Marlene Industries Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 741 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SYLCO CORPORATION 741
Sylco Corporation , a division of Marlene Industries
Corporation and International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Cases 11-CA-3606,
11-CA-3673, and 11-RC-2662
July 31, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
By MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On October 30, 1969 , Trial Examiner Melvin
Pollack issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion . He also found that Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to
them . Finally , the Trial Examiner recommended
that the Board overrule the challenges to certain
ballots cast in Case I1-RC-2662 . Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting 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
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions, the
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings ,' conclusions , and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner , to the extent consistent
with the Decision herein.
Although we agree with and adopt the Trial Ex-
aminer 's 8(a)(3 ) and (1 ) findings in all other
respects , we disagree with his conclusion that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by terminat-
ing the knitwear operation at the Sylco plant and
discharging the knitwear employees.
By way of background , the facts show that the
plant herein was acquired by Respondent in
February 1967.2 Immediately thereafter , Respon-
dent began the manufacture of baby sleepers and
knit shirts . By April 1967 the plant had been di-
vided into two sections : knitwear and sleeper. As
this line of work was somewhat new to Marlene
operations , Respondent initially experienced poor
sales . As sales remained far below Respondent's ex-
pectations , a review of Sylco's operations was
begun in November 1967. On November 14, 1967,
Hann , vice president of Sylva , Sylco 's sales agent,
sent a letter to Plant Manager Sturken indicating a
consensus that as Respondent 's knit department
was being operated at a loss, Respondent was con-
templating phasing that department out. More
specifically , Gulker , Marlene 's comptroller, had
prepared an analysis of Sylco's operations which
showed a net loss of $63 ,690.65 for the knitwear
department for the 6-month period ending July 31,
1967, and a net loss of $61 ,092.40 for the same de-
partment for the 9 -month period ending October
31, 1967 . The same analysis revealed the sleepwear
department realized a $ 69,090 . 84 profit at the end
of the 6 -month period and a profit of $70,417.31
by the end of the 9-month period.
On December 2, 1967, Abraham Dansky, Mar-
lene's vice president for manufacturing , Vice Pre-
sident Hahn , Accountant Brodsky, and Gulker
discussed production at Sylco . On the basis of the
Gulker analysis and further discussion , Dansky at
that time decided the knitwear operation should be
phased out. As several orders for knitwear goods
were still outstanding , however , Respondent de-
cided those orders should be honored and that the
actual phaseout would not come until after Christ-
mas.
On December 4, 1967, Hahn wrote Sturken that
Respondent had decided to discontinue the knit de-
partment but "to hold people as long as can [sic]
before Christmas , as [Dansky ] would hate to ,have
them laid off, before Christmas ." Thereafter, on
December 11, 1967, Hahn again wrote Sturken in-
forming him that General Manager Cole would ar-
rive shortly and assist him in closing down the knit
section . There is no evidence in the record to sug-
gest Respondent became aware of the Union's or-
ganizational campaign until union representatives
began distributing leaflets on December 8, 1967.
In his decision , the Trial Examiner accepted the
authenticity of the letters and memorandums from
Respondent 's files relative to the closedown and
credited testimony by Gulker and Dansky that by
December 2, 1967, Respondent had decided to
close down the knitwear section . Nevertheless, he
' The findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner which we adopt are
based , in part , on his credibility determinations , to which Respondent has
excepted After a careful review of the record herein , we conclude that the
Trial Examiner 's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear prepon-
derance of the relevant evidence and, accordingly , we find no basis for
disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188
F2d(CA 3)
' Dates are 1968 unless stated differently
184 NLRB No. 82
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
concluded that the December 2, 1967, decision was
not final and that as Respondent 's business condi-
tions improved , sometime thereafter Respondent
reversed that decision and decided to continue
producing knitwear garments and would have con-
tinued such operations at Sylco had it not been for
the Union 's apparent success and Respondent's
desire to defeat the Union . Accordingly, the Trial
Examiner concluded that the ultimate closedown of
the knitwear section violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
In concluding that improved business conditions
caused Respondent to shelve its earlier decision to
close the knitwear operation , the Trial Examiner
relied on the timing of the actual phaseout opera-
tion shortly after the Union 's January 11 demon-
stration of employee support , the statements by su-
pervisors during December as to increased orders
and work for the knitwear department , the ex-
istence of a substantial number of unfilled SSR or-
ders on hand at the time of the shutdown, and
delivery of skat-a-bout material to Sylco and the
removal of said material for subsequent manufac-
ture at a new knitwear operation established at
Liberty, Kentucky . Additionally the Trial Examiner
relied on Respondent 's history of unfair labor prac-
tices at its other plants, and the coercive conduct
engaged in by the Respondent to defeat the Union
in the instant case , including supervisory statements
that the advent of the Union was the reason for the
shutdown.
In our opinion, the evidence is insufficient to
establish that Respondent 's economically motivated
decision to terminate knitwear operations at Sylco,
made prior to the advent of the Union , was ever
reversed . The scant and largely inconclusive
testimony concerning improved business conditions
was based largely upon vague statements by super-
visors and employees and is hardly sufficient to
overcome the hard economic facts which prompted
the initial decision to close , and which offered little
hope for improvement.
While the business records introduced at the
hearing to show that the knitwear department was
operating in the red appear to show a slight profit
during the August-October period, that profit did
nothing more than reduce the net operating loss
from $63,690. 65 during the prior 6-month period
to $61,092.40 for the entire 9-month period. Aside
from this profit-loss statement , there is no evidence
in the record to indicate further increased sales or a
reduction in the loss on the knitwear side. Nor is
there evidence to show substantial increases in con-
tracting out to knitwear manufacturers or produc-
tion of knitwear at other plants at times contem-
poraneous with the instant closing.
Regarding the SSR 's, the record indicates the
first cutting of these garments was begun in Oc-
tober and cutting continued until after the
closedown decision had been announced , and ap-
pears consistent with the Trial Examiner 's crediting
testimony that Respondent had received orders for
20,000 dozen SSR 's at one point , was getting more,
and ultimately received orders totaling 37,000
dozen . Since the SSR cutting began in October, it is
apparent that the number of SSR orders was a fact
within Respondent 's knowledge at the time of the
decision to close the plant.
Also unpersuasive are the statements by super-
visors during December concerning increased or-
ders and additional work for employees. These
statements were not substantiated by any evidence,
showing rather that they were motivated by a desire
to maintain employee morale during the preholiday
season . Indeed such a view of the testimony is per-
fectly consistent with management 's instruction to
keep the closedown decision secret , and to avoid
confronting employees with it until after the
holidays.
Regarding the skat-a-bouts, the record reveals
about 10,000 yards of skat-a-bout material was
received in January and was not in the inventory
taken 3 months later, and the skat-a-bouts were
subsequently manufactured at another plant. There
is no evidence in the record, apart from the
delivery of the material, which shows skat-a-bouts
were intended to be manufactured at the Sylco
plant , and the record shows this material was not
delivered until after the closeout decision had been
reached and Respondent had begun making plans
for carrying it out . Also significant is the fact that
the skat-a-bouts, being a winter line, would not be
an item usually produced until well after the time
the closedown occurred . While the removal of
material in the midst of an antiunion campaign,
characterized by other unfair labor practices, and
its subsequent manufacture elsewhere appears
suspicious, under the circumstances in this case, we
are not persuaded that this factor, considered in
context , evidenced a reversal of the December 2
decision to close . Thus, while the issue is not free
from doubt, the facts surrounding the skat-a-bout
are highly speculative and do not support an in-
ference as to employer motivation adequate to sup-
port a finding that Respondent changed its mind
and decided to continue its knitwear operations.
