Spotlight Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SPOTLIGHT CO., INC. 641
Spotlight Company, Inc. and International Ladies'
Garment Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO. Case
26-CA-3396
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
March 11, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On December 31, 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
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
Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in answer thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
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 briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations 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
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that Respondent, Spotlight Company,
Inc., Ashdown, Arkansas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
'Respondent 's exceptions directed to the credibility resolutions of the
Trial Examiner are without merit The Board will not overrule the Trial
Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . On the entire record,
such a conclusion is not warranted herein Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 2)
'At Respondent 's request the notice is modified to include notice of
employees ' right to refrain from becoming members of any labor
organization The last paragraph of the notice is hereby modified to read
You are free to become and remain members of the International
Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, or any other labor organization, or to
refuse to join or help any labor organization , and WE WILL NOT punish
you in any way if you do
MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This case was heard
at Ashdown, Arkansas, on September 30 and October 1,
1969, pursuant to charges filed on June 23, July 1, July
23, and August 4, 1969, and a complaint issued on August
8, 1969 The complaint alleges that Respondent interfered
with, restrained and coerced its employees, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and that Respondent laid off Kay McElhannon
and discharged Leona B Altenbaumer, Patricia Chafin,
Nina Jean Greene, Ethel Mears, and Mary Lou Mears, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act Upon the
entire record in this case, the briefs filed by the parties,
and my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent Spotlight Company, Inc. is engaged in the
manufacture of lingerie at its plant in Ashdown,
Arkansas. Respondent's annual interstate purchases and
sales each exceed $50,000. I find that Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Layoff of McElhannon
The Union handbilled Respondent ' s plant on Thursday,
April 24 , 1969,' and that evening following a union
meeting sent Plant Manager Paul Leiby a telegram listing
the names of employees who had volunteered to serve as
"unpaid members of a union organizing committee." The
next morning , sewer Kay McElhannon was one of several
girls standing around a machine before work.
McElhannon had union authorization cards in her hand.
A warning bell sounds at 7:25 a.m and a second bell
sounds at 7.30 a . m. signaling the employees to begin
work . Ruth Jones made some remarks about having a
contest to see who could get the most cards signed.
McElhannon said " I guess we are" and the others
laughed Leiby walked over and noticed that McElhannon
had union cards r Leiby, who knew the Union had
handbilled the plant the day before , instructed
.McElhannon to clock out and go home, saying he had no
work for her today . McElhannon protested that she had
rush orders in her bin , but Leiby repeated that he had no
work for her that day. He said he was not firing her.
McElhannon resumed work the following Monday. She
was not paid for the day's work she lost.
'All dates are in 1969 unless otherwise noted
'Leiby testified that McElhannon was handing out the cards, which he
recognized as union cards when he "got up to her " McElhannon testified
that she had not asked employees that morning or any other morning to
sign cards "inside the Spotlight Company " I credit McElhannon's
181 NLRB No. 94
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent contends that Leiby sent McElhannon
home for distributing material in the work area of the
plant contrary to Company practice and for disturbing the
other operators who should have gone to their own
machines after the first bell sounded. Leiby said nothing
about these matters to McElhannon but merely said that
he had no work for her that day. McElhannon did not in
fact distribute union cards in the work area a;id the record
warrants no inference that McElhannon caused any
disturbance. It appears, rather, that McElhannon and the
other operators were only moments away from their
machines and that it was quite usual for operators to
continue talking after the warning bell I find that Leiby
observed that McElhannon had union cards in her hand
and sent her home in reprisal for her display of union
sympathy, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.'
B. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
1. Manager Paul Leiby
On the morning of April 24, Leiby asked Leona
Altenbaumer if she was going to the union meeting that
night Altenbaumer replied that she did not know about
the meeting, that all she knew about the union men "is
what the girls have told me," but that she would go to the
meeting. Leiby replied it was her privilege
In May, Altenbaumer, Brenda Defoor, Sammie Slaton,
Lucille Dickerson, and May Cooley complained to Leiby
in his office that Wanda Madden "did not work on
rotation like the rest of us."' Altenbaumer said the girls
wanted a union not so much to make more money but to
get the plant "straightened out," that there was too much
partiality and favoritism in the plant. Leiby said he would
straighten it out "if you will get this monkey off my
back " One of the employees said he had had 5 years to
straighten the plant out but that "it is getting worse "
Leiby remarked that if the plant "goes Union,"
Respondent would not be able to compete and- would
"either have to hire less employees or go back on
production " Brenda Defoor said "it wasn't the money, it
was the working conditions." Leiby said, "I will see if I
can improve working conditions."
2 Supervisor Emily Leiby
During the last week of April, members of the Union's
organizing committee distributed handbills before work.
Finishing department supervisor Emily Leiby' stopped at
the trimmers' table after the work buzzer sounded and
said in a rather loud voice, "I just want everybody to
know I told that bunch out there to go to hell." Mrs.
Leiby came around to the table of Ruby Hedrick and told
her to run Tommye Penny and Mary Lou Mears "out of
there, those two down on the end " Hedrick asked why
and Mrs Leiby said "because they are on the
testimony that she did not hand out union cards in the plant
'Leiby testified that the working areas around the sewing machines are
congested due to the close proximity of the machines and the adjacent
stacks of garments I do not find that such congestion constitutes unusual
circumstances warranting a Company practice prohibiting union
solicitation during nonworking time in working areas Stoddard-Quirk
Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615 Accordingly, even if
McElhannon had distributed union cards before work, Leiby's sending her
home for such activity would have been violative of the Act.
'During slack periods at the plant, the operators are laid off on a
rotating basis, missing I or 2 days' work a week
committee." Hedrick said, "Emily, I can't run them out
of here, run them out yourself if you want them run out."
Mrs. Leiby said she could not do so because of the
"government." Hedrick remarked that Mrs Leiby could
fire employees for "not doing their work right."
In mid-May, Mrs. Leiby asked Hedrick which
employees had attended a union meeting held in Mineral
Springs the previous night Hedrick said she did not know
because she "wasn't there." Mrs Leiby said, "Well did
any of your bunch attend."6 Hedrick replied, "Not that I
know about; if they did, they didn't tell me."
Mrs Leiby walked over to Hedrick's table in June and
asked her to "sign this article," referring to a statement
that the signers were opposed to a union at the plant '
Hedrick refused to sign, saying that the union organizors
would go strictly by the number of signed union cards and
not "by the number of names in the article in the
newspaper "
3. Supervisor Lucille Sample
On a morning in mid-May, owner Seiff and attorney
Moore spoke to the employees concerning the Union.
That afternoon, supervisor Lucille Sample asked sewer
Betty Gentry, a member of the Union's organizing
committee, whether she had changed her mind. Gentry
answered "No." Sample said, "Well I wish you would,"
and "I hope you know what you are doing "
During the first half of June, Sample told Elsie Costa
that Mr. Seiff said "if the union was voted in, rather than
pay the union wages he would close the plant " Costa
asked Sample what she could do to keep the Union from
coming in Sample advised her to "talk to the other girls
and talk them out of voting the union if it came to the
point that we would vote for or against the union."
4. Conclusions
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by the following supervisory conduct:
(a) When several employees complained to Paul Leiby
about "partiality and favoritism" at the plant and told
him that they wanted a union not so much for higher
wages but for better working conditions, Leiby replied
that he would straighten out working conditions "if you
will get this monkey off my back." I find that Leiby's
reply constituted an illegal promise to improve working
conditions if the employees dropped their support of the
Union.
(b) Leiby also told these employees that less work
would be available if the plant were unionized because
Respondent would not be able to compete As Leiby's
statement made in the context of an illegal promise of
benefit linked the advent of the Union with a reduction in
force, it was an impermissible threat of economic reprisal
rather than a mere prediction of the possible consequences
of unionization. Cf Standard Electronic Co , 162 NLRB
1045, 1047
(c) Emily Leiby told Ruby Hedrick to run Tommye
Penny and Mary Lou Mears out of the plant because they
were on the Union's organizing committee. Mrs Leiby's
'Emily Leiby is the wife of manager Paul Leiby
'Hedrick rode to work with several other employees
'Three such signed statements were published in the local newspaper -
one on May 22 and two in June
'Three employees also separately asked Hedrick to sign an antiunion
statement
SPOTLIGHT CO., INC. 643
statement was an illegal appeal to Hedrick to engage in
antiunion activity. Cf. Jackson Packing Co , 170 NLRB
,No 155.
