Fortex Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fortex Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases 15-CA-3553 and 15-CA-3614
June 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On March 30, 1970, Trial Examiner Melvin Pol-
lack issued his Decision in the above-entitled case,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Na-
tional 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,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel and the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in sup-
port of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this
proceeding 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
briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
pany, Inc., in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act, has maintained and enforced an invalid
no-solicitation rule; that it suggested that its em-
ployees withdraw from the Charging Union, Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
and assisted them in attempting to do so; and that
Respondent discharged Ruth Pinkerton because of
her membership in, and activities in behalf of,
the Union . Briefs were filed by all parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, ' and my ob-
servation of the witnesses as they testified, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Alabama corporation, manufac-
tures men's sleepwear at a plant located in Fort
Deposit, Alabama, and at two plants located in
Greenville, Alabama. Respondent's interstate ship-
ments were in excess of $50,000 during the 12-
month period preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint. I find, as Respondent admits, that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The No-Solicitation Rule
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Fortex Manufacturing
Company, Inc., Greenville, Alabama, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This proceed-
ing under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, was heard in Green-
ville, Alabama, on January 6, 1970 Pursuant to a
charge filed in Case 15-CA-3553 on May 19,
1969, and a charge filed in Case l5-CA-3614 on
August 4, 1969, a consolidated complaint was is-
sued on October 21, 1969, and amended on
December 5, 1969. The complaint, as amended, al-
leges that Respondent Fortex Manufacturing Com-
On April 30, 1969,2 during the Union's organiza-
tional campaign, Respondent posted a notice signed
by Vice President Aubrey Duncan that "soliciting
on company property without written approval
from management is cause for discharge." The
notice was posted on the bulletin boards and at the
time clocks of the Fort Deposit and Greenville
plants. Three Fort Deposit employees, including
Emma Leona Sexton, advised Superintendent O. R.
Duncan that they had signed union cards and were
working for the Union. Duncan said that was their
"privilege" but "All I ask is not to have any union
activity on the company property."" On the morn-
ing of May 2, 12 Greenville employees spoke to
Aubrey Hayden, the Greenville manager, in his of-
fice. Virginia Hooper, spokesman for the group,
testified that she told Hayden they had signed union
cards, they had all been to union meetings, and
they were going to do anything they could "to help
the Union get in there." Hayden said that was "all
' The unopposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the record is
granted
2 All dates hereafter are in 1969 unless otherwise indicated
' Sexton's testimony concerning this conversation with Duncan is uncon-
tradicted
184 NLRB No. 3
FORTEX MANUFACTURING CO.
right" but that they "could not solicit on company
property or during working hours, that lunch time
and break time was [their] time, but not on com-
pany property."4 The rule was still posted when this
case was heard on January 6, 1970.
Manager Hayden and John C. Norman, assistant
to Respondent's production vice president, testified
that the no-solicitation notice was directed against
outside solicitors and was not enforced against em-
ployees who wore stickers reading "Vote Yes" be-
fore a Board election conducted on July 24, 1969.
The text of the no-solicitation notice,5 its timing,
the manner of its posting, and the uncontradicted
testimony of Sexton and Hooper show that it ap-
plied to employee organizing activity Respondent
had no occasion to apply the rule against em-
ployees who wore union stickers, since such con-
duct of itself involved no solicitation. The record in
fact shows no union solicitation at the Fort Deposit
and Greenville plants after the no-solicitation
notice was posted.
As the no-solicitation rule posted by Respondent
forbids employees from engaging in union solicita-
tion on nonworking time, and as Respondent has
shown no special circumstances making the rule
necessary in order to maintain production or
discipline, I find that Respondent has promulgated
and maintained an invalid no-solicitation rule, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Lexington
Metal Products Company, 166 NLRB 878.
B. The Discharge of Ruth Pinkerton
Ruth Pinkerton started to work at the Greenville
plant in March 1965. Pinkerton, a utility operator,
received a $50 bonus in April 1969 for working 25
weeks without being absent or late. Manager
Aubrey Hayden considered her "in the top echelon
as an operator."
Pinkerton signed a union card on April 14, 1969.
She handed out cards to other employees and
received back three or four signed cards. She at-
tended a union meeting held in the latter part of
April and, about 6.45 a m on May 1, came "up the
line and hollered `A meeting tonight at 7:00."' At
8:45 a.m., Pinkerton and Ruth Wilson," a training
instructor, were summoned to Hayden's office.