Accordingly , as Respondent proved it had de-
cided to close its knitwear operations before the
Union appeared on the scene , and as the General
Counsel has failed to produce sufficient evidence to
show that at any point during the time in question
this decision was abandoned , we reverse the Trial
SYLCO CORPORATION
Examiner 's finding that Respondent 's termination
of its knitwear operation violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act . Accordingly , we do not adopt
the Trial Examiner's finding that the employees
discharged as a result of the termination of the knit-
wear section are entitled to reinstatement and
backpay, or to have the ballots cast by them in
Case 11-RC-2662 opened and counted.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the Respondent , Sylco Corporation, a
division of Marlene Industries Corporation , Sylva,
North Carolina , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner 's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer Ruth Brooks, Martha Cagle, Mary
Sue Smith , Clarice Crisp, Mary Doris Jones, Susie
Birdell Ward , and Pat Colosi full and immediate
reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges , dismissing if
necessary their replacements , and make these em-
ployees and Robert Mills, Jr., whole for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against
them . The loss of pay shall be computed in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
[2. Substitute attached notice for Trial Ex-
aminer's.]
d. Post at its place of business in Sylva, North
Carolina , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix . "3 Copies of said notice , on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after
being duly signed by Respondent 's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, in-
sofar as it alleges violations of the Act not herein
found, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
DIRECTION
743
It is hereby directed that in Case 1I-RC-2662,
the Regional Director for Region 11 shall, pursuant
to the Board 's Rules and Regulations, within 10
days from the date of this Direction , open and
count the ballots of employees Ruth Brooks,
Martha Cagle, Mary Sue Smith , Clarice Crisp,
Doris Jones, Susie Birdell Ward , and Pat Colosi and
all other overruled challenges and thereafter
prepare and cause to be served on the parties a
revised tally of ballots, including therein the count
of the challenged ballots cast by the above-named
employees , and issue an appropriate certification.
MEMBER BROWN , dissenting in part:
Contrary to the majority , and for the reasons
fully stated by the Trial Examiner , I would affirm
the finding that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act by closing the knitwear
department and terminating knitwear employees.
I In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge, refuse to employ,
suspend , or otherwise discriminate against em-
ployees in order to discourage membership in
or support of International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with
discharge for engaging in union activity.
WE WILL NOT coerce employees by telling
them that other employees had been ter-
minated because of the Union and because of
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with clos-
ing or moving the plant should they select the
Union as their collective-bargaining represent-
ative.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits if
they refrain from union activity.
WE WILL NOT encourage and assist em-
ployees opposed to the Union in the circula-
tion of antiunion petitions and the promotion
of antiunion meetings.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees con-
cerning their own or other employees' union
activities and sentiments.
WE WILL NOT in any other 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 Inter-
national Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid and protec-
tion , and to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties.
WE WILL offer to Ruth Brooks , Mary Cagle,
Mary Sue Smith , Clarice Crisp , Mary Doris
Jones, Susie Birdell Ward , and Pat Colosi rein-
statement to their former positions or to sub-
stantially equivalent positions , without preju-
dice to their seniority and any other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed , and make them
and Robert Mills, Jr ., whole, with interest, for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL notify immediately the above-
named individuals , if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States , of the right
to full reinstatement , upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and
the Universal Military Training and Service
Act.
SYLCO CORPORATION, A
DIVISION OF MARLENE
INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301
North Main Street, Winston -Salem , North Carolina
27101, Telephone 919-723-2300.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: These
proceedings under Sections 9(c) and 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, Series 8, as
amended, were heard at Waynesville, North
Carolina, on various dates between November 13
and December 13, 1968, and at Sylva, North
Carolina, on December 19, 1968. In Case
1l-CA-3606, pursuant to a charge filed on April
24, 1968, a complaint was issued on July 11, 1968,
and amended at the hearing. In Case 11-CA-3763,
pursuant to charges filed on July 11 and August 27,
1968, a complaint was issued on August 28, 1968.
The outcome of an election conducted on May 2,
1968, in Case 11-RC-2662, turns on the voting
eligibility of employees alleged in the complaints to
have been discriminatorily discharged. Briefs filed
by the parties on July 7 and 8, 1969, have been
carefully considered. Upon the entire record,' and
my observation of the witnesses as they testified, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sylco Corporation, a division of Marlene Indus-
tries Corporation, herein referred to as the Respon-
dent or the Company, is a North Carolina corpora-
tion engaged in the manufacture and distribution of
wearing apparel at its plant in Sylva, North
Carolina, herein referred to as the Sylco plant.
Respondent 's annual interstate sales and purchases
each exceed $50,000. I find that Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
In May 1965, the Union began an organizational
campaign among employees of seven plants
operated by Respondent 's corporate parent, Mar-
lene Industries Corporation, in Tennessee,
' The record is corrected pursuant to the joint motion of the parties,
dated April 9, 1969
SYLCO CORPORATION
Alabama , and South Carolina . Marlene responded
by a "massive " antiunion campaign "of deliberate
and flagrant violations of ' the Act ." Decaturville
Sportswear Co., Inc . v. N.L.R .B., 406 F.2d 886
(C.A. 6), enfg . 166 NLRB 703. In a subsequent
case , Marlene Industries Corporation , 171 NLRB
848, the Board found that Marlene did not commit
further unfair labor practices at its two Tennessee
plants.
Marlene opened three new plants in 1967: the
Sylco plant in February ; a plant at Russell Springs,
Kentucky , in April ; and a plant at Liberty, Ken-
tucky , in May . The Sylco plant was divided shortly
after its opening into a sleepwear side and a knit-
wear side . The complaints allege inter alia that
Respondent, by its supervisors or agents , coercively
interrogated and threatened employees , solicited
employees to sign antiunion petitions , and dis-
criminatorily discharged several employees , but the
principal issue litigated in this proceeding is
whether Respondent discriminatorily terminated
the knitwear operation to discourage support for
the Union.
B. The Termination of Knitwear Operations
Prior to its acquisition by Respondent, the Sylco
plant manufactured baby sleepers and boys' knit
shirts, both lines being new to the Marlene opera-
tions . Respondent opened the plant in February
1967 and ' by May was manufacturing baby sleepers,
boys' and girls' knit shirts, and ladies ' blouses,2
Toward the end of June , the knitwear side of the
plant was also sewing ladies' pants . Some ladies'
skirts were sewn in July and August , and ladies'
dresses were also sewn throughout September, Oc-
tober, November , and December . 3 A line of chil-
dren 's and girls ' knit shirts ( Styles SSR 1-2-3) was
put into production about the end of October and
was cut regularly until January 22, 1968.4
Respondent maintained separate lines of
machines on the knit side of the plant for knit
shirts,5 dresses , pants, and blouses . Slack periods on
the various lines became quite frequent in the fall
of 1967 and operators were transferred from one
line to another . Style changes requiring the
resetting of machines were common and operators
at times had little or nothing to do. Respondent,
nevertheless , continued to hire employees and in
late November 1967 had about 150 knit operators
and about 85 sleepwear operators.
On November 14, 1967, "Ricky " Hahn , vice pre-
sident of Sylva Manufacturing Corporation, the
' In May 1967, Robert Cole, Marlene' s general manager , advised a
newspaper man that "future plans call for expansion programs in all areas"
and that Sylco would have in "the neighborhood of 500 people by the end
of 1967."
3 Knitwear Supervisor William Harper told employees in November or
December that they had enough cotton dresses to work on through Februa-
ry and March 1968.
' There was no cutting of SSR's from January 22 until February 26,
1968, when 820 dozen SSR 1's were cut.
745
sales agent for the Sylco plant, sent the following
"speed letter" to Thomas Sturken, Sylco's plant
manager:
Just got finished reviewing preliminary figures
on Sylco with Dansky and Gulker and it looks
like we lost $200,000.00 in knit operation.'
Dansky already told me we are getting out of
-the knit business and he has told Meltzers the
same thing . Sales stink and since Marlene is
strictly a ladies house it seems difficult for us
to break into boys' operation. Lot of buyers
don't want to talk to us.
I'm spending too much time trying to get knits
straightened out. I 'm afraid the sleeper busi-
ness will hurt and you know this is the' only
business I know and I don 't want it to go down
the drain like the knits have.
I understand Bob Cole has been informed by
Dansky that we are going out of the knit busi-
ness and he will work with you in phasing it
out.
I have been going over production schedule on
sleepers that Richie was working on when he
was in Sylva during inventory time and we are
preparing our purchasing of piece goods and
trim and laying out a schedule so we can get a
plan.
I'm still getting complaints on shortages and
wish someone would find out what is going on
in the shipping department.
Our cost on sleepers is still high and I can't af-
ford to pay the factory any more money.
I've been trying to get on the watts line to go
over some problems but the Meltzers keep the
phone tied up all the time.
I'm getting samples lined up for a new line and
will probably visit the plant and go over them
with you. I will put it on telo when I find out
when I will be there and you can make a reser-
vation for me.
