
an employee against discharge for legitimate reasons. And though, in view of Tau-
Nor did she deny making the similar threat to Wood noted in the preceding paragraph.
Willey did not report for work on February 25, and worked only 4 hours on February 26.
7 Those rules provided that "solicitation or any other form of disturbing employees dur-
ing working time," and "use of threatening or abusive language toward any employee on
company property ," subjected employees to "discharge without prior warning."
DELTA SPORTSWEAR, INC. 307
ber's admitted hostility and opposition to the Union, he may not have been unhappy
to discharge an employe who was in favor of the Union, on the entire record I con-
clude that the General Counsel has not established by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that Willey, a probationary employee, was discharged for any of the reasons
alleged in the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and,
such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is, and at all times material herein was, an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. San Francisco Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO, is, and at all times material herein was, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act to the extent hereinabove set forth and
found, Respondent has engaged, and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evi-
dence that Willey was discriminatorily discharged.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire
record in the case, I recommend, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of
the following:
ORDER
Delta Sportswear, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union membership or
activities.
(b) Threatening them with reprisals if they designate the Union, or any other
labor organization, as their collective-bargaining representative, or engage in union
activities.
(c) Threatening them with discharge or other reprisal if they should engage in a
lawful strike.
(d) Requesting that they engage in surveillance of union activities or meetings.
(e) Promising a bonus or better job opportunities if they reject a union as their-
collective-bargaining representative.
(f) Imposing or giving effect to an oral rule prohibiting union activities on its
premises during nonworking time.
(g) In any similar manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain
from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Rescind its oral rule to the extent that it prohibits employees from engaging
in union activity on its premises during nonworking time.
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Post at its premises in Lodi, California, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof and 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 insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.9
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that Willey was discharged and not rehired in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
8In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
8In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall
be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union membership
or activities, or threaten them with reprisals if they designate San Francisco
Joint Board, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other reprisal if
they should engage in a lawful strike.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to engage in surveillance of, or to spy upon,
the union activities of our employees or their union meetings.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees a bonus, better job opportunities, or
other inducement if they would reject the above-named Union or,any other
labor organization as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from engaging in union activities on
our premises during nonworking time.
WE WILL NOT in any similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in good standing of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization.
DELTA SPORTSWEAR, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California
94102, Telephone 556-0335.