Troy Textiles, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1148 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 990 (Troy Textiles, Inc.) and
Laura Jean Adams. Case 15-CB-892
March 13, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 14, 1968, Trial Examiner George
Turitz 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. The
Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
as to them. 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
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 brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
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, Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local
990, Troy, Alabama, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
in affirming the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated
Section 8 (b)(IXA) of the Act we rely solely on his correct statement of the
law that "the test of the coerciveness of a statement does not , of course,
depend upon its actual effect upon listeners but, rather , upon whether it
reasonably tends to have a coercive effect, " and find that these statements
did reasonably have the tendency to coerce employees
In view of the other violations found herein, we find it unnecessary to
consider whether or not Jones was an agent of Respondent ' s at the time
she made her coercive statement to Dorrill, and consequently do not rely
on the Trial Examiner ' s finding that she was and that Respondent was, in
consequence , responsible for her statement
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner On a charge filed on
April 17, 1968, by Laura Jean Adams ("the Charging
Party" and, at times "Adams"), and served on April 17,
1968, upon Troy Textiles, Inc. ("Troytex"), and on
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
Local 990 ("the Respondent" and, at times, "the Union")
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board ("the Board"), through the Regional Director for
Region 15, on May 23, 1968, issued a complaint and
notice of hearing against Respondent Respondent filed its
answer in which it denied all allegations of unfair labor
practices A hearing on the Complaint was held on July
25, 1968, at Troy, Alabama, before the Trial Examiner
named above. The General Counsel, Respondent, and the
Charging Party were represented by counsel at the
hearing. Counsel for the General Counsel and for
Respondent have filed briefs with the Trial Examiner
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the
witnesses the Trial Examiner makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Troy Textiles, Inc , is an Alabama corporation. Since
prior to December 1967 and up to a date in the spring of
1968 Troytex was a division of Alabama Textile Products
Corporation ("Alatex") and was engaged at a plant in
Troy, Alabama ("the Troytex plant"), in the manufacture
of textile products. In the spring of 1968 various
manufacturing facilities of Alatex, including the Troytex
plant, were purchased by Cluett, Peabody & Co , Inc , a
corporation ("Cluett Peabody"), which continued to
operate the plant as one of its divisions' In the course of
their respective operations at the Troytex plant Troytex
did, and Cluett Peabody does, annually purchase and
cause to be transported from points located outside
Alabama directly to said plant goods and materials valued
at in excess of $50,000, and Troytex did, and Cluett
Peabody does, annually sell and ship products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from said plant to their
customers located outside the State of Alabama
Respondent has conceded the Board's jurisdiction
It is found that Troytex and Cluett Peabody are each
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended ("the Act")
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction
The principal issues litigated at the hearing were
whether the Respondent coerced employees (a) by telling
them that when the Troytex plant was taken over by
Cluett Peabody, nonmembers would be discharged, or
would be discriminated against on recalls after layoffs, (b)
by telling them that nonmembers were not covered by
At the hearing Respondent amended its answer so as to withdraw its
denial of the allegation to this effect in the Complaint
174 NLRB No. 173
TROY TEXTILES, INC 1149
insurance; and (c) by engaging in surveillance of
employees cooperating in the Board's investigation of the
Charge.
In about 1966 another labor organization tried to
organize the Troytex employees but without success
During that campaign employees were told that they
would have to become union members if the labor
organization involved became their representative Many
employees learned at that time that Alabama had a law
forbidding the requirement of membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment.
Respondent was a newly organized local of
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO
("the Amalgamated"). Officers were elected for the first
time on January 29, 1968, and they took office on
February 21 All were ordinary employees of Troytex.
However, in December 1967 the Local was already in
existence and had a business agent assigned to it; and
organizational activities had been carried on by the
Amalgamated even before the business agent arrived.
Among those outstandingly active in the organizational
activities was Jewell Jones who on January 29 was elected
chairlady of Local 990.
