Fashiontime Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 403 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

FASHIONTIME LTD. 403
Fashiontime Ltd. and Anti-Racist Garment Workers'
Union. Case 21-CA-18155
June 5, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 18, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, ARL, Inc.,'
filed exceptions, and the General Counsel filed an
anwering brief to the exceptions. 2
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Fashiontime
Ltd., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
ARL, Inc.. asserts that it is a third party to the dispute between Fa-
shiontime Ltd. and Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union inasmuch as it
purchased the assets of Fashiontime Ltd.. Respondent herein. on January
28, 1980, and is currently operating the business formerly known as Fa-
shiontime Ltd.
2 In the answering brief, the General Counsel in effect moved to strike
ARL, Inc.'s exceptions for failure to comply with the provisions of Secs
102.46, 102.112, and 102.113 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Alternatively, the General Coun-
sel requests that the Board accept the answering brief submitted to the
Board by the General Counsel on January 13, 1981. Although ARL.
Inc.'s exceptions do not conform in all particulars with the abo'e-cited
sections of the Board's Rules and Regulations. we deem them acceptable
considering that ARL Inc.. was not a party to the unfair labor practices
committed by Respondent. Accordingly, the General Counsel's motion to
strike is denied General Counsel's brief in response to the exceptions is
accepted.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The
unfair labor practice charge in this case was filed on Sep-
tember 5, 1979, by Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union,
herein referred to as the Union. (See G.C. Exh. (a).)
The Regional Director for Region 21 of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, who
was acting on behalf of the General Counsel of the
Board, issued on October 26, 1979, a complaint and
notice of hearing against Fashiontime Ltd., herein re-
ferred to as the Respondent or the employer. (See G.C.
Exh. I(c).)
The General Counsel's complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
256 NLRB No. 67
Relations Act, herein called the Act. The Respondent
filed an answer to the General Counsel's complaint, and
the Respondent denied that it had committed the alleged
unfair labor practices. (See G.C. Exh. I(e).)
The hearing was held before me on August 26, 1980,
at Los Angeles, California. The time for filing post-hear-
ing briefs was set for September 30, 1980. Both the coun-
sel for the General Counsel and the attorney for the Re-
spondent prepared and filed briefs which have been con-
sidered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EMPLOYER
At all times material herein, the Respondent has been
engaged in the business of providing sewing services for
manufacturers in the garment industry. The Respondent's
facility has been located at 106 East Adams Boulevard in
Los Angeles, California.
In the course and conduct of its business operations,
the Respondent annually provides services valued in
excess of $50,000 to manufacturers located within the
State of California, which manufacturers, in turn, annual-
ly sell and ship goods valued in excess of $50,000 direct-
ly to customers located outside the State of California.
In view of the foregoing admitted facts, and the entire
record herein, I find that the Respondent has been at all
times material herein an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNION
It was stipulated at the hearing that the Union has
been at all times material herein a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In view
of the foregoing, and the entire record in this case, I find
that fact to be so.
Ill. THE WITNESSES
In alphabetical order by their last names, the following
seven persons appeared as witnesses at the hearing of this
proceeding:
Angela Castillo is the alleged discriminatee in this case.
Gloria Cruz is a supervisor of the Respondent. Cruz
was first employed by the Respondent in 1966.
Raul Fernandez worked for the Respondent as a
sewing machine operator from April 1979 until June 10,
1980, when he was laid off for lack of work.
Joseph Goldfarb was a supervisor for the Respondent
from February 1978 until the first part of December
1979. At the time of the hearing, Goldfarb was self-em-
ployed in a retail business.
Barbara Hertz has been an organizer for the Charging
Party for the past 2 years.
Louis Lesser became affiliated with the Respondent in
September 1978. Lesser was a managing partner of the
Respondent until January 1980. At the time of the hear-
ing, he described his status as follows: "I am a partner of
a partner of the partnership that owns the stock of the
corporation."
Fashiontime Ltd. and Anti-Racist Garment Workers'
FASHIONTIME LTD
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ramiro Vallejo was employed by the Respondent as a
supervisor from 1975 until about 5 months prior to the
time of the hearing in this proceeding.
Credibility Resolutions
There are significant conflicts between the testimony
given by the witnesses called by the General Counsel
and the testimony given by the witnesses called by the
Respondent.
