Kay Allen Classics, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 1250 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 6617 Fed-
eral Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. Capitol
8-0611 , if they have any questions , concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Kay Allen Classics , Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 4-CA-3382. June 8, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 24, 1965, Trial Examiner Abraham H. Mailer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General Counsel
filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a brief in sup-
port thereof, and a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions and
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins].
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 Ex-
aminer's Decision, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, the General
Counsel's cross-exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications and additions.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union on June 4, 1964. The
General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to find an
unlawful refusal to bargain on and after May 13, 1964. For the rea-
sons set forth below, we find merit in the exceptions.
On May 13,14 of the 25 employees in the production and maintenance
unit, which was stipulated by the parties to be appropriate, signed
union cards. On that date, a committee of union representatives and
employees presented to Trostle, the Respondent's plant manager, a
written demand for recognition which claimed majority representa-
tion, requested a bargaining meeting, and was signed by a union rep-
resentative and by 12 employees designated as a "committee of the
employees of the Gettysburg plant." The committee told Trostle that
152 NLRB No. 134.
KAY ALLEN CLASSICS, INC. 1251
the Union represented a majority and that it was willing to submit to
an impartial card check. Trostle replied that he did not have authority
to respond to the demand, and attempted unsuccessfully to telephone
Frenkil, the president of the Respondent, who is in almost daily tele-
phone communication with the plant but visits it infrequently. The
union representatives then requested that Frenkil get in touch with the
Union. The written demand was mailed to Frenkil, who admittedly
received it, but made no attempt to communicate with the Union. As
the Trial Examiner found, and we agree, Frenkil and Trostle there-
after threatened and interrogated employees in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner concluded that Frenkil might have believed,
when he received the written demand for recognition, that the 12 sign-
ers were the only employees who had designated the Union, and that he
might, therefore, have had a good-faith doubt as to the Union's major-
ity on that date. The written demand, however, stated explicitly that
the Union represented a majority, and that the 12 signers constituted a
committee of the employees. Moreover, the Union made an oral claim
of majority representation to the plant manager on May 13 and offered
to submit a card check. Frenkil made no effort to resolve his asserted
doubts as to the Union's majority status, but engaged in unlawful anti-
union conduct. Under these circumstances, we find that the Respond-
ent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union on and after May 13,
1964, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders
that the Respondent, Kay Allen Classics, Inc., Gettysburg, Pennsyl-
vania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
'Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263; Fred Snow et at, d/b/a Snow & Sons, 134
NLRB 709.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed June 22, 1964, by International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the Regional Director for Region 4 of
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on August 4, 1964,
issued a complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board against Kay Allen
Classics, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act by unlawfully interrogating employees regarding their union
activities and sympathies, warning employees that it would close its plant and/or
reduce the work performed at the plant if the employees selected a union as their
collective-bargaining representative, and threatening that it would shut down its plant
rather than recognize the Union as collective-bargaining representative, and that the
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent on or about May 13, 1964, and June 4, 1964, refused and continues to
refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in an appropriate unit, although a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit had designated the Union as their bargaining repre-
sentative, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer,
the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and alleged
affirmatively that the Union is not the bargaining agent of the employees of the
Respondent since the Respondent has expressed a good-faith doubt of the Union's
representation of a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Abraham H. Maller
at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on September 29, 1964. All parties were represented
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to-
present oral argument, and to file briefs with me. Briefs were received from counsel
for the General Counsel and from the Respondent.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and'
upon my observation of each of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent maintains its office and place of business in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of medical uniforms and smocks. During
the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent in the course and
conduct of its business operations shipped goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same
period, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations received
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. In view of the foregoing, I find and conclude that the
Respondent is engaging in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction here.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all
times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ISSUES
1. Whether the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (a) interrogating
employees regarding their union activities and sympathies, (b) by warning employ-
ees that it would close its plant and/or reduce the work performed at the plant if
the employees selected a union as collective-bargaining representative, and (c) by
threatening to shut down its plant rather than recognize the Union as collective-
bargaining representative.
2 Whether Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union was based upon a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status.
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
In April 1964 1 the Union began an organizational campaign among Respond-
ent's employees. Organizer Charles Lang visited the employees at their homes and
by May 13 had received authorization cards from 14 of the 25 people employed by
the Respondent on that date 2
On May 12 the Union held an organizational meeting among Respondent's employ-
ees, and Sol Hoffman, the Union's organizational director, drafted a letter to the
Respondent, in which he stated that the Union represented a majority of the employ-
ees and requested a meeting for bargaining. Below Hoffman's signature appeared
the following:
'All of the events In the instant case occurred during 1964.
