Lewistown Sportswear, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 8 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lewistown Sportswear , Inc. and Susan M. Smith. Case
6-CA-6910
August 23, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
gency leave from work under false pretenses, and for having
poor work records."
The parties at the hearing were afforded full opportunity
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to submit
briefs.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the
witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the fol-
lowing:
On May 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Ber-
nard Ness issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions.
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 has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Lewistown Sportswear, Inc.,
Lewistown, Pennsylvania , its officers , agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD NESS, Administrative Law Judge : This case was
heard at Lewistown , Pennsylvania , on February 21 and
March 8 , 1974, pursuant to a charge and amended charge
filed on August 17 and August 29, 1973, respectively, by
Susan M . Smith and a complaint issued on November 29,
1973.1
The complaint alleged that Lewistown Sportswear, Inc.,
the Respondent herein, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by terminating Smith and another employee, Doro-
thy V. Ramsey on August 3 because of their activities on
behalf of Local Union No. 6, Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called TWUA and because of
their having engaged in other protected activities . Respon-
dent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices
and in its answer pleaded that the two alleged discrimina-
tees were terminated on August 10 "because on August 1,
1973, they falsely alleged home emergencies , obtained emer-
Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter refer to 1973.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
I find , as the complaint alleges , and the answer admits,
that the Respondent , a Pennsylvania corporation , with its
principal offices located in Lewistown, Pennsylvania, is en-
gaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of women's
dresses . During the 12-month period immediately preceding
the issuance of the complaint and notice of hearing, the
Respondent received goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from points directly outside the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania for use at its Lewistown , Pennsylvania,
facility . Based on the foregoing, I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find , as the complaint alleges and the Respondent ad-
mits, that Local Union No. 6, Textile Workers Union of
America , AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent employs approximately 115 employees
and Plant Manager Gerald Bergen is the principal supervi-
sor. The parties stipulated Floorlady Inka Moyer is a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act.' The Respondent and
the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, herein called ILGWU, have had a bargaining relation-
ship since about November 1973.1
Dorothy Ramsey and Susan Smith, the alleged discrimi-
natees, had taken a 2-week training course at Juniata-Miflin
County Vocational Technical School, commonly called and
referred to herein as Votec s They then began their employ-
2 General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript to
insert the word "not" before the word "enough" on p. 32, 1. 20 is hereby
granted . The General Counsel also requested the transcript be corrected to
substitute "Diane Watson" for "Diane Wilson" throughout the transcript.
My notes and recollection are that she identified herself as Diane Wilson
when she testified as shown in the transcript. She was identified as Diane
Watson by another witness . In any event, the individual referred to as Wilson
and Watson in the transcript is one and the same person . Accordingly, the
motion to correct the name to Watson is denied.
3 The Respondent refused to stipulate that Floorlady Doris Eward was also
a supervisor . For reasons stated later in this decision , I find it unnecessary
to resolve her status.
4 The record does not disclose whether a collective -bargaining contract
was in existence at the time of the material events herein described,
S A school that had, upon Respondent's request , instituted a training pro-
213 NLRB No. 5
LEWISTOWN SPORTSWEAR, INC. 9
ment with the Respondent as machine operators on June 10
and June 20, respectively.
The employees were dissatisfied with the conditions in
the plant and griped among themselves about the cleanli-
ness of the restrooms, the lack of cafeteria space, the dirt in
the plant, and the manner in which Plant Manager Bergen
treated the girls. Towards the end of June, following up the
employees' complaints, Ramsey contacted Harry Blessing,
business manager of TWUA, and told him the girls desired
to have something done about the working conditions de-
scribed above. In early July, Blessing met with Ramsey,
Smith and several other employees at his office and told
them he would look into the matter and thought he could
be of assistance .6 A further meeting was arranged with
Blessing for July 24. Both Ramsey and Smith actively solic-
ited employees to attend the meeting at the TWUA hall.
Seventeen employees, including Ramsey and Smith, attend-
ed the union meeting on July 24 and all signed TWUA
authorization cards. They were given additional authoriza-
tion cards for the purpose of soliciting other employees.
On July 25, about 79 authorization cards from other em-
ployees were solicited and obtained at the plant. The cards
were turned over to Ramsey at the end of the workday. She,
in turn presented the cards to Blessing that evening.'