In particular, the testimony of Castillo differs substan-
tially from the testimony offered at the hearing by Val-
lejo, Goldfarb, and Lesser. In addition, the testimony of
Fernandez conflicts with a portion of the testimony
given by Cruz. In such circumstances, it is necessary to
make a decision as to which one of the conflicting ver-
sions of the events is credible. In doing so, I have given
consideration in this case to the demeanor of the wit-
nesses while they were on the stand, their ability to
recall past events, the various positions occupied by the
witnesses at the times relevant to the issues in this case
and their possible interest in the outcome of the litiga-
tion, the inherent probabilities in the accounts which
they gave, and the weight of the evidence.
After considering the foregoing, I have found the testi-
mony of both Castillo and Fernandez to be credible. I
am persuaded that they related the facts truthfully and
accurately. Therefore, I will rely on their versions in
making the findings of fact herein.
Having accepted the testimony given by Castillo, it
follows that I cannot accept as accurate and reliable the
testimony of witnesses who gave versions which are in-
consistent with her account and contradictory to her
version. As pointed out above, the testimony given by
Vallejo, Goldfarb, and Lesser fall into that category. Ac-
cordingly, I have not credited nor relied on their ver-
sions in making the findings of fact. Particularly uncon-
vincing was the assertion by the Respondent's witnesses
that numerous and repeated verbal warnings were given
to Castillo for several months prior to her termination,
because of numerous and repeated complaints regarding
Castillo's inspection work by the Respondent's only
major customer, which provided 80 to 85 percent of the
Respondent's gross income during that period of time.
Yet, in the Respondent's version, the Respondent not
only tolerated for months Castillo's alleged continuous
poor performance, which the Respondent was told could
cause the loss of its only major customer, but also the
Respondent gave Castillo a 25-cent-an-hour wage in-
crease just 2 weeks before her termination. Castillo
denied receiving such warnings, and I accept her version
as accurate.
Cruz acknowledged at the hearing that she was aware
that the Union had earlier distributed a leaflet which re-
quested, as a contract demand, that Cruz and two other
supervisors be terminated by the Respondent. I have
considered that fact, but I will base certain findings of
fact on portions of her testimony which do not conflict
with Fernandez' account. In particular, I will rely on
Cruz' account of her reaction to the speech given by At-
torney Lopez and her conversation with Lesser regard-
ing it.
In view of the parties' stipulation regarding the status
of the Charging Party as a labor organization, the brief
testimony given by Hertz no longer raises issues in this
case.
The Employment of Castillo
Castillo worked for the Respondent from July 1975
until July 20, 1979, when she was terminated. When she
started working for the Respondent, Castillo performed
repair work. Then for approximately 2-1/2 years prior to
the end of her employment, she performed the duties of
a final inspector. While she used the term "supervisor" at
the the hearing to describe her title, it was made clear
that she meant that she supervised the completion of her
job as an inspector of finished work, as distinguished
from a statutory supervisor of employees. During her
entire period of employment by the Respondent, Castillo
was never laid off from work prior to her termination.
At the time of her termination, she was earning $3.75 an
hour.
Castillo was one of three inspectors employed by the
Respondent. The other two inspectors were identified by
her as being Betty and Rosa. According to Castillo, Rosa
had been hired by the Respondent as an inspector about
6 months before Castillo was terminated. She said that
Vallejo had stated that Rosa was not producing enough
work, and Vallejo gave some of Rosa's work to Castillo
to inspect.
The garments produced by the Respondent included
pants, jackets, and skirts. When the inspectors found gar-
ments which needed repair work, those garments initially
were not put in the same place. However they were bun-
dled together according to the type of repair needed.
For example, Castillo explained, "This one is for hem-
ming, this one is for buttonhole, this one is for button."
After the final inspection of the garments had been made
by the three inspectors, the garments were placed to-
gether on a rack. The garments were not segregated ac-
cording to the inspector who had examined the gar-
ments. There was no way to identify which one of the
garments on the rack had been examined by a particular
inspector.
The Domino account was a major customer of the Re-
spondent. Domino used the "Tomboy" label on its gar-
ments. Joann Bogiala was a quality control inspector for
Domino. She visited the Respondent's plant to examine
the garments being made for the Domino account. Cas-
tillo observed Bogiala look at garments as they came
from the pressers prior to the time that the final inspec-
tors were supposed to examine the garments. She also
observed Bogiala show certain garments, which had
been incorrectly made, to Vallejo, who told Bogiala that
the garments would be repaired. However, Castillo said
that the garments were subsequently shipped by the Re-
spondent without the repairs being made.
