Twin Frocks Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sol Habib, Irving Habib, Victor Habib d/b/a Twin
Frocks Co. and Local 90, International Ladies' Gar-
ment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case 2-CA-12621
the demeanor of the witnesses , and after due consideration
of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company,
I make the following:
October 16, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On July 12, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed an answering 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Sol Habib, Irving Habib,
Victor Habib d/b/a Twin Frocks Co., New York,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
1 The title of "Tnal Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION,
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADwIG, Trial Examiner: This case was
tried at New York, New York, on May 22, 23, and 25, 1972.'
The charge was filed on March 24, and the complaint was
issued on April 28. The primary issues are whether the
Company, the Respondent partnership, (a) coercively inter-
rogated and warned employees concerning their union ac-
tivity and attempted to keep the activity under surveillance,
and (b) discrimmatorily discharged a union organizer and
four union supporters, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
' All dates are in 1972.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a partnership , is engaged in the manu-
facture of low priced women's dresses at its plant in New
York City, and annually ships products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly to customers located outside the State. The
Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7)
of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11 ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The Union began its organizing campaign at the
Company's nonunion plant in February. Iris Declet, a paid
union organizer, obtained employment as a sewing machine
operator in the plant on February 9, to organize the female
employees. Organizer Thomas Jones began talking to male
employees outside the plant at lunchtime.
After work on Friday, March 17, five or six of the male
employees-including Fritzner Belony, Fritz Geffrard,
Adolphus Harris, and Alberto Martinez-attended a union
meeting near the plant. A separate meeting was planned for
the female employees. Before it could be held, Declet (on
March 20) and Belony, Geffrard, Harris, and Martinez (on
March 22) left their employment; the Company allegedly
interrogated and warned employees about the union activi-
ty; and the Union began picketing with a sign reading, "On
strike against Twin Frocks for unfair labor practices, Local
91, AFL-CIO."
The General Counsel contends that Declet and the four
union supporters were discriminatorily discharged. The
Company denies the allegations and contends that the em-
ployees voluntarily quit.
B. Termination of Organizer Declet
On Monday, March 20, the first workday after the
union meeting, sewing machine operator Declet left the
plant. According to her , sometime that afternoon she over-
heard Foreman Larry Tricarico ask the machine operator
next to her if the woman knew "if they are talking about the
Union." The woman (who did not testify) denied any
knowledge about it, and Declet spoke up and asked, "Why
don't you ask me .... I signed a card." Tricarico said "that's
no good what you do to me," and told Declet that she would
"get in trouble with the boss." Tricarico went downstairs
(where he talked to Manager Sol Habib , a partner and
owner of the Company), and upon returning, whispered to
Declet, "Iris, the boss wants to talk to you." Declet went
downstairs and saw Habib standing near where employee
Belony (one of the alleged discriminatees) was working.
Habib was "furious," and asked her if she had signed a card.
She answered yes. Habib asked why she signed. (Belony,
199 NLRB No. 106
TWIN FROCKS CO. 751
who impressed me as an honest , forthright witness , credibly
testified that Habib had his back to the table where Belony
was working, and "I only heard he said why did you sign
the card .") Declet answered , "because the other people
signed and I signed , too." Habib asked if she had to do what
others did, and Declet responded that she signed "because
I want it." Habib told her to "go to the Union ... I don't
need you here any more , tell that to the Union ." Declet went
back upstairs to get her things , told some of the women what
had happened , and urged them , "Don't worry , don't be
scared." She then went downstairs , saw Habib talking with
Belony, and asked Habib , "How come you laid off me and
you didn't lay off him because he signed , too?/' Next she
told Belony , "Fritz, tell him the truth , tell him you signed,
you don't have be scared ," and left . Belony credibly testified
that Declet said on her way out, "Don't be afraid , tell him
you signed a card." (The Company contends that Declet
voluntarily quit that morning . However, she was paid for
working 8 hours that day, and I consider it most unlikely
that she would have been if she had left in the morning.)
When called as defense witnesses , Foreman Tricarico
and Manager Habib gave conflicting testimony, and both
impressed me as attempting to fabricate a defense rather
than reveal what actually happened . Both of them denied
that Tricarico reported anything to Habib about Declet
signing a union card . (Tricarico denied ever questioning
anybody about union activity , and further denied that he
knew anything about a union-not even a rumor-until a
week later , March 27 . This is unbelievable , even without the
contradictory testimony by defense witness Mary Tsikteris,
who testified that "several days" before March 22, she "dis-
cussed" with Tricarico the union man being outside the
plant . The date this occurred , according to defense witness
Thomas Williams , was March 17.) Both Tricarico and Ha-
bib claimed that what Tricarico reported to Habib on
March 20 was that Declet was doing faulty work. But on
details, they gave conflicting testimony . For example, Ha-
bib testified that Tricarico stated Declet "had damaged
three machines in the period of five weeks." (Emphasis
supplied .) To the contrary , Tricarico positively testified that
Declet did not damage the machines, and that he had exam-
ined the two machines she had earlier complained were not
working right and had found them to be "okay."
