Duralee Fabrics, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 677 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Dl)RAI.EE FABRICS. I.6).
Duralee Fabrics, Ltd. and Local 107, International La-
dies' Garment Workers' Union. AFI,-CIO. Case
29 CA 6332
November 30. 1979
DECISION AND ORDI)ER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPIIY, ANI) TRt'I:SI)AI.
On July 27. 1979, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and Charging Party filed an
answer to Respondent's exceptions and a request for
an additional remedy.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) 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.2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
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, Duralee Fabrics, I.td..
Bayshore, New York, its officers, agents. successors.
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
I harging Party's request that the Board add to the remedial portion of1
its Order a requirement that Respondent pay all reasonable and necessars
organizational costs and expenses incurred by the Union as a result of Re-
spondent's unfair labor practices. and pay the legal expenses and costs in-
curred by the Uniot, and the National lahor Relations Board in onnection
with the instant litigation, is hereby denied inasmuch as under the circunm-
stances in this case the Board's traditional remedies are sufficient
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made bh he Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. I is the Board's established polico not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibilit3 unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant e idence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr l ilIl Pr,dluc. In, 91 NI RB 544
(1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have caretiilly examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STAIFM-NI )F 111 CASt
RI('IIRI) L. DINISON. Administrative Law Judge: ]This
case was heard in Brooklyn, New York. on JanuarD 17. 18.
and 19, 1979. The charge in Case 29-CA 6332 was filed bh
Local 107. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFI, ('10. hereafter called the inion. on April 13. 1978.'
The complaint, issued June 13. alleges that Respondent io-
;lated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the National L.abor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. on or about March 30 by refusing.
and thereafter continuing to refuse. to recognize and bar-
gain with the UInion as the exclusive representative of' Re-
spondent's employees in the appropriate unit. It is also al-
leged that Respondent polled its employees on or about
March 29 concerning their union membership. individually
interrogated and threatened employees, instituted and
maintained thereafter a rule prohibiting the distribution of
literature in the plant during nonworktime in nonwork
areas, and discharged Karl Jensen because of his union
membership and activities. in violation of Section 8(a)(I)
and (5) of the Act. Jensen's discharge is also alleged as a
violation of Section 8(a )(3) of the Act. Respondent's answer
denies the allegations of unftir labor practices alleged in the
complaint. 2
l pon the entire record in the case, including my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs, I
make the lfllowing:
FINDIN(is (oF FA('I
I. Jt RISI)I( I()N
As alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer I
find that Respondent is a New York corporation having its
principal office and place of business at 1775 Fifth Avenue,
Bayshore. New York. where it is engaged in the wholesale
sale and distribution of upholstery and drapery fabric. and
related projects. During the past 12 months, a representa-
tive period, in the course and conduct of its business opera-
tions. Respondent sold and distributed at its Ba:shore plant
products valIued in excess of 50,()X) which were shipped in
interstate commerce directly to States outside the State of
New York. I find that Respondent is. and has been at all
times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of the Act.
11. I ABOR OR(iANIZAII()N
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning o'
Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. ill I NI AIR AB(OR 'R( II(l S
Pursuant to a written request by employee Joseph Co-
lahro in late January. on February 15 the Union began
organizing Respondent's employees. Thereafter II out oft 15
employees in the appropriate unit signed valid union autho-
rization cards by March 29.' Thus, as of that date, I find
'All dates are n 1978 unless olthervwis specified
t Ihe ('hargilng ';art's unoipposed motion to crrect the transcript is
graned
' The appropriate unit and the number of emploees in that unit was
.tlpulaled The appropriate unit is All production and maintenance, ship-
ping and recei ing and ample department employees of Respondent, em-
plosed at its Bashore plant, excluding office clerical emplosees. guards and
super. isors as defined In the Act
the General ('ounsel introduced into evsidence I authenticated. unam-
higuous. cards through the testnmlon ,'f I nion Representative Gasper Sci-
aca and certain off the emplhisees themselves No evidence uas adduced at
the hearing lending t shots that the cards were not authentic, or because of
mlsrepresentations or other rea;sns ", ere in ans isa insalid
246 NLRB No. 109
677
IDEtCISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELAlIONS BOARI)
that a majority of Respondent's employees in the appropri-
ate unit had authorized the Union to represent them as
their exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
Union Representatives Gaspar Sciacca and James Perez
met Joseph Colabro and another employee, Karl Jensen.