Manager Sturken called a meeting of the em-
ployees in late November 1967 . He said questions
had been raised about the moving around of opera-
tors and the frequent change of styles . He said the
Company was " still experimenting " and that there
' Respondent began sending knit shirts to sewing contractors in the
summer of 1967
s An analysis of Sylco's operations prepared by Abraham Gulker, Mar-
lene's comptroller, shows a net loss on the knit operations of $63,690,65
for a 6-month period ending July 31, 1967 , and a net loss of $61,092.40 for
a 9-month period ending October 31, 1967 The analysis shows net profits
in the sleepwear operation of $69,090.84 and $70,417 31 for the same 6-
and 9-month periods. Abraham Dansky is Marlene's vice president of
manufacturing
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not be as much switching around when the
Company decided what to make in the knitwear de-
partment.
On December 2, 1967, Vice President Dansky
discussed the production situation at Sylco with
Comptroller Gulker, Vice President Hahn , and Ac-
countant Brodsky . Gulker presented his analysis of
the Sylco operations and, after some discussion,
Dansky decided to phase out the knitwear opera-
tion after Christmas . Hahn sent the following letter
to Manager Sturken:'
December 4, 1967
Mr. Tom Sturken
Sylco Mfg. Co.
Sylva, North Carolina
Dear Tom,
This past week-end I attended a meeting
with Abe Dansky, Abe Gulker and Brodsky,
the company accountant . As we discussed be-
fore, the experimental period on the knit
operation is coming to an end . Up until now
we haven 't been able to do very well and state-
ments show that we have lost a great deal of
money in the knit operation.
After Buddy left and Sam hired Lou Marks
we still haven 't been able to increase the boys
knit sales.
The Meltzers have turned us all over the
coals and they have been screaming they are
closing down knit operation . We have decided
that this is best thing for us to do and since
Lou Marks' contract is for only 6 months it is
best that we work out whatever we have in
process and our commitments and take our
beating now . This is better for me as I can con-
centrate on selling sleepers.
I know this news will make you happy as you
have had more problems in the knit section.
Dansky tells me that it will be hard to keep giv-
ing Sylco other products as he is hurting other
plants . The dresses we put into Sylco together
with other unfamiliar items, in order to keep
unit going, hoping we would build up boy knit
sales has created more difficulty than ex-
pected . I know you have been complaining
about moving operators from job-to-job and
retraining them for various operations with a
great deal of loss to the company.
We still have some knit goods on order with
knitters that Lou Marks committed us to that
we will have to make . I haven 't been able to
confirm as Lou is avoiding me. I think he
suspects we intend going out of knit business.
Suggest you confer with Bob Cole for
method that he wishes to discontinue this knit
' This letter was the only one in ordinary letter form sent to Sturken by
Hahn The letterhead indicated that Respondent manufactured blanket
operation. You will have to sit down with him
and make out a schedule of what cuttings we
will have and I will try to check our fabric
purchases and try to give you delivery dates.
Dansky says to hold people as long as can
before Christmas , as he would hate to have
them laid off before Christmas.
Will send you more information as soon as I
am able to assemble it.
/ct
Ricky
On December 8, 1967, the Union handed out
leaflets in front of the plant . A few days later,
General Manager Cole spoke to the Sylco super-
visors about the Union's organizing campaign. He
told them not to talk to anyone about the Union, to
keep their mouths shut . He added that the Com-
pany had been fighting the Union for years and
would ' fight it anyway, that they had to. He was
asked what the supervisors should do if they saw an
employee signing a union card on the job and replied
that it was all right for the employees to sign cards
at the break hour or the lunch hour but that the su-
pervisors could fire anyone who passed or signed a
card, during working hours.
On December 11, Hahn sent the following
"speed letter" to Sturken:
I have just finished talking to Dansky and he
tells me Bob Cole will be in Sylva this week or
next and will work with you in closing down
the knit section. Bob will transfer the equip-
ment to whatever factory it can be used. I am
not familiar with Marlene procedure along this
line but I am sure Cole will help you make out
whatever papers are necessary to transfer this
equipment.
I don't know whose job it is to inform Lou
Marks his services will be terminated when his
contract is up, but I wish you would not say
anything when you talk to him, but I have a
feeling that it will be me. Sleepers sales doing
pretty good and I have good prospects for long
range program.
The next day, Hahn sent another speed letter to
Sturken , as follows:
Dear Tom:
I need to know soon as possible when you
expect to finish the knits you have in process. I
might be able to recoup some losses we expect
to take on some special deals for Xmas selling. 8
As noted above, the Sylco plant started to sew
SSR children's and girls ' knit shirts in October
1967. In December, Plant Engineer Elliott told em-'
ployee Carolyn Hughes, who had an opportunity
sleepers, knit shirts and coordinates , and children 's sportswear
" The record shows no action taken by Sturken in reply to this letter
SYLCO CORPORATION 747
for a job elsewhere but preferred to stay at Sylco,
that Sturken had told him that Respondent had or-
ders for 20,000 dozen SSR's and "we were getting
more." Cutting Foreman Copeland testified that
Sylco received orders totaling about 37,000 dozen
SSR's. At a Christmas party, Sturken announced
that the new Federal minimum wage of $1.60 an
hour would become effective at the plant im-
mediately after the Christmas holidays rather than
on February 1, 1968, as required by law, and that
production rates would be set so that the operators
could make $1.75 an hour. He assured the em-
ployees that there was plenty of work to do.9
The plant closed for the Christmas holidays and
reopened on January 2, 1968. During the first 2
weeks in January , about 6,750 dozen SSR's and
about 2,250 dozen of all other items were cut. In
January, over 100,000 yards of material for the
manufacture of a new line of children 's knit outer-
wear (skat-a-bouts) was delivered to the Sylco
plant.'°
On the morning of January 11, about 85 percent
of the 300 Sylco employees stayed outside the plant
while Ramelle MaCoy, a union official, entered the
plant accompanied by employees Clyde Phillips,
Glenda Nations, Ruth Brooks, Ed Stephens, Bonnie
Allison, and others. tt MaCoy tendered Manager
Sturken petitions signed by over 200 employees
designating the Union as their bargaining represent-
ative. Sturken refused to look at the petitions, the
delegation left and the employees outside the plant
reported for work.
On January 16, 1968, General Manager Cole in-
formed the plant's top supervisors that the Com-
pany was going to phase out the knitwear side of
the plant. Some maintenance men and cutting de-
partment employees were discharged early in
February and the knitwear operators were ter-
minated on various dates in February and March
1968.
Respondent had cut over 16 ,000 dozen SSR gar-
ments up to January 22 and cut another 820 dozen
SSR's on February 26, 1968. It thus cut about
17,000 dozen of the orders for 37,000 dozen SSR's
received by Respondent.12
The 10,000 yards of skat-a-bout material shown
on Respondent 's January 31, 1968 , inventory did
not appear on the "Spring Inventory " taken 3
months later . James Cogdill and Richard Sitton
credibly testified that they, Alvin Burrell , Cutting
Foreman Copeland , Assistant Plant Manager Don
Wood, and Supervisor Dan Stephens loaded 1900
cloth on a trailer on a Saturday after the layoff of
some knitwear employees . Respondent 's parent,
Marlene , added a knitwear department to its plant
at Liberty Kentucky , in the spring of 1968. Many
machines used in this department came from the
Sylco plant . Bill Harper , Sylco's former head knit-
wear supervisor, took over the supervision of this
department the latter part of June . The Liberty
plant manufactured the skat-a-bout garments from
June through October 1968 . 13 Sylva Manufacturing
Corporation , Sylco 's sales agent , marketed the skat-
a-bouts manufactured at Liberty . Some of these
garments , identified as "Sylva " garments by their
hangers, labels, and plastic shipping bags, were
returned by customers to the Sylco plant . Sylva's
invoices give the address of the Sylco plant as its
shipping and receiving office.