Sometimes when Bogiala came to the Respondent's
plant, the inspectors had put aside the garments being
made for the Domino account. Those garments had not
yet been inspected "because we had another job, another
job that was needed...." Castillo observed that Bo-
giala would check those garments to determine what was
FASHIONTIME LTD. 405
wrong with them before they were inspected. Then,
when those garments were inspected, Castillo explained,
"[W]e would notify them, but they didn't do anything,
and the work would leave like that."
Prior to her last raise in pay, Castillo was earning
$3.50 an hour. She asked Vallejo to help her get a raise.
She told him that she had been working for a long time.
According to her, Vallejo replied, "Well, I am going to
see to it that I am going to help you get the raise." Val-
lejo further told her, "That he agreed that I should be
given a raise, because my work came out all right."
Castillo also spoke with Lesser regarding a raise. She
stated, "Well, I asked him whether he liked my work,
and he said, 'Yes.' I said, 'You like?' And he says, 'Yes,
your work is very good."'
During the time of her employment by the Respond-
ent, Castillo received no warnings about her inspections,
and no one connected with the Respondent ever indicat-
ed to her that her inspections were not properly done.
The Events About 15 Days Before the Termination
of Castillo
Union representatives carrying picket signs walked up
and down in front of the Respondent's factory, and they
handed out union bulletins to employees as they left the
Respondent's doorway at 4 p.m. Castillo spoke with rep-
resentatives of the Union about three or four times.
About 15 days before the termination of Castillo, Cas-
tillo took a union bulletin from one of the female union
representatives who was outside the Company's door.
The Union's bulletin contained a union authorization
card. Castillo signed the union authorization at that time,
and she returned it to the union representative. While
Castillo was signing the union document, she observed
Vallejo and Goldfarb come out of the Respondent's
door. However, as soon as they appeared to see Castillo,
they went back inside the doorway.
The Events the Next Day
The next day Castillo gave four or five union authori-
zation cards to employees at work. However, she stated
that, to her knowledge, no one from management at that
time observed her handing out the union bulletins.
During the morning breakfast time that same day, Cas-
tillo was with three other employees. The other employ-
ees present were Esperanza, Tere, and Guillermina.
Esperanza was handing a paper from the Union to Cas-
tillo. At that point, Vallejo said to show the paper to
him. Esperanza replied that she would not give the paper
to Vallejo because he "earned good money," and he did
not want the others to earn more.
Subsequently that morning, Castillo saw Vallejo show-
ing one of the union bulletins to Lesser.
The Conversation Between Vallejo and Castillo on
the Following Day
About 10 a.m. on the following day Vallejo spoke
with Castillo at the Respondent's plant. She testified,
"He told me not to be getting involved in f- things, be-
cause that wouldn't help me or anybody else."
On that occasion Vallejo also told her, "Well, that he
was not in agreement with that; that the boss had found
out that all of us were getting into the Union, and the
person that was doing that, he had orders to take them
out."
In addition to the foregoing, Vallejo also told Castillo,
"That the man had already been told that there was a lot
of them, especially me; that I was handing out pamphlets
or bulletins."
The Meeting With Employees at which Lesser and
Attorney Lopez Spoke
A few weeks after the union organizational campaign
had started, the Respondent held a meeting of its em-
ployees at the 2 o'clock break inside the Respondent's fa-
cility. Lesser and Attorney Gloria Yda Lopez spoke to
the employees at the meeting. Lesser spoke in the Eng-
lish language, and Attorney Lopez translated what he
said from the English language to the Spanish language.
Then, Attorney Lopez spoke to the employees in the
Spanish language and distributed a document to them.
(See G.C. Exh. 2(a), which is a copy of the document,
and see G.C. Exh. 2(b), which is an English translation
of the wording on the document which was written in
Spanish.)
According to Fernandez, the following took place at
the meeting:
Well, first, the boss, Louis Lesser, said that-he
introduced the lady attorney and said he had
brought this lady attorney over to help us to settle
papers for residency in this country. After that, of
course the boss would speak, and then the lady at-
torney would translate. Then the boss continued
talking and said the situation at work was very diffi-
cult because the companies that gave him work
were closing, and that the situation was very diffi-
cult, and due to this, he could not give us a raise in
wages. And after that, he said that because of that it
was very dangerous to pay attention to the ones
from the Union, because they made exaggerated
promises that they were never going to keep up
with, but that if the workers wanted the Union, that
the last word was his, and if he did not want to
accept the Union, there was no law that would
force him to do it.
