Sir James, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 256 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sir James , Inc. and Local 84 , International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO. Case
21-CA-8751
June 10, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On March 5, 1970, Trial Examiner James R.
Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 this case 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 and brief,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
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 Respondent, Sir James, Inc., Los An-
geles , California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case,
with all parties represented, was heard in Los An-
geles , California, on December 9, 1969, upon a
complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Sir
James, Inc., herein called Respondent. The com-
plaint was issued on October 6, 1969, on a charge
filed August 26, 1969. The complaint alleges that
Respondent has made unilateral changes in working
conditions and has otherwise refused to bargain in
good faith with the Charging Party and has thereby
engaged in a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the
Act.
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel
and the Charging Party and have been carefully
considered. Upon the entire record and my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I hereby make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a corporation, with place of busi-
ness and plant in Los Angeles, California, is en-
gaged in the business of cutting, sewing , and selling
ladies' garments. During the past 12 months,
Respondent has sold products valued in excess of
$500,000. During the same period, Respondent
purchased and received goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 shipped to it directly from
points outside the State of California.
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Wor-
kers' Union, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party, and
hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
1. Whether Respondent, after the expiration of
its contract with the Union, discontinued payments
to welfare funds on behalf of its employees under
circumstances that would constitute a refusal to
bargain within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) on
the Act.
2. Whether Respondent has otherwise engaged
in good- or bad-faith bargaining concerning the
terms and provisions of a new contract.
B. Negotiations
Since certification of the Union by the Board in
1955, Respondent and the Union have been parties
to a series of collective-bargaining agreements
covering an appropriate bargaining unit of all em-
ployees in Respondent's cutting department includ-
ing cutters, choppers, graders, markers, and pat-
ternmakers employed at Respondent's Los Angeles
plant. There are five employees in the bargaining
unit. The last contract that was executed between
the parties was effective from July 4, 1966, through
July 3, 1969. Each of the collective-bargaining
183 NLRB No. 31
SIR JAMES , INC. 257
agreements has been substantially like the others
except as to wages . There has been no wage scale
set forth in the contracts and wages have been
negotiated separately by the party.
At all times material herein , the Union is and has
been the recognized bargaining representative of a
majority of the employees in the above -described
appropriate unit.
By letter dated April 26, 1969, from Mrs. Edwin
Selvin , Respondent 's labor consultant , Respondent
notified Basil Feinberg , attorney for the Union, that
Respondent desired to terminate the collective-bar-
gaining agreement and offered to meet and
negotiate on the terms of a new contract. The
parties met for the purpose of discussing contract
terms on June 5 and on August 13, 1969.1 Selvin
was the representative of Respondent and Feinberg
was the principal representative for the Union.
Charges were filed herein on August 26, 1969.
At the outset of bargaining , the Union proposed
that ( 1) the unit employees receive a 10-percent
wage increase ; ( 2) the amount Respondent is pay-
ing into the Vacation , Health and Severance Pay
Fund be increased from 7 percent of the em-
ployees' gross weekly wage to 9 percent ; and (3)
the one -half percent of wages that Respondent has
been contributing to the Supplementary Unemploy-
ment Severance Benefits Fund be reallocated so
that one-eighth percent would continue to go to the
severance fund and three -eighths percent would go
to a new drug plan.
During the course of the two bargaining sessions
and by Selvin 's letter of August 16, 1969, Respon-
dent made proposals and changes in the contract
terms as follows:
As to article I, recognition , Selvin proposed by
letter dated August 16 , 1969, that some change in
the language of this article be made so as to
describe the unit as including all cutters and ex-
cluding all other employees , rather than as
described above.
Article II, section 1, provides for at least a 24-
hour notice to the Union of any need for additional
employees before hiring . Selvin proposed that it be
taken out of the contract , stating that Respondent
did not follow this procedure.
Article II, section 2, provides that Respondent
shall have the right to discharge any employee
within 2 weeks of the beginning of his employment
but that after such trial period , no worker shall be
discharged for any cause except incompetence,
misconduct , soldiering on the job, insubordination
in the performance of duties , or breach of reasona-
ble rules which have been duly established and
promulgated. Selvin stated that Respondent may
wish to cut his work forces and that Respondent
would like to be able to keep the better employees
without regard to seniority . Selvin proposed that
this section be rewritten to bring in the points that
she is making or that the section be left out al-
together ; that Respondent wants the full right to
operate its business.
Article II, section 3, of the contract requires that
Repondent give the Union written notice of the
name, address , social security number, and rate of
pay of new employees within 2 weeks of the dates
of hire . Selvin proposed that this section be
removed from the contract , asserting that Respon-
dent has never done this and that the contract
should cover only what Respondent is willing and
able to do. At the August meeting she did propose,
however , that a new contract contain a clause
requiring Respondent to submit a list of unit em-
ployees every 4 months instead of every 2 weeks.
Feinberg pointed out that she was misreading the
section . Selvin finally agreed to retain section 3 if
the Union would agree to the elimination of section
1. The Union did not agree to this proposal.
Article II, section 4, provides for a union shop.
Selvin proposed that this be eliminated , asserting
that some prospective employees were unwilling to
work on this basis . Selvin made a counterproposal
that membership in the Union shall not be required
as a condition of employment.
Article II, section 5, provides that Respondent
shall guarantee to employ and give full-time work
to no less than four cutters, who are eligible to
membership in the Union , before it has any cutting
work done in any other plant or factory. As to this
section , Selvin stated at the June 5 meeting that
there have been times when no work at all has been
available for cutters ; also that Respondent is al-
ready contracting out some of its cutting work; that
Respondent does not want this section , and that
Respondent may even want to close out the cutting
department . Feinberg explained that this clause is
to assure that the subject of collective-bargaining
remains in existence ; if there is no cutting work,
there will be no cutters , and it is the Union 's job to
see that these people 's jobs are afforded some pro-
tection ; that during the 14 years of contractural
relations , the employees have had this protection,
and that it would be a disservice to them to in-
troduce this element of uncertainty as to their jobs.
At the second meeting the Union asked Selvin if
she would change her mind on this clause and she
replied, "No , because I don 't think he does it right
now." Selvin stated that she was opposed to this
section 14 years ago when Respondent agreed to it
when she was away for 1 week; that the Union got
Respondent to agree to it and other provisions
when he did not have a bargaining representative.
Article II, section 6, provides that when there is
no full-time work for all of the employees in the
bargaining unit , the available work shall be divided
by alternating weeks of employment in such a
manner that the earnings of each worker shall be as
nearly equal as possible . Selvin stated that some of
' There is no contention that there was any inordinate delay attributable
to Respondent on the scheduling of bargaining sessions
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent 's material is very expensive and some
is not and that Respondent wants his very best man
to work on the expensive materials . Feinberg ex-
plained that this section did not require Respondent
to give the more difficult and expensive work to
each of the employees and it did not require
Respondent to assign complicated jobs to less
qualified employees . Selvin continued to contend
that this section was not practical in this plant.
Article III pertains to wages. Section 1 provides
that all wage increases granted shall remain in ef-
fect during the term of the contract . As to this,
there was no disagreement . Section 2 provides for a
cost-of-living increase or decrease when the revised
Consumers Price Index maintained by the United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics for the city of Los
Angeles increases or decreases 3 percent from its
level at the beginning of the contract , provided,
however , that in no event shall the total amount of
decrease exceed the total amount of wage increases
granted pursuant to the contract.
Selvin wanted this section deleted and stated that
this is the only contract that she has ever had that
has had this provision in it ; that Respondent can
give merit increases to take care of this situation.
Article IV with sections 1 and 2 provides that the
regular workweek shall consist of 35 hours to be
worked in the first 5 days of the week , with 7 hours
of work per day. Overtime shall be paid at the rate
of 1-1/2 times the regular pay for all work done in
excess of 7 hours in a regular workday or in excess
of 35 hours in the regular workweek and any work
done on Saturday.
Selvin stated that she would leave this paragraph
in but that if she were negotiating a new contract
she would not do so; that to avoid paying em-
ployees' overtime for Saturday work , Respondent
can send work out to contractors.
Article V provides for six paid holidays a year.
Selvin agreed to the paid holidays but proposed the
addition of conditions for eligibility . She proposed
that in order to be eligible for holiday pay, an em-
ployee must work the last scheduled shift im-
mediately proceding the holiday and the first
scheduled shift immediately following the holiday,
provided however that at the option of the Com-
pany an employee with reasonable proof of illness
may be exempted from this requirement.
Article VI with five sections provides for Re-
spondent 's contributions to a Vacation, Health and
Severance Pay Fund , a Supplementary Unemploy-
ment-Severance Benefits Fund , and a Retirement
Fund . Selvin proposed to take all of this out of the
contract, and she proposed to give the unit em-
ployees the same insurance that the other em-
ployees in the plant get ; that the Union 's funds
require contributions on a percentage basis and
cost more . She stated that she was against the funds
14 years ago and would be against them 14 years
from now . Selvin stated that she was opposed to all
funds and has not seen one that she would approve.
At the August meeting Selvin stated that she had
thought Respondent had an insurance and health
program for its other employees but that Respon-
dent does not have any insurance or health pro-
gram for them , and that this is the situation because
Respondent could not get a sufficient percentage of
them to sign up for it and Respondent did not want
to carry it all. She stated that she was going to urge
Respondent to get a health program for all em-
ployees including the cutters.
Selvin stated at the August meeting that she
would be willing to grant the cutters a 10-percent
wage increase; that she thought the employees
would rather have the money than the fund
benefits . She also stated that Respondent already
had a retirement plan for its employees, being the
social security program.
As to vacation , which matter is included in the
welfare paragraph , Selvin at first proposed that it
remain the same and later proposed that it be the
same as received by other employees . Feinberg ex-
plained that under the fund program the cutters
received the equivalent of about 2 weeks of vaca-
tion whereas Respondent 's other employees receive
1 week of vacation. He stated that she was propos-
ing a reduction in vacation time, and she replied
that Respondent was also proposing to give the cut-
ters a 10-percent wage increase.
Article VII provides that there shall be no strikes
or lockouts. Selvin proposed that this remain the
same except that the Union be given the right to
strike in certain circumstances as spelled out in her
proposal on a grievance procedure.
Article VIII provides that the Union will not en-
courage or advise any contractor to refrain from
doing business with Respondent . Selvin did not
propose any change in this paragraph.
Article IX , entitled Miscellaneous , contains a
section 3 providing that the agreement shall be
binding and effective on the heirs, successors, ad-
ministrators , executors , and assigns of each of the
parties . Selvin objected to this, contending that
people cannot sell their businesses with this clause
in their contracts.
Article X provides for a grievance procedure and
for arbitration . It also provides that representatives
of the Union shall have the right to visit the plant
during the working hours to confer with employees
in the bargaining unit for the purpose of carrying
out the grievance procedure . Selvin stated that she
did not want binding arbitration . By letter dated
August 16, 1969, she submitted a grievance
procedure proposal deleting any reference to ar-
bitration. Her proposal provides that if at the final
step the grievance cannot be satisfactorily disposed
of by a representative of Respondent and a
representative of the Union , the Union then may,
by given due and timely notice, call a strike. Her
proposal also provides that in the event of an in-
vestigation of the grievance during working hours,
any employee called from his work to confer with
SIR JAMES, INC.
the union representatives must first clock out and
remain clocked out for the duration of the inter-
view.
The last article of the contract , article XI, speci-
fies the duration of the agreement.
In the August meeting Feinberg asked Selvin if
there was any particular part of the contract on
which she had changed her mind since the last
meeting , and she replied in the negative . Since the
meeting of August 13, 1969, neither party has
requested a further bargaining conference,
although as previously mentioned Selvin submitted
by letter dated August 16, 1969, proposals on
several paragraphs , as follows : representation,
recognition , union membership , grievance
procedure, strike and lockout , and a paragraph on
management rights.
C. The Discontinuance of Welfare Payments
Upon the expiration of the contract on July 3,
1969, Respondent ceased all contributions to the
employees ' health , welfare, vacation, and retire-
ment funds . At no time did the Union receive from
Respondent a written notification that this would
occur . Respondent contends that the Union was
notified of this fact during the contract negotia-
tions.
At the August 13 conference Selvin , in setting
forth Respondent 's positions on contract provi-
sions, stated that "we do not intend to continue
with the Welfare Fund ." She also stated at another
point in this meeting that "we no longer wish to
continue with that [ the Welfare and Retirement
Funds ] for one group of people in our plant." And
at another point , she stated that she proposed to
abolish all contributions to the welfare funds.
Selvin stated during the August conference that
after the owner of Respondent had a reed, in her
absence, to the contents of the first contract
between Respondent and the Union she resigned as
his labor consultant . At his insistence , she returned
to be his labor consultant about a week later; that
she has stayed with his contract commitments since
then, but that now she has been given the full
authority to negotiate as she sees fit and is now,
negotiating a new contract.
At the conclusion of the August meeting, and
after hearing Selvin iterate her positions on each of
the provisions of the contract , the Union then made
another proposal : that the agreement be renewed
with existing provisions and with a 10-percent in-
crease in wages . Selvin stated that as that proposal
leaves the welfare funds in the agreement, she re-
jected it.
2 The Celotex Corp, 146 NLRB 48 , Bethlehem Steel Co, 136 NLRB
1500, enforcement denied and case remanded 320 F 2d 615 (C A 3), Sup-
plemental Decision 147 NLRB 977
D. Conclusions
259
Although an employer 's contractual obligations
expire with the expiration of a collective -bargaining
agreement , nevertheless , if the employees are
represented by a bargaining agent , the existing
terms and conditions of employment-that is, mat-
ters pertaining to the relationship between an em-
ployer and his employees , as distinguished from
matters pertaining to the relationship between an
employer and a union , must not be unilaterally
changed and must be continued by the employer
until bargaining thereon has culminated in an
agreement or in an impasse . This is so irrespective
of whether or not the employer has given notice to
the union of a desire to make a change , except,
however , if an employer gives notice of such an in-
tent and the union fails to seek bargaining on the
matter , then the making of the announced changes
do not constitute a refusal to bargain.2
In the instant case, upon the expiration of the
collective -bargaining agreement on July 3, 1969,
Respondent discontinued all contributions to the
employees ' Vacation , Health and Severance Pay
Fund , to their Supplementary Unemployment-
Severance Benefits Fund , and to their Retirement
Fund . These were economic benefits or remunera-
tions that the employees received from Respondent
in exchange for their labors and constitute terms
and conditions of their employment.
At the bargaining meeting of June 5, Selvin
stated that Respondent desired a change in the in-
surance plans covering the unit employees, that
Respondent was paying them social security plus
the retirement fund and that Respondent did not
wish to continue doing that ; that Respondent
proposed "to delete and substitute these things in
different ways." At the conclusion of the June 5
session , after Selvin had gone through the contract
paragraphs , she agreed to furnish certain informa-
tion wanted by the Union and also to prepare cer-
tain proposals and would have available "copies of
his [Respondent 's] insurance ." Thus , it would ap-
pear that bargaining was contemplated , not that
Respondent was going to unilaterally and im-
mediately discontinue these welfare benefits. I find
that by Respondent's unilateral action of discon-
tinuing all fund contributions after the expiration of
its collective -bargaining agreement on July 3, 1969,
it has refused to bargain in good faith with the
Union over terms and conditions of employment.3
In addition to this, I find that Respondent did not
approach negotiations "with an open mind and pur-
pose to reach an agreement consistent with the
respective rights of the parties ."4 After 14 years of
' Harold Hinson, dlbla Hen House Market, 175 NLRB No 100, Tormod
Langemyr , d/b/a Tom Carpentry Construction Co , 176 NLRB No 1 1
' Tex Tan Welhausen Co v N L R B , 419 F 2d 1265 (C A 5)
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 18
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining relations, during which time only two
grievances have been presented by the Union, with
at least the last having been resolved in favor of the
employer, Respondent comes to the bargaining ta-
ble, not with minor refinements or even a few
major revisions of the contract, but with a position
that every paragraph of any significance to the em-
ployees be deleted or greatly changed. Judging
from the proposals made and the reasons advanced
therefor, it would appear that Respondent is not
really seeking a contract with terms more favorable
to the employer but is seeking to undermine and
destroy the bargaining relationship and the em-
ployees' utilization of the Union as a bargaining
representative. To start with article I, Selvin
proposed a change in the description of the bar-
gaining unit to include only "cutters"; it is not quite
clear whether this was for the purpose of simplicity
or otherwise since the bargaining unit includes all
employees in the cutting department, including
those in other named classifications. In addition to
cutters, Respondent employs a spreader and a
grader in this department.
Selvin proposed that each of the six subsections
of article II be deleted. This included matters of
special concern to the employees such as protec-
tion from discharge after a 2-week trial period ex-
cept for cause, no subcontracting of their work un-
less there is more work than at least four cutters
can handle, a division of work in any period when
there is no full-time work available for all em-
ployees, and a union shop. Selvin would leave in a
provision to notify the Union within 2 weeks of any
newly hired employee if the Union would agree to
delete a provision that it be notified at least 24
hours in advance of any vacancy.
Selvin would delete all contributions to welfare
funds, would eliminate arbitration from the
grievance procedure and would eliminate the provi-
sion binding any successor to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement. She would also eliminate the
provision for cost-of-living increases in wages,
reduce vacation time to conform to that received
by nonunit employees, and add conditions to eligi-
bility for holiday pay.
The only provisions that she would retain were
those pertaining to workweek and overtime (art.
IV), number of paid holidays (art. V), strikes and
lockouts with some modification (art. VII), and the
provision providing that the Union would not en-
courage or advise any contractor to cease doing
business with Respondent (art. VIII). She did, how-
ever, agree to a 10-percent wage increase, but this
was to be in lieu of the contributions to the funds.
Article XI, duration of agreement, was not reached.
Selvin's reasons for her deletions and changes
were for the most part not cogent. She wanted
some of the items eliminated because Respondent
was not following them; others because Respondent
wanted the full right to operate his business, or
because a provision was not practical for Respon-
dent's plant. Regarding the welfare funds, Selvin
contended that there should be the same insurance
program as for the other employees, but it
developed that there is no insurance program-
other than social security-for the other employees.
Although Selvin continued to talk about a sub-
stitute insurance program, at no time was one
brought forward.
From the considerations set forth above, I find
that Respondent has failed and refused to bargain
in good faith with the Union.'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec-
tion III, occurring in connection with the operations
of Respondent described in section I, have a close,
intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow thereof.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sir James, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Wor-
kers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees in the cutting department in-
cluding cutters, choppers, graders, markers, and
patternmakers employed by Respondent at its
Los Angeles plant constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has
been the recognized bargaining representative of
the employees in the above-described bargaining
unit.
5. By unilaterally discontinuing payments to the
employees' Vacation, Health and Severance Pay
Fund, the Supplementary Unemployment-
Severance Benefits Fund and the Retirement Fund,
and by conducting negotiations without an open
mind and purpose to reach an agreement consistent
with the respective rights of the parties, Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
A H Belo Corp, 170 NLRB 1558, Alba-Waldensian, Inc, 167 NLRB
695
SIR JAMES, INC.
labor practices affecting 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 violative of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice by its discontinuance of pay-
ments to the employees' welfare funds, I shall
recommend that Respondent make whole the em-
ployees involved therein (1) by paying all welfare
contributions, as provided in the expired collective-
bargaining agreement , which have not been paid
and which would have been paid absent Respon-
dent's unlawful conduct found herein, and (2) by
continuing such payments until such time as
Respondent negotiates in good faith with the Union
to a new agreement or to an impasse.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, I
recommend that, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, the Board issue the following:
ORDER
Sir James, Inc., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local
84, International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union,
AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of its
employees in the bargaining unit described below,
by unilaterally discontinuing payments to the em-
ployees' welfare funds, and by conducting negotia-
tions without an open mind and purpose to reach
an agreement consistent with the respective rights
of the parties.
(b) Interfering with , restraining , or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with
Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union , AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative
of the employees in the following described ap-
propriate unit , as to rates of pay , wages, hours of
work and conditions of employment , and, if an un-
derstanding is reached , embody such understanding
in a signed agreement . The appropriate bargaining
unit is:
All employees in the cutting department in-
cluding cutters, choppers , graders, markers,
and patternmakers, employed by Respondent
at its Los Angeles plant.
(b) Make whole the employees in the ap-
propriate bargaining unit by ( 1) paying all con-
261
tributions to the Vacation, Health and Severance
Pay Fund, the Supplementary Unemployment-
Severance Benefits Fund and the Retirement Fund,
as provided in the expired collective-bargaining
agreement, which have not been paid and which
would have been paid absent Respondent's unlaw-
ful conduct found herein, and (2) continuing such
payments until such time as Respondent negotiates
in good faith with the Union to a new agreement or
to an impasse.
(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 fund contributions due under the terms
of this Order.
(d) Post at its Los Angeles plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix. "6 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by
Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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 21,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
6 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-
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 "
' 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 21, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with Local 84, International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining
representative of our employees in the follow-
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing described appropriate unit , with respect to
rates of pay , wages, hours of work and other
conditions of employment and, if an un-
derstanding is reached , embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement . The bar-
gaining unit is:
All employees in the cutting department
including cutters, choppers , graders, mar-
kers, and patternmakers , employed in our
Los Angeles plant.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally discontinue con-
tributions to the welfare funds of our em-
ployees without notifying and bargaining in
good faith with the above-named Union prior
to doing so.
WE WILL NOT interfere , restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their rights.
WE WILL make whole the employees in the
above-described appropriate bargaining unit by
paying all contributions to welfare funds which
we have not made and which we would have
made absent our unilateral discontinuance of
these contributions.
SIR JAMES, INC.
(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, Eastern Columbia Building, 849
South Broadway , Los Angeles , California 90014,
Telephone 688-5254.