On the morning of July 26, Smith was warned by Bergen
she was going to the restroom too often. At the end of the
working day, Floorlady Moyer told Ramsey and Smith that
Bergen had instructed her to tell them they were dis-
charged-that Ramsey was not making her rate and that
Smith was going to the restroom too often.' Ramsey and
Smith, accompanied by some of the other employees, then
went to the TWUA hall and informed Blessing of their
discharges. Blessing discouraged the other employees from
initiating a strike and prepared a handbill announcing a
special meeting for the following evening, July 27.
On the morning of Friday, July 27, Ramsey and Smith
passed out the handbills on Respondent's parking lot. Ber-
gen came out and ordered them off the Respondent's prop-
erty. Ramsey and Smith then came to the TWUA hall that
afternoon. During the interim , Ron Almond, ILGWU rep-
resentative, had contacted Blessing and informed him ILG-
WU was the bargaining representative. At Almond's
request, Blessing invited him to the hall that afternoon to
meet with Ramsey and Smith at which time the girls report-
ed to Almond the unfavorable working conditions at the
plant. After being assured by Almond that they could be
returned to work and that he would seek improvements,
they agreed to return to the plant with him. A meeting was
held that afternoon in the plant cafeteria. Present were Al-
mond, the two ladies, the ILGWU shop committee and
gram for sewing machine operators , and served as a source of supply for
prospective employees . Upon completion of the 2 -week course , the school
sent the names of the students to the Respondent.
6 At the time Blessing did not know the ILGWU was the recognized
bargaining representative.
7 Ramsey credibly testified she visited Floorlady Eward at her home and
solicited her to sign an authorization card . In light of Respondent's admission
that it was unaware of the union activity of Ramsey and Smith , I find it
unnecessary to rely upon this incident to establish company knowledge even
if Eward was found to be a supervisor.
s Based upon Ramsey's credited testimony. Moyer was not called as a
witness.
Bergen . Almond announced that Ramsey and Smith would
return to work on Monday, July 30. The uncontroverted
testimony disclosed that Bergen remained silent. On July
30, the ladies returned to work.
Although the General Counsel has not alleged in his com-
plaint that the July 26 discharges of Ramsey and Smith were
violative of the Act, the circumstances surrounding their
first discharges on July 26 become relevant in assessing the
motives for their subsequent terminations on August 3. In
this connection, the credited testimony of Diane Wilson
sheds light on Respondent's motivation for the discharge of
Ramsey and Smith on July 26. Wilson, still employed by the
Respondent at the time of the hearing, testified that some-
time between July 26 and August 3,9 Bergen engaged her in
conversation at the plant. She testified as follows:
Q. What did he say to you in the lunchroom?
A. He just asked me what was wrong with me. He
askey why I was mad and-I do not know. I can hardly
remember anything that was said. But I asked him, why
can't we have a different union in the place. He said,
we do have a good union. I said, good for him. I said
something about Dot and Sue and he said that they just
cause trouble.
Q. (By Judge Ness) What did you ask Mr. Bergen
about them?
WITNESS. I asked him why they were fired.
Q. Do you recall what he responded?
A. I do not remember how he phrased it. It was to
the effect that there was a lot of trouble going on while
they were there.
Bergen was not questioned about this conversation with
Wilson but he did admit his awareness prior to the July 26
discharges that Ramsey and Smith were active in attempt-
ing to bring in the TWUA as the representative of
Respondent's employees.
On August 1, Ramsey and Smith received permission to
leave work in the midst of the workday because of alleged
emergencies . It is the Respondent's position that the two
girls were suspended and then terminated because it be-
lieved they had taken emergency leave under false pretens-
es. Ramsey testified that Office Manager Ruth
Knappenberger relayed a message to her from her son that
she come home at once because her granddaughter was ill.
She testified her granddaughter was born with a congenital
defect requiring medication during particular periods of dis-
tress . Ramsey punched out at 12:03 p.m., returned home
and gave the prescribed medication to her granddaughter.
Smith testified she was called by her husband and noti-
fied her daughter was ill, requiring her presence. She
punched out at 12:37 p.m. returned home and gave medica-
tion to her daughter. Shortly after tending to her daughter,
9 The interval between the two discharges.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she then called Ramsey and they agreed to visit James
Harpster, the vocational director at Votec to complain
about the conditions at the plant. Smith then drove over to
Ramsey's house and the two went to Votec to see Harpster.