But in spite of that, he said, "I want to help you,
and that is why I have brought this lady attorney.
The help that I am going to give you is that I am
going to pay you the first hearing that you will
have with this lady attorney, so that you can settle
your papers for residency."
I don't recall something else, but at the last, he
said that the lady attorney also wanted to say some
words to us; to pay attention. And the lady attorney
spoke after that.
Immediately following the remarks by Lesser, Attor-
ney Lopez spoke to the employees in the Spanish lan-
guage. According to Fernandez, the following took
place:
FASHIONTIME LTD.
406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Well, the lady attorney said that the boss, Lesser,
had taken her there because he had a problem with
the Anti-Racist Union; that she had enough experi-
ence in this type of thing, because she worked for
several companies, and she was also willing to help
us. She said that the majority of the workers in that
factory came from Latin-America, where we lived
in a very bad situation, and that now we are better
than we were over there, and that is why we had
no reason to be complaining, and she repeated what
the boss had said about that the Union only makes
false promises; that the only thing the Union wants
is to obtain money from workers to make them-
selves rich, but at the end, they were not going to
gain anything with the Union; first, because orga-
nizing a union meant a lot of work, it takes a lot of
time, and she said that the Union promised the em-
ployees that if they signed the cards they would or-
ganize a union, but that that was a lie, because there
should still be an election period in which the boss
can be in to fire the employees, using any excuse,
like coming in late, getting up from the place of
work before their time, or anything similar, and also
added that, with difficulty, after organizing the
Union, we would not be able to enjoy the privileges
of the Union, because we would not remain long in
the country; that we would have to leave the coun-
try.
Then she said that if we paid attention to the
Union, we were going to go into a very big prob-
lem, because the Union was leading us into unlaw-
ful acts, and that could mean jail for us.
At the last, she said that, on the other hand, the
boss was an honest person who was willing to help
us; that he was going to pay each one of us the
hearing with her, and that at the time that the meet-
ing would be over she was going to hand out some
forms for us to fill out and start the process of get-
ting our papers ready, and she said that if we paid
more attention to the Union than to the boss, it was
because we were very stupid.
That is what she said.
The Conversation Between Cruz and Fernandez
After the Meeting
After the above-described meeting was over, Fernan-
dez returned to his work station in the factory.
Cruz had a brief conversation with Fernandez. There
were other employees present. Fernandez identified one
such employee as Consuelo Ibarra, and he identified an-
other employee as being Laura Herrera.
According to Fernandez, the following took place in
his conversation with Cruz: "She said that the boss is
going to fire everyone that had signed the card and the
ones that are gossiping to the Union."
The Meeting the Next Day at Which Lesser Spoke
Following the speech made by Attorney Lopez to the
employees at the meeting described above, Cruz dis-
cussed that speech with Lesser.
While Cruz understands the Spanish language, she ac-
knowledged at the hearing regarding the speech by At-
torney Lopez, "I wasn't really paying attention too much
to her." However, Cruz observed during that speech that
the employees were becoming upset, and Cruz overheard
remarks during the speech by employees to the effect
that they felt that Attorney Lopez did not have the right
to talk to them in the way she was doing, and they felt
that it was none of her business as to where the employ-
ees had come from.
As a result of the foregoing, Cruz informed Lesser of
her opinion that Attorney Lopez had spoken to the em-
ployees "for her convenience, not for the Compa-
ny...." She told Lesser that Attorney Lopez had not
said anything in his favor, but instead she had talked
about her job, rather than what Lesser had wanted her
to say. In Cruz' opinion, Attorney Lopez "was caring
more to make the people understand that she wanted to
be willing to help them on other problems, except the
Company problems."
Lesser told Cruz that he was very sorry, and that he
had no idea that the attorney had spoken that way to the
employees. Lesser told her that he would apologize to
the employees, and he asked Cruz to act as his interpret-
er when he spoke. Cruz declined to do so because she
"didn't want to be in the middle .. ."