Alatex recognized Respondent as the bargaining
representative of the Troytex employees on December 14,
1967, and a contract between Alatex and Respondent,
retroactive to that date, was executed on December 27,
1967 No contention is made in this case that Respondent
did not represent a majority of the employees at the time
it received recognition, and it was testified without
contradiction that at the time of the hearing
approximately 65 percent of the employees were members
of Union. The contract contained no union-security clause
and provided for insurance and other benefits for which
unit employees were eligible without regard to their union
membership When word of the impending acquisition of
the plant reached the employees, rumors spread among
them to the effect that when Cluett Peabody took over,
membership in Respondent would be a condition of
employment The record does not disclose by whom the
rumors were started
B Threats of Discharge or Layoff
Annie Knotts testified that about the beginning of April
1968 Julia Meeker, Respondent's insurance secretary and
a member of its executive board, remarked that she was
concerned that if Knotts did not sign a union card, Knotts
might not have a job when Cluett Peabody took over
When Knotts told Meeker that she had been subpoenaed
to the hearing, complaining that she had been tricked by
Adams into giving a statement to the Board investigator,
Meeker, who by that time knew that she had been named
in the Complaint, said, "I didn't tell you that you would
lose your fob " At the hearing Meeker admitted
suggesting that Knotts join Respondent before Cluett
Peabody took over, but she denied saying anything about
any possible loss of job Knotts impressed the Trial
Examiner as a truthful and impartial witness. It is found
that Meeker made the warning statement.
In late March or April W R Donaldson, the Union's
steward for the warehouse and shipping department, had a
disucssion with Walter Davis, brother-in-law of the
Charging Party and at that time a union member, about
what they would do in the event of a strike. Davis testified
that Donaldson said that when Cluett Peabody
"officially" took over, all employees would have to be
union members or be discharged. He stated, further, that
he made no reply since he did not believe Donaldson The
latter testified that he had discussed the eventuality of a
strike with Davis, but he did not more specifically deny
having told Davis that union membership would become a
condition of employment with the advent of Cluett
Peabody Davis also testified that about April 1 Willy
Madaris, Respondent's sergeant-at-arms, commented to
him that he was certain that when Cluett Peabody took
over, employees would have to join the Union in order to
keep their jobs. Madaris testified, apparently with
reference to the same conversation, that Davis asked him
a question about Cluett Peabody's policy in union plants
with respect to "mov[ing] the work around," and that he
said that the policy worked out better. Without
specifically denying Davis' testimony, he stated that he
could not recall anything else. In view of the weakness of
Donaldson's and Madaris' denials and of the absence of
evidence that any union officer at any time denied the
rumors which have been described, it is found that
Donaldson and Madaris made the statements testified to
by Davis
Douglas Garrett testified that Mamie Carswell,
Respondent's president, told him about April l that when
Cluett Peabody took over the plant, nonmembers who
were laid off would not be recalled to work and that when
he inquired of Campbell, the plant manager, the latter
replied, "She has not got it exactly right " Carswell
testified that Garrett initiated the conversation, telling her
that he had heard a rumor that when Cluett Peabody took
over he would have to join the Union or lose his job She
stated that she replied that she knew nothing about it
Garrett testified that he could not recall who had initiated
the conversation. Garrett's recollection of some aspects of
the conversation with Carswell was vague More
important, the plant manager's comment, according to
him, was not to contradict flatly what he reported
Carswell had said, but merely that Carswell "has not got
it exactly right." This is in contrast to Margaret Dorrill's
testimony, described below, which demonstrates that the
plant manager left no room for doubt, when asked, that
he would not allow union membership to be a condition of
employment The Trial Examiner has found Garrett's
testimony unconvincing and finds that Carswell did not
tell Garrett that laid-off nonmembers would not be
recalled.
Margaret Dorrill, a sister of the Charging Party,
testified that at the end of January or the first of
February Jewell Jones, chairlady of Respondent, asked
her why she did not join the Union, saying that when
Cluett Peabody took over, nonmembers would be fired,
and that she replied, "That remains to be seen " She
asked the plant manager about that and was told that as
long as he was manager, he would do the hiring and
firing. Jones denied having a conversation with Dorrill in
late January or early February, testifying that she was out
ill during that period. Doubt is thrown upon Jones'
recollection in this regard by the fact that she originally
placed her conversation with Betty Davis, described below,
in January, and had to be reminded by counsel of her
allegedly long absence during that period. Betty Davis
testified that about April 1, at which time she was
member of the Union, Jones asked her whether her sister,
the Charging Party, who was not planning to join the
Union, realized that when Cluett Peabody took over she
might for that reason lose her job Davis said that she
replied, "We don't have a closed shop in Alabama," to
which, she testified, Jones answered, "Yes, that at any
time you have a union shop and you ship in and out of the
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
state, you have to be all union to do it " Jones testified
that at one time discussion had come up with Davis about
the fact that railroad employees were required to join
labor organizations, whereas Troytex employees could not
be so required, and that she had told Davis that a
neighbor of hers had "guessed it was because they were
interstate." She denied that anything else had been said.