Hayden told them that "a serious thing" had been
reported to him, that Wilson was sewing for Pinker-
ton and giving her the "coupons" to turn in for
money.7 He said he had not believed it, but he had
watched them and observed that Wilson was sewing
for Pinkerton, so he had to let them go. Pinkerton
said, "Well, that's being done in the plant every
day" and asked Hayden why he had not told them
they were "doing wrong." Hayden said he knew
' Hayden did not testify concerning this conversation
' The penalty of discharge could only apply to employees
° Wilson subsequently married and testified at the hearing as Ruth Wil-
son Parmer
23
nothing about such a practice and said he had re-
ported the matter to Fort Deposit, saying that Wil-
son and Pinkerton were two of his best hands, but
he was told to let them go. Pinkerton asked
Hayden, "If it's that much against the rules, how
come you didn't tell us that it was against the rule?"
Hayden said he thought they knew it was against
the rules. Pinkerton explained to Hayden that Wil-
son had asked to sew on Pinkerton's machine
because to teach the trainees "she wanted to learn
to put the pants leg through the folder like I was
putting through there." Hayden did not comment
on Pinkerton's explanation and Pinkerton asked
him for "a showing why I was being terminated"
but Hayden said he could not give it Pinkerton and
Wilson "checked [their] cards" and left the plant.
Respondent contends that there is no "proof"
that it had any knowledge of Pinkerton's union ac-
tivities and that she was discharged for engaging in
a practice that amounted to stealing
Pinkerton signed a union card, solicited other
employees to sign cards, attended a union meeting
late in April, and, on the morning of her discharge
on May 1, "hollered" to other employees on the
production line that there would be another union
meeting that evening. The record contains ample
"proof" that Respondent was aware of Pinkerton's
union activities. Utility operator Jeannette Davis
testified that James Duncan, supervisor of the
Greenville cutting department, was visiting her
home "around the middle of April" and asked her
if she had heard anything about the Union at the
plant.8 Davis said "no" and Duncan said, "Well, I
don't know if you know it or not, but your good
friend, Ruth Pinkerton, is a union organizer, she
has always been for the Union." Davis said she
"didn't know anything about it." Duncan spoke
about "bad things" if the Union got in-" strikes
and things of that nature. He felt the Company
could offer us more." Duncan denied telling Davis
that Ruth Pinkerton was for the Union or ever
discussing the Union with her. Davis' testimony is
quite detailed and she impressed me as a reliable
witness. I credit her testimony that Duncan told her
that Pinkerton was a union organizer.
Ruth Wilson testified that Pete Norman,9 the
training coordinator for the Greenville and Fort
Deposit plants, meets with the training instructors
at the Greenville plant approximately every 2
weeks. Norman told the instructors during meetings
in April that they were not to engage in union ac-
tivities and asked them "if we could figure out a
way that we could find out who was pushing the
Union in the plant." Wilson said that Ruth Pinker-
ton, Jean Cooper, and Virginia Lowery were men-
tioned at these meetings and that she "was asked
one time to ask Mrs. Pinkerton for a Union card."
r A production ticket is attached to each work bundle given an operator
and shows the amount of money paid for the completion of the bundle
° Davis is Duncan 's niece
° Pete Norman is the son of Respondent 's president, Ralph Norman
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Norman told the instructors that the Union was
having meetings on Thursday nights at the Holiday
Inn in Greenville. Shortly before her discharge on
May 1, Wilson was given copies of a 3-page docu-
ment headed "Questions and Answers About Our
Future" to distribute "to the girls in [her] depart-
ment." The document advanced reasons why the
employees should vote against the Union at the
scheduled Board election. Wilson's 'testimony that
Pinkerton was mentioned as a possible union
"pusher" at a meeting with Norman and that she
was aksed to get a union card from Pinkerton is un-
contradicted.10 Her further testimony that Norman
advised the instructors that the Union was holding
meetings at the Holiday inn and that she was given
antiunion material to distribute to employees is also
uncontradicted It thus appears that Respondent
was concerned about union activities at the plant
and that it had reason to suspect that Pinkerton was
a union organizer.
Wilson in fact asked Pinkerton for a union card
in April but Pinkerton refused to give her one. The
next day, Pinkerton asked Supervisor Carolyn Kirk-
land where she could find employee Boswell. Kirk-
land remarked she knew what Pinkerton wanted
with Boswell. Pinkerton said, "Okay, you know
we're trying to organize the Union. I want you to
find out how many employees is in Greenville."