Harpster credibly testified that when he returned from
lunch somewhere between 1:00 and 1:20 p.m. on August 1,
the two ladies were waiting for him. They complained to
him about the unclean facilities at the plant, referring to the
restroom and the water fountain specifically. They also
complained about the abusive language used by Bergen
towards the girls. They told him the Union had done noth-
ing to improve the conditions and they were looking for
someone who could do something for them. They asked that
he not send any girls to Respondent because of the unpleas-
ant conditions at the plant. Harpster advised the ladies he
had no authority to determine where the students went to
work upon completion of the course. The school merely sent
the names of the students who completed the course. He did
refer them to the municipal building inspector regarding the
unsanitary conditions at the plant.
Harpster testified that later that day he had a telephone
conversation with Bergen.1° During the course of the con-
versation , Harpster mentioned to Bergen that two former
students had been to see him that day and complained
about the conditions in the plant. Bergen asked if the two
girls were Ramsey and Smith. When Harpster confirmed
their identity, Bergen remarked they were not at work that
of ternoon. I I
Ramsey and Smith testified they remained away from
work on August 2, because of the illness of the children. On
August 2 Ramsey was observed by Bergen entering a laun-
dromat as he rode by on a motorcycle. No words were
exchanged at the time.12
When Ramsey and Smith entered the plant on August 3,
Bergen called them into a meeting, together with the ILG-
WU shop committee. Bergen asked them why they had
taken off on emergency leave . They replied it was because
of the illness of the children , Bergen said he was not satisfied
with the explanation and demanded proof where they
were. 13. The two ladies returned to the plant later that mom-
ing with notes from their respective doctors.14 Bergen exam-
ined the notes and remarked this was not enough proof. He
remarked he knew they had been to see Harpster and com-
plained about the conditions at the plant. He told them he
would let them know in about a week whether they would
be permitted to return to work. Ramsey and Smith were told
by Bergen on August 9 and 10, respectively, they were dis-
charged.
As pointed out above, the Respondent contends Ramsey
and Smith were discharged for requesting and accepting
emergency leaves under false pretenses . That Bergen was
justified in harboring suspicions on August 1 as to the valid-
ity of the reasons for their requesting leave is borne out by
his conversation that same afternoon with Harpster when he
learned they had called on Harpster to complain about the
working conditions. When he saw Ramsey at the laundro-
mat the next day this added more fuel to his suspicions.
Ramsey and Smith both testified the illness of the chil-
dren was the reason for the request to leave work. However,
a shadow of doubt was cast as to the true nature of their
excuses through the testimony of Diane Wilson who testi-
fied on behalf of the General Counsel, albeit reluctantly, at
the first day of the hearing. At the resumed hearing, she was
called as a witness by the Respondent and testified that on
the morning of August 1 Ramsey asked that she call her out
from work at lunchtime. Wilson had her youngest brother
call the plant and pretend he was Ramsey's daughter Is and
request Ramsey return home because she was ill.16
Whether or not this arrangement was in fact concocted
by Ramsey, it did not enter into the decision to terminate
either of the two employees. Diane Wilson did not make
known this arrangement with Ramsey to the Respondent
until the day before the resumed hearing in this case. Had
it been brought to Bergen's attention prior to his action, it
would have added confirmation to his suspicions as to the
true nature for their leaving the plant in the middle of the
day.
Bergen testified concerning the lack of productivity of
Ramsey and Smith but Respondent conceded this related
only to the reasons for the first discharge on July 26.17
Bergen testified that when Ramsey and Smith returned to
the plant on August 3, he met with them in the presence of
the ILGWU shop committee. Because he was aware of their
visit to the Votec school to see Harpster and having seen
Ramsey at the laundromat, he questioned their excuse that
the childrens' illness was the basis for taking the emergency
leave. He demanded proof that it was an emergency that
caused them to be away.18 When they returned with the
doctors' notes, he said this was not adequate proof and
informed them he would make a final determination of their
status in about a week. They were not permitted to return
to work. He testified it was after he ascertained from
10 Harpster and Bergen routinely converse several times a week regarding
the training program, e.g., goods to be furnished by Respondent for use at
the school, maintenance of the machines, etc.
11 Harpster mentioned the specific complaints of the girls, including their
inability to get the Union to help them and that he referred them to the
building inspector. He however did not tell Bergen they had requested he not
send any students to Respondent.