2 Respondent's payroll list remained the same through June 4, the date of the Union's
second bargaining request. The Union therefore enjoyed a majority on this date as
well. Although General Counsel Introduced 16 cards into evidence, 2 cards were signed
by persons who were not employees on either May 13 or June 4.
KAY ALLEN CLASSICS, INC. 1253
We the undersigned committee of employees of the Gettysburg Plant confirm
the correctness of the above statement and urge prompt negotiations.
The foregoing certification was signed by the 12 employees who were present at
the meeting. On May 13 Lang, accompanied by Rommel McCoy, another union
,organizer, and a committee of employees visited the plant and presented the writ-
ten demand to Eugene Trostle, Respondent's plant manager. After Trostle read
the letter, Lang told him that the Union represented the majority of the girls at
the factory and that he would be willing to submit to an impartial card check.
Trostle told them that he was the plant manager but did not have authority to
respond to the demand. He said that the union organizers would have to talk
with Mr. Frenkil.3 McCoy asked Trostle to get in touch with Frenkil. Trostle there-
upon placed a telephone call to Baltimore. Following the call, Trostle told the
union representative that Frenkil was in New York. Lang asked him to leave
word to have Frenkil get in touch with Hoffman at the latter's office in Harrisburg.
Frenkil admitted receiving the Union's written bargaining request a few days
later, but did not get in touch with the Union.
On May 15, 2 days after the Union's initial bargaining demand, Frenkil came
to the plant.4 According to the testimony of employee Evelyn Grinder,5 Frenkil
came to her machine and asked if he could talk with her 6 Frenkil asked her what
her complaints were, and Grinder replied that they did not have hospitalization
insurance. She then suggested to Frenkil that he call in Martha Ross, because she
-wanted to have another employee present. She then returned to her machine.
A few minutes later Frenkil came to her machine and told her that she could call
Martha Ross. He told her that he had four factories and did not need the plant
at Gettysburg. Grinder then started to go upstairs to call Ross, but Trostle went
up and brought Ross back to the office with him. Frenkil asked Ross why she
had signed the bargaining demand. Ross replied that she was not the only one
who signed it. Frenkil asked Ross what the trouble was, and Ross replied that
it was the prices; i.e., the rate of pay. Frenkil said that he did not need the
factory, that he could take the work elsewhere. Frenkil told the employees that
.no one was going to tell him how to run his business.7
On the same day Dorothy Bream, who was also one of the signers of the
bargaining demand and who had been temporarily laid off on May 13, came to
the plant for her pay. She met Plant Manager Trostle and asked him if there
was any work for her. He replied, "Since this damn thing came up, I don't
know when I'll have work for you" Bream replied, "Well if you're picking on
me because I signed the union card, I was not the only one; . we didn't sign
it against you." Trostle answered, "Well I'm in favor of the Company." 8
Respondent points to the fact that Bream admitted on cross-examination that
Trostle did not mention the Union to her. I do not consider that this is incon-
sistent with her testimony quoted above or derogates therefrom. Trostle admit-
tedly did not use the word "union," yet it is clear from the entire conversation
that he was referring to the Union's bargaining demand (which Bream had signed)
S Bernard Leonard Frenkil is the president and principal stockholder of the Respondent.
'According to Frenkil, his visits to the plant are infrequent, occurring only when he
happens to be in the vicinity or when there is a pressing matter. He speaks with Plant
Manager Trostle by telephone almost every day.
6 Grinder was one of the employees who had signed the Union's bargaining demand.
6 Frenkil first testified that Trostle had told him that some of the girls were dissatis-
fied with the rates, mentioning in particular Grinder and another employee, Martha Ross,
and that he asked Trostle to call the girls to the office Later, Frenkil admitted that he
had called in Grinder himself, thus corroborating Grinder's testimony in this regard
7 The foregoing Is the credited testimony of Grinder and Ross. Frenkil denied asking
Ross why she had signed the bargaining demand. He admitted telling the girls that he
shad four other places and talking about having the Gettysburg work done elsewhere, but
claimed it was in a context of sending difficult work to other of his plants. Frenkil
appeared to be an evasive witness, and based upon my observation of his demeanor while
testifying, I do not credit his testimony. Moreover, it is significant that, although
Frenkil admitted that Plant Manager Trostle was present at the conversation most of
the time, Trostle was not called as a witness by the Respondent to corroborate Frenkil's
testimony.
6 The credited testimony of Bream. As noted above, Plant Manager Trostle did not
take the stand to contradict her. Bream was recalled on the following Tuesday and
then laid off again on Monday of the following week. The complaint does not charge her
layoff as a violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
when he spoke of "this damn thing" that had come up. Thus, when Bream replied
that he was picking on her because she had signed a union card, Trostle said,
"Well, I'm in favor of the Company."