At the 2 o'clock break on the day after the first meet-
ing, Lesser spoke briefly to the Respondent's employees
once again. Lesser spoke in English, and a mechanic
named Alberto interpreted for him. Fernandez testified
regarding Lesser's remarks at that second meeting:
That he wanted us to forget what had happened
at the previous meeting, and repeated what he said
about the Union; that it was false promises that the
Union made, and that the situation was very bad,
and that we should give thanks that we had the job,
because other companies were closing.
Just that.
The Termination of Castillo
On July 20, 1979, at 2:30 p.m. Vallejo came over to
where Castillo was working. He called her into the bun-
dling room.
Vallejo told Castillo that he was sorry, but that she
was being laid off for 2 weeks. Vallejo further stated that
it was possible that she might be called back.
Finally, Vallejo told Castillo, "You see the problems
that you have got upon yourself because of the Union?"
Castillo replied that they should tell her clearly whether
she was going to be laid off or fired. Vallejo responded,
"It is possible, but I have not been told anything yet."
Castillo then went to talk with Lesser in his office. A
truckdriver named Tito served as an interpreter. Castillo
asked Lesser whether he was laying her off or firing her.
Lesser replied that work was very slow, and that Cas-
tillo earned too much money. Lesser said that Rosa, who
made $3.25 an hour, would remain with the Company.
FASHIONTIME LTD. 407
Conclusions
In its decision in South Shore Hospital, 229 NLRB 363
(1977), the Board stated:
In determining whether a respondent created an im-
pression of surveillance, the test applied by the
Board is whether employees would reasonably
assume from the statement in question that their
union activities had been placed under surveillance.
Schrementi Bros., Inc., 179 NLRB 853 (1969)....
Without repeating here the findings of fact previously
set forth above, I conclude from the Board's test referred
to above that both Vallejo and Cruz created the impres-
sion of surveillance of employees' union activities by
their statements set forth in those sections. South Shore
Hospital, supra; Dillingham Marine and Manufacturing
Co., Fabri-Value Division, 239 NLRB 904 (1978); Star
Kist Samoa, Inc., 237 NLRB 238 (1978). In addition, I
further conclude that Vallejo and Cruz in the same con-
versations described herein threatened employees of the
Respondent with discharge from work because of their
union activities.
Based on the findings of fact set forth above, I con-
clude that Lesser promised employees of the Respondent
aid in arranging for residency papers in order to induce
or cause employees of the Respondent to reject the
Union and to refrain from activities on behalf of the
Union. As also described, Lesser did speak to the em-
ployees at a second meeting the following day. Among
other things, Lesser told them to forget what had hap-
pened at the previous meeting. Nevertheless, the testimo-
ny of Fernandez and Cruz revealed that Lesser made ref-
erence to what Attorney Lopez had told the employees
at the first meeting. Lesser did not specifically disavow
or retract his own comments at the first meeting.
After considering the foregoing, I conclude that the
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged in
the General Counsel's complaint. It should be noted that
the General Counsel does not allege that any unfair labor
practices were attributable to the Respondent based on
the remarks made by Attorney Lopez.
Turning now to the allegations made with regard to
the Respondent's termination of Castillo on July 20,
1979, I conclude that Castillo did engage in activities on
behalf of the Union prior to her termination, and that
agents of the Respondent had knowledge of some of
those activities. In this connection, it will be recalled that
Vallejo and Goldfarb observed Castillo outside the Re-
spondent's door at the time that she was signing a union
authorization card for a union representative. (See "The
Events About 15 Days Before the Termination of Cas-
tillo" herein.) Additionally, Vallejo observed Esperanza
handing a union paper to Castillo the next day. (See
"The Events the Next Day" herein.) Furthermore, the
conversation between Vallejo and Castillo on the follow-
ing day shows that the Respondent knew of her union
activities. It will be recalled that Vallejo not only
warned Castillo against getting involved in such things,
but also Vallejo told her, "That the man had already
been told that there was a lot of them, especially me;
that I was handing out pamphlets or bulletins." Finally,
the statement made by Vallejo to Castillo at the time of
her termination by the Respondent is further evidence
that the Respondent knew of her union activities. As
more fully described above, Vallejo told Castillo, "You
see the problems that you have got upon yourself be-
cause of the Union?"
The animus of the Respondent toward the rights of
employees to engage in union organizational activities is
demonstrated in the findings of 8(a)(1) conduct described
above. Note particularly the threats to discharge employ-
ees because of their union activities.