Kirkland said, "I will, but don't you let me down "
Boswell came up and Pinkerton told her, in Kirk-
land's presence, not to give Wilson a union card.
It thus appears that Kirkland knew about Pinker-
ton's union activity before Pinkerton asked Kirk-
land where she could find Boswell.
I find from the foregoing facts that Respondent
knew that Pinkerton was a union organizer before it
discharged her on May 1, 1969.
Manager Hayden's explanation for the May I
discharges may be summarized as follows: Training
Coordinator Pete Norman told him on April 30 that
Wilson was sewing for Pinkerton. Hayden told Nor-
man he "would check it out." Hayden walked into
the sewing area and observed Wilson and Pinkerton
from a distance of about 50 feet. He saw that Wil-
son was sewing and that Pinkerton was "clipping
and stacking " He "went on around through the
plant and came back by the machine shop and
10 Pete Norman denied telling Wilson or anyone else that Pinkerton or
any other employee was in the Union Wilson did not say who had asked
her to get a union card from Pinkerton
11 Eva Webb testified that in February 1969 she held back tickets given
to her by Supervisor Valerie Lowe Hayden asked her some time later if she
had tickets she "didn't put on " Webb told him she "didn't show it because
it was more than I could have sewed " Hayden said "they had to keep up
with the amount that was going down the line" and that he would send Su-
pervisor Glenda Williams to recount the tickets It appears from Webb's
uncontradicted testimony that Hayden was concerned that all production
be reported and not whether Webb was turning in tickets for bundles she
had not sewn herself
11 Pinkerton testified that she actually lost production when Wilson took
over her machine because Wilson " couldn't sew as good as I could, and it
was just delaying my work for her to sew and me standing there waiting for
her Because what she sewed , half of them had to be repaired, ripped out
and fixed anyway "
stood there and observed it again for quite a
while." He estimated that Wilson sewed and Pin-
kerton clipped and stacked for "at least an hour "
He called the two women into his office the next
day and told them what he had observed. He told
them it was against the company rules to sew for
others and give them the production coupons to
turn in. They "admitted they were doing that" and
he discharged them.
Hayden said he could not remember asking Wil-
son why she was sewing for Pinkerton In his
opinion, it was "stealing" for Pinkerton to turn in
"coupons for cash money that she did not sew "
I do not credit Hayden's testimony that Pinkerton
breached a plant rule by turning in tickets on bun-
dles sewed by Wilson, and that her doing so was
"stealing" from Respondent.
Hayden admitted that the alleged rule against
operators turning in tickets on bundles they had not
sewn was never published and the record shows
that supervisors sewed from time to time in the in-
terest of production and gave the production
tickets to employees to turn in.I I Pinkerton, Wilson,
Virginia Hooper, and Guinevere Boswell testified
that they knew of no rule against getting credit for
work performed by a supervisor.
Respondent does not dispute that its supervisors
occasionally sew in the interest of production and
give the production tickets to employees to turn in
for credit. It argues, however, that this practice is
far different from a supervisor or training instructor
"helping [an employee] on the clock." It would be
reprehensible for a supervisor or training instructor
to neglect his own work to sew or otherwise help an
employee either to conceal the employees lack of
ability or to increase his earnings But Pinkerton
was admittedly an employee in the "top echelon"
and Pinkerton's earnings could easily have been
reviewed for any inexplicable increase in her
productivity. 12 Hayden, however, made no effort to
check Pinkerton's explanation at the discharge in-
terview that Wilson sewed on her machine for
teaching purposes 1 t Although Hayden claimed that
he observed Wilson and Pinkerton on April 30 for
about an hour,14 he offered no explanation for not
discharging them at once if their conduct was tan-
tamount to "stealing."