On June 4, 1964, Hoffman, Lang, and two of Respondent's employees, Marcella
Hewitt and Viola Harbaugh, visited Frenkil at his office in Baltimore. Hoffman
introduced himself and his party. He told Frenkil that the Union represented a
majority of the employees, held up the authorization cards, and offered to submit
to an impartial card check. Frenkil told him that he was not interested in the
cards, that the plant was too small to have a union, and if he had any trouble
with the Union he would close down the plant He said that he was the boss and
if the girls did not like it at the factory they could leave. Hoffman pointed out
that it was not up to Frenkil whether there would be a union in the plant, that
it was up to the employees. Frenkil insisted that the plant was too small to
have a union and "he needed it like a hole in the head." Frenkil added that he
made his money in real estate and jobbing and that he did not need the garment
factories .0
B. Concluding findings
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Plant Manager Trostle's statement to Bream: "Since this damn thing came up,
I don't know when I'll have work for you" was clearly coercive. As I have
previously found, it is clear from the context in which his statement was made
that he was referring to the Union's demand for recognition. Trostle's statement
was a clear indication to Bream that the Union's bargaining demand would work
to her detriment and, as such, was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and
I so find.
Also violative of the Act were Frenkil's statements to Ross and Grinder that
he did not need the plant and that he could get the work done somewhere else.
Implied in these statements was an obvious threat to close the plant at Gettysburg
and transfer the work to other plants controlled by Frenkil if the Union persisted
in its demand for collective bargaining.
Frenkil's question to Ross as to why she had signed the Union's bargaining
demand also had a coercive effect. At first blush, the question appears to be
innocuous, inasmuch as by signing the Union's bargaining demand Ross had
already indicated her membership in the Union, and Frenkil's question did not
seek to elicit information as to which of the other employees had joined the
Union. On analysis, however, the coercive effect of the question becomes apparent.
As the Employer, Frenkil was speaking from a dominant position, and by his
question clearly implied that he was concerned with Ross' action and put her in
a position where she was being required to justify her action to her superior.
The effect was obviously coercive as it demonstrated by her defensive reply:
"Well, I wasn't the only one that signed it." Furthermore, the question was put
in the context of Frenkil's statement that he did not need the factory and could
take the work elsewhere. I therefore find and conclude that Frenkil's interroga-
tion of Ross also constituted interference, restraint, and coercion, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10
Likewise violative of the Act were Frenkil's statements to Hoffman in the
presence of employee Hewitt and Harbaugh on June 4, at his office, to the effect
that the plant was too small to have a union and if he had any union trouble
he would close it down; that any Gettysburg employee who was not happy could
leave; and that he had made his money in real estate and in jobbing and did not
need his garment factories. These statements were clearly threats and as such
were in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find.
0 The credited testimony of Hoffman, corroborated by Lang, Hewitt, and Harbaugh.
While Frenkil's version is different, it is significant that he admitted telling Hoffman
that he was not interested in the authorization cards because he did not believe that the
Union represented a majority. He denied threatening to close the plant, but admitted
that he said it was a small plant and that he was not wholly dependent on its production.
After first denying that he used the term "hole in the head," he later conceded that be
might have used the phrase in a different context, I e, "I need trouble like a hole in the
head " (Emphasis supplied.) I have previously indicated that I do not credit Frenkil
10N.L.R.B. v. W. T. Grant Company, 199 F. 2d 711, 712 (C.A. 9) ; West India Fruit
and Steamship Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 343, 374; The Bendio Corporation, Research
Laboratories Division, 131 NLRB 599, 605.
KAY ALLEN CLASSICS, INC. 1255
2. The refusal to bargain
a. The appropriate unit
It was stipulated that all production and maintenance employees of Respondent
at its Gettysburg plant, exclusive of all other employees and all supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, and I so find.
b. The Union's majority
On May 12 and on June 4, the dates of the Union's demands for bargaining,
the Union represented a majority of Respondent's employees in the appropriate
unit. Respondent does not challenge this, but contends that the cards were
obtained as a result of misrepresentations by the organizer. Respondent, quoting
only part of Organizer Lang's testimony, argues that Lang promised the employees
various benefits and led them to believe that "what they would gain would be
automatic depending on their numbers." The argument lacks support in the
record. Lang testified credibly that he "didn't guarantee" that the signers would
receive the benefits but that the amount of benefits they received "would depend
on how strong they were in terms of the organizing campaign and how strong we
would be at the bargaining table " This can hardly be characterized as fraudulent
misrepresentation. Moreover, it is significant that none of the employees com-
plained about any alleged misrepresentation or sought to revoke his authorization.
