IMCO/International Measurement & Control Company, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 1323 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

IMCO/INTERNATIONAL MEASUREMENT & CONTROL COMPANY, INC
IMCO/International Measurement & Control Com-
pany, Inc. and Chicago and Central States Joint
Board, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union. Case 13-CA-19837
May 28, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On August 26, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Robert T. Wallace issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and counsel for the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) 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,'
and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein. 3
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
l Respondent has excepted tt, certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative L aw Judge It is the Board's established police not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all or thie relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis kfor eversing his findings
In adopting the Administrative l.aw Judge's Decision, as modified
herein, Member Hunter does not rely on the discussion of Alleluia Cur'h-
ion Co., Inc. 221 NI.RH 999 (1975). and similar cases involving conduct
by all indiidual emploce
2 The Administrative L aw Judge found that Respondent violated Sec
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by closing its facility on the afternoon of April
16. 1980 The complaint specifically alleged such conduct to be unlawful
We agree that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)( ) in this respect but we
find it unnecessary to decide whether such conduct violates Sec. 8(a)(3)
inasmuch as the remedy would he unaffected
We also find no merit in the General Counsel's cross-exceptions that
Respondent has committed independent 8(a)(l) violations which were not
referred to in the complaint.
a We have modified the Administrative Law Judge's recommended
Order by adding the affirmative requirement that Respondent expunge
from its records any reference to the unlawful discharges and similar con-
duct committed by Respondent. Respondent is also required to provide
written notice of such expunction to those affected and to inform them
that Respondent's unlawful conduct will not be used as a basis for future
personnel actions concerning them. Sterling Sugars. Inc., 261 NI.RB 472
(1982).
The recommended Order is further modified to include a narrow
cease-and-desist order. See Hickmott Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979)
In accordance with his dissent in Olympic fMedical Corporation, 250
NLRB 146 (1980). Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay
due based on the formula set forth therein.
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
IMCO/International Measurement & Control Com-
pany, Inc., Frankfort, Illinois, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order, as so modi-
fied:
1. Insert the following as paragraph l(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act."
2. Insert the following as paragraphs 2(c) and (d)
and reletter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the
discharge, layoff, or refusal to recall of Lindy
Schroba, Barbara Fretts, Rita Lannon, and Arlene
Dahlman and notify each of them, in writing, that
this has been done and that this unlawful conduct
will not be used as a basis for future personnel ac-
tions concerning them."
"(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYE.ES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAl LABOR REFIATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE Wll.. NOT penalize or otherwise dis-
criminate against employees for engaging in
protected concerted activities.
WE WI.L. NOT discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against employees for supporting the
Chicago and Central States Joint Board, Amal-
gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
or any other labor organization.
WE WII.L NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
261 NLRB No. 180
1323
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
WE. will.L make all employees (including
Lindy Schroba, Barbara Fretts, Rita Lannon,
and Arlene Dahlman) whole, with interest, for
the loss of pay suffered as a result of our puni-
tive closing of the plant on the afternoon of
April 16, 1980.
Wi- wl.J. offer to Lindy Schroba, Barbara
Fretts, and Rita Lannon immediate and full re-
instatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed, and make them whole, with interest, for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered
due to the discrimination practiced against
them.
Wit wil.. expunge from our files any refer-
ence to the discharge, layoff, or refusal to
recall of Lindy Schroba, Barbara Fretts, Rita
Lannon, and Arlene Dahlman and notify each
of them, in writing, that this has been done
and that our unlawful conduct will not be used
as a basis for future personnel actions concern-
ing them.
IMCO/INTERNATIONAI. MFIASURE-
MIlNT & CONTROI COMPANY, INC.
DECISION
STATEME NI OF Tlt- CASI
ROBtRIr T. WAI.I.ACI, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed by Chicago and Central States Joint
Board, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union (the Union) against IMCO/International Measure-
ment & Control Company, Inc. (the Company or Re-
spondent), a complaint was issued on July 16, 1980, in
which it is alleged that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by
laying off three employees (Lindy Schroba, Barbara
Fretts, and Rita Lannon) because they engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities. The case was heard before
me at Chicago, Illinois, on February 17 and 18, 1981.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re-
spondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, an Illinois corporation, annually ships
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its plant
in Frankfort, Illinois, to customers located outside the
State. It admits, and I find, that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
' The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript,
dated April 13, 1981, is granted and received in evidence as G C. Exh 8.
