Marx-Haas Clothing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 350 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marx-Haas Clothing Company and Teamsters Local
Union No. 688, affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America. Case 14-CA-7630
June 11, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On March 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
John P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Marx-Haas Clothing
Company, St. Louis, Missouri, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board 's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P. VON ROHR, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a
charge filed on October 23, 1973, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for the Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), issued a
complaint on December 5, 1973, against Marx-Haas
Clothing Company,' herein called the Respondent or the
Company, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair
I Respondent's answer indicates that the Company is a division of
Chromalloy American Corporation. However, there was no motion to
correct the pleadings to this effect.
2 At the outset of the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the
complaint by withdrawing the Section 8(a)(3) allegation pertaining to
Veronne H. Sheppard. The Charging Party objected to this motion and
211 NLRB No. 66
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called
the Act .2 The Respondent filed an answer denying the
allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Adminis-
trative Law Judge John P. von Rohr in St. Louis, Missouri,
on February 6, 1974. Briefs were received from the General
Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent on
March 4, 1974, and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witness, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Missouri corporation with its
principal office and place of business located in St. Louis,
Missouri, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of men's clothing and related products. During
the calendar year ending December 31, 1972, Respondent
purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000,
which were shipped to it from points and places located
outside the State of Missouri. Respondent concedes, and I
find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Local Union No. 688, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, herein called the Charging
Party or the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues in this case are: (1) whether Respondent
discharged employee Veronne H. Sheppard on October 17
1973, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, and
(2) whether Respondent engaged in certain other conduct
alleged to be independently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
B. The Discharge of Veronne H. Sheppard
The facts surrounding the discharge of Veronne H.
Sheppard, as found herein, are set forth below in
accordance with the credited and uncontroverted testimo-
ny of this employee.
Sheppard was referred to the Respondent for employ-
ment by an employment agency a few days before
September 17, 1973.3 At the plant office she was inter-
viewed by Howard Bodker, the Company's merchandising
co-ordinator, for a job either in the texograph department
in the factory or for a clerical position in the main office. It
asserted that it wished to adduce evidence on behalf of the Sheppard case.
In view of well -established authority in support of the Charging Party's
position , I overruled the General Counsel's motion and permitted the
Charging Party to present evidence on Sheppard's behalf.
3 All dates hereinafter refer to the year 1973.
MARX-HAAS CLOTHING CO.
was finally agreed that she would be hired in the main
office, Bodker specifically informing her that one Mrs.
Samuels , who worked in the main office, would be retiring
and that she was being hired to replace Samuels. With a
starting salary of $500 per month, Sheppard commenced
working for Respondent on Monday, September 17. She
was placed under the supervision of Mrs. Samuels and
apparently also received some instructions from Samuels'
assistant, one Joan, whose last name is not reflected in the
record. Sheppard's duties in the office were briefly
described as involving the preparation of cutting tickets for
suits and sports coats. From time to time she and Joan
were sent to the eighth floor factory office, located
approximately two blocks from the main office, to assist
employee Pamela Kinzel with other clerical tasks. This
occurred at least eight times during her employment for
half or whole day work.
Not long after being hired by the Company, Sheppard
and Kinzel discussed the possibility of the clerical
employees becoming organized and being represented by a
union . These discussions soon included employees Roberta
Decker and Tom Schultz and usually took place on breaks
and during lunch periods in either the lunchroom or in the
eighth floor factory office. At one point during these early
discussions , Sheppard and Kinzel broached a steward of
the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, the collective-bar-
gaining agent for Respondent's production amd mainte-
nance employees, to seek his advice concerning the
organization of the office employees. The steward told
them that he would take the matter up with the business
agent of Amalgamated. However, the two declined and
told the steward that they would contact the Teamsters
Union. Shortly thereafter, in about the first or second week
of October, Sheppard spoke to her husband about the
matter. Her husband, a member of the Teamsters,
suggested that she contact Mr. Schneider, a representative
of the Charging Union. She did so and made an
appointment for the employees to meet with Schneider.
The first meeting had to be cancelled, but a second
meeting was arranged for October 17 at 5 p.m.
On October 15, a Monday, Sheppard went to the union
office during her luncheon break and procurred four union
authorization cards. These were for the four employees
who discussed the Union, namely herself, Kinzel, Decker,
and Schultz. She returned to the factory office and gave
three of the cards to Kinzel.4 The three employees returned
their signed cards while still in the plant to Sheppard just
before quitting time and Sheppard took them, including
her own signed card, to the Union immediately thereafter.
On the same day, October 15, one Delores Crider was
referred to Respondent for employment. She was hired
that day by Bodker as an inventory clerk in the factory
office as assistant to Kinzel.
On Wednesday, October 17, Sheppard was assigned to
perform some statistical typing in the factory office. After
lunch, about 1 p.m., John Rossi, the vice president of
Manufacturing, advised Sheppard that the Company was
4 Sheppard testified that she gave Kinzel the cards because Kinzel had
easier access to the employees who worked in the factory office. She
testified that she (Sheppard) was not working in the factory office at the
time.
351
going to hire a Kelly girl as statistical typist because she
could perform this work more rapidly. At the same time he
told her that Harvey Gerstein, Respondent's executive vice
president, wished to see her in the main office. Upon
entering Gerstein's office, Gerstein first said that he had a
problem and then proceeded to say that he did not know
what to do with her [Sheppard] because he had no place to
put her. Sheppard testified that when she asked what he
was talking about, Gerstein stated "that they were deciding
not to go into computerization because it was going to cost
too much money, sales were down from last year and they
couldn't afford computerization and Chromalloy . . . had
advised them against it, so, Sue Douglas could not move
into the computer department and I could not take her
place." He thereupon added that Joan, the employee with
whom Sheppard worked, had been given a clean bill of
health after recovering from tuberculosis, that he did not
think she would be leaving, that therefore he could not
place Sheppard in Joan's spot, and that therefore he had a
problem as to what to do with her [Sheppard]. When at
this point Sheppard protested that she had not been hired
to replace either of the employees mentioned by Gerstein,
but rather that she had been hired to train for Mrs.
Samuels' job and to replace Samuels when she left,
Gerstein responded by "knocking on the table" and stating
that he hoped that Samuels would be with the Company
for several more years. Continuing, Gerstein finally told
Sheppard that he would have to let her go, adding that if
the Company had not hired a girl in the factory office on
the day before (undoubtedly referring to the hire of
Delores Crider on October 15) he would have offered her
the job, but that he did not know about it. He then stated
that he would call her back if something worked out. After
some discussion concerning Sheppard's initial employment
fee (which Gerstein said he would pay), Gerstein gave
Sheppard a check for 2 days covering October 16 and 17 .5
Sheppard thereupon stated that since she had been paid for
the full day, she would like to return to finish the work she
was doing and would work until the end of the day.
Gerstein stated "no," that he would rather that she left the
plant immediately. Sheppard, however, reiterated that
since she had been paid she would like to finish out the
day. Gerstein again refused, stating that when employees
were let go they became too upset to do their work.
Sheppard stated that she was not upset, that she could do
the work. At this point Gerstein stated that he was getting
"very upset," that it was his policy that when he had to let
someone go he wanted them to leave immediately.
Sheppard thereupon stated that she would not be able to
get her car out of the middle of the parking lot because it
was blocked in by other cars. Gerstein said that he would
have a man get her car out for her. Sheppard thereupon
departed.
C. Conclusions as to Sheppard
I am, of course, cognizant of the well-established rule
that the burden is upon the General Counsel, or here the
5 Sheppard had received a check the previous Friday for the regular
workweek. The check which Gerstein gave Sheppard at this time had been
previously prepared and was in Gerstein's possession when she came to his
office.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Charging Party, to show company knowledge in order to
establish a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and that
this usually is accomplished by the adducing of some
element of direct proof. As to the latter, however, the
Board and courts have recognized an exception to the
general rule, namely, that company knowledge may be
inferred when the entire circumstances so permit. American
Grinding & Machine Co., 150 NLRB 1357; Allied Distribut-
ing Corporation, 130 NLRB 1348; N.L.R.B. v. Abingdon
Nursing Center, 80 LRRM 3232 (C.A. 7, 1972).6 I am
convinced that this is a case where the facts, under entire
scrutiny, warrant the taking of an inference of company
knowledge.
The discharge of a leading union advocate is a classic
and effective method of undermining a union organization
effort. N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, Inc., 346 F.2d
1003, 1006 (C.A. 5, 1956). In the instant case, the Company
discharged Sheppard 2 days after she went to the union
office and brought back cards to the plant which were
signed by four employees that same day, and but only 3 or
4 hours prior to the first scheduled union meeting which
she had arranged for the office employees to attend. As
indicated below, however, there is a good deal more to this
case than only the patently suspicious coincidental nature
of these occurrences.
First, the reason given to Sheppard for her discharge,
which is the only reason reflected on this record, does not
stand up under scrutiny. As previously related, Sheppard
was told at the time of her hire that she was being hired for
the specific purpose of replacing Mrs. Samuels in the main
office. The record reflects, notwithstanding that at times
she helped out in the factory office, that Sheppard in fact
received training to this end. Conversely, there is no
evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent's
purpose in so hiring Sheppard was ever changed or
modified. At the time of her discharge, however, Gerstein
(in generalized terms) told Sheppard that the reason he was
letting her go was because the Company could not afford
computerization and that therefore Sue Douglas could not
move into the computer department. One need hardly
point out that this had nothing to do whatever with the
position for which Sheppard actually was hired. Equally
unrelated to the reason for Sheppard's hire was Gerstein's
vague statement that he did not think that Joan, another
employee in the main office, would be leaving because she
had recovered from tuberculosis. Indeed, when Sheppard
finally reminded Gerstein that she had been hired to
replace Mrs. Samuels, Gerstein responded by pounding on
the table and meeting the question with the evasive
statement that he hoped Samuels would remain with the
Company for a long time. If nothing else, surely the last
statement in itself is entirely inconsistent with Respon-
dent's reason for hiring Sheppard in the first instance.
Moreover, it will be recalled that Gerstein referred to the
hiring of another clerical just the day before with the
assertion that did not offer her the job because he did not
know about this clerical being hired. Yet, the evidence
6 See also N.L.R.B. v. Melrose Proccessing Co., 351 F.2d 693 (CA. 8);
N.L.R.B . v. Ri-Dell Tool Mfg. Co., 486 F . 2d 1406 (CA. 7, 1973); N.L.R.B.
v. Murray-Ohio Mfg. Co., 385 F .2d 948 950 (CA. 6, 1966).
r After giving Crider a Wonderlick test , Bodker recommended her to
Rossi . Crider thereupon went to see Rossi and was thereupon hired by him.
reveals that Crider, who also was referred to Respondent
by an employment agency, was first interviewed and tested
by Howard Bodker . . . and it was Bodker who hired
Sheppard.? It therefore appearing that Bodker was the
company representative most familiar with Respondent's
clerical needs, it is indeed strange that Gerstein would so
suddenly interject himself into the picture, terminate
Sheppard, and assert to her that he did not know about the
filling of a clerical opening on the day before. In short, I
would find Gerstein's explanation to Sheppard in this
regard as incredible.
Secondly, Respondent (who failed to call any witnesses)
offered no explanation whatsoever for its precipitant
action in so suddenly terminating Sheppard during the
early afternoon work hours of Tuesday, a weekday. Absent
any reason for taking this action, I think under all the
circumstances, some ulterior motive is plainly apparent.
Furthermore, it is clear that Gerstein wished Sheppard to
be off the premises as quickly as possible. Why else did he
refuse her request that she complete her work and finish
out the workday. Indeed, clearly indicative of a purpose to
seal off the employees from further contact with Sheppard
is the fact that Gerstein had her check already prepared
and even saw to it that her car would be removed from the
crowded company parking lot during the middle of the
day. See. N.L.R.B. v. Ra-Rich Mfg. Co., 276 F.2d 451, 454
(C.A. 2, 1960); N.L.R.B. v. Symons Mfg. Co., 328 F.2d 835
(C.A. 7, 1964).
Finally, and as reflected in more detail in the succeeding
section, the record establishes that Respondent was
opposed to the unionization of its clerical employees by the
Teamsters Union, the Charging Party herein. Thus, while
engaging in coercive interrogation of employees concern-
ing the organizational efforts by the Teamsters, Respon-
dent's representative made such statements to employees
as "why did you go to the Teamsters and not the
Amalgamated"; "You know they [the Teamsters] are a
rough union and have a bad reputation"; "[You] would be
better off if [you] went to the Amalgamated"; and "I guess
you know we have been having union difficulties" and
["he (Gerstein) asked if Pam had approached me about the
Union" 1.8
In sum, upon the entire record, and particularly in view
of the following, I conclude and find that a prime facie case
has been presented which establishes that Respondent
terminated Sheppard in order to thwart the organizational
activity among the clerical employees: (1) the timing of the
termination, within 2 days after the cards were signed and
but approximately 4 hours prior to the first scheduled
union meeting; (2) the sudden and precipitous nature of
this employee's termination, including her prompt expul-
sion from Respondent's premises by the company vice
president; (3) the reason given to Sheppard for her
discharge, which was entirely inconsistent with the reason
for which she was hired; (4) the hiring of a new clerical
employee at or about the same time of Sheppard's
termination; (5) the relatively small size of the clerical unit
8 Although these conversations occurred subsequent to Sheppard's
termination , Respondent's union hostility as displayed therein is neverthe-
less relevant and admissible insofar as it may relate to Respondent's
motives in terminating this employee.
MARX-HAAS CLOTHING CO. 353
wherein Sheppard 's organizational activities took place; (6)
Respondent 's hostility to the Teamsters Union which
sought to organize these employees ; and (7) Respondent's
failure to call any witnesses or to present any evidence in
explanation of all the foregoing . Accordingly, by its
conduct in so terminating Sheppard , I find that Respon-
dent violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
D. Interference, Restraint, Coercion
On August 25, 1973, the Charging Union filed a petition
in Case 14-RC-7505 for a unit comprised of all office and
plant clerical employees, exclusive of all other employees
and other statutory exclusions.
It is undisputed that upon receipt of the above petition
on October 26, Respondent Vice President John Rossi
engaged in the following conversations with various of the
clerical employees:
Rossi summoned employee Pamela Kinzel into the
lunchroom, asked her to sit down, and began by stating, "I
think you know what I want to talk to you about." When
Kinzel responded that she did not, Rossi rejoined that a
petition had been filed on behalf of the clericals and then
stated, "Pam, you always seemed like a pretty smart girl to
me, I can 't understand why you would want to do
something like this . It has really hurt me a lot." Upon
Kinzel's reply that she needed more money, Rossi asked,
"Do you think a union is really going to help?" Kinzel
thereupon gave additional reasons for wanting a union, to
which Rossi finally stated, "Well, why did you go to the
Teamsters and not go to the Amalgamated?" When Kinzel
gave her reasons , Rossi ended the conversation with the
statement, "Well, I'm sorry things had to happen this way,
we would have worked them out."
Cuba Stechmesser, the payroll clerk, was summoned by
Rossi to his desk where he first related that a petition had
been filed and then asked why the employees choose the
Teamsters Union. Stechmesser replied that she "figured"
the employees wanted the "strongest union they could
get." Rossi responded that the Teamsters Union was "a
rough union and have a bad reputation." Stechmesser said
that at this point "she had to agree" whereupon Rossi
asked why the employees felt they could have better
benefits with a union. Stechmesser did not respond, but at
this point Janet Decker , an office employee , came up to the
desk and was invited by Rossi to join the conversation.
Telling her that "this concerns you, too," Rossi proceeded
to ask Decker why the Teamster Union had been selected
as the organizing agent rather than the Amalgamated.
Decker replied that since the clericals were a small group
they needed a powerful union. Rossi responded that there
were "drawbacks" to unions and the discussion thereupon
turned to the pros and cons of Respondent's present
working conditions. According to the undenied testimony
of Decker, the conversation concluded as follows:
He [Rossi] seemed to think that we could be better off
if we could have gone to the Amalgamated. He, more
or less , tried to push the other Union on us, he said, it
had drawbacks. I didn't care to hear anything else so I
turned and went to my work.
On or about November 13, Vice President Gerstein came
up to clerical employee Delores Crider and asked her to
accompany him down to the lunchroom to discuss her
insurance. When they arrived at the lunchroom Gerstein
told Crider that the reason for his mentioning insurance as
the topic of discussion was because "he did not want
everybody up there to make something out of nothing." He
thereupon stated, "I guess you know we have been having
union difficulties." When Crider nodded her head, Ger-
stein proceeded to ask if she had been approached by
Pamela Kinzel about the Union. Crider did not answer.
Gerstein then asked if she had signed a union card. Crider
replied that she did not have to answer. According to
Crider's undenied testimony, Gerstein then ". . . kept
trying to find out if Pam was the instigator of the Union
... this is what he was trying to get out of me ... for me
to say Pam Kinzel approached me." Crider said that at this
point she asked Gerstein if he wanted her to repeat all that
he said to Kinzel, whereupon, she testified, "He didn't say
anything . He just shut up then. He quit asking me any
questions."
I find that by all of the foregoing Respondent coercively
interrogated employees about their union activities and
sympathies and about the union activities and sympathies
of other employees, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discharged
Veronne H. Sheppard in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to offer her full and immediate reinstatement to
her former job or, if this job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges and to make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered from
the date of her discharge to the date of Respondent 's offer
of reinstatement. Backpay shall be computed in accord-
ance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon computed in
the manner and amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Since a discriminatory discharge of an employee goes to
the very heart of the Act (N.L.RB. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co.,
120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4)) it will be recommended that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed employees in
Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union
is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Veronne H. Sheppard, thereby discourag-
ing membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the
following:
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
9 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.
io 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 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
ORDERS
Respondent, Marx-Haas Clothing Company, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee because of activity on behalf of Teamsters Local
Union No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or in any other labor organization.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities and sympathies and the activities and sympathies
of other employees, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint , and coercion.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Veronne H. Sheppard immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if this job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make her whole in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Teamsters
Local Union No. 688, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against
our employees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union activities or sympathies or the
union activities or sympathies of other employees.
WE WILL offer Veronne H. Sheppard immediate and
full reinstatement to her former job or, if this job no
longer exists, to a substantial position, without preju-
dice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and
make her whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, as
amended.
MARX-HAAS CLOTHING
COMPANY
(Employer)
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its Dated By
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary or
appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post at its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
(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 directed to the Board's Office, 210
North 12th Boulevard , Room 448 , St. Louis, Missouri,
63101, Telephone 314-622-4167.