" Wilson testified that she asked Pinkerton to let her use the machine
because "1 had a girl on my training line who was doing pants bottoms and I
felt maybe if I sewed, I could teach this girl and it would help her " Wilson
also testified that for about 2 weeks before her discharge on May I, she
sewed at Pinkerton 's machine twice a day, every other day, up to 20
minutes at a time, not only in the afternoon when Training Coordinator
Pete Norman was at the Fort Deposit plant, but also in the morning when
Norman was at the Greenville plant In light of this testimony and Respon-
dent's failure to adduce evidence to the contrary , 1 find that Wilson and
Pinkerton made no effort to conceal from management Wilson's sewing at
Pinkerton 's machine
" Pinkerton and Wilson estimated that Wilson sewed on Pinkerton's
machine no longer than 20 minutes at a time As Pinkerton received a
production credit of only about 30 minutes a day for clipping and stacking,
Hayden's testimony that Pinkerton did such work for about an hour while
Wilson sewed is implausible I consider Pinkerton and Wilson reliable wit-
nesses and reject Hayden 's testimony that Wilson sewed at Pinkerton's
machine continuously for about an hour on April 30
FORTEX MANUFACTURING CO. 25
I find for the foregoing reasons that Pinkerton's
turning in of tickets for work done in part by Wil-
son was neither a breach of a plant rule nor
"stealing" and that Hayden had no basis for a con-
trary belief
Prior to Pinkerton's discharge, Respondent dis-
tributed an antiunion document to its employees
and posted an invalid rule prohibitng the employees
from engaging in union solicitation at the plant dur-
ing nonworking time Subsequent to Pinkerton's
discharge and after a Board election, Respondent,
as shown below, unlawfully solicited employees to
withdraw from the Union. In view of Respondent's
hostility to the Union, its knowledge of Pinkerton's
union activity, and its unconvincing explanation for
her discharge, I find that Respondent discharged
Pinkerton on May 1, 1969, to discourage member-
ship in, and support of, the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (I ) of the Act. 15
C. Assisting Employees to Withdraw From the Union
About November 10, 1969, Respondent
furnished employees at the Greenville and Fort
Deposit plants with copies of the following letter
signed by President R. R Norman and Secretary-
Treasurer C. B. Haisler.
TO OUR EMPLOYEES:
QUESTION: You ask us if you must join the
union to work for Fortex2
ANSWER Fortex does not require anyone to
join the union in order to hold a job with For-
tex. Do not let anyone pressure you to sign a
union card if you do not want to sign.
QUESTION. You ask us how you can cancel
you union card once you have signed up?
ANSWER: You may cancel your membership
card anytime by writing the union and so noti-
fying them. Keep a copy of your letter to the
union Your supervisor will assist you if you
ask.
Emma Leona Sexton testified that she went to
President Norman's office and "asked him if it was
so, that we- could sign a slip of paper and get our
membership cards back." Norman said he had
some forms if she wanted to sign one and handed
her a copy of the following letter which he had
prepared.
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
15 Union Square New York, N. Y. 10003
Dear Sir.
I am an employee of Fortex Manufacturing
Company, Inc. working at Fort Deposit or
Greenville Alabama
IS The complaint does not allege that Wilson's discharge was violative of
the Act and the parties did not litigate the matter at the hearing I therefore
do not reach the question whether her discharge was an unfair labor prac-
tice
Please cancel my union membership card
Yours truly,
Sexton signed the form letter and Norman dated it.
He asked Sexton for her address and wrote it on the
form He gave Sexton another copy to sign and said
she should keep one and he would "keep one to
mail to the Union." -
Tiny Ellen Stinson testified that early in
November she asked Training Instructor Avis
Hamm how she felt about the Union. Hamm said
she had signed a union card while "in training" but
had since written the Union to get her card back,
and if Stinson wanted her card back, she could get
the address of the Union from Hayden A little later
Hamm told Stinson that Hayden wanted to see her
Stinson went to the office where Hayden said
Hamm had told him that Stinson wanted to talk to
him about getting her union card back and about
getting the Union's address Stinson said that was
so. Hayden wrote the Union's address on a piece of
paper and also wrote on a blank piece of paper,
"Dear Sirs, I would like to revoke my membership
in the Union as of this date." He gave her "the car-
bon and the copy of the stuff I was to write," and
told her "to put 15 minutes time on [her] time
sheet "16 Head Training Instructor Barbara Nix told
Stinson that afternoon she was glad Stinson had
reconsidered and she wished Stinson would try to
get Jewel McCormack "to get out of it too." Nix
gave Stinson "a three page sheet of questions and
answers about the Union and asked her to read it
and try to get the other girls to read it and change
their minds about the Union."
About a week later, Hamm asked Stinson if she
had sent the letter off to the Union and Stinson told
her no Later that day, Hamm told Stinson that
Hayden had information about the Union and if she
wanted to get her union card back, that Hayden
had forms available. The next morning, Hamm told
Stinson and two other trainees that Hayden had in-
formation about the Union "and if we wanted to go
in there and talk to him about that, that he would
talk to us " Hamm accompanied the three trainees
to Hayden's office and left. Hayden said he was
glad they had reconsidered about the Union, he had
forms available "if [they] wanted to sign," and he
wished they would try to get their friends to recon-
sider. He said the Union was not in the "best in-
terest" of the Company and the employees, the em-
ployees would still have to pay union fees and dues
if they went out on strike "with no income," and
the Company would have no market to sell pajamas
and "would go broke" if it "went union." He
handed the three employees withdrawal forms
"with the carbon to them." They signed the forms.
Hayden put the originals "in an unsealed envelope
on his desk" and gave the carbon copies to the em-
ployees.
" Stinson was in Hayden 's office about 5 minutes
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pauline Mills testified that Supervisor Eufa
Goodson told her early in November, " Pauline, if
you would like to get your union card back, Mr.
Hayden has some forms in the office. All you have
to do is go fill out a form." Mills said , "the hell you
say. There ain't no way." Goodson said, "Well, all I
know is what he said."
Hayden testified that at Greenville the
withdrawal forms were kept in his office, that
10-15 employees came to his office and signed
withdrawal forms, and that for some employees
Respondent furnished postage and envelopes, and
mailed the withdrawal letters to the Union. Pres-
ident Norman testified that about 20 employees
signed withdrawal forms at Fort Deposit and af-
firmed Sexton's testimony that she signed a form in
his office, which he mailed to the Union.
In his letter of November 10 to the employees,
President Norman invited them to ask their super-
visors for assistance if they wanted to cancel their
membership in the Union. When Sexton came to
his office and inquired about getting back her mem-
bership card, Norman handed her a withdrawal
form he had prepared for signature, dated the form,
supplied her address, and mailed the withdrawal
letter to the Union. Greenville Manager Hayden
summoned Stinson to his office early in November,
where he wrote out a withdrawal letter to the
Union for Stinson when she affirmed that she had
spoken to Training Instructor Hamm about getting
out of the Union. About a week later, Hamm
brought Stinson and two other trainees to Hayden's
office to talk about the Union. Hayden said he was
glad they had "reconsidered" about the Union, ex-
plained to them why the Union was not in their
"best interest" or the Company's, and gave them
copies of the withdrawal form prepared by Pre-
sident Norman to sign. Hayden kept the original
signed copies and mailed them to the Union. Super-
visor Goodson suggested to Pauline Mills that she
fill out a withdrawal form in Hayden's office. By
thus encouraging and assisting employees to
withdraw from the union, Respondent interfered
with the right of its employees to "decide of their
own free will, independently of employer solicita-
tion, to withdraw their union designations." Martin
Theatres of Georgia, Inc., d/b/a WTVC, 126 NLRB
1054, 1058. Cf. Cumberland Shoe Company, 160
NLRB 1256, 1259.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Ruth Pinkerton on May 1,
1969, because of her activity on behalf of the
Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by promulgating and maintaining a plant rule
prohibiting employees from engaging in union sol-
icitation during nonworking time and by assisting
employees in the withdrawal of union designations.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and
from in any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act, that it reinstate Ruth
Pinkerton with backpay computed according to the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716, and that it post an appropriate notice.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend is-
suance of the following:
ORDER
Respondent, Fortex Manufacturing Company,
Inc., its officers, agents , successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against any employee because of his membership in
or his activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
(b) Promulgating and maintaining a rule
prohibiting employees from engaging in union sol-
icitation on Respondent 's premises during non-
working time.
(c) Assisting employee withdrawal from Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessa-
ry to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Ruth Pinkerton immediate , full, and
unconditional reinstatement to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position , without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights , privileges , or working
conditions , and make her whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered , in the manner set
forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Ruth Pinkerton, if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of her right
to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available
to the Board or its agents , for examination and
copying , all payroll records , social security payment
records , timecards , personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
FORTEX MANUFACTURING CO. 27
(d) Post at its plants in Fort Deposit and Green-
ville, Alabama, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
15 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to its employees are
customarily posted. Reasons -le steps shall be taken
by it to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply
herewith. 18
'r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na.
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
is In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
1969. If she should currently be serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, we will
notify her of her right to full reinstatment upon
application after discharge from the Armed
Forces in accordance with the Selective Ser-
vice Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against employees because of their
union activity.
Our employees are free to engage in union
solicitation on our premises during nonworking
time.
WE WILL NOT assist our employees in
withdrawing their membership from Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of their rights of self-organization under
the Act.
All our employees are free to become and
remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining,
members of the above-named or any other labor or-
ganization.
FORTEX MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer Ruth Pinkerton her former
job and pay for wages she lost since May 1,
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola),
701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
70113, Telephone 504-527-6391.