(6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Al I.I.GDL) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICFS
Respondent produces electronic presses. It was incor-
porated in 1969 and is owned and managed by the Dybel
family, having evolved from a basement operation in
Frank Dybel's home. The latter is president, his wife and
daughter do the general office and bookkeeping work,
and the day-to-day operations (including, since February
25, 1980, supervision of plant personnel) are managed by
his son, Bill. The latter also serves as vice president.
Both Frank and Bill Dybel work from 14 to 16 hours
daily and often longer when circumstances require.
In 1978 the Company purchased and moved to a
newly constructed plant on a 5-acre site in Frankfort,
and since that time the plant has undergone constant
modification and expansion. However, in late 1979 and
continuing through the second quarter of 1980, the Com-
pany experienced a sharp decline in sales;2 and to econo-
mize during that period, the Dybels drew virtually no
salaries or dividends and they reduced employment
levels of assembly and shop workers from 18 in October
1979 to 8 in July 1980.3 Principally as a result of those
efforts, the Company is shown to have earned a net
profit after taxes of $74,300 during the first 6 months of
1980, up from $31,257 earned during the same period in
1979. In addition, the Dybels increased their capital in-
vestment in the Company by $60,000.
In April 1980, txwo things happened which ultimately
gave rise to this proceeding. The first was on or about
April 8 when Frank Dybel received and posted for re-
viewing by employees a standard notice that a petition
for a representative election had been filed with the
Board. He immediately called a meeting of employees
and told them that while they "would be better off with
us . . . it was their inherent right to be able to form a
union." 4 Assertedly, neither Frank nor Bill Dybel had
any prior knowledge of employee interest in unioniza-
tion, nor did they ever know or inquire as to the prefer-
ence of employees in that regard.
The second matter involves events occurring on April
16, but before describing those events an understanding
of Dybels' fondness for stray cats is necessary. Although
varying in number from month to month, in April there
were at least eight such cats in the plant. During work-
ing hours the "bad" cats are confined to a loft and the
"good" cats ("Morgan," "Yates," "Big Tabby," etc)
have free access to all areas at all times. Among numer-
ous provisions made for the cats are tiled floors, epoxied
walls, and a hole in the wall for easy entrance to and
Gross revenues earned during the first 6 monlhs of 1980 wele
$479,434 vs. 5713,446 for the same period in 1979
3 With the exception of the three alleged discriminatees who were laid
off, these personnel reductions appear to have been accomplished solely
by attrition.
4 On cross-examinalion he expressed his view more forcibly, as fol-
lows:
[I will] give them the union anytime they want it.... This is the
intent of the gvoddamn government, and that's what I told them
.... We don't mind them having a union; making us pay for all
this horseshit, you understand.
1324
IMCO/INTERNATIONAL MEASUREMENT & CONTROL COMPANY. INC
egress from the building. Although there is no regular
maintenance program, Frank Dybel attempts to clean the
plant everyday. But a thorough cleaning (which usually
takes 4 to 6 hours) most often occurs just before visits by
important customers. Also, employees are expected to
clean up messes around their areas as need arises, and for
that purpose brooms and mops are readily available. The
Dybels affection for the cats is such that job applicants
will not be hired if they have allergies or otherwise are
incompatible with cats; and employees who have com-
plained to the Dybels about the cats were told that they
could either clean up the messes themselves or quit.
On April 16 at about noon two agents of the local De-
partment of Health appeared before the locked front
door of the plant and told Frank Dybel that they had
come in response to a complaint to inspect sanitary con-
ditions at the plant. Without opening the door, Frank
told them to return the next day. Although the agents
had not said the plant had to be closed down, Frank im-
mediately instructed the employees, through Bill, to go
home, stating that "we can't have anybody here if it's
unsafe," and thereafter he proceeded to clean the plant, a
process which took about 2 hours longer than a normal
thorough cleanup. The Dybels claim they had no idea as
to who might have filed the complaint and, assertedly.