C. Respondent 's Antiunion Campaign
The Union on January 16, 1968, filed a petition
for a Board election , which was set for May 2 pur-
suant to a stipulation for certification upon consent
election approved by the Board 's Regional Director
on March 21 . The complaints allege that Respon-
dent 's supervisors and agents engaged in a course
of coercive conduct to discourage support of the
Union . The evidence may be summarized as fol-
lows:
1. Interference , restraint , and coercion 14
a. Supervisory conduct15
9 Sturken denied telling the employees that there was plenty of work to
do I credit the contrary testimony of Elaine Stewart, Leona Moody,
Dorothy Burch , and Evelyn Buchanan
` An inventory of goods for the Sylco plant , dated January 31, 1968,
shows 17 rolls of " 1900" skat -a-bout cloth from "Dyersburg " and 125 rolls
of "019-" cloth from the same supplier Charles Queen and James Edward
Lamb credibly testified that the 17 and 125 rolls were the same cloth, that
skat-a-bout cloth was ordinarily entered as a 6-digit number beginning
"019," and that " 1900" was a "short -hand" way of recording the "019" se-
nes Queen , a cutter, also testified that he saw from 150 to 200 rolls of skat-
a-bout cloth at the plant Robert Childers, a shipping department em-
ployee, testified that he saw 4 to 5 stacks of the cloth used to cut skat-a-
bout samples and that each stack " consisted of approximately 15 or 20
re4Is of cloth " A roll is about 80 yards of material
" Knit Supervisor Harper testified that about 25-30 knit employees re-
ported for work as usual Assistant Manager Don Wood confirmed Har-
per's testimony and said about 8-10 sleeper employees and 2 or 3 cutting
department employees also reported as usual.
" Cutting Foreman Copeland testified that 9,000 or 10,000 dozen SSR's
were cut and that the remaining orders for SSR's were not filled because
customers "objected to the way they was made " Copeland gave no details
concerning the alleged cancellation of SSR orders and Respondent
produced no supporting documents SSR's were the primary items of
production after the Christmas holidays, SSR's were sent to sewing con-
tractors as late as January 18, 820 dozen SSR's were cut at the Sylco plant
on February 26, and Respondent received shipments of knit shirts from
contractors into April and May 1968 In these circumstances, I reject
Copeland's testimony concerning the cancellation of SSR orders and find
that Respondent had on hand substantial orders for SSR garments when
Cole informed key Sylco personnel on January 16 that the knit operation
would be terminated
1s Samples for these garments were cut at the Sylco plant in January and
February 1968 The Sylco plant generally manufactured garments for
which it cut samples.
14 I have' not included in this section some incidents not alleged in the
complaints as violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and some other in-
cidents which I consider of little consequence to the disposition of the case
1s The supervisors denied making the coercive remarks attributed to
them by the employees who testified concerning the incidents described in
the text The employees ' testimony on many incidents is quite detailed and
the employees impressed me generally as more reliable witnesses than the
supervisors The incidents described in the text are therefore based on the
credited testimony of the employee witnesses
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) Don Wood
On February 8, 1968 , Georgia Johnson told
Assistant Plant Manager Don Wood that Dona
Thomasson , her sister -in-law, wanted to transfer
over to the sleepwear department . Wood asked if
Thomasson had anything to do with the Union and
Johnson said Thomasson had signed a card. Wood
remarked that three people had told him that John-
son too had signed a card. Johnson replied he
"might hear anything," whereupon Wood com-
mented that he knew she needed the job because
her husband was ill , that he would "hate for [her]
to get messed up," that the union girls were "going
to have it hard , whether they made production or
not," and that " the company would move before
they would have a union ." Dona Thomasson was
discharged on February 26. A week or two later,
following a telephone call from Wood , Thomasson
went to Wood 's office . Wood asked her how she
felt about the Union . Thomasson said she needed
the work and was getting tired of fooling with "this
confounded outfit ." Wood said , "That's good
enough for me, Dona ," and put her to work. The
date of the Board election , May 2, Wood asked
Thomasson how she and Georgia Johnson were
going to vote at the election.
Two or three weeks before the election on May
2, Wood asked James Lamb , a receiving depart-
ment employee, how he felt about the Union, told
him he "should go for the Company ," and re-
marked , "Well, if we get this union here , we will all
'be out of a job ." Lamb wore a union badge on elec-
tion day . That morning , Wood, in the presence of
Supervisor Dan Stephens , commented that Lamb
was wearing "a mighty nice looking badge," asked
Lamb how he was going to vote, and said they
would be out of a job if the Union got in.
(2) Dan Stephens
Ed Stephens , a mechanic , participated in the
Union 's organizing campaign and became a
member of its organizing committee . About the
middle of February , his brother , Dan, supervisor of
the knit finishing section, visited him at his home,
called him into the kitchen and said , " I guess we're
fighting each other ." Ed replied, "Not unless you're
working for the Company ." Dan commented that
Ed would "get all of those people fired over there"
and, when Ed said he had not forced anyone to sign
a union card , added , "Well, you are next , you are
going to get your damned ass fired too."
In March , Dan Stephens asked Richard Sitton, a
cutting department employee , whether he had at-
tended a union meeting held the night before and
what he was told at the meeting . He added that he
"knew all about the meeting ," said the employees
would have to pay $7 a month dues if the Union
won the election , referred to the Union as "a Com-
munist outfit," and said the Company would be
good and give the employees raises if they left the
Union alone . About April 15, Sitton spoke to
Stephens about the many layoffs and terminations
at the plant . Stephens replied , " If it hadn 't been for
the damn union , there would be two rows of
machines out there , and everybody would have
been working just about."
In January at a Sylva restaurant , Stephens, in the
presence of Mike Cooper and Charles Hooper,1e
asked maintenance man James Nicholson how he
felt about the Union and told him that he would
probably be out of a job if he "kept messing around
with Ed Stephens and the boys."
In February, Joseph Thompson, a service boy in
the finishing department, asked Stephens if there
were any more orders to sew. Stephens replied that
there would be no more orders to sew "if we didn't
quit with this union."
The day after a union Bingo party, Stephens
asked sewer Helen Davis why she had attended the
Bingo party. When Davis replied , " it's a free
country, you can go where you please ," Stephens
commented that he had not noticed her at a nonu-
nion meeting.
In March , Stephens asked shipping department
employee Thelma Cooper if she was "for the Union
or for the plant ." In a subsequent conversation, he
suggested that she "could play along with the union
and vote for the plant ," and on another occasion he
asked her if she was going against her mother.17
On March 22, Stephens asked Robert Childers, a
shipping department employee, whether he had
thought "about going against the union ," and said
that Childers " might have a chance of a move up"
if it lost the election. Stephens "went into figures"
concerning the number of union adherents at the
plant and said that the Company " would close the
plant " before it would "put up " with the Union.
Stephens asked Childers "to think about it" and on
March 27 said to him, "Well, what have you de-
cided?" Childers replied he "could not see it his
way."
In March or April, at a gasoline station , Stephens
told cutter Charles Queen , who had been ter-
minated in February, that a lot of people would be
hurt if they "kept on" with the Union , that "you all
hit the Company at the wrong time," and that the
Company might close the plant down because of
the employees ' union activity.
(3) Robert Cole
On February 28, in the restroom, repair girl Mar-
garet Turpin handed Bertha Hall an antiunion peti-
tion to sign . Sleepwear operator Ruth Brooks took
the petition from Hall, folded it, and tried to put it
in her pocket . Turpin grabbed at and tore part of
Hooper was not a Sylco employee.
"The record shows that Bonnie Dietz , Cooper's mother, actively op-
posed the Union.
SYLCO CORPORATION
the petition out of Brook 's hand . Brooks pushed
her way past Turpin out of the restroom and
returned to her machine . Turpin "hollered for Dan
Stephens and Juanita Brooks to come there."
Stephens said to Ruth Brooks at her machine, "You
had better let her have that petition ." Brooks
refused to return the piece of paper to Turpin and
Stephens said , "We will take you to the office."
Stephens opened the door to the office where
Wood , Plant Manager Sturken , and General
Manager Robert Cole were sitting . Stephens said,
"Margaret Turpin is here wanting to see you about
the petition ," and Sturken told Turpin and Brooks
to come in. The two women sat down and Cole
asked what was wrong . Turpin said , " She took that
paper from me . I know I wasn 't supposed to let her
see it but I thought she was going to sign it. She
kept it." Cole asked Brooks to return the piece of
paper to Turpin but Brooks said , "No." Cole said
he would not have scuffling in the plant and told
Brooks and Turpin to hand the pieces of paper to
him. Turpin handed her paper to Cole , who tore it
up and put the scraps in a waste basket . Brooks
refused to hand over her portion of the petition.