12 Ramsey testified the only time she had been out of the house that day
was when she went to the laundromat. Because of her 7-year old grandchild's
particular problem, there was an unusual amount of laundry.
13 Bergen explained he wanted proof of the need for emergency leave
because he was aware of their visit to Harpster and because Ramsey had been
seen at the laundromat.
14 The note from Ramsey's doctor stated she was absent from work on
August 1 and 2 "for reason of granddaughter' s illness (diarrhea)." The note
from Smith's doctor read, "states she was off work due to illness of daughter
Wed. and Thurs.-not seen or treated by office at this time."
Is Her brother , Tony Watson, has a high pitched voice and on the tele-
phone could probably be mistaken for a girl.
16 Tony Watson corroborated his sister in that he said he made the call as
related by his sister.
17 Although the first discharge on July 26 was not alleged as a violation
of the Act, I do believe and find that Bergen's reason for discharging them
was because of their activities in attempting to bring in TWUA to supplant
ILGWU as the bargaining representative. Bergen was aware of their efforts
and the precipitous discharges occurred at the height of these activities. That
he was motivated by discriminatory considerations is borne out by his admis-
sion to Diane Wilson they were discharged because they were troublemakers.
In light of their current union activity at the time and no other conduct was
revealed in the record which could refer to them "causing trouble " I believe
it proper to infer and find the reference was to their union activity . Since the
July 26 discharges were not alleged in the complaint, I shall not provide a
remedy for such conduct.
Is He did not explain to them what kind of proof was required.
LEWISTOWN SPORTSWEAR, INC.
Ramsey's doctor that he did not see or treat the grand-
daughter on August 1 that he decided to discharge Ramsey
and Smith.19
Bergen's testimony as to the reasons for the second dis-
charge follow:
Q. (By Mr. Flint) Isn't it a fact that you learned that
Smith and Ramsey had gone to see James Harpster of
the Vo Tech School and that they had complained to
him about working conditions at Lewistown?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it also a fact that you consider this a defa-
mation of the Employer?
11
A. Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Flint) And isn't it a fact that you dis-
charged Smith and Ramsey a second time , because of
this defamation as you saw it?
A. No.
MR. ROSENTHAL : May we go off the record?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. ROSENTHAL : On the record.
Q. (By Mr. Flint) Isn't it a fact that you discharged
Smith and Ramsey the second time ? In part, because
of their defamation as you saw it, of the Company?
A. Repeat the second question , now? In part, be-
cause? Yes.
* * * *
Q. (By Mr. Silverman) Mr. Bergen , just so the court
is perfectly clear, if it was just a matter of Smith and
Ramsey's productivity, you wouldn't have fired them,
would you?
A. On that particular day?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. So when you fired them, in part, because of pro-
ductivity it was in part for other reasons as well is what
you're saying?
A. It was a combination of everything.
Q. A combination of everything, right. And one of
those things was the Union activities?
A. No.
Analysis and Conclusions
As described above, Bergen resented the attempts of
Ramsey and Smith to bring in the TWUA and, accordingly,
discharged them on July 26. It was through the efforts of
Almond, the ILGWU representative that the girls were re-
turned to work. From all that appears in the record, Bergen
silently acquiesced in their reinstatement . His resentment
19 He did not check with Smith's doctor because the note on its face
showed that the doctor did not treat or see the child on August 1.
20 The time factors considered make it appear that Smith was home for
only a short time before she called Ramsey. She punched out at 12:37 p.m.
It took her about 10 minutes to get home and another 10 minutes to pick up
Ramsey and get to the school. Since they appeared at Votec before 1 : 20 p.m.,
she would have been at home tending to her child for as little as 3 minutes
and no more than about 20 minutes before she called Ramsey.
21 Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 414 F.2d 1345 (C.A. 3, 1969),
enfg. 171 NLRB 1040 , cert. denied 397 U.S. 935 (1970); Dorn's Transportation
Company, Inc., 405 F.2d 706 (C.A. 2, (1969), enfg. in part 168 NLRB 457;
N.L.R.B. v. West Side Carpet Cleaning Co., 329 F.2d 758 (C.A. 6, (1964);
N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (C.A. 1, 1953).
22 N. L.. R.B. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F.2d 862, 872 (C.A. 2, 1938).
I1
towards their activities was made crystal clear when he dis-
closed to Diane Wilson he had discharged them'for being
troublemakers, this referring to their union activities.