they viewed it no differently than other complaints filed
since operations were moved to the Frankfort facility.`
Bill states that he viewed the occasion as an opportune
time for effecting a layoff he had been considering since
January in light of declining sales. So that evening, asser-
tedly acting on his own initiative and without consulta-
tion with his father, he instructed his sister to inform
specified employees to report to work as usual on the
next morning. Those recalled6 included all shop and as-
sembly employees except the three alleged discriminatees
and Arlene Dahlman. Ostensibly, Bill chose the three al-
leged discriminatees for layoff because, for the most part,
they were doing "busy work" of a kind soon to be ac-
complished by newly purchased machinery. In addition,
they required more supervision ("babysitting,") than he
was able to provide, especially as he was going to be
away from the plant during the following week. 7 He
admits, however, that he had little opportunity to train
employees or observe them at work, that most of their
training was accomplished under a "show and tell"
system whereby more experienced employees would vol-
unteer information to workers in need of help, and that
he failed to recall Arlene Dahlman through an oversight
(i.e., he knew her only as "the girl in the corner, or the
blond sitting there) and inadvertently omitted that de-
5 One such complaint was filed with the Federal Occupational Safet)
and Health Administration relative to an overflowing toilet, and others
were filed with local authorities regarding lack of ceiling insulation and
covers for electrical outlets Employees assertedly &were sent home in
connection with the complaint to OSHA, but Frank Dybel's testimony in
that respect is contradictory.
6 The recalled employees were docked approximately 3-1/2 hours each
for their absence on the afternoon of April 16.
; In particular, Bill Dybel states that Barbara Frens would put her feet
up on chairs, did poor quality work, and gave nasty answers when criti-
cized; that Rita Lannon's work had gone down in quality; and that I.indy
Schroba was negligent in inspecting work she was doing and twice care
lessly put holes in a sink with an airbrush
scription when he instructed his sister regarding those to
be recalled.
Plant operations resumed on April 17 and during that
day the facility was inspected and found clean by the de-
partment of health.
The employees who had been laid off had signed
union cards. They had openly discussed the Union
among themselves and with other employees in the
lunchroom at various times between April 1 and 15,
sometimes while the Dybels were passing through. One
employee, Lindy Schroba, had worked in the assembly
area on March 26. Although the room was large (about
the size of a small theater) and air-conditioned, there was
a strong odor from cat messes. She opened a door to
obtain additional ventilation and later told Bill Dybel
that she was getting sick from the smell. His only re-
sponse was "not to touch anything," apparently in refer-
ence to her opening the door. On April 2 she phoned the
health department and complained about the cats.
Arlene Dahlman had worked for the Company for 20
months. At about noon on April 16 she and other em-
ployees were told to go home because someone had
complained about the cats and the plant had been shut
down by the health department. She returned to work
on April 18 after having called and been told to do so on
the prior afternoon. After punching in she went directly
to the office and asked Bill Dybel why she and the
others had not been asked to work on April 17. He
pointed to the Board's "Notice to Employees" and said:
"It is very difficult for me to talk to you because of this
thing on the wall .... They claim to have a majority
of signatures but we know which people are pro-IMCO
and the numbers don't jibe . . . we have had to hire a
lawyer and it is costing us a thousand dollars a day ..
business was bad and they had this big, new building to
pay for . . we have had a lot of harassment since we
moved to Frankfort. You know that the cat complaint
was unnecessary . . . we have to get rid of troublemak-
ers . . we know young people cause problems." After
conceding that her work and attendance had been "ex-
cellent," he added: "You should feel good because some
of your fellow employees spoke up for you." Again she
asked why she had not been called back with the others.
and Bill responded that "it was late when they called
people and it might have been a slip-up, that his father
didn't know people's names and he apologized . . .
[saying] that sometimes innocent people get hurt." On
the other hand, Bill states that she entered his office un-
invited and that the conversation mostly was one-sided
on her part. She was crying and kept saying over and
over again that she did not understand why she was not
called back with the other people. He apologized and
told her it was an oversight. Finally, he said: "I really
can't talk to you about any of this stuff, because there is
a notice on the board that says you're not supposed to
talk to anybody about firing or hiring or anything, and 1
was also advised that you're not supposed to talk to em-
ployees about this stuff when this situation occurs."
About an hour later she returned and told him she could
not continue to work there. Bill replied, "O.K.," and she
left the Company. I accept Arlene Dahlman's version of
1325
DECISIONS OF NATI()NAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
the conversation. She appeared calm and candid on the
witness stand; and her testimony remained consistent
throughout cross-examination. In addition, she had no
expectation of financial gain.8 In contrast, I find incredi-
ble Bill Dybel's admitted reluctance to tell Arlene Dahl-
man why he failed to recall all employees in light of his
assertion here that the layoff was solely for economic
reasons and had nothing to do with the Union or the cat
complaint. In that regard, I view his restrictive interpre-
tation of the Board's standard "Notice to Employees"
that a petition for a representative election had been filed
as entirely self-serving and patently unwarranted by the
language contained therein.