While Jones denied telling Betty Davis that Adams might
lose her job when Cluett Peabody took over, she admitted
having discussed with Davis the possibility that Alabama's
"right-to-work" law might not apply to firms engaged in
interstate commerce In view of the foregoing, and of the
absence of evidence that Jones or any other union official
did anything to dispel the rumors that union membership
would be required as a condition of employment when
Cluett Peabody took over, it is found that Jones did make
the statements attributed to her by Betty Davis and
Dorrill S
Nora Williams testified that in the early April, "in the
hall," Jones advised a group of about 10 or more
employees to join Respondent, inasmuch as when Cluett
Peabody took over Troytex, nonmembers would not have
jobs and that she, Williams, replied, "We have open shop
in Alabama." Jones testified, "I hardly ever go to the hall
and I am sure I didn't make any statement to her "
Williams testified to the incident convincingly. It is found
that Jones made the statement
Adams testified that about the middle of March Jones,
soliciting her to join Respondent, asked her whether she
understood that when Cluett Peabody took over she would
have to be a union member or be fired, and that she
replied that she understood that there was a
"right-to-work" law in Alabama and that she did not
believe that when a firm "shipped out of the state it would
have to be one hundred percent union," to which, she
testified, Jones replied, "Wait and see " Jones testified
that Adams had stated at the second meeting held by the
Amalgamated that she had no use for the Union and that,
consequently, she never spoke to Adams on the subject
Adams was especially outspoken in her opposition to the
Union, so that Jones could expect her to rebuff any
solicitation for membership As the Union already had a
majority, Jones' testimony that she avoided approaching
Adams about the Union has support in logic. Moreover,
Adams bore some resentment towards the Union because
she felt that the Union had discriminated against her by
filing a grievance which resulted in a reduction in the
number of jobs to which she was eligible for assignment,
thus potentially reducing her earnings. In view of the
circumstances which have been described, and as the only
testimony as to the conversations offered by the General
Counsel was that of a zealous partisan bearing some
resentment against Respondent, it is found that the
General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of
the credible evidence that Jones made the statements
attributed to her by Adams
It is found that the Union, through its agents, Meeker,
Madaris, Donaldson, and Jones, warned employees that
'The General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that Jones ' statement to Dorrill was made at a time when Respondent had
a formal existence or after Jones' election as chairlady However,
Respondent existed as an inchoate local of the Amalgamated at least from
the time of its recognition on December 14, and whether or not Jones held
formal office at the time of her statement to Dorrill, she was outstanding
among the employees in soliciting members on behalf of Respondent which
accepted the benefit of her efforts with full knowledge of the nature of her
activity It is found that Jones was an agent of Respondent at the time of
her statement to Dorrill
when Cluett Peabody took over the plant, they would have
to be members of the Union in order to retain their jobs
C. Threats as to Insurance
In about February 1968 Thomas Day, whose wife, also
an employee, was pregnant, asked Madaris, the Union's
sergeant-at-arms, whether she would be covered by
insurance Madaris said that he did not know but thought
so Jones happened to pass by and the question was put to
her Jones did not give a definite reply, saying, merely,
"so far as I know we have [insurance] " Day testified, "
and I told her that I had damn sure better have some
insurance when I needed it, and I got so mad I turned and
walked off " Jones filed a grievance against Day "for
using slang language," i.e. for swearing,' and a conference
was held attended by Day, Jones, Petty, the union
business agent, and Campbell, the plant manager At the
conference Day was told that his wife's maternity claim
depended upon her employment status at the time she had
become pregnant, and that it would be necessary to
examine payroll records when she entered the hospital to
determine her eligibility Campbell, as well as Jones and
Petty, did not give Day a definite answer as to his wife's
eligibility. It is found that Jones did not tell Day that the
insurance program would cover only union members.