outside the plant during their lunch hour on March 29. In
accordance with their previously arranged plan. the em-
ployees donned union buttons, the group entered the plant,
and proceeded to the office of Alexander M. Kutz, Respon-
dent's president.' After introducing themselves and identi-
fying Colabro and Jensen as employee organizers, Sciacca
orally demanded recognition, and handed Kutz a letter
from the Union claiming majority status, demanding recog-
nition in the appropriate unit, offering to prove its majority
status, and requesting a meeting for the purpose of negoti-
ating a contract.' After asking Colabro if he was on his
lunch hour, Kutz read the letter twice, and then proposed a
meeting with the Union at 5 p.m. the following day. Sciacca
agreed, and the group left.'
After the meeting in Kutz' office Colabro and Jensen
went to the cafeteria to eat lunch with their fellow employ-
ees. At the lunch table Colabro handed out union buttons.
Shortly thereafter Daniel Sorkin, Respondent's plant man-
ager, appeared at the lunch table and asked who the union
representatives were and whether they had been "solicit-
ing." Sorkin said that he usually threw union personnel out
of the building before they got in, and told Colabro to let
him know if they visited the plant again. Next he asked
Colabro if union representatives had visited him at home.
and if he had signed a union card. After Colabro said yes.
Sorkin looked toward the other employees at the table, who
nodded that they had signed, "made a face" at them and
left. I find that Sorkin's interrogation of Colabro in the
presence of other employees constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Supervisor John Wolf asked employee Craig Riccardi, on
the afternoon of March 29, whether union representatives
had visited him at home. Wolf stated that he knew who was
backing the Union. and said if the Union came in Riccardi
would be discharged if he were late to work, would receive
warning notices, and would be given only boring stockwork
to perform. Wolf said that, if Colabro had not actively sup-
ported the Union, he would have been promoted and given
a higher salary.
Wolf also questioned employee Eddie Stensaker that
same afternoon, and threatened that if the Union came in
they would divide up the better jobs, sit around and not do
anything all day, whereupon Kutz would see that they did
not need Stensaker and his job would be in jeopardy. Wolf
said that when it came time for the Union to negotiate with
Kutz, he was not going to give them anything. Wolf admit-
ted interrogating Riccardi and Stensaker about the Union.
Riccardi's and Stensaker's versions of these conversations
are credited. I find that Wolf violated Section 8(a)(1 ) of the
' Kutz is also known to his employees as Mr. Marshall. which name re-
quently appears in the transcript.
5 At 3:39 p.m. on March 29 the Union confirmed its demand for recogni-
lion by telegram
' Kutz appeared at the hearing, but did not testify. Therefore the summary
of the events which transpired in his office is based on the mutually corrobo-
rative and credited testimony of Sciacca, ('olabro. and Jensen. each of whom
impressed me as truthful witnesses throughout their respective testinmony.
'Sorkin did not testify. Colabro and Jensen are credited.
Act by interrogating and threatening these employees as
alleged in paragraphs 12(b), 14. and 15 of the complaint.
Still later that same afternoon, at 4:30 p.m.. employees
were summoned over the loudspeaker to Kutz' office. In
some instances the supervisors notified employees of the
meeting. Out of the 15 employees in the unit, 12 or 13 at-
tended. Six supervisors were also present. Kutz began the
meeting by telling the employees that the reason he had
assembled them there was that he had received a letter stat-
ing that the Union represented a majority of employees. He
said he wanted to make sure of the [Union's majority sup-
port before he negotiated with it. Kutz said that when the
Union came in the employees would lose their say in the
matter. He next read aloud the Union's March 29 letter,
which Sciacca had presented to Kutz earlier that day. Then
he repeated the portion of the letter which said that a "sub-
stantial majority" of the employees had selected the Union
its their representative, and he said he wanted to know
whether this was true. Then Kutz called for a show of
hands on the question of how many people wanted the
Union to represent them. Joseph ('olabro and Karl Jensen
raised their hands immediately. When their fellow employ-
ees hesitated Colabro and Jensen told them. "Don't be
afraid." Kutz also gave assurances that the employees had
nothing to be afraid of. that he would not punish or dis-
charge those who voted for the Union, and that his only
purpose was to determine how many' workers wanted the
Union. Except for three employees, all raised their hands.
None of the supervisors voted. As the employees held their
hands aloft Kutz counted each hand aloud, stopping at 10,
after which he declared that a majority supported the
Union and he would meet with the Union the following
day. Then the meeting adjourned about 5 p.m.
At 10:30 a.m. on March 30 Sciacca phoned Kutz and
asked where their meeting would he held. Kutz preferred to
meet in his office. and stated that he wanted to see "proof"
in the frm of "organization cards of some kind." Sciacca
responded that he would have to clear the matter with his
superior, Assistant Manager and Business Agent Barbara
Laufman. Shortly thereafter Laufman called, and told Kutz
that she would bring the cards to the meeting. T'he meeting
took place at 5 p.m. in the plant lobby. Kutz stated that he
did not have to have proof any more, since he had spoken
to eight employees who had told him they did not want the
Union any more. In view of this, Kutz said there was no
need for a meeting. Laufman answered that they had
brought the proof he requested, and that under circum-
stances he described they would have to proceed further.
Then the union representatives left.
On either March 30 or 31 Colabro and Wolf talked about
the Union. Colabro had noticed that Wolf had stopped
talking to him alter he had participated in the Union's ef-
forts to gain recognition. Therefore. Colabro asked Wolf
why he was angry. Wolf replied that the Union would re-
sult in the elimination of jobs, in discharges if an employee
was late a few times or made some errors, and that employ-
cees would be sent home early. Wolf asked ('olabro what
benefits he wanted. The conversation ended with Wolf stat-
ing that employees would not get any more with a union. In
his testimony. Wolf did not deny making any of these state-
ments. Instead, he simply avoided any mention of them in
his version of the conversation. which included the bizarre
678
)1 RAI.l' F I A BRI( CS. Il D1)
assertion that Colabhro promised. it' Wolft supported the
Union, Colabro and other prounion employees would per-
form all of Wolfs physical work. I credit ('olahbro's version
of the conversation and ind that Supervisor Wolf' violated
Section 8(a)( I) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
About this same time Wolf' questioned Kristian Jensen
on two occasions concerning his involvement in the Union.
Wolf wanted to know why Jensen wanted the Union. Jen-
sen w;as also asked hby Sorkin if he was involved ill the
Union and if Jensen knew "what he was gettlling into." Sor-
kin threatened that Respondent would start laying offt em-
ployees if the Union came in. Wolf admitted questioning
Jensen. He did not deny Jensen's version, but gave a
slightly different version in his testimony. I credit Jensen.
As noted elsewhere. Sorkin did not testify. Jensen is cred-
ited. I find that Wolf unlawfully interrogated Jensen. and
Sorkin unlawfully interrogated and threatened Jensen. in
violation of Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act as alleged in the cornm-
plaint.
During lunch hour on March 31, Kutz came to ('olabro's
lunch table near the end of the lunch hour. In the presence
of at least three other employees. Kutz iforbade Colabro
from distributing anything on the premises. and threatened
to discharge him for bringing union leaflets on compan
property. Later, about 1:30 p.m. Sorkin loudly prohibited
Colabro from distributing union literature anywhere in the
plant at any time. le also said that ('olabro would he dis-
charged if he either solicited for the Union or talked about
unions on the Company's property again. Sorkin stated that
he felt like hitting Colabro. and should throw Colabro out
of the building. Colabro's version of these incidents is un-
disputed, and is credited."
Karl Jensen distributed union literature in the cafeteria
during his lunch hour on April 5. He also left union litera-
ture on the coffee table in the lunch area. Sorkin appeared.
and told Karl Jensen that on "orders from the proprietor"
he was prohibited from distributing union literature an!-
where in the plant, even on lunch hour. and insisted that
Jensen remove the leaflets from the table. Sorkin also
threatened to have Jensen eat his lunch outside the plant it
he disobeyed this rule. When Jensen refused to obey these
instructions Sorkin discharged him. ater Colabro's super-
visor informed him that Jensen had been fired for handing
out union leaflets. This evidence is likewise undisputed.
In Wallon .Manufiwturing Conpanv. 126 NLRB 697
(1960). the Board held, in relevant part. that rules which
prohibit union solicitation or the distribution of union lit-
erature on company time or properly by employees during
their nonworking time are presumptively invalid ith re-
spect to both the promulgation and enforcement of such
rules. The Board further held, however, that such rules ma\
he validated by evidence proving that special circumstances
make the rule necessary in order to maintain production or
discipline. On the other hand, the Board also held that rules
which prohibit solicitation or distribution by employees
during their working time are presumptively valid as to
their promulgation, in the absence of evidence that the rule
i It was stipulated at the hearing Ihat Respondent had nil rules governing
employee conduct. Credible and undisputed testimony in the record shows
that both before and after the ahwe incidents employees solicited. ,oldi. and
purchased Avon products and candy In the plant here is no evidence that
they were disciplined
was adopted for a discriminatory purpose. and are pre-
sHinplipvcl , valid as their cenforcement in the absence of evi-
dence that the rule as uinfitirl applied. Thereafter in
Sdlaild-QuirA tn/iu'lctlring, (Co., 138 NI. RB 615. 621
1962) the Board further refined the lasa with respect to
distribution, as opposed to solicitation, by permitting the
additional restriction of distribution to nonaorking areas of
the plant premises. Applying these well established princi-
ples t the instant case. it is clear at the outset, both from
the statements of Respondent's supervision and the timing
of the institution of Kutz' blanket decree banning solicita-
tion and distribution in the plant at any time, that Respon-
dent's rule was proniulgated expressly for the purpose of
inhibiting union acti it . and therefore iolites Section
8(a)( I) of the Act even i it waere otherwise valid. Secondly.
the rule announced by Respondent's supervisors is invalid
in that it prohibits both solicitation and distribution an-
where on Respondent's premises and at any time. Thus, in
announcing the invalid rule to its employees. Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. Furthermore, the evi-
dence is clear that Respondent unlawfully enforced the in-
valid rule. also in violation of Section 8(1a)(l). hy threaten-
ing to discharge (olahro and by discharing Karl Jensen for
refusing to obey the rule. Moreover. not a scintilla of evi-
dence was offered to prove that special circumstances made
the rule necessarv in order to maintain production or plant
discipline. inally. the Board has long held that the dis-
charge of an employee for the violation of an invalid no-
solitation and no-distribution rule violates Section 81(a)(3)
and ( I ) of the Act. iHarold Viller. Herbert Charles and 1lil-
lon Charles, ('o-Partners., di/ha Miller Charle.s and Cot-
panv. 148 NI.RB 1579 (19641. 1. therefore, also find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a;)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging Karl Jensen on April 5. 1978.