Barbara Fretts had been employed by the Company
for 8 months. She visited the plant on the afternoon of
April 18 and asked Frank Dybel if she would be called
back. He told her that the plant had been shut down by
the health department and advised her to talk to that
agency, adding: "If they say we can reopen you can
come back to work." She asked if he was accusing her
of filing the complaint about the cats and he responded:
"Well, did you?," and then walked away. I accept her
account of the conversation. It was overheard and cor-
roborated by another employee (Jill Potts) who had
worked for the Company for 4 years and resigned in Oc-
tober 1980;5' and it was not denied by Frank Dybel. TIhe
latter's only comment was that he had been without
sleep for 36 hours and might have said anything.
Lindy Schroba worked for the Company for 2 months.
She visited the plant on April 21 and was told by Frank
Dybel that she was not fired, just laid-off because busi-
ness was slow. Rita Lannon had been employed for 2
years. After Bill Dybel assumed supervisory duties she
continued to do the same types of work that she had
done before. She had shown other employees (including
Barbara Fretts and Lindy Schroba) how to do particular
jobs, and at times had inspected work performed by
others. The three each disclaim receiving any criticism
of their work, although Lindy Schroba admits having in-
advertently caused some damage to the sink.
Bill Dybel characterized the Company's business as
sporadic. At the time of the layoffs (April 16) the Com-
pany was advertising in newspapers for job applicants,
assertedly to have an adequate pool of potential employ-
ees when business improved. On April 28 the Union
withdrew its representation petition. Thereafter, on May
9 and continuing to July 4, the Company inaugurated a
policy of paying a weekly bonus of $20 to each of its
employees, and beginning on July 4 the bonuses were
converted into permanent raises. In late 1980, the Com-
pany obtained an $8 million contract, and between De-
' Although Arlene Dahlman was named as a discriminates in the
charge, the Regional Director expressly declined to include in the com-
plaint any allegation that she was constructively discharged.
I Jill Potts also testified that on April 17 there was a 45-minute meet-
ing at the plant attended by all the employees who had been called back
During that meeting Frank Dybel assertedly told the employees, among
other things, that they could have the Union if they wanted it; that he
did not want to move the plant; and that business was bad and many
companies were moving out of the area. Frank flatly denies that meeting
took place Although I credit Jill Potts, I find her brief description of the
subject matter of the meeting far too generalized to support a finding of
independent unfair labor practices arising therefrom.
cember 26, 1980, and January 23, 1981, it hired four new
assembly room employees. The three alleged discrimira-
tees have never been recalled.
1ll. ANAi.YSIS AND) CONCI.USIONS
It is unfortunate that the dedication and resourceful-
ness displayed by the Dybels in developing the technical
proficiency of the Company has not been accompanied
by due respect for the protected rights of employees.
For on this record, it is abundantly clear that the plant
shutdown on the afternoon of April 16 was intended to
punish all employees by the loss of approximately 3-1/2
hours pay each because one or more had the temerity to
complain to the local department of health concerning
unsanitary conditions arising from the presence in the
plant of the adopted stray cats. Concerted action by em-
ployees in complaining of safety or sanitary conditions in
the workplace is protected under the Act. Carbet Corpo-
ration, 191 NLRB 892 (1971), enfd. 80 LRRM 3054, 68
ILC II 12,845 (6th Cir. 1972); and this is so even when the
complaint is lodged by an individual employee because
the subject matter affects conditions in the workplace of
concern to all employees. See Alleluia Cushion Co., Inc.,
221 NL RB 999 (1975); Anheuser-Busch. Inc., 239 NLRB
207 (1978). Here, and contrary to the Dybels' assertion
to the employees, the department of health had not re-
quired closure of the plant. Nor did the conditions comn-
plained of require closure. It appears, therefore, that the
mass layoff on April 16 was in the nature of a reprisal;
and that circumstances, together with the fact that the
Dybels were aware that a number of employees had
complained about cat effluvia, warrants an inference that
they acted in the belief that the "cat complaint" was the
product of concerted action by employees and for the
purpose of discouraging any repetition in the future. I
recognize that in being hired employees had to agree to
work in an environment with cats, but they did not
thereby forfeit their right collectively to protest unsarli-
tary conditions arising from the presence of cats. Corn-
pare, Louiviana Council No. 17, AF'SCME, AI'L-CIO, 250
NLRB 880 (1980).