According to Habib , when he called Declet downstairs
and tried to reason with her, she said , "Look ... man, I don't
give a s-. You can't do me anything . I belong to the Union.
I've got everybody here organized . I've got all the girls
organized. I have all the boys organized. They're all the
union, and that's where I'm going to go," and "she just in
a huff just ran away ," quitting . He testified he was absolute-
ly certain he did not ask her to name anyone she had organ-
ized . (Habib 's April 4 pretrial affidavit, which was
introduced by the Company to support his credibility,
states, "I then told Iris if she didn't make an effort I couldn't
keep her. She said you can't let me go or I'll go to the Union.
I said I can't stop you from going to do what you want to.
She then said I 'll tell you something. `I have everyone here
signed up with the Union.' I said that surprises me. I said
you do have , name me one . She replied I have them all. She
then left and went upstairs .") I find that Habib 's testimony
of what transpired is a fabrication , and credit the version
given by Declet, who appeared to be a candid, forthright
witness.
Accordingly, I find that employee-organizer Declet did
not quit , as contended by the Company, and find that Man-
ager Habib discriminatorily discharged her because of her
union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. (Although she was being paid by the Union, I find that
she was a bona fide employee , who worked even when she
was not feeling well in order to retain her job . As she credi-
bly testified, she was still in the stage of becoming acquaint-
ed with the employees , and had planned to continue
working there a long time , but when she was discharged, "I
didn 't have no chance to talk to the rest of the girls.")
C. Interrogation, Warnings, and Surveillance
Soon after Declet's March 20 discharge , as employee
Belony credibly testified, Manager Habib asked Beloiiey
about signing a union card . It was then that Declet, upon
leaving the plant, told Belony not to be afraid , and to admit
signing a card . Belony told Habib , "Yes, I signed ." Habib
asked him where he had signed the card , and Belony said
he knew the street , but did not know the number. Habib
"sent [employee] Joe Varilla with me to show him where I
signed this card . I went out with him . When I reach the
place , I tell him I don't remember the number ." (Habib
admitted that in "casual" conversation , he questioned Belo-
ny about signing with the Union. I discredit his claim that
Belony denied knowing what ' it was he signed , whether it
was for a union or not , and that Belony volunteered to go
around the comer and find out. According to Habib, he
asked Belony if he wanted anybody to go with him, and
when Belony suggested Varilla , Habib said , "Joe, go with
Fntzner. See what he signed , what union he signed if he
signed up with any union .") I find that in the context of the
discriminatory discharge of Declet , Habib's interrogation of
Belony about signing a union card was coercive, and that
his assignment of an employee to go with Belony to the
union hall was an attempt to keep the union meeting place
under surveillance , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
as alleged.
On this same day, March 20, Manager Habib also in-
terrogated two other employees who had attended the
March 17 union meeting. Employee Linden Knott credibly
testified that Habib called him over and said "he under-
stood that I was a member of a union." Hearing Knott's
denial, Habib "said he hoped I wasn't because if I was it
would be terrible with me . Those were his exact words." (I
discredit Habib's claim that he talked only to Declet and
Belony about the Union on March 20 . Although Habib at
first positively testified that he "Never spoke to Linden
[Knott] regarding the Union , never," he later conceded that
"It could be possible" that , before Wednesday of that week,
he asked Knott whether he knew anything about the Union
"in casual conversation.") I find that this interrogation and
the warning were coercive , and violated Section 8(a)(1).
Likewise, as employee Fritz Geffrard credibly testified,
Habib approached Geffrard in the plant that day and asked
him, "Who tell you to sign the card?" (I note that Habib's
pretrial affidavit states that on March 20 , "Belony said he
had signed a card on Friday , 17 of March , with some other
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
boys and girls . He mentioned only Fritz Geffrard." On the
stand, Habib testified that Belony "didn't mention any
names .") Geffrard told Habib, "Nobody tells me to sign the
card. I signed card, I wanted to and nobody can tell me to
sign the card." Habib sent for Geffrard's sister, employee
Gladys Dorce, to act as an interpreter. (Geffrard, who testi-
fied in English, is an immigrant from Haiti, where his native
language was Haitian Patois.) Habib then "said he doesn't
need the Union," and that "Anybody who needs the Union
can go home because he doesn't need the Union." Geffrard
said he did not know what to do because he had signed the
paper (union card) already. (At one point, company witness
Dorce appeared to recall this discussion. When asked how
she learned that Habib knew her brother had signed a union
card, she testified, "I think my brother was working down-
stairs," and Habib sent for her; "My brother was downstairs
and I went downstairs." She suddenly paused, acting as if
she was revealing something which might hurt the
Company's cause, and appeared to be feigning a lapse in
memory, testifying, "I can't tell you. I don't know .... I
don't know nothing about when ... Sol knew my brother
signed." She appeared to be fearful for her own job.) I find
that Habib's interrogation of Geffrard, together with the
warning about anybody needing the Union "can go home,"
were coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1).