In addition. I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)( I and (5) of the Act bh refusing to recognize and bar-
gain with the nion on larch 30. and thereafter, following
Kut/' March 29 polling of the emnployee s in the unit, and
which resulted in a clear and oer helming majority in fa-
vor of the Union. The leading case with respect to such
impromptu emplo!eec polls bh an employer is Sullivan Elec-
Irr' (ompllanl, 199 Nl.RB 8119 (1972). in which the Board
held that. where an employer unilaterally undertakes to de-
termine at union's majority or minority status by means of a
poll under conditions of his own choosing. he cannot there-
after disclaim the results simply because he finds them dis-
tasteful. This principle has been reaffirmed by the Board in
Seil .chanics Corporatrion. 200 NL.RB 544 (1972), in
which the facts are reminiscent of the instant case, and in
E, S. Merriman Sons,' Merrimlan Managemen Services.
/m.. 219 NLRB 972 (1975), wherein the Board described
the Suliroan principle as well settled. The case of Te,:nessee
Sh/ll Compani Inc.. 212 NLRB 193 (1974). cited by Re-
spondent. is inapposite. since there the entployer interro-
gated less than a majority of employees in the unit before
the 'nion asserted its majoritN status and requested recog-
nition. Thus. considering the evidence in the instant case
with respect to the poll conducted on March 29 by Kutz. a
more demanding situation in favor of the application of the
Board's Sullilan fElectric doctrine would be difficult to con-
ceive. I therctore find that as a result of Kutz' employee poll
679
I)8 ('ISIONS O() NAI IONAI IlAB()R REIA II()NS B()ARI)
Respondent was obligated to recognize and bargain with
the Union as of March 29?9
C)N( I tUSI()Ns (O IA
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of' Section 2(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 and maintenance, shipping and receiv-
ing and sample department employees of Respondent, em-
ployed at its Bayshore plant, excluding office clerical em-
ployees. guards. and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of' the Act.
4. Beginning on March 29. 1978. the Union represented
a majority of the employees in the above appropriate unit.
and has been, and is, the exclusive representative of all said
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union with respect to the employees in the appropriate
unit on and after March 30, 1978. Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1 ) of the Act.
6. By discharging Karl Jensen on April 5, 1978. because
of his union and protected concerted activities, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of'
Section 8(a)(3) and ( I ) of the Act.
7. By interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies and activities, and by threatening them with
discharge, more onerous working conditions, and other re-
prisals if they joined or assisted the Union, selected it as
their collective-bargaining representative, or engaged in
union or protected concerted activities. b threatening em-
ployees that selecting the Union as their bargaining agent
would be futile, and by promulgating, maintaining. and en-
forcing an invalid no-solicitation and no-distribution rule.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unf'ai labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Tiit! RIiMI.I)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order that Re-
spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain aflir-
rnative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since the complaint alleges, all parties concede, and the
record shows that Karl Jensen was reinstated to his former
position of employment without loss of pay on or about
April 17. 1978. 1 find that he has been made whole and no
affirmative remedy is necessary with respect to him. For the
reasons discussed above, I find that the imposition of a bar-
gaining order is essential to remedy the unfair labor prac-
91 would also find that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a(5) and ( I of the Act
by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. while at the sante time
engaging in a campaign to undermine and destroy it b means of the iola-
tions of Sec. 8(a1(1) and (3) of the Act described herein, which in nim view
render a fair election impossible. I1. RB v. (;ioe Plkilng (, /o, . 395
U.S. 575 (1969).
tices of' Respondent and to protect the statutory rights and
interests of' the employees. Because of' the scope and extent
of' the unfair labor practices found herein, I shall provide a
broad cease-and-desist order. I shall also order Respondent
to post an appropriate notice.
IUpon the foregoing findings of' fact, conclusions of' law.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER '°
The Respondent. )uralee Fabrics, Itd.. Bayshore. New
York. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I, ('ease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively in
good faith with Local 107, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union. AF[ ('1(), as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees in the unit found to
he appropriate, as described in paragraph 3 of the section of'
this D)ecision entitled "('onclusions of' Law," and embody
in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
membership, sympathies, or activities, or protected con-
certed activities, in a manner constituting interference, re-
straint, or coercion within the meaning of' Section 8(a)( I) of'
the Act.