Cole said , "That 's her property , give it to her," but
Brooks said , "No." Cole then said , "This union
stuff ... that 's the reason the knitwear side is laid
off" and added that the sleepwear side would also
be laid off "if you all don 't stop it," that " the ones
that needed the work " would lose their jobs, that
he would close the plant down and move it to
another State, but that he would transfer Sturken
and Woods to another plant . Cole looked at Brooks
and said , " If I hear anymore of that scuffling going
on out of you , I am going to fire you ." Brooks and
Turpin returned to work and later that day were
given warning notices signed by Plant Manager
Sturken.18
(4) Jolene Justice
In January or February , Floorlady Jolene Justice
asked Elaine Stewart and Lorena Enloe, in the
presence of Lorene Sutton, whether they had
signed union cards. Stewart said it "wasn't any con-
cern " of Justice , who answered it was "of con-
siderable concern because we would probably lose
our jobs."
(5) Jackie Mull
On February 7, on the way home after work, Su-
pervisor Jackie Mull said to Georgia Johnson that
's Except for Cole's coercive statements, Brooks ' testimony concerning
the Turpin antiunion petition is substantially corroborated by other wit-
nesses I do not believe that Brooks fabricated the coercive statements she
attributed to Cole and credit her testimony in this respect over the contrary
testimony of Cole, Sturken , Woods, and Turpin.
19 Alma Beasley was I of about 25 employees in the knit finishing depart-
ment , which performed trimming and inspecting , pressing , folding, and
bagging operations. Beasley regularly performed production work, but in
the absence of Supervisor Dan Stephens assigned work to other employees
in the section She also occasionally instructed and assigned work to em-
749
she had heard Johnson had signed a union card that
day. Johnson, who had signed a card that after-
noon , replied "they might tell you anything." On
May 1, Mull asked sewer Marie Cope if she was
going to the Union meeting that night and whether
she was "with us." Cope said she was for the Union
and Mull said, "Well, you'd better think about it
. . . the Union can't feed you."
(6) Juanita Brooks
During an afternoon break , Sleepwear Supervisor
Juanita Brooks urged Pat Colosi to sign an antiu-
nion petition tendered her by Gypsy Dietz , saying,
" Pat, please sign it ; if we bring a union in here, Mr.
Dansky will close the plant down before he will let
us have a union in here."
(7) Bill Harper
On February 20, Head Knitwear Supervisor
Harper notified a number of knitwear employees
that they were terminated . An employee asked
Harper if they were fired bcause of the Union and
he replied, "Yes, no, not altogether."
(8) Gerald Elliott
In March , sewer Dorothy Burch remarked to
Plant Engineer Gerald Elliott , " It looks as if you are
firing everybody that is for the union on the Wear-
A-Blanket [sleeper ] side." Elliott replied, "Yes,
ma'am , we're getting them out of here as fast as we
can. Some of them are mighty damn slow, mighty
damn slow."
b. The Antiunion petitions, letters, and meetings
Employees Margaret Turpin , Bonnie Dietz, and
Alma Beasley19 solicited other employees at the
plant to sign "petitions " that the signers did not
want a union at the Sylco plant . Supervisor Juanita
Brooks urged Pat Colosi to sign a petition , saying,
" Pat, please sign it; if we bring a union in here, Mr.
Dansky will close the plant down before he will let
us have a union in here." General Manager Cole
ordered Ruth Brooks to return a part of a petition
torn in a scuffle with Turpin , and, when she
refused , declared that " this union stuff" had
brought about the termination of the knitwear
operation and, if continued , would lead to the
closedown of the entire Sylco plant.20
ployees temporarily assigned to the department Like supervisors of other
departments, Beasley was paid by the hour and regularly " took up" the
production of the piece workers . Other than in assigning work, the record
does not show that Beasley took any independent action in dealing with
other employees in the section . I consider Beasley a production worker
whose occasional assignment of work to other employees was essentially
routine in nature I find that Beasley is not a supervisor under Section
2(11) of the Act.
30 Dan Stephens had remarked , upon bringing Turpin and Brooks to the
office, "Margaret Turpin is here wanting to see you about the petition "
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In February, Turpin asked Susie Ward to sign a
"little paper" that she did not want a union in the
Company. Ward refused. A week or two later Tur-
pin again asked Ward to sign , saying that most of
the employees had signed it and Ward should do so
if she wished to hold her job. Ward refused to sign
the paper and on March 5 refused Turpin's third
request to sign . Turpin said , "Well, I guess that will
get your job." Ward was one of a number of em-
ployees discharged that day.
In February , Turpin asked Doris Pannell to sign
the antiunion petition , saying that the plant would
not close if enough people signed it . When Pannell
remarked that the "petition " was "just a plain piece
of paper with words on it ," Turpin said , "Well, the
main petition is in the office . They are going to sta-
ple this one to it."
The Sylva "Herald" published a notice on April 4
inviting "all present and past" Sylco employees to
attend a "Non-union meeting" at the Sylva Armory
to be held at 7:30 p.m. on April 5. A radio an-
nouncement by Assistant Plant Manager Wood, re-
peated all through the day of April 5, urged every-
one to attend the armory meeting. Dan Stephens,
Turpin, and Alma Beasley told Ethel Heffner to be
sure to attend the armory meeting . Margaret Tur-
pin was the principal speaker at the meeting, which
was attended by about 50 persons . Linda Dean
credibly testified that Turpin said her information
came "directly from the Company, that they had
said that one side of the plant had closed down, but
if the people were for the company that they could
come back to work." She also spoke about the clos-
ing of plants because of union activity and said the
Company "didn't want anybody that had anything
to do with the Union." Turpin distributed badges
which read, "I would rather fight than join. "21
In April , Reta Shuler asked Helen Davis to read
and sign a letter . Davis took the letter and gave it to
Ed Stephens after work . 22 About April 24, Dan
Stephens came to Davis' machine, said he had
given the letter to Shuler to get it signed, and he
wanted it back . He asked Davis , using vulgar lan-
guage, why she had given the letter to her brother-
in-law , Wallace Swann, a union supporter. Davis
said she did not appreciate his language and would
go to the office about it. She added that she had
given the letter to Ed Stephens and Dan Stephens
declared , "Well, hell, that 's worse than ever, that
son-of-a-bitch ." Davis repeated that she was going
to the office . Stephens said he would break her leg
if she did so. Davis complained to Don Wood as he
walked by and asked him to go to the office with
her. Wood said he did not want to get involved.
Davis went to Manager Sturken's office and told
11 The possession of a similar badge by an antiunion employee at Mar-
lene's Trousdale plant is noted in Marlene Industries Corporation, 171
NLRB 848.
n Ed Stephens identified the letter as similar to an antiunion letter
published by the Sylva "Herald "
Sturken that Stephens had "been out there cussing"
her. Sturken said he would see that Stephens
,apologized to her . Sturken spoke to Stephens im-
mediately after his conversation with Davis and told
him "this wouldn 't happen again, and [he ] wouldn't
have it happen in [his] plant."
2. The discharges for low production
On February 26 and 27, Don Wood gave written
warnings to sleepwear employees Ruth Brooks,
Martha Cagle, Mary Sue Smith, Clarice Crisp, and
Mary Doris Jones that their work was unsatisfacto-
ry because of low production and that they would
be discharged if they were not out of "make up" by
March 8 . 23 These employees did not get out of
make up and were discharged on March 8. All five
had signed union petitions on January 10 or 11, and
Brooks was one of the employees who entered the
plant on the morning of January 11 to present the
petitions to Manager Sturken . Brooks and Cagle
had worked at the plant since the spring of 1967,
Crisp and Jones since the fall of 1967, and Smith
started work in March 1967 , quit after a month,
and returned in November 1967. None of them had
been criticized for low production before the
warnings on February 26 and 27. Jones, Smith, and
Crisp sewed crotches , and Brooks and Cagle serged
feet , on the sleepwear production line. Payroll
records in evidence indicate that most employees,
including crotch and serge feet operators , regularly
receive makeup pay. It does not appear that Respon-
dent ever discharged any other employee for failing
to get out of makeup.
Sleepwear employee Susie Birdell Ward was also
discharged on March 8, allegedly for not making
production on three different jobs. Ward started
work at the plant on February 15, 1967. She never
made production regularly but twice received boxes
of candy for making production. The second time
she made production she received a letter of con-
gratulations from Respondent. Both Don Wood and
Supervisor Jackie Mull assured her that her work
was satisfactory when she expressed concern at not
"doing [her] work up to what the standard was."