c. Respondent's alleged good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority
Respondent defends his refusal to bargain on the ground that he had a good-
faith doubt as to the Union's majority. This argument is premised on the fact
that the Union's demand for bargaining bore the signatures of only 12 employees
which clearly was not a majority of the persons employed in the plant. Insofar
as the May 13 bargaining demand is concerned, there is merit in Respondent's
position. It is true that the employees who signed the demand represented them-
selves only as a "committee of the employees of the Gettysburg Plant" and the
stated purpose of their signatures was to "confirm the correctness of the above
statement i.e., [that the Union had been designated by a majority of the employees]
and urged prompt negotiations." While a careful reading of the statement would
make this clear, it is conceivable that Frenkil may have believed that the signers,
whose number was close to a majority, were all that had designated the Union,
particularly since the Respondent had no independent knowledge of the number
that had joined the Union.
Although Organizer Lang told Plant Manager Trostle that the Union would be
willing to submit to an impartial card check, it does not appear from the record
that Trostle had authority to accede to this request Quite the contrary, it appears
that Trostle's function was merely to operate the plant, and Frenkil was in almost
daily telephonic communication with him. Trostle did all that he could do: he
telephoned Frenkil's office in Baltimore and forwarded the Union's demand.
This state of affairs, however, did not continue indefinitely. On June 4, when
the union representatives called upon Frenkil in person, and Organizer Hoffman
held the cards in his hand and again offered to submit them to an impartial check,
Frenkil could no longer hide behind the fact that only 12 employees had signed
the bargaining demand. For ought Frenkil knew, even if he was correct in his
earlier assumption, the Union might have signed up additional employees and
obtained a majority in the interim. With the Union offering to prove its majority
status, Frenkil deliberately refused the opportunity to resolve any doubts he
might theretofore have had. The proffered card check by an impartial person
"was a reasonable method of ascertaining the truth of the claim" (N.L.R B v.
George Groh & Sons, 329 F. 2d 265, 269 (C.A. 10), enfg 141 NLRB 931). And
by peremptorily rejecting the card check offer, Respondent "deliberately shut its
eyes to the facts . and assiduously avoided giving the union any opportunity
to substantiate its claims. Such conduct is not indicative of good faith." N.L.R B.
v. Philamon Laboratories, Inc., 298 F. 2d 176, 180 (C.A. 2). See also, N.L.R B.
v. George Groh & Sons, supra; N.L.R.B. v. Economy Food Center, Inc., 333 F. 2d
468, 472 (C.A. 7), enfg. 142 NLRB 901.
Moreover, the grounds Frenkil assigned for his disinterest in the cards was that
the plant was too small to have a union and if he had any union trouble he would
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
close it down ; that he needed a union "like a hole in the head." it This was an
outright rejection of the principle of collective bargaining.
In sum, I find and conclude that Respondent did not on June 4 have a good-faith
doubt as to the Union's majority , but deliberately refused to bargain with it in vio-
lation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in
connection with the business operations of the Respondent set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and that it be ordeied to bargain collectively with the
Union, upon request.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
-upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommended that the Respondent , Kay Allen
Classics, Inc., Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
.shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their activities on behalf of Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment by reason of their activities
on behalf of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any
• other labor organization of its employees.
(c) Threatening to close the plant if the Union persisted in its demand for
collective bargaining.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor orga-
nizations , to join or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
(e) Refusing, upon request , to baigain collectively with International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees at Respondent 's Gettysburg, Penn-
sylvania, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, plant copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional
"At one point , Frenkil explained his lack of interest in the cards by stating that the
union people had come in without an appointment and he was very busy . The fact, how-
ever , Is that Frenkil admittedly spent 10 minutes talking with them and the atmosphere
was cordial Frenkil even took time to instruct Hoffman how to get to the Union's office
in Baltimore , when the meeting ended.
'- If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice If the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
the notice shall be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the words "a Decision and Order."
KAY ALLEN CLASSICS , INC. 1257
Director for Region 4, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted , and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive
days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date of
the receipt of this Decision , as to what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.13
"If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read* "Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing , within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their activities on behalf
of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees , in a manner constituting interference,
restraint , or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment by reason of
their activities on behalf of International Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant if the International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO, persists in its demand for collective
bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations , to join or assist labor organizations , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse, upon request , to bargain collectively with International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative
of our employees in the following appropriate unit.
All production and maintenance employees at our Gettysburg, Penn-
sylvania, plant , excluding all other employees and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment , and, if an understand-
ing is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization.
KAY ALLEN CLASSICS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---- --------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Philadelphia , Pennsylvania, Telephone No. 735-2612,
if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions-