Dino Boutiques, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 1155 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

DINO BOUTIQUES, INC.
Dino Boutiques , Inc. and its affiliated and subsidiary
companies, M.J.A. Processing Corp., Pantwood
Inc., Pantops , Inc., and E.M.M. Manufacturing,
Inc. and International Ladies ' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 415. Case 12-
CA-4203
December 6, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On October 8, 1968, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision and a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations' of the
Trial Examiner, as herein modified.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Dino Boutiques, Inc. and its
affiliated and subsidiary companies, M.J.A. Processing
Corp., Pantwood, Inc., Pantops, Inc., and E.M.M.
Manufacturing, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
t Respondent excepts, in ter alia , to the Trial Examiner's finding that
the strike which commenced on May 3, 1968 , was caused and prolonged
by Respondent 's unfair labor practices . Respondent similarly excepts to
the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order as it requires Respondent to
reinstate the strikers within 5 days of their unconditional application at
the termination of the str ;ke We find no ment in these exceptions. It is
established Board policy to require reinstatement of strikers upon their
unconditional application where a strike caused and prolonged by a
1155
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so mod-
ified:
1. In paragraph 1(b) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, add the words "like or related"
between the words "any" and "manner."
2. Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and substitute the following:
(b) Upon unconditional application, offer imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all
those employees who were on strike on May 3, 1968,
or thereafter, dismissing, if necessary, any person
hired on or after that date, and make such applicants
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of
Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them
beginning 5 days after their application to the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement.
3. Add the following as paragraph 2(c), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
(c) Notify all those employees, if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their
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.
4. In the second indented paragraph of the
appendix, add the words "like or related" between
the words "any" and "manner".
5. Delete the third indented paragraph of the
appendix and substitute the following:
WE WILL upon unconditional application, offer
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, to all those employees who were on
strike on May 3, 1968, or thereafter, dismissing, if
necessary, any person hired on or after that date,
and make such applicants whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of our refusal, if any, to
reinstate them beginning 5 days after their appli-
cation to the date of our offer of reinstatement.
6. Add the following as the fourth indented
paragraph of the appendix:
WE WILL notify all those employees, if pres-
ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of their right to full reinstatement, upon
application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Respondent's unfair labor practices is still in progress . Herman Sausage
Co, Inc, 122 NLRB 168, enfd. 275 F.2d 229 (C.A. 5). It is also
established policy as a part of such prospective remedial order to require
a Respondent to make striking employees whole for any loss of pay
occasioned by its failure to comply with an order requiring rein-
statement within 5 days of the date of the employees ' unconditional
application . Accordingly , the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order is
modified to include such a provision.
173 NLRB No. 174
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner. This proceeding, with
all parties represented, was tried before me in Miami, Florida,
on August 12, 1968, pursuant to an amended complaint filed
by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
and an amended answer filed thereto by Dino Boutiques, Inc.
and its affiliated and subsidiary companies, M.J.A. Processing
Corp., Pantwood, Inc., Pantops, Inc., and E.M.M. Manu-
facturing, Inc , herein called the Respondent.' At issue is
whether Respondent refused to bargain with International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Local No 415,
herein called the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and whether a
strike by Respondent's employees, which commenced on May
3, 1968,2 was caused by Respondent' s alleged engagement in
the aforesaid unfair labor practices. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the General Counsel orally argued his case. A brief
has been received from the Charging Party, which has been
duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my
observation of the sole witness who testified, I hereby make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent, Dino Boutiques, Inc., M.J.A. Processing Corp.,
Pantwood, Inc., Pantops, Inc., and E.M.M. Manufacturing,
Inc., are now, and at all times material herein have been,
affiliated corporations duly organized under the laws of the
State of Florida, have common ownership, management and
operations, and administers a common labor policy affecting
the employees of the affiliated corporations. During the times
material to this proceeding, Respondent engaged in the
manufacture and sale of ladies' garments at its principal offices
and places of business at 4000 N W. 36th Avenue, Miami, Dade
County, State of Florida; 4001 N.W. 37th Avenue, Miami,
Dade County, Florida; and 815 W. 18th Street, Hialeah, Dade
County, Florida. During the preceding 12-month period, and
in the course and conduct of its business operations, Respond-
ent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were received in Florida directly from points located
outside that State. The complaint alleges, the answer admits,
and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that, commencing on or about March
20, and continuing to date, the Union requested Respondent
to bargain collectively regarding the terms and conditions of
employment for an appropriate unit of all production,
maintenance, shipping and receiving employees at the various
installations which comprise the Respondent, excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act and that, on and after that
date, Respondent has declined to bargain with the Union and
has thereby violated and is violating Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.' The complaint further alleges that Respondent's
employees engaged in a strike on May 3 which was caused and
prolonged by Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain
with the Union For its part, Respondent asserts that its refusal
to deal with the Union as the exclusive representative of its
employees was legally privileged because the Union had not
been properly certified by the Board as their exclusive
bargaining agent, and that the work stoppage which the
employees precipitated was not occasioned by any unfair labor
practices in which Respondent had indulged.