Supervisor Virginia Pangle also told her that she
"was doing real well." Ward signed a union
authorization card and she participated in the
January 11 union demonstration. As previously
described, Margaret Turpin asked Ward on several
occasions to sign an antiunion petition . On the day
of Ward's discharge, Turpin asked her, "Susie, you
are not planning to sign." Ward said, "No, ma'am,"
and Turpin remarked, "Well, I guess that will get
your job."
0 "Make up" is the sum of money added , if necessary , to an employee's
actual piece-work earnings to meet the minimum wage requirements of the
Federal wage and hour law Another sleepwear employee, Ella Mae Fisher,
was also warned on March 8 to get out of makeup by March 23 Fisher quit
before March 23.
SYLCO CORPORATION
3. The suspension of Robert Mills, Jr.
Robert Mills , a service boy on the sleeper side,
solicited employees to sign union cards and par-
ticipated in the January 11 union demonstration.
On March 20 , 1968, Supervisor Jackie Mull asked
Mills if he would work overtime and Mills told her
no. When Mills left the plant that evening, he
helped pass out union papers near the entrance to
the plant shipping department . He did so for about
5 minutes . The next day, Don Wood asked him why
he had not worked over the day before . Mills said it
was not Wood 's business . Wood said " it didn't
matter , because he knew where Mills was ." He said
that the next time he wanted Mills to work over
that he "had better" do so . Mills said he did not
mind working overtime but he could not do so the
day before "or that day either." Wood said Mills
was "going to work over , because he was going to
find some machines to move ." Mills said he could
not do so because he had "no way home ."24 Wood
told him to work over or not to come back the next
day. Mills said he would not be back . Later that
day, Mills asked Wood if he had changed his mind.
Wood said no and that Mills should come back the
next morning for his check and termination slip.
The next morning , Wood called Mills into his of-
fice. He said he did not want people to think he had
fired Mills because of the Union and so he was
"just going to suspend [Mills] for a week." He gave
Mills a suspension slip. Mills did not return to work.
4. The failure to rehire Pat Colosi
Pat Colosi , a sewer on the sleepwear side, made
production on five jobs and received three boxes of
candy from Respondent . Colosi had "a slight alter-
cation over machines " with another employee in
November 1967 and threatened to quit . She was
persuaded to stay by Sturken and Wood . Sturken
said she was a good operator and offered to train
her on another job. Colosi said she needed a steady
job and Sturken assured her that Respondent
needed all the operators it had and more, and that
it had enough orders on hand to carry through
1968. Colosi signed a union card and also signed a
union petition during the January 11 union demon-
stration . She received an unprecedented warning
some time after the demonstration for being 1
minute late. As previously related , she refused to
sign an antiunion petition tendered her by Gypsy
Dietz, although Supervisor Juanita Brooks urged
her to sign , saying that the plant would be closed if
the employees brought a union in.
Colosi 's husband died on February 27, 1968, and
she told Manager Sturken over the telephone on
Tuesday, March 5, that he might want to get a
replacement for her as she was planning to take a
751
job at Asheville . The next day , about 6 p . m., Colosi
spoke to Don Wood over the telephone . She said
she had changed her plans and would be able to
return to work . Wood said he was sorry but he had
hired a replacement who was coming the next
morning . He suggested that Colosi call him the next
day to see if the replacement "was going to work
out." Colosi called Wood the next day . Wood said
the replacement was going to work out fine and he
was sorry but that he had nothing else for Colosi to
do. Colosi was allegedly replaced on her job as an
applique girl by Linda James , an antiunion em-
ployee discharged on February 19. James did not
report for work until March 11.
5. The discharge of Jeannette Childers
Jeannette Childers started work on the knitwear
side of the Sylco plant in April 1967. In February
or March , she refused to sign a paper tendered her
by Bonnie Dietz during a morning break . Childers
was transferred to the sleepwear finishing depart-
ment on Monday , March 18 , 1968 . Dan Stephens
told Childers and several other operators to take
Thursday and Friday off because the plant had run
out of bags "to put the sleepers in." He told the
operators to call back on Monday . Childers called
Stephens on Monday and was told the bags had not
come in and she should call back the next day.
Childers spoke to office employee Emma Henson
the next day . Henson " laid the phone down" and
then told Childers that Stephens would call her
when he was ready for her . A week or so later,
Childers' son , Robert , a shipping department em-
ployee, asked Don Wood " if there was any chance
on him calling my mother back to work." Wood
said "he didn 't have anything right then ," that there
would be more employees laid off before the elec-
tion, and "they weren 't going to do anything until
that damned election was over with ." Jeannette
Childers called the plant office concerning unem-
ployment compensation "slips," but she did not ask
to speak to Stephens again . Stephens testified that
he told Sturken in early April that Childers must
have quit because " she hasn 't called in or nothing,
and so we might as well terminate her." Childers
was sent her termination papers . According to
Stephens , all the other operators laid off with Chil-
ders called him each afternoon until they were told
to report back to work.
D. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The termination of the knit operation
Respondent 's explanation for the termination of
the knitwear operation at the Sylco plant may be
summarized as follows : When Marlene opened the
" Mills had taken his car in for repairs that morning and had arranged for
his father to pick him up after work . Mills on a few previous occasions had
refused to work overtime because he had no transportation home
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sylco plant in February 1967, it planned to manu-
facture baby sleepers and boys' knit shirts, both
lines being new to Marlene's operations. Sales of
boys' knit shirts were disappointing and, to keep
the knitwear section busy, Vice President Dansky
sent in lines of garments manufactured at Marlene's
other plants . Sales of knit shirts did not improve
and, on December 2, 1967, Dansky discussed the
Sylco operations with Vice President Hahn, Comp-
troller Gulker, and Accountant Brodsky.2S Gulker
presented an analysis of the operations and, after
some discussion , Dansky decided to terminate the
knitwear side of the plant and to expand the
production of sleepers. He telephoned General
Manager Cole and Plant Manager Sturken and ad-
vised them of his decision. Sturken was instructed
not to tell anyone about the decision and to keep
the employees at work until after Christmas. About
the middle of December, Cole came to the Sylco
plant and discussed with Sturken some preliminary
aspects of the phaseout of the knitwear side of the
plant. On January 16, 1968, Cole notified Sylco's
key supervisors that the Company was going to
phase out the knit operation because of a lack of
business , but that it expected to expand the produc-
tion of sleepers. The knit section was thereafter
phased out as it completed orders on hand.
Gulker's analysis of the Sylco operations,26 and
the Hahn letters to Sturken between November 14
and December 12, 1967,27 support the testimony of
Gulker and Dansky that the latter decided at the
December 2 meeting to terminate the knit opera-
tion. I am convinced, however, that this decision
was not "final" and that Respondent would have
continued the Sylco knit operation but for the
overwhelming support of the Union demonstrated
by the Sylco employees on January 11, 1968.
I note initially that Hahn wrote nothing to Stur-
ken after December 12 about the termination of
knit operations and that Sturken himself said
nothing to anyone at the plant about such a ter-
mination . On the contrary, Sturken told engineer
Elliott in December that an order had been
received for 20,000 dozen SSR children knit shirts
and that more were coming in. This improvement
in knit business was reflected in Sturken' s state-
ment to the employees at a Christmas party that the
plant had plenty of work for them to do after the
holidays. Sturken said nothing about a termination
of the knit operation to key personnel or anyone
else when the plant reopened on January 2, 1968.
The knit section continued to sew large quantities
of SSR garments and the plant received cloth in
production quantity during January for the manu-
facture of a new line of children's garments known
as skat-a-bouts. Unless otherwise explained, it is
reasonable to infer that this cloth in production
quantity was delivered to the Sylco plant for the
manufacture of skat-a-bouts. Indeed, skat-a-bouts
subsequently manufactured at the Liberty plant
were marketed as if manufactured at Sylco.28
Respondent, however; offered no explanation for
the delivery of skat-a-bout cloth in quantity to the
Sylco plant but simply asserted at the hearing that
Sylco received only 17, rolls of skat-a-bout cloth for
the cutting of sample garments.29 Respondent's in-
ventory of goods for the Sylco plant, dated January
31, 1968, shows, however, that another 125 rolls of
skat-a-bout cloth was on hand as of that date.