Before lunch the next day, March 21, as credibly testi-
fied by employee Knott, Manager Habib "asked me to look
and see who was speaking to the union man [Organizer
Jones] at lunchtime," and to report back to him. (I discredit
Habib's denials that he saw Jones or spoke to Knott about
the Union that day. Habib's April 4 affidavit states, "On
Tuesday, on the staircase by the door where the boys eat
lunch, I noticed a tall Black Man calling to the boys and
saying "I'd buy the boys coffee .... I assumed that man
was from the Union." He was evidently referring to Jones
in the affidavit.) I find that Habib's request that Knott
observe and report on this union activity was another at-
tempt to keep the union activity under surveillance, and
further violated Section 8(a)(1) as alleged.
The following morning, Wednesday, March 22, em-
ployee Harris (one of the alleged discriminatees) was not
permitted to go to work until he spoke over the telephone
with Manager Habib and answered questions about signing
a union card. Harris had been out sick on Monday and
Tuesday. Partner Irving Habib (who did not testify) "said
I shouldn't start work until I speak with his brother Sol"
who was on the telephone. Harris went to the telephone and
Manager Sol Habib "asked me whether I signed a union
card, I told him yes, he said why, I said because I thought
there would be some benefit to me and my children. I went
to start work then." (I discredit Habib's claim that he asked
Harris about how he felt and what was his trouble and told
him "Go on back to work.") I find that this interrogation
about whether and why Harris signed a union card was
coercive and violated Section 8(a)(1).
That Wednesday afternoon, as discussed later, employ-
ee Harris and three other alleged discriminatees left work.
Employee Knott credibly testified that Manager Habib
"called a meeting with all the workers immediately" af-
terwards. "He told us that he didn't want a union ... that
he wanted nobody to become a member of the Union" and
"if anybody joined the Union, they will be out, that is why
he sent those boys out." (Foreman Tricarico testified that
on March 27, the first day of the picketing, Manager Habib
held a 20-25 minute meeting in which Habib told the em-
ployees that whoever were inside, claiming that they signed
union cards, "can go out if they want." Whether or not there
was also a meeting of employees on March 27, as the Com-
pany attempted to establish by leading questions, I credit
employee Knott's testimony about the meeting on March
22. Most of the defense witnesses, from their demeanor on
the stand, appeared more concerned with supporting the
Company's cause than testifying with candor. I discredit the
denials that Habib made any threats.) Having credited
Knott's testimony that Habib told the employees on March
22 that "if anybody joined the Union, they will be out," and
"that is why he sent those boys out," I find that this warning
of discharge violated Section 8(a)(1).
A day later, on March 23, Manager Habib again asked
employee Knott if he was a member of the Union, "telling
me at that time that there was a rumor that I am a member."
Upon Knott's continued denial, Habib "asked me to look
for whoever was going to the union man [Organizer Jones]."
Having found Knott to be a trustworthy witness, and Habib
not to be, I credit this testimony and discredit Habib's deni-
als. In the context of the other unfair labor practices, I find
this repeated interrogation of Knott to be coercive, and that
the interrogation and the continued attempt to keep the
union activity under surveillance further violated Section
8(a)(1). (I note that employee Knott continued to work until
sometime the following week, when he left and joined the
strike. When asked why he left, he credibly testified that
Habib continued to ask him about the rumor that he was
a union member, and "I eventually told him that I was," and
joined the strike. He was still on strike at the time of trial.)
D. Alleged Discharge of Four
Union Supporters
On Wednesday, March 22 (2 days after employee
Geffrard had admitted signing a union card and Manager
Habib had told him "Anybody who needs the Union can
go home"), Geffrard went outside the plant at lunchtime
and spoke to Union Organizer Jones on the street. Looking
toward the plant, Geffrard saw Habib standing at the door
to the plant, looking in Geffrard's direction. Upon his re-
turning to work, as Geffrard credibly testified, his sister
came to him, and said that "the boss said to go home."
Geffrard immediately went to talk to Habib, who told him
that Habib wanted to send him, Martinez, and Belony
home. Geffrard called Martinez and Belony for Habib, and
Habib instructed the bookkeeper to make out their checks.
(Martinez did not testify. Belony credibly testified that
when Geffrard came to tell him that Habib had sent for him,
he asked "Fritz, what happened?" and Geffrard answered,
"Sol sent me home." Then "Before I reached him to ask him
. what he wants," Habib said, "Go get your money ...