The facts in this litigation are not in dispute and I find them
to be as follows. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election executed by the Respondent and the
Union on November 28, 1967 in Case No. 12-RC-2958,
which was approved by the Regional Director for Region 12
on December 4, 1967, an election by secret ballot was
conducted among the employees in the unit heretofore found
appropriate on December 28, 1967. The tally of ballots in that
election shows that, of approximately 277 eligible voters, 126
cast ballots in favor of the Union, 104 cast their votes against
that labor organization, 16 ballots were challenged, and 3
ballots were void. As the challenged ballots were insufficient in
number to affect the results of the election, the Union was
declared the victor
However, on January 4, Respondent filed timely objections
to the election with the Regional Director. In those objections,
Respondent alleged that (1) the Regional Director aided and
abetted the Union's election triumph by making available to it
certain pamphlets bearing the inscription "Prepared for Office
of the General Counsel National Labor Relations Board
Washington, D.C." which the Union utilized in its election
campaign and which tended to destroy the integrity of the
secret ballot election because its distribution purported to
represent an endorsement of the Union by the Board; (2)
during the critical period preceding the election, the Union
distributed a handbill to the employees which implied that
unless the Union won the election Respondent would close the
plant, and which carried the inference that unless the Union
was successful the employees would be punished for engaging
in concerted activity, (3) shortly before the balloting, the
Union engaged in unlawful preelection conduct by intimi-
dating, threatening and coercing eligible voters to cast their
ballots for the Union, (4) during the immediate period
preceding the election, the Union engaged in illegal preelection
conduct by circulating a handbill containing the names of 35
eligible voters who purportedly had previously endorsed the
' The complaint and amendment to the complaint , which issued on 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1968
May 16, 1968 , and July 3, 1968 , respectively , are based upon a charge 3 I find that this unit for which the Union was certified constitutes
filed onl April 18 , 1968 , and served on April 19, 1968 , and an an appropriate unit of employees for the purpose of collective
amended charge which was filed on May 3, 1968 , and served on May 7 , bargaining as defined in Section 9(a) of the Act
1968.
DINO BOUTIQUES, INC. 1157
Union or the contents of the handbill, although some of these
employees named in the document had never authorized,
agreed to, nor consented to the use of their names in
connection with the Union's campaign literature, and that the
Respondent did not have adequate time to bring this material
misrepresentation to the attention of all employees before the
election; and (5) by these acts, the Union deprived the
employees of their right to make a free choice in the election.
On January 5, the Respondent submitted to the Regional
Director copies of the pamphlet and handbills to which it
adverted in its objection.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations and
the terms of the Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election which the parties had executed, the Regional Director
conducted an investigation of the objections during which all
parties were afforded full opportunity to submit and present
evidence on the issues. In his Report on Objections which he
filed on February 6, the Regional Director, after a consid-
eration of all the evidence presented, concluded that Respond-
ent's objections to the election did not raise material and
substantial issues affecting the election results, found the
objections lacking in ment, overruled them in their entirety,
and recommended to the Board that the Union be certified as
the exclusive representative of the employees within the
appropriate bargaining unit.
Thereafter, on February 14, Respondent filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's Report on Objections with the Board.
In those exceptions, Respondent again urged its previous
objections On March 20, after considering the Regional
Director's Report, and the Respondent's exceptions thereto
and supporting brief, the Board overruled the objections to the
election, concluding that the exceptions raised no material or
substantial issue of fact or law warranting reversal of the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, the Board certified the Union as the majority
designee of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit on
that date.
Meanwhile, on March 6, Joseph A. Perkins, Esq., Respond-
ent's co-counsel, dispatched a letter to Herbert L. Kaplan,
Esq., the Union's counsel, advising that Respondent had been
experiencing management and supervisory problems which
made the continued operation of the affiliate, Pantops, Inc.,
economically unfeasible. Attorney Perkins further recited that
Respondent was seriously considering the cessation of the
Pantops operation and subcontracting the work. Inasmuch as
such a decision might affect the terms and conditions of
employment of approximately 40 to 50 employees, Attorney
Perkins suggested that both counsel meet to discuss the matter.
By letter dated March 8, Attorney Kaplan set forth five dates
which were agreeable to him for the meeting. On March 12,
representatives of the Union and the Respondent convened
and discussed the cessation of the Pantops operation. On
March 15, Kaplan requested additional information concerning
various matters dealing with that operation which was
furnished by Perkins under letter dated April 2
On March 22, after receiving the Board's certificate, Kaplan
wrote to Respondent setting forth the intelligence that the
Union was in receipt of the certification and demanding that
arrangements be made for negotiations regarding a labor
agreement covering its employees. On March 25, Joseph A.
Caldwell, Respondent's co-counsel, replied that Respondent's
president was in Europe and was not scheduled to return until
a few days later. Caldwell advised that he would contact
Kaplan when the former's client arrived home and would then
schedule a bargaining session. Not hearing further from
Caldwell, Kaplan sent a telegram to Attorney Perkins
demanding that the parties meet within 48 hours for the
purposes of negotiating a contract, in consequence of which
the parties held two meetings, on April 17 and again on May 2.
It was stipulated at the hearing that these sessions were
initiated by the Respondent for the sole purpose of attempting
to obtain the Union's assistance in finding employment for the
employees of Pantops, Inc. upon the elimination of that
operation, and I so find It was further stipulated and I find
that, at these meetings, Respondent steadfastly refused to
recognize the Union for any_ other purpose or bargain with it
over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment for the employees in the unit because it sought a judicial
test of the validity of the Board's certification of the Union.4
On the evening of May 2, following the last joint con-
frontation between the parties, the Union conducted a meeting
among the employees in the unit. Juan Lozano, the Union's
business agent, testified without contradiction and I find that
the purpose of the meeting was to apprise the employees of
what had transpired at the earlier session that day between
officials of the Respondent and the Union. Lozano explained
to the assemblage that these officials had discussed the closing
of Pantops, Inc., and that Attorney Kaplan, or a Union
representative had stated to Respondent's officers "now that
we had certification from the Board, why we don't sit down
and negotiate an agreement for the whole people of
[Respondent]," to which Attorney Perkins replied, "I no
hurry and listen, I want to tell you something. I still no
recognize you as the bargaining agent for the employees of
[Respondent] and I still protesting that election. I am only
here because about Pantops department." Thereafter, em-
ployee Margarito Fuentes moved that a strike vote be taken
"because [Respondent] refused to bargain with the Union,"
which motion was seconded and unanimously carried. The
following morning, May 3, pickets stationed themselves
outside the main affiliate plant of Respondent. So far as
appears on this record, this strike is still in progress.
Concluding the chronology, on June 27, Respondent's
Attorney Caldwell wrote Union Attorney Kaplan that
"confirming my conversation with you on or about June 13,
1968, and again on June 25, 1968, please be advised that the
above named Employer has plans to put into effect certain
provisions with reference to permitting the vacation time
and/or pay for its employees employed by the Company. This
vacation schedule is tentatively set to be effective for the week
of July 1, 1968. In the event that I do not hear from you with
reference to the above previous discussions, I would proceed
on the assumption that your organization has no objection to
the implementation of this plan." It was stipulated and I find
that the Union failed to respond to this letter.'
In defense of this action, Respondent argues that it could
legally refuse to recognize and bargain with the Union because
the Board's grant of a certificate of majority representational
status to the Union was invalid. In support of this assertion,
Respondent has, in its responsive pleadings to the amended
4 The General Counsel does not urge that the proposed elimination 5 The General Counsel does not contend that the implementation of
of Pantops' operations was violative of the Statute. the plan offended any provision of the Act.
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
complaint, advanced the sames bases of infirmity on which it
relied in attacking the propriety of the Regional Director's
Report on Objections and the Board's decision certifying the
Union in the representation proceeding. No newly discovered
evidence was proffered in this hearing, and no claim is made
that previously unavailable evidence is now in hand which
would warrant reconsideration of the Board's previous
determination.
It is settled law that the Trial Examiner is bound by the
Board's determination in an antecedent representation case,
the nonconformity with which forms the basis for a refusal to
bargain charge under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and that
issues which were or could have been litigated in the
representation proceeding may not, barring special circum-
stances not here shown, be rehtigated in the subsequent unfair
labor practice case.6 Accordingly, I deem myself bound by the
Board's certification order of March 20, in the absence of any
assertion that material, newly discovered evidence is available
which would warrant upsetting that order, and I conclude that
no triable issue exists. As Respondent concededly is refusing to
bargain with the Union which the Board has certified, I
conclude that Respondent has thereby violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act and that a bargaining order should run against it.
I also find, based on Lozano's undenied testimony, that the
employees in the unit voted on May 2 to engage in a strike on
the following day because of Respondent's refusal to bargain
with the Union. I therefore conclude that the striking
employees were unfair labor practice strikers who are entitled,
upon their unconditional offer to return to work, to their same
or substantially equivalent employment with Respondent,
displacing, if necessary, any replacements lured during the
strike.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent set
forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate and substantial
relation to trade, traffic and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent, by refusing, upon request, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative in an appropriate unit of Respondent's em-
ployees, violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. I shall therefore
recommend that Respondent, upon request, bargain with the
Union concerning wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment for the employees in the unit here-
tofore found appropriate, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
I have also found that the strike, which began on May 3,
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was caused and prolonged by Respondent's commission of
unfair labor practices and was, therefore, an unfair labor
practice strike. I shall accordingly recommend that, upon their
unconditional offer to abandon the strike and return to work,
Respondent shall reinstate all strikers to their former or
substantially equivalent employment, dismissing, if necessary,
any replacements hired since the date of commencement of
the strike.
Inasmuch as it appears that many of Respondent's
employees speak and read only Spanish, I shall recommend
that the notice required to be posted by Respondent pursuant
to the Recommended Order herein shall be printed in both
English and Spanish
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions, and the entire record in this proceeding, I make
the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production, maintenance, shipping and receiving
employees employed by Respondent at its plants located at
4000 N.W 36th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 4001 N.W. 37th
Avenue, Miami, Florida, and 815 W 18th Street, Hialeah,
Florida, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4 At all times material herein, the Union has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain with the Union, upon request,
concerning the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment for employees in the aforementioned
bargaining unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
6 The work stoppage which began on May 3, 1968, was
caused and prolonged by Respondent's unfair labor practices
and was, therefore, an unfair labor practice strike.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law
and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that Respondent, Dino Boutiques,
Inc, M.J.A. Processing Corp., Pantwood, Inc., and Pantops,
Inc., located at 4000 N.W. 36th Avenue, Miami, Dade County,
Florida; and 4001 N.W. 37th Avenue, Miami, Dade County,
Florida, and E.M.M. Manufacturing, Inc., located at 815 W.
18th Street, Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
6 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v. N.L.R.B, 313 U.S. 146,
158, 161 -162, Thermo-Rite Manufacturing Company, 157 NLRB 310,
331.
DINO BOUTIQUES, INC.
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union AFL-CIO, Local No 415,
upon request, as the exclusive bargaining representative of a
unit composed of all production, maintenance, shipping and
receiving employees employed by Respondent, excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities
2 Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 415,
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit described above, with respect to rate of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon the abandonment of their unfair labor practice
.strike and their unconditional offer to return to work,
reinstate all strikers to their former or substantially equivalent
employment dismissing, if necessary, any replacements hired
since the commencement of the work stoppage.
(c) Post at its plants in Miami and Hialeah, Florida, copies
of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix "7
Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director of Region 12, shall, after being duly signed by a
repiesentative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent in
both English and Spanish immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.8
7 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be 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."
8 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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."
1159
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 Relations Act, we
hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT, upon request, refuse to bargain collec-
tively with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, Local No 415, as the exclusive representative of
all of our employees in the appropriate unit at the plants.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, or to join or
assist International Ladles' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, Local No. 415, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
WE WILL upon their abandonment of the strike and
their unconditional offer to return to work, reinstate all
strikers to their former or substantially equivalent employ-
ment, dismissing, if necessary, any replacements hired since
the strike started
All of our employees are free to become or refrain from
becoming members of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 415, or any other labor
organization
DINO BOUTIQUES, INC
AND ITS AFFILIATED
AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES,
M. J. A. PROCESSING
CORP, PANTWOOD, INC.,
PANTOPS, INC, AND E.M.M.
MANUFACTURING 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 provisions , they may communicate directly
with the Board's Regional Office , Room 706 , Federal Office
Bldg., 500 Zack Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone
228-7711.