Although denied by Respondent, the record
establishes that these latter rolls of skat-a-bout
cloth were shipped out of the plant before the next
quarterly inventory. In my opinion, Respondent's
efforts at the hearing to disprove the delivery of
large quantities of skat-a-bout cloth to the Sylco
plant confirm that Respondent intended to manu-
facture skat-a-bouts at the Sylco plant in 1968. I
note in this connection that the Sylco knit section
"Gulker did not name Brodsky as present at this meeting The Hahn
letter to Sturken of December 4 supports Dansky 's testimony that Brodsky
was present.
"Gulker 's analysis is subjective in some respects and is not accurate in
its allocation of some expenses between the knit and sleepwear operations
The General Counsel also asserts that the analysis-for 6-, 9-, and 12-
month operating periods- " appears to have been written at one single
time , with the same lead pencil , sharpened to the same degree of pointed-
ness throughout the document" and, if so , must have been prepared after
the December 2 meeting, for the analysis extends to January 31, 1968
Gulker 's analysis , whatever its deficiencies , indicates that the knit section
operated at a slight profit for the 3 -month period ending October 31, 1967
It would therefore seem to have been prepared in good faith Moreover, ab-
sent expert testimony to the contrary , I see no reason for rejecting Gulker's
testimony concerning the preparation of each section of the analysis as the
support data became available
" The General Counsel argues that the November 14 letter grossly
overstates the alleged loss on the knit operation , that the December 4 letter
is the only "regular" letter in the Hahn correspondence to Sturken and is in
effect a "pat" summary of Respondent 's defense , and that the December
I I letter does not accurately deal with General Manager Cole 's December
visits to the Sylco plant I do not consider that these and other alleged ir-
regularities cited by the General Counsel warrant giving little weight to
these letters on the issue whether Respondent decided to terminate the
knitwear operation on December 2 The General Counsel further argues
that Gulker 's analysis showing a small profit for the knitwear operation for
the 3 -month period ending October 31, the hiring of additional employee
throughout November , and the assurances of ample work given employees
in November and December , demonstrate , notwithstanding the Hahn let-
ters, that no decision was taken on December 2 to terminate the knitwear
operation . Respondent claims that hiring was continued in November in
hopes that the sale of knit shirts would improve It is not disputed that Gul-
ker's analysis shows a profit for the August-October period . I do not con-
sider that these matters , and the assurances of work given employees in
November and December, warrant discrediting the testimony of Dansky
and Gulker concerning the December 2 meeting, but I do consider that
they added support to my finding below that improved business caused
Respondent to shelve the December 2 decision
" Respondent cites one instance where Sylva Manufacturing Corpora-
tion handled an order for a garment manufactured at another Marlene
plant The fact remains that Sylva 's marketing of some skat-a-bouts manu-
factured at the Liberty plant as "Sylva" garments was unusual and Respon-
dent has not explained why Sylva, the exclusive sales agent for the Sylco
plant , handled all sales of skat-a-bouts for Liberty
"According to Howard Schmehl , Marlene 's director of engineering,
General Manager Cole instructed him in November 1967 to cost skat-a-
bouts for manufacture at the Liberty plant Respondent asserts that Cole
generally supervises the cutting of samples for new lines of merchandise
and that the 17 rolls of skat-a-bout cloth were sent to the Sylco plant in
January because Cole would be there to supervise the phasing out of the
knit operation
SYLCO CORPORATION
in January 1968 had a trained force at hand for
such manufacture and needed only some additional
equipment in order to begin the manufacture of
skat-a-bouts . The Liberty knitwear department was
not established until several months later.
I find from the foregoing circumstances that
Respondent did not intend to terminate the Sylco
knit operation when the Sylco plant reopened after
the Christmas holidays . On January 11, 1968, how-
ever , about 85 percent of the Sylco employees
stayed outside the plant while a delegation headed
by a union official sought to present Manager Stur-
ken with evidence that the Union represented a
majority of the employees for purposes of collective
bargaining . 30 A few days later , on January 16,
General Manager Cole advised key personnel that
the knitwear operation would be terminated. At
this time , orders for about 20,000 dozen SSR's
remained to be filled . The Liberty plant sub-
sequently manufactured the skat-a-bouts which I
have found were intended for manufacture at Syl-
co.
For the foregoing reasons, the background of un-
fair labor practices at Marlene 's other plants, and
Respondent 's coercive campaign to defeat the
Union at the May 2 election , particularly the
threats of plant closing and General Manager
Cole's statement to Ruth Brooks on February 27
ascribing the termination of the knit department to
the employees' union activity, I find that Respond-
ent discriminatorily terminated the knitwear opera-
tion , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
2. Interference , restraint , and coercion
I have found : ( 1) Assistant Manager Wood told
Georgia Johnson that the union girls were "going to
have it hard , whether they made production or
not," and that " the company would move before
they would have a union "; ( 2) Wood told James
Lamb before the election of May 2 and on election
day that they would be out of a job if the Union got
in; (3) Supervisor Dan Stephens told his brother Ed
that his union activity would get the employees
fired and that Ed would be the "next" employee
fired ; ( 4) Stephens told Richard Sitton in April that
just about everybody would have been working but
for the Union ; ( 5) Stephens told James Nicholson
that he would probably be out of a job if he "kept
messing around with Ed Stephens and the boys";
(6) Stephens told Joseph Thompson that there
would be no more orders to sew "if we didn't quit
with this union "; ( 7) Stephens told Robert Childers
that the Company would close the plant before it
30 A comparison of the employees who signed union petitions on January
10 and I I and of the employees on Respondent 's payroll of February 2,
1968, shows no concentration of union strength on the knitwear side of the
plant . As only a handful of employees reported for work as usual on the
morning of January 11, Respondent had reason to believe that the Union
753
would "put up " with the Union ; ( 8) Stephens told
Charles Queen that a lot of people would be hurt if
they continued to support the Union , and that the
Company might close the plant down because of
the employees ' union activity ; ( 9) General Manager
Cole remarked to Ruth Brooks that the knitwear
side had been laid off because of the employees'
union activity , that the sleepwear side would also
be laid off "if you all don 't stop it," and that he
would close down the plant and move it to another
state ; ( 10) Floorlady Jolene Justice told three em-
ployees that their signing of union cards was "of,
considerable concern because we would probably
lose our jobs"; ( 11) Supervisor Juanita Brooks
urged Pat Colosi to sign an antiur,on petition, say-
ing that "Mr. Dansky will close the plant down be-
fore he will let us have a union in here"; ( 12) Su-
pervisor Harper , when asked by a group of
discharged employees if they were fired because of
the Union , replied , " Yes, no, not altogether"; and
(13) Plant Engineer Elliott told Dorothy Burch that
the Company was getting union supporters out of
the plant "as fast as we can ." The foregoing state-
ments were to the effect that employees had lost or
would lose their employment in reprisal for union
activity, and hence were violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Dan Stephens told Robert Childers that he might
"move up" if the Union lost the election, and he
told Richard Sitton that the Company would give
the employees raises if they left the Union alone. I
find that the foregoing remarks by Stephens con-
stituted promises of benefit violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Wood asked Georgia Johnson if Dona Thomas-
son had anything to do with the Union and re-
marked that he had been told that Johnson herself
had signed a union card; Wood asked Thomasson
how she felt about the Union before rehiring her;
and, on the day of the Board election, May 2,
Wood asked Thomasson how she and Johnson were
going to vote at the election . Wood also asked
James Lamb how he felt about the Union ; he asked
Helen Davis why she had attended a union Bingo
party when she had not been at a nonunion meet-
ing; he asked Thelma Cooper if she was "for the
union or for the plant"; and he asked Robert Chil-
ders whether he had thought "about going against
the Union ." Jolene Justice asked Elaine Stewart
and Lorena Enloe whether they had signed union
cards. Jackie Mull asked Marie Cope if she was
going to a union meeting and whether she was for
the Company . As the foregoing inquiries concern-
ing union activity or sentiment occurred in a con-
text of coercive threats and promises, I find them
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
had considerable support throughout the plant The phasing out of the knit-
wear operation thus served not only to rid the plant of one highly organized
group of employees but also to put the remaining employees on notice that
Respondent might well shut down the entire plant if it went union
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Supervisor Juanita Brooks urged Pat Colosi to
sign an antiunion petition tendered her by Gypsy
Dietz, telling her that the plant would be closed
down if organized. General Manager Cole ordered
Ruth Brooks to return a part of an antiunion peti-
tion torn in a scuffle with Margaret Turpin, and,
when she refused, declared that "this union stuff"
had caused the termination of the knitwear side and
if continued would lead to the closing of the entire
plant. A radio announcement by Assistant Manager
Wood, broadcast throughout a day, urged everyone
to attend an antiunion meeting . Supervisor Dan
Stevens attempted to recover an antiunion letter
prepared by himself from Helen Davis. I find from
these facts that Respondent abetted the activities of
employees opposed to the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that
Respondent is chargeable under Section 8(a)(1)
for the statements of these employees that the
Company would not employ union supporters and
that the Company would rehire the terminated knit-
wear employees if they showed that they were for
the Company.