Bergen was justified in harboring suspicions that Ramsey
and Smith were not truthful in their reasons for taking
emergency leave. Based on the record as a whole, the under-
signed has grave doubts that the reasons given by Ramsey
and Smith for taking time off was because of the illness of
the children 20
Had Bergen in fact discharged Ramsey and Smith solely
because he believed they had taken leave under false pre-
tense, this would be dispositive of the case and the com-
plaint would fall. But that was not the case.
The cleanliness of the plant and Bergen's conduct to-
wards the employees in the plant was a constant source of
irritation to the employees. This led Ramsey and Smith to
seek assistance from the TWUA culminating in their first
discharges on July 26. After their reinstatement through the
efforts of the ILGWU and still frustrated because of their
belief that no relief from the existing conditions was in sight,
they sought assistance from Harpster, the director of the
school that trained members of the community as machine
operators and served as a conduit for prospective employees
on behalf of the Respondent. That Ramsey and Smith were
discharged in part because of their complaints to Harpster
concerning the working conditions at the plant was admit-
ted by Bergen and I so find. I further find that the efforts
of Ramsey and Smith to seek improvement in their working
conditions through Harpster constituted concerted activi-
ties protected by Section 7 of the Act.
It is well established that an employer may terminate an
employee for any reason, good, bad or indifferent; provided
he is not motivated by unlawful considerations. It is equally
well established that the existence of justifiable grounds for
dismissal is no defense if the motivation for the discharge
was in part motivated by the employee's participation in
protected activities2'
With these principles in mind I find and conclude that
Respondent discharged Ramsey and Smith in part because
they engaged in protected activities in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. It rested upon the Respondent to "disen-
tangle the consequences for which it was chargeable from
those from which it is immune." 22 This the Respondent
failed to do and it would be inappropriate for me to indulge
in idle speculation whether or not the two employees would
have been discharged but for their visit and comments to
Harpster which Bergen considered "defamation of the em-
ployer."
The General Counsel also contends that Ramsey and
Smith were discharged because of their union activities.
*
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although they were discharged on July 26 for their union
activities I do not believe the record preponderates in favor
of a finding that the second termination was based on like
reasons . When Bergen characterized Ramsey and Smith as
troublemakers in connection with their first discharges, he
was referring to their union activities. However , with respect
to the second discharges , no union activities were involved.
Bergen in fact was told by Harpster that the employees
could not get the assistance they wanted from the Union
and that was the reason they had turned to him for assis-
tance. Accordingly, the only activity protected by Section 7
of the Act which in part motivated Respondent to discharge
Ramsey and Smith was their visit to Harpster.
Although the parties are in disagreement as to the date
Ramsey and Smith were discharged , I find this of no mo-
ment . They were at the very least suspended on August 3
and their terminations were formally effected on August 9
and 10. The backpay period in any event provided for in the
Remedy provision of this decision would begin on August
3-the day the Respondent refused to permit them to return
to work.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate and substantial relation to trade , traffic and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union No. 6, Textile Workers Union of Ameri-
ca, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By terminating Dorothy Ramsey and Susan Smith and
thereafter refusing to reinstate them for engaging in protect-
ed concerted activities , the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence the remaining allegations of the
complaint herein , and it will be recommended that said
complaint, be to that extent dismissed.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged Dorothy Ramsey and Susan Smith, I shall rec-
ommend that it be ordered to offer them full reinstatement,
with backpay computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest
at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) and Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from August 3, 1974, to the date
reinstatement is offered.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record , and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER23
Respondent, Lewistown Sportswear, Inc., its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
by discharging or in any other manner disciplining employ-
ees for engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid
or protection.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Dorothy Ramsey and Susan Smith immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or if their former
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section
of this Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Lewistown, Pennsylvania, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 24 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6 , after being duly signed by a duly authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places , including all places where notices to mem-
bers are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing,
23 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 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.
24 In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National 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."
LEWISTOWN SPORTSWEAR, INC. 13
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce em-
ployees by discharging, or in any other manner disci-
pline employees because they have engaged in
protected concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to the following named employees im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges, and will
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered.
Dorothy Ramsey Susan Smith
Dated By
LEWISTOWN SPORTSWEAR, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liber-
ty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone
412-644-2944.