Adams testified that in the conversation with Jones
which she said took place in mid-March, already
described in Section B, she asked Jones "about the
insurance," and that Jones said that only union members
were covered She also testified that on 8 or 10 occasions
in March, April, or May, Carswell remarked to groups of
employees "in the hall" that they were idiots not to join
the Union since "the union insurance" would not cover
them if they did not join Margaret Dorrill testified as
follows with respect to a conversation in January 1968
with Carswell who, she said, was not yet a union officer.
I was sitting in my car, and she came walking past She
asked me was I for the union, and I told her no, not
that I knew of And did I know when Cluett Peabody
took over we would not be covered by insurance We
would not have any insurance And I said there was
plenty of insurance
Carswell denied ever having had any "union conversation"
with Dorrill ° She also testified that she recalled no
occasion when she spoke to any group of employees in the
hall, as testified by Adams The Trial Examiner has
already refused to credit Adams' testimony about her
alleged conversation with Jones in mid-March It is here
noted, in addition, that in view of the strained relations
between the two and of her testimony that she did not
credit Jones' advice about a union shop, and as the record
discloses that the plant manager was readily accessible to
answer employees' questions, Jones was hardly the person
to whom Adams would resort for advice about employees'
benefits under the contract Adams' testimony about
numerous comments by Carswell to groups of employees
"in the hall" was not corroborated, not even by her sister,
Margaret Dorrill, who Adams claimed was present at all
those conversations. It is found that Jones and Carswell
did not make the comments about insurance attributed to
them by Adams Dorrill did testify, as stated above, that
Carswell told her privately that nonmembers would not
have insurance when Cluett Peabody took over. However,
'Jones filed similar grievances against four or five other employees, one
of whom was Adams
`The transcript refers to Margaret Doyle
TROY TEXTILES, INC.
the Trial Examiner has found Dorrill's testimony, which
was uncorroborated, unconvincing and finds that the
General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that Carswell made the statement.
It is found that Respondent did not state to employees
that the insurance program covered or would cover only
union members.
D. Surveillance of the Board's Investigation
On April 23 a field examiner employed by the Board
was in Room 106 on the ground floor of the Holiday Inn
Motel in Troy interviewing employees of Troytex in
connection with the investigation of the Charge in this
case At some time between 6 30 and 8 p m. Ellouise
Livingston, chairlady of Local 991 of the Amalgamated,5
drove by Room 106. She parked her car about 100 feet
away and, after sitting there a short time, drove from the
premises Some time later she visited the home of
Madaris, Local 990's sergeant-at-arms, where she
remained, according to her testimony, for an hour to an
hour and a half. At some time between 9 and 1015 p.m
Jewell Jones, chairlady of Respondent. slowly drove by
Room 106 and then out of the Holiday Inn premises
Livingston testified that she had been on her way to
Brundidge, a neighboring town, and when she passed the
Holiday Inn, decided to look in to see if certain friends of
hers from Georgia happened to be there; that while
looking over the parked cars for that of her friends, she
caught sight of a group of Troytex employees and,
thinking that they might be in some trouble, parked her
car with the intention of going over to ascertain what was
wrong, but that she then saw that there was nothing
wrong, since they were laughing, and so lighted a
cigarette, remained about 2 minutes, and drove on to
Brundidge and then to Madaris' house Most witnesses for
the General Counsel testified that she remained parked at
the Holiday Inn for 5 to 10 minutes Jones testified that
the occasion for her being at the Holiday Inn was that she
was dropping off an out-of-town friend who was a guest at
the motel.