3. The discharge of sleepwear employees for low
production
Ruth Brooks, Martha Cagle, Mary Sue Smith,
Clarice Crisp, and Mary Doris Jones were warned
and discharged for failing to make production dur-
ing a period when Respondent was discriminatorily
discharging knit operators . Brooks was in the group
which entered the plant on January 11, 1968, to
seek union recognition and the others participated
in the demonstration outside the plant. Respon-
dent's supervisors abetted the circulation of antiu-
nion petitions by employees opposed to the Union
and themselves interrogated employees concerning
their union sympathies . Plant Engineer Elliott re-
marked to Dorothy Burch that Respondent was
getting rid of low producing union supporters on
the sleepwear side "as fast as we can." It thus ap-
pears that Respondent knew or suspected that the
discharged sleepwear employees were union ad-
herents . Respondent's explanation that it had
production bottlenecks on the crotch and serging
feet operations on the sleepwear side and that
it discharged these hitherto acceptable employees
in order to increase efficiency and output would be
more plausible but for the timing of the discharges
and if Respondent had not required these em-
ployees to get out of makeup . It was the exception
rather than the rule for Sylco employees to make
production , including crotch and serge feet opera-
tors, and Respondent's insistence that the dischar-
gees get out of makeup was without precedent. I
conclude that Respondent discharged Brooks, Ca-
gle, Smith , Crisp, and Jones as part of its coercive
campaign to discourage support of the Union, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
I also find that Susie Birdell Ward was discharged
on March 8 , not for failing to make production, but
because she was a union supporter. Ward had
received two boxes of candy and a letter of con-
gratulations for making production on one job.
Assistant Manager Wood and Supervisors Mull
and Pangle had assured her that her work was
satisfactory. She stayed outside the plant on Janua-
ry 11 and signed a union petition. She was sum-
marily discharged when she declined for a third
time to sign an antiunion petition tendered her by
Margaret Turpin, who said, " Well, I guess that will
get your job." I have found that Respondent is an-
swerable for Turpin's antiunion activity. As Ward
had been regarded as an acceptable employee prior
to her refusal to sign an antiunion petition, I con-
clude that Respondent discriminatorily discharged
Ward, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
4. The suspension of Robert Mills, Jr.
Mills explained to Assistant Manager Wood on
March 21 that he could not work overtime that day
because he had no transportation home . Although
Wood knew that Mills usually wanted overtime
work and had worked overtime "on numerous oc-
casions,"31 he insisted that Mills work overtime that
evening . Mills had spent a few minutes the previous
evening distributing union leaflets before the plant.
In his conversation with Mills on March 21, Wood
commented that he knew why Miles had not
worked overtime the day before . On March 22,
Ward told Mills he was suspended for a week rather
than discharged because Wood did not want the
employees to think Mills had been discharged for
union activity . I find from these circumstances that
Wood would not have suspended Mills for refusing
to work overtime but for his union activity.
5. The refusal to hire Pat Colosi
Pat Colosi had a very good production record as
a sleepwear operator. Don Wood nevertheless
refused to rehire her, telling her on March 6 that he
had a replacement coming in the next day and on
March 7 that the replacement had worked out fine.
Linda James, the alleged replacement , did not start
work until March 11. Colosi had participated in the
January 11 demonstration in support of the Union's
request for recognition . She refused to sign an an-
tiunion petition although urged to do so by Super-
visor Juanita Brooks . I find from the foregoing facts
that Wood had work available for Colosi when she
spoke to him on March 6 and that he refused her
employment because she was a known union sym-
pathizer.
31 Wood so testified
SYLCO CORPORATION
6. The failure to reemploy Jeannette Childers
Despite her refusal to sign an antiunion petition,
Childers was transferred to the sleepwear side after
the termination of the knit operation . She was laid
off a few days later because of a shortage of
shipping bags . Other laid -off operators called back
on successive days until notified to return to work.
Childers inquired about coming back to work only
the first 2 days of layoff. I find that Childer's failure
to call again warranted Respondent in believing
that Childers had quit . I conclude that Childers was
not denied reemployment in violation of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the acts and conduct herein found viola-
tive of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
which unfair labor practices affect 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 shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It has been found that Respondent discrimina-
torily terminated the knitwear operation . I shall
therefore recommend that Respondent offer im-
mediate and full reinstatement to the employees
discharged as a consequence of the discriminatory
termination to their former or substantially
equivalent positions at the Sylco plant , without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges , and that Respondent make these em-
ployees whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them from the dates of
their discharges until offered reinstatement.32 It has
also been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged sleepwear employees Ruth Brooks,
Martha Cagle , Mary Sue Smith , Clarice Crisp,
Mary Doris Jones, and Susie Birdell Ward; that
Respondent discriminatorily refused reemployment
to sleepwear employee Pat Colosi; and that
Respondent discriminatorily suspended service boy
84 It is uncertain , of course , whether Respondent but for the employees'
union activities would have found it necessary at any time to reduce its
operations so as to require the discharge of all or some of the dis-
criminatees . I note in this connection that it is undisputed that the Marlene
operations have steadily expanded and that the Sylco plant had the person-
nel and equipment to make various garments manufactured by Marlene In
any event , any doubt concerning the continued employment of the dis-
criminatees should be resolved against Respondent as the wrongdoer. I
755
Robert Mills, Jr., for 1 week. I shall therefore
recommend that Respondent offer full and im-
mediate reinstatement to these employees, except
for Mills, to their former or substantially equivalent
positions at the Sylco plant, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and
that Respondent make these employees, including
Mills, whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason
of the discrimination against them. The loss of pay
shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB-716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow-
ing:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Sylco Corporation , a division of Marlene Indus-
tries Corporation , its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a)' Discharging , refusing to employ, suspending,
or otherwise discriminating against employees in
order to discourage membership in or support of
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge for
engaging in union activity.
(c) Coercively telling employees that other em-
ployees had been terminated because of the Union
and because of their union activities.
(d) Threatening employees with closing or mov-
ing the plant should they select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(e) Promising employees benefits if they refrain
from union activity.
(f) Encouraging and assisting the activities of
employees opposed to the Union, including the cir-
culation of antiunion petitions and the promotion
of antiunion meetings.
(g) Coercively interrogating employees concern-
ing their own or other employees ' union ac`';16es
and sentiments.
(h) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights under the Act.
2. Take the following action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer the individuals listed in the complaints,
as amended at the hearing, but excluding Jeannette
Childers and Barbara J. Phillips,33 immediate and
therefore find that the discriminatees would not have been terminated for
lack of work , and, accordingly , that it is appropriate to award them
backpay until offered reinstatement
' I have found that Jeannette Childers was not discriminatorily refused
reemployment. The General Counsel alleged but offered no evidence to
show that Barbara J . Phillips was discriminatorily denied reemployment on
January 23, 1968.
427-835 0 - 74 - 49
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges , dismissing if
necessary all new employees hired since January
16, 1968, and make them and Robert Mills, Jr.,
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them , in the manner set
forth in "The Remedy" section of this decision.
(b) Notify any discharged employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying , all payroll records , social security payment
records, timecards , personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Sylva, North
Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ."34 Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after
being duly signed by Respondent 's representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
s. In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals , the words in the notice reading " Posted by Order of the Na-
secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision , what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.35
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board
reserve to itself the right to modify the backpay and
reinstatement provisions of this Recommended
Order, if made necessary by circumstances not now
apparent.
IT IS FURTHER RECCOMMENDED that all allegations
of the complaint not specifically found to be in
violation of the Act be dismissed.
CASE 11-RC-2662
I find that all employees found herein to have
been discriminatorily discharged or refused reem-,
ployment retained their status as employees of
Respondent and hence that they were eligible to
vote in the election conducted at Respondent's
plant on May 2, 1968. I therefore recommend that
the challenges to their ballots be overruled, and
that these ballots be opened and counted.
tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
's In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 11, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."