As I have described, the reasons given by the Re-
spondent at the time of the termination of Castillo were
that work was very slow, and that Castillo earned too
much money. The Respondent asserted different reasons
for her termination at the hearing. (See "Credibility Res-
olutions" herein where the assertion of those reasons was
not credited.) According to Castillo, she had received no
warnings regarding her inspection work, and no one
from the Respondent had ever indicated that her inspec-
tions were not properly done. Significantly, both Vallejo
and Lesser agreed to give Castillo a 25-cent-an-hour
wage increase just 2 weeks before they terminated her,
and both of them indicated to her that they were pleased
with her work at that time. (See "The Employment of
Castillo" herein.) Finally, I conclude that Vallejo re-
vealed the true reason for the termination of Castillo
when he told her at the time of her termination, "You
see the problems that you have got upon yourself be-
cause of the Union?"
Accordingly, I conclude that the reasons advanced by
the Respondent for the termination of Castillo are pre-
textual reasons to hide a discriminatory motivation, and
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act when it terminated her on July 20, 1979. General
Battery Corporation, 241 NLRB 1166 (1979); Louisiana
Council No. 17, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 250 NLRB 880
(1980); Haynes Industries, Inc., 232 NLRB 1092 (1977).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the following acts and conduct:
(a) Threatening its employees with discharge from
work because of their union activities.
(b) Creating the impression among its employees that
the Respondent is engaging in surveillance of their union
activities.
(c) Promising its employees aid in arranging residency
papers in order to induce or cause its employees to reject
the Union and to refrain from activities on behalf of the
Union.
4. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
FASHIONTIME LTD
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act by terminating Angela Castillo on July 20, 1979, be-
cause of her union activities.
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Since I have found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend to the
Board that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from engaging in those unfair labor practices.
I shall also recommend to the Board that the Respond-
ent take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Such affirmative action will in-
clude an offer of immediate reinstatement to Castillo, or,
if her former job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent job, without the loss of her seniority or any
other rights and privileges. I shall also recommend to the
Board that the Respondent make her whole for her
losses which have resulted from the Respondent's termi-
nation of Castillo. Backpay for Castillo, together with in-
terest on such backpay amounts, will be computed in ac-
cordance with the Board's decisions in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977).
In order to more effectively communicate the provi-
sions of an appropriate notice to employees, I shall also
recommend to the Board that the notice be posted in
both the English language and the Spanish language.
Hasa Chemical, Inc., 235 NLRB 903 (1978).
In accordance with the Board's decision in Hickmott
Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), I shall recommend
to the Board that a narrowly drafted cease-and-desist
order be entered against the Respondent, rather than a
broadly drafted order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding,
and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Fashiontime Ltd., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with discharge from
work because of their union activities.
(b) Creating the impression among its employees that
the Respondent is engaging in surveillance of their union
activities.
(c) Promising its employees aid in arranging residency
papers in order to induce or cause its employees to reject
the Union and to refrain from activities on behalf of the
Union.
I In the event that no exceptions are filed, as provided by Sec. 102.46
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings,
conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(d) Terminating any of its employees because of their
union activities.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them by the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer Angela Castillo immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former position of employment, or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position
of employment, without the loss of her seniority or any
other rights and privileges.
(b) Make whole Angela Castillo for her losses, with
appropriate interest thereon, which have resulted from
her termination by the Respondent. Such backpay and
interest are to be computed as set forth in "The
Remedy" section of this Decision.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
agents of the Board for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all of the other records
necessary to analyze the amount of money due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Los Angeles, California, facility copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix," 2 and simulta-
neously post a notice containing a translation from the
English language to the Spanish language of the wording
on the attached notice. Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United states Government
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis-
charge from work because of their union activities
in behalf of Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union,
or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT create the impression among our
employees that we are engaging in surveillance of
their union activities.
FASHIONTIME LTD. 409
WE WILL NOT promise our employees aid in ar-
ranging residency papers in order to induce or
cause our employees to reject a union and to refrain
from activities on behalf of a union.
WE WILL NOT terminate any of our employees
because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Angela Castillo immediate and
full reinstatement to her former position of employ-
ment, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tailly equivalent position of employment, without
loss of her seniority or any other rights and privi-
leges.
WE WILL make whole Angela Castillo for her
losses, with appropriate interest thereon, which
have resulted from her termination on July 20,
1979.
FASHIONTIME LTD.