The Charge in this case, although mailed on April 17,
was not received by the Union until April 26 There is no
evidence that Jones, Livingston, Madaris, or any other
agent of Respondent, Local 991, or the Amalgamated,
was aware prior to April 26 that any charge had been
filed or that any Board investigation was in progress, nor
is there evidence that Livingston, Jones, or anyone else
connected with Respondent or the Amalgamated was
aware that a Board investigator was at the Holiday Inn on
April 23 While Adams had told many employees that she
planned to file a charge against the Union, that had been
a month before and, moreover, related to her apparently
baseless claim that Respondent was causing Troytex to
discriminate against her on the job In view of the absence
of evidence that Respondent was aware of the
investigation, it is found that the General Counsel has
failed to prove the allegation that Respondent engaged in
surveillance of the investigation ' Wigwam Mills, Inc., 149
NLRB 1601, 1625
'Local 991 was a separate local represerting employees in another
Alatex plant in Troy, but both employed the same business agent They
had held joint meetings in their earlier stages , but not at the time of the
events here in question
'It has been assumed , without deciding , that Livingston was an agent of
Respondent on the occasion in question In view of the limited pleadings
1151
E. Concluding Findings
At the time the Union was warning employees of the
possible loss of their jobs because of nonmembership it
had already achieved majority status and a contract The
threats and appeals to join which were made were devoid
of any sense of urgency As Jones testified, the Union was
" not begging them to join " The loss of employment
threatened was not within the Union's power to
accomplish alone but was contingent upon the cooperation
and participation of Cluett Peabody.' moreover, it related
to nothing imminent, since Cluett Peabody was not yet
the employer The fact that Alabama had a
"right-to-work" law was known among the employees,
and the reaction of those who testified reveals that such
participation by Cluett Peabody was widely recognized as
unlikely Adams, Betty Davis, Walter Davis, and Williams
disclosed by their testimony that they did not believe that
they would be required to join the Union, Dorrill, too,
expressed skepticism, saying, "that remains to be seen";
and both Dorrill and Knotts proceeded to obtain
enlightenment elsewhere about their rights The test of the
coerciveness of a statement does not, of course, depend
upon its actual effect upon listeners but, rather, upon
whether it reasonably tends to have a coercive effect In
view of the low-keyed tone of the threats, the Union's
obvious inability to carry them out alone, and the
employees' apparent recognition that Cluett Peabody's
participation was unlikely, the threats had, at best, little
tendency to coerce. However, the union agents' very
purpose in making the statements was to create among
the employees some degree of apprehension for their fobs
because of lack of union membership, an apprehension
from which Congress, in enacting Sections 14(b) and 7 of
the Act, intended that these particular employees be
entirely free It is found, therefore, that the Union
restrained and coerced the employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 and thereby violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of Respondent set forth
above in section III, occurring in connection with the
operations of Cluett Peabody and Troytex described above
in section 1, 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
As it has been found that Respondent engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the
Board issue the Recommended Order set forth below
requiring Respondent to cease and desist from said unfair
labor practices and to take certain affirmative action
the Trial Examiner has not considered whether the evidence would sustain
the General Counsel ' s contention to this effect or whether the actions of
Livingston and/or Jones did or did not constitute coercive surveillance of
concerted activities of employees opposed to the Union
'In form the statements referred only to action by Cluett Peabody, but
their normal meaning , in the absence of special circumstances or of
qualification to the contrary, would include the implication that the Union
would cause Cluett Peabody to take the discriminatory action See Arlan's
Department Store of Michigan , Inc, 133 NLRB 802, 809
1 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which will effectuate the policies of the Act
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of
the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner makes
the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Troy Textiles, Inc , and Cluett Peabody and Co ,
Inc., are each engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2( 6) and (7) of the Act , and are, and at all times
material have been, each an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act
2 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, Local 990, is, and at all times material has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3 By threatening employees with loss of employment if
they did not join the Union Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that
Respondent, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Local 990, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees in the Troy, Alabama, plant
of Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc , with loss of employment
if they do not become or remain members of Respondent
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing said employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is
found, will effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting places copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "8 Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 15, shall, after being duly signed by an official
representative of Respondent, be posted by said
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members of Respondent are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 15
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
signed copies of said notice for posting by Cluett, Peabody
& Co., Inc., if willing, in places where notices to its
employees are customarily posted Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall, after being
signed by an official representative of Respondent, be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition
by him
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 9
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the Board dismiss the
allegations in the Complaint that Respondent threatened
employees by stating that only union members would be
covered by the insurance programs and that Respondent
engaged in surveillance of employees cooperating in a
Board investigation
'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 the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 990
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that.
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, a decision has been reached finding
that we violated the law and ordering us to post this
notice and actually do what we say in this notice
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Cluett, Peabody
& Co., Inc , at the Troy plant that they will lose their
jobs if they do not join or remain members of the
Union.
WE WILL respect the rights of all said employees to
refrain from membership in this Union
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce any such employees
in the exercise of rights under the National Labor
Relations Act
Dated By
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 990
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
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
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal
Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6361