(d) Mrs. Leiby's request that Hedrick sign an antiunion
statement Red Cross Rexall Drug Stores, Inc, 169
NLRB No. 89.
(e) Lucille Sample's remark to Elsie Costa that owner
Seiff said he would close the plant rather than pay union
wages, and her advice to Costa to prevent this by
campaigning against the Union if a representation election
was scheduled.
(f) Leiby's inquiry on April 24 whether Leona
Altenbaumer was going to attend a union meeting; Mrs.
Leiby's interrogation of Ruby Hedrick in mid-May
concerning attendance at a union meeting; and Lucille
Sample's asking Betty Gentry in mid-May whether she
had changed her mind about the Union.' As these
interrogations concerning union activity or sentiment
occurred in a context of coercive conduct, including
threats, promises, and discriminatory discharges (see
below), I find them coercive under Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
C. The Discharges
1. Nina Jean Greene
On April 23, Greene asked Paul Leiby for a leave of
absence to be with her son who was coming home from
Vietnam. Leiby gave her the month of May off on
condition that she would come in a day or two a week "if
binding piled up." Greene signed a union card while on
leave of absence and also volunteered to serve on the
Union's organizing committee. The Union notified Leiby
by letter dated May 2 that Greene and six other named
employees were on the organizing committee. Greene
heard from another employee on May 20 that floorgirl
Ollie Hoover had "pulled [her] card that morning "10
Greene called the plant and asked Emily Leiby whether
she had been fired. She explained that Leiby had given her
a leave of absence Greene called again on May 20, 21,
and 22, but was unable to reach Leiby. She came to the
plant on Monday morning, May 26, and told Leiby that
she was ready to go back to work Leiby replied that
work was slow and he "didn't know when [she] could go
back to work." Greene asked Leiby why her card had
been pulled and he replied that there was no use "in those
cards hanging up in the girls' way." Greene called the
plant again on June 2 and spoke to office girl Slaton, who
told her that work was still slow and she did not know
when Greene could come back. Greene asked Slaton to
call her "if you need me." Slaton called Greene on
August 12 and Greene returned to work the next day.
Leiby testified he did not "bring [Greene] back" on
May 26 because "we were low in binding" and only 10 to
12 employees were in binding at that time while 20
employees were in binding when Greene was given her
leave of absence Greene had worked for Respondent for 3
years in the binding department when she asked for and
was given a leave of absence. Respondent normally
rotated work during slack periods and Respondent offered
'Although Sample did not expressly mention the Union, her question
followed antiunion speeches by owner Self and attorney Moore and
clearly referred to Gentry' s prounion stand as shown by her membership
on the Union 's organizing committee
"A card is posted at each machine The sewer marks the card to show
each 2 hours' work
no evidence that the binders or any other group of
employees were laid off for an extended period. In not
permitting Greene to return to work on May 26, Leiby
therefore ignored the fact that she was an experienced
employee returning from a leave of absence and chose to
treat her like an ordinary applicant for employment
Indeed, he did not even give her the consideration given
applicants, for Respondent concedes that it hired from 25
to 30 new employees during the period May-September
1969. In view of Respondent's opposition to the Union, its
knowledge that Greene was a member of the Union's
organizing committee, and its unconvincing explanation
for refusing to permit Greene to return to work, I find
that Respondent discharged Greene on May 26 because of
her union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
2. Patricia Chafin
Chafin worked at Respondent's plant from July 1,
1968, until May 10, 1969, under the supervision of Lucille
Sample In March or April 1969, Sample complimented
her as "a good operator." Chafin signed a union card and
became a member of the Union's organizing committee
on April 24 She passed out Union handbills in front of
the plant about the last of April. Chafin testified that she
was observed doing so by Paul, and Emily Leiby."
On Friday, May 9, Chafin asked floor girl Ruth Fields
if she could get a month's leave of absence to go to North
Carolina with her husband whose discharge at another
plant was being arbitrated Chafin left for North Carolina
with her husband about May 13.11 Chafin returned to
Ashdown 2 weeks later and asked Leiby "about coming
back to work." Leiby said work was slow and he "didn't
know when it would pick up." Chafin asked if he would
call her back when work picked up and Leiby replied
"there's a possibility " Chafin was not recalled
According to Leiby, Respondent's production was "in
the low e.;d" when Chafin returned from North Carolina
and "a lot of girls . . . were working 24 or maybe 32
hours during that time for that particular section " As
already noted, Respondent rotated work among the
employees during slack periods. Chafin had a valid reason
for leaving Respondent's employ for about 2 weeks It
appears that work in her department was already slack
when she left, so that her leaving caused no problem to
Respondent." Chafin had a good work record and
employees were being hired when Leiby refused to put her
back to work Leiby knew that Chafin like Greene was a
member of the Union's organizing committee. I have
found that Leiby discriminatorily refused to put Greene
back to work on May 26. I find that Leiby also refused
employment to Chafin about the same time, not because
work was slack but because she was a union supporter, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act."
"Leiby denied seeing any union handbilling by Chafin
"Chafin testified that Fields told her she had been given the leave of
absence Leiby testified that he told Fields that he could not give Chafin an
indefinite leave of absence. I find it unnecessary to determine whether
Chafin received a leave of absence as Leiby testified that he refused
employment to Chafin 2 weeks later because work was slack and not
because she left without obtaining a leave of absence
"Chafin was on rotation when she left for North Carolina on May 13.
"I do not credit Leiby' s testimony that he believed Chafin had "quit"
because she did not apply for work again Leiby's own testimony shows
that he told Chafin that "we might bring her back "
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Leona B. Altenbaumer
Altenbaumer started to work for Respondent when the
plant opened in August 1963. She was a side reamer who
"pretty well made her quota all the time" except when
styles changed in the spring and winter. Her production
improved after she learned the new styles She was never
complimented or reprimanded on her work by supervisor
Lucille Sample.
As previously related, Altenbaumer upon Leiby's
inquiry told him on April 24 that she was going to the
Union meeting scheduled that evening. The Union advised
Leiby by letter dated May 2 that Altenbaumer was on its
employee organizing committee.
As a pieceworker, Altenbaumer turned in production
tickets at the end of the day. Each ticket shows the work
covered by the ticket. Several employees testified that they
held back tickets when they exceeded their production
quota on a particular day and anticipated that they would
not be able to meet their quota the next day or two
Altenbaumer testified that 2 or 3 years after she started
work, she began to hold back tickets to use on days that
she did not make quota in order "to show a good day's
work." On June 16, 1969, Altenbaumer was sent to
Leiby's office. Leiby showed her a $1.10 ticket, asked her
in effect if she knew that the style shown on the ticket had
not been made for some time, and declared that it was
lying, stealing and cheating to hold back tickets.
Altenbaumer said she was sorry and asked Leiby to
forgive her because she did not know that was lying,
stealing, and cheating. Altenbaumer was laid off at the
end of the day and told that Leiby would call her when he
needed her. Altenbaumer came to the plant on June 26 to
get her pay and learned that her card had been taken
down and that Wanda Madden was operating her
machine. She was not recalled to work.
Leiby testified that he considered holding back tickets
for a serious infraction of Respondent's rules and that he
discharged Altenbaumer for this reason. He claimed that
he once before had discharged an employee for holding
back tickets.
I do not accept Leiby's testimony that the holding back
of production tickets was a serious infraction of
Respondent's rules, and that he once before discharged an
employee for this reason. The employees were never told
before or after Altenbaumer's discharge that they were
not to hold back production tickets, nor was a notice to
such effect ever posted at the plant. Employees were told
after a wage and hour investigation that they were not to
complete tickets at home but that they were to complete
and turn in their tickets at the end of each day during
working time. As employees were paid only for tickets
turned in, Respondent lost no money because employees
held back tickets on days they exceeded production
quotas. Respondent's production quotas are geared to the
Federal minimum wage requirements. Accordingly, if an
employee was a consistently low producer, that fact would
be revealed by the amount of "make up" added to the
employee's pay to bring her earnings up to the minimum
wage. Altenbaumer's testimony that she usually made
production is uncontradicted, and Respondent's payroll
records show that she made production in the 4 weeks
preceding her discharge Leiby testified that he took no
action against Kay McElhannon and Polly Bryan when
they told him in May 1969 that they held back tickets
For these reasons, I do not believe that Leiby considered
Altenbaumer's holding back of production tickets an
offense warranting her summary dismissal. I find that
Leiby discharged Altenbaumer, as he did Greene and
Chafin, because she was a member of the Union's
organizing committee.
4. Mary Lou Mears and Ethel Mears
Mary Lou Mears worked as a lingerie folder in the
finishing department from September 1967 until June 18,
1969 She attended the first union meeting on April 24
and became a member of the Union' s organizing
committee. One day the next week, she distributed Union
handbills before work at the highway entrance to the
plant As previously related, Mrs. Leiby told Ruby
Hedrick after work started to run Mears and Tommye
Penny "out of there, those two on the end." Mears again
distributed Union leaflets before work about May 14.
That day, Paul Leiby reprimanded Mears and Tommye
Penny for letting repairs go through. Mears said she was
doing her fob "to the best of my ability." Leiby replied he
would send her to an eye specialist and pay the bill if she
would "stay off work until you think you can see." Mears
said she could see very well and Leiby remarked, "You
couldn't yesterday " Mears declared "whoever said I
couldn't see yesterday told a lie " Louise Laman, who
boxes the folded garments , said it was not a lie and
reminded Mears that she had told another employee that
she "must not see very well from the repairs that are
being found." Mrs. 'Leiby said that Louise Laman was at
Mears' table because she was "taking advantage." Mears
denied ever taking advantage of anyone. Leiby told Mears
and his wife to stop arguing and Mears asked him why he
had not taken Penny and herself to his office "instead of
talking to us before all of the employees." Leiby retorted
that he would talk to her where he wanted to and "if you
don't like it there is the door." Mears asked if she was
fired and Leiby said no. Mears said, "Mr. Leiby, you,
Louise or Emily, all three can't ride me hard enough, to
make me quit ." Leiby said all he was asking of her was
that when she folded a garment "If you happen to see a
repair the examiner has missed, take it out and send it
back for repair." Mears said she did so, that if she "let
one go through it was not intentionally, that it was a
mistake." Leiby walked away from her table to end the
conversation. About a week later, Mrs. Leiby
reprimanded Mears for not catching certain repairs. These
reprimands by Paul and Emily Leiby were the only ones
given Mears during her employment with Respondent.
Mears was laid off from work about l day a week from
the second week in May through the first 2 weeks in June
She was told to come to work on June 16. About 4 p m.
that day, floor girl Delphia Murray told her "you will be
off tomorrow." Three sewers from Allene, Arkansas -
Mears, Ethel Winters, and Christine Walker - were off
on June 17. Mears testified that she called Walker that
afternoon, who told her that Emily Leiby wanted the
employees "at the end of the line to come" the next day
Mears reported for work on June 18. Floor girl Delphia
Murray told her at the end of the day she would be off
tomorrow. Mears returned to the plant on Friday, June 20
to get her paycheck. She spoke to Mrs. Leiby about
coming back to work and Mrs. Leiby said she would
"leave word up front and you can call the office or I will
send you word by one of the girls." Mears called the plant
on June 24 and went to the plant on Friday, June 24, to
pick up her check. She was advised that Mrs. Leiby had
not left word for her to return to work. She was not
recalled to work.
SPOTLIGHT CO., INC. 645
Ethel Mears, a bagger in the finishing department, is
the sister-in-law of Mary Lou Mears. She signed a union
card and attended a union meeting. On June 16, Delphia
Murray told her she would be off the next day but to
come in on June 18 Shortly after Ethel started work on
June 18, Mrs. Leiby came by and asked what she was
doing there. Ethel said Murray had told her to come in.
Mrs Leiby said she had nothing for her to do and Ethel
said she would go home. After she punched out and
"walked out the door," Mary Lou Mears told her that
Delphia Murray had taken over the work at her table
Ethel inquired about work several times but was finally
told she would be called when Respondent needed her.
She was not recalled to work.
Leiby testified that he discharged Mary Lou Mears and
Ethel Mears because he considered it "insubordination"
for them to report for work on a day they were not
scheduled to work. He said reporting in on a
nonscheduled day is a serious offense because "you have a
limited amount of work" and "if you have to spread it
thin that means you've got to pay make up for that
particular day " Respondent never posted a notice about
checking before coming in to work. There is no claim that
either Mary Lou or Ethel Mears had ever before June 18
clocked in when they were not scheduled to work. Leiby
asked neither woman why she had come in on June 18
Although allegedly notified early on June 18 that Mary
Lou Mears had reported for work when Mrs. Leiby did
not need her, he permitted her to work the whole day.
Leiby's conduct in this respect is not consistent with his
assertion that her reporting for work was a serious breach
of discipline warranting summary dismissal . Respondent
knew that Mary Lou Mears was on the Union's
organizing committee . I find that Mary Lou Mears was
discharged because she was a union supporter. Although
Ethel Mears was not on the Union 's organizing
committee, she was a union supporter Like her
sister-in -law Mary Lou Mears, she reported for work on
June 18 when it appears she was not scheduled to work
Respondent could hardly have explained that it discharged
Mary Lou Mears for this reason had it kept Ethel Mears
in its employ. I find that Ethel Mears was discharged
either because Respondent knew or believed her to be a
union sympathizer or because Respondent wished to
"cover" its discriminatory motivation in discharging Mary
Lou Mears I conclude that Respondent's discharges of
Mary Lou Mears and Ethel Mears were violative of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 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 violative 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 affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged or refused employment to Nina Jean Greene,
Patricia Chafin, Leona B. Altenbaumer, Mary Lou
Mears, and Ethel Mears, and that Respondent
discriminatorily laid off Kay McElhannon for 1 day. I
shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer full and
immediate reinstatement to these employees, except for
McElhannon, to their former or substantially equivalent
positions at its Ashdown plant without- prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and that
Respondent make these employees, including
McElhannon, 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
Co., 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Company,
138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Spotlight Company, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall-
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, refusing to employ, laying off, 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 loss of work for
engaging in union activity.
(c) Promising employees benefits if they refrain from
union activities
(d) Requesting employees to engage in antiunion
activity and soliciting employees to sign antiunion
petitions.
(e) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
own or other employees' union activities and sentiments.
(f) 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 effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Nina Jean Greene, Patricia Chafin, Leona B.
Altenbaumer, Mary Lou Mears, and Ethel Mears
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them and Kay McElhannon 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 employee if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of her 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 relevant and necessary to analyze and compute the
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amount - of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Ashdown, Arkansas, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 26, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall 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 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 26, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
"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 by 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
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."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, 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
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered
us to post this notice and keep our word about what we
have to say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of work for
supporting the^Union.
WE WILL NOT promise to improve your working
conditions if you drop your support of the Union
WE WILL NOT ask you to work against the Union or
to sign ,petitions opposing the Union
WE WILL NOT question you in any way over the
Union.
Since the Board found that we violated the law when
we discharged Nina Jean Greene, Patricia Chafin,
Leona B. Altenbaumer, Mary Lou Mears, and Ethel
Mears, WE WILL offer them full reinstatement to their
old jobs, and WE WILL pay them for any loss that they
suffered because we discharged them If any of these
employees is presently in the Armed Forces of the
United States, WE WILL notify her of her right to a job
upon application after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
Since the Board also found that we laid off Kay
McElhannon for l day because she was a Union
supporter, WE WILL pay for the day's work she lost
You are' free to become and remain members of the
International Ladies' Garment Workers'" Union, or any
other labor organization, and WE WILL NOT punish you in
any way if you do. -
SPOTLIGHT COMPANY, 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 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,
746 Federal Office Building , 167 North Main Street,
Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.