(c) Promulgating. maintaining, and enforcing any rule
which prohibits employees from soliciting for a union on
plant premises during their nonworking time and prohibits
distribution of union literature by employees in nonworking
areas of' the plant premises on their nonworking time.
(d) Threatening employees with discharge. more onerous
working conditions, or other reprisals if they join or assist
l.ocal 107. International I.adies' (arment Workers' Union,
All. ('10, or for having selected said Union as their collec-
tive-hbargaining representative.
(e) ischarging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because of' their union sympathies or activities, or
because they selected I.ocal 107. International l1adies' Gar-
ment Workers' Uinion, AlI. ('10. as their collective-har-
gaining representative.
(f) In any other manner interfering with. restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of' their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. 'Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of' the Act:
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively
with I.ocal 107 International I.adies' Garment Workers'
Union. AFI. ('10(), as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
(b) Post at its plant at Bayshore, New York, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." ('opies of said no-
"' In the event no, exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulitions of the National Itabor Relations Board, the findings
conclusions, and recomnmended Order herein shall, s prosided in Sec. 102.48
1 the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its
findings. conclusions. and Order, and all ohecltions thereto shall be deemed
waixed for ill purposes
H In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment i a nited
States ('ourt of Appeals the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National abhor Relalions Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
lient of the United States Court ol Appeals Eniorcing an Order of the Na-
tionial labor Rltions Board."
680
DtRAI.FE FABRI('S 111).
tice. on orms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29. after being signed b\ an authorized representative
of Respondent. shall be posted bh the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it ftr 6()
consecutive days thereafter. in conspicuous places. includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customaril,
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken bh Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or coered
bh an's other material.
(c) Notif's the Regional Director for Region 29. in writ-
ing, within 20 dais from the date of this Order. what steps
Respondent has taken to compl herewith.
APPEN [)IX
No I ( 1 T( E MII oy:l+IS
POSii i) HY ORI)IR O)F I lt
NA I()NAl. LAH()R R.AIIO()NS BARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunit to
present their evidence. it has been decided that we violated
the law, and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide bs the
following:
WL Wil.L NOI refuse to recognize and bargain collec-
tivel) in good faith with Local 107. International La-
dies' Garment Workers' Union. AFL CIO. as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in the unit found to be appropriate. The
appropriate unit is:
All production and maintenance. shipping and re-
ceiving and sample department employees of Re-
spondent, employed at its Bayshore plant. excluding
office clerical emploees. guards and superisors as
defined in the Act.
WEt ss II recognize a nd, upon requet, hbirgain \skil
I.ocal 107. Intcrl-latioial l.adies' (;arient Workers'
t nion, AIl ('1(). as the exclusixe representative of all
emplo\secs in the unit described aboe with respect to
sagecs. hours, and other terms and conditions of' em-
plo\, ment and. i an understal nding is reached. embhod
such understanding in a signed agreement.
\\ :'l ii I \()I discharge emploecs. or othcraise dIIs-
crinlinatee ;gainst themil. hecause ofi their union MIlell-
hership, smpathies. or activities. or becaluse the
choose to engage in protected concerted actiities tir
their mutual aid or protection.
Wt \sii I NOI interrogate emplosees concerning
their union membership s mpathies or actli\ties in a
manner constituting interterence. restraint. or coercion
within the meaning oft Section (ail ) of' the Act.
VI wvll. No)I threaten emploees ith discharge.
more onerous working conditions. or other reprisals:
nor will we threaten them that selecting the aboxe-
named Union as their collective-hbargaining representa-
tive will be futile.
Wt Wll.I NI)l promulgate. maintain,. or enforce anN
rule which prohibits employees from engaging in union
solicitation on the plant premises during emplo\ees'
nonworking time and prohibits emplo'ees rom dis-
tributing union literature on the plant premises during
their nonworking time in nonwork areas.
WI: will N() in any other manner interfere with.
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
D)t RAII [:ABRI( S. Ii)
681XI