It is apparent also that the shutdown on April 16 was
used as an occasion to discharge the three named discri-
minatees (and the layoff of Arlene Dahlman) for their ac-
tivities between April 1 and 15 in support of the union
organizing effort. All had signed union cards and openly
advocated unionization to other employees in the plant
lunchroom. The Dybels' disclaimer of any knowledge of
their participation is unconvincing in light of their acute
perceptiveness in regard to all other matters involving
plant operations. It is also inconsistent with Arlene Dahl-
man's testimony (heretofore credited) that Bill Dybel
told her on April 17 that "They claim to have a majority
of signatures but we know which people are pro-IMCO
and the numbers don't jibe."
Similarly, the Dybels' claimed indifference as to
whether employees opted for the Union is belied by Bill
Dybel's further statement to Arlene Dahlman to the
effect that the unionization effort was costing the Com-
pany $1,000 a day for a labor relations lawyer, and by
Frank Dybel's characterization of the governmentally
1326
IMCO/INTERNATIONAI MFASUREMENT & CONTROL COMPANY, INC
protected right of employees to organize as "all this
horseshit." Those statements, together with their dra-
matically timed meeting with the remaining employees
on April 17 to discuss the Union option, and the weekly
across-the-board bonus/raise policy implemented w\ithin
a fortnight of the union's withdrawal of its representation
petition, evince a keenly felt animus toward unionization
which motivated the discharge of the named discrimina-
tees.
In light of the above, I am not persuaded that the as-
serted reasons for the "layoffs" are anything other than
mere post facto rationalizations or pretexts. See Wright
Line, a Division of Wright Line. Inc., 251 NLRB 150
(1980). Those reasons were not given to the discharged
employees. Instead, their inquiries were met with silence
or ambiguity. Further, the Company has failed adequate-
ly to support its claim that the "layoffs" would have oc-
curred in any event because of declining sales. That situ-
ation was not unprecedented in light of Bill Dybel's
comment that the business of the Company was "sporad-
ic"; and retrenchment of personnel in the past appears to
have been accomplished only by attrition. Indeed, at the
time of the "layoffs" the Company was anticipating an
upswing in sales because it was running ads to secure an
inventory of available employees.
CONCI USIONS 01 LAW
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
(I) by voluntarily closing its facility on the afternoon of
April 16, 1980, and depriving its employees of pay for
work they otherwise would have performed on that
afternoon in retaliation for protected concerted action by
employees, to wit: filing a complaint with the department
of health concerning sanitary conditions at the facility;'0
and (2) by discharging Lindy Schroba, Barbara Fretts,
and Rita Lannon because of their support for the Union,
and for the purpose also of discouraging support for the
Union by other employees.
The aforesaid practices tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce and constitute unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Such affirmative action will include an Order (1) to pay
all employees (including Lindy Schroba, Barbara Fretts,
Rita Lannon, and Arlene Dahlman), with interest, for the
time they would have worked on the afternoon of April
16, 1980, had the plant not been closed down; and (2) to
io While only three discriminatees are named in the complaint, all em-
ployees who were sent home early on April 16 were aggrieved by the
plant closing; and that circumstance warrants the broader finding and
remedy entered herein Compare Omark-CCI Inc, 208 Nl RI 469
(1974)
offer Lindy Schroba, Barbara Fretts, and Rita Lannon
immediate and full reinstatement with backpay computed
on a quarterly basis in the manner provided in : Wi
Woolworth Company, 90 NILRB 289 (1950), with interest
thereon as established in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Hieat-
ing Co., 138 NILRB 716 (1962).
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the followving recommended:
ORDERt "
The Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Penalizing or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees because they engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivities.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees for supporting the Chicago and Central States
Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, or any other labor organization.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Make all employees whole, with interest, for the
loss of pay they suffered as a result of the punitive clo-
sure of the plant on the afternoon of April 16, 1980.
(b) Offer I indy Schroba, Barbara Fretts, and Rita
Lannon immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or
any other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. and
make them whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings
or benefits in the manner set forth in "The Remedy."
(c) Post at its place of business in Frankfort, Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.
" 1 2
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent'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
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
t In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.4h if
Ihe Rule, and Regulations of the National I.abor Relations Board. the
findings, cinclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, a, pro ided
in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted hby the Board and
hecome its findiigs, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States C ourt of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by
(Order of the Nalional .abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United Slates Court of Appeals Enfiurcing an
Order of the National l abor Relatiionis Board "
1327