Don't ask me any help, go to the union man.") Geffrard,
Belony, and Martinez left without waiting for their checks.
Meanwhile, as employee Hams credibly testified, Har-
ris returned from lunch and asked Geffrard what had hap-
pened. Geffrard "said Sol told me to go home." Harris later
TWIN FROCKS CO. 753
saw Belony getting his coat. Harris asked what had hap-
pened, and Belony said that Habib had told him to go home.
Harris went to Habib and asked, "Sol, what happened that
you're sending all the boys home." Habib did not explain.
Harris continued, "Well, if it's because of the Union, then
I think I have to leave too, because I signed a union card.
It's not fair if one party goes home and the rest of us stay.
If one man should suffer, the rest should suffer." Habib then
said, "Well, Hams, if you want to go, go." Harris then
punched out and left.
In sharp contrast to this credited testimony, Manager
Habib claimed that he talked to Geffrard's sister at lunch-
time about Geffrard repeatedly leaving the front door open
and told her "that I wish something could be done about it."
Shortly thereafter, according to Habib, Geffrard `just
walked completely past me and I asked him, `Where you
going?"' and "He didn't say a word and just walked right
out." Habib further claimed that when he asked Geffrard's
sister why Geffrard "had run out of the place," the sister
"told me she had spoken to Fritz and Fritz had told her he
had signed with the Union and he was going to go with the
strong attitude [sic]." Thus, according to Habib, the sister
reported back that Geffrard had quit. But when the sister,
Dorce, was called to the stand, she did not state anything
about Geffrard quitting, but testified, "I got tired from this
complaint" about the door being left open ... and I_went
upstairs and I tell my brother to leave." (Emphasis supplied.)
Both Habib and Dorce appeared to be attempting to fab-
ricate a defense, and I discredit both of their conflicting
versions. I also discredit Habib's claim that after Geffrard
left the plant, he returned in about 5 minutes to get Belony;
that as both were walking out together, Habib asked,
"What's happening? Where are youse going?" and "They
didn't say anything" but left. (I discredit company witness
Williams' testimony that Belony stated, "F- Sol Habib,"
to which Habib made no response; I credit instead Belony's
testimony that employee Williams was not even present, but
was working in the basement at the time. I also discredit
Williams' uncorroborated claim that he overheard Habib
tell an employee later that afternoon "that he did not fire
anybody or lay anybody off, they just walked out on their
own"; as well as defense witness Ana Hernandez' disputed
claim that employee Belony said the following week that
Habib did not fire him. Williams and Hernandez, both sen-
ior employees, appeared more concerned with supporting
the Company's cause than testifying accurately.) I also dis-
credit, as a further fabrication,,Habib's claim that Martinez
had not returned from lunch, was not present when the
other employees left, and voluntarily quit later.
I agree with the General Counsel that Manager Habib
discriminatorily discharged three of these employees,
Geffrard, Belony, and Martinez. Habib had discriminatori-
ly discharged employee-organizer Declet 2 days earlier, and
had warned Geffrard that "Anybody who needs the Union
can go home." Belony and Geffrard had both admitted to
Habib that they had signed union cards (as conceded by
Habib at one point in his testimony). They and Martinez
had attended the union meeting held on the preceding Fri-
day, and Habib had learned about the union meeting
through his unlawful interrogation. I find that Habib decid-
ed that it was necessary to discharge these three cardsigners,
as well as the employee-organizer, in order to undercut the
Union's organizing campaign. I further find that after the
fourth cardsigner, Harris, voluntarily left his employment in
response to these discharges, the Company fabricated the
defense that the other three union supporters, as well as the
employee-organizer, quit. Accordingly I find that the Com-
pany discriminatorily discharged employees Geffrard, Belo-
ny, and Martinez for engaging in union activity, in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
I disagree with the General Counsel, however, when he
contends that employee Harris was constructively dis-
charged. I find instead that he voluntarily made common
cause with the discriminatorily discharged employees and
engaged in the unfair labor practice strike, which was still
in progress at the time of trial. (He returned to work on
March 29 for 2 days, and then again joined the strike.) I
therefore find that he was not discriminatorily discharged.
When employee Harris unexpectedly joined the three
discharged employees on Wednesday afternoon, March 22,
Manager Habib was faced with a shortage of male employ-
ees. Within a few minutes after the four employees left the
plant, he sent word for them to return. They did, but as
employees Knott, Belony, and Geffrard credibly testified,
Habib did not offer them reinstatement, but instead re-
quested them to work only that afternoon. They refused.
However on Friday, March 24, when discharged em-
ployees Geffrard, Belony, and Martinez returned for their
paychecks, Manager Habib offered each of them rein-
statement. He did not offer to reinstate the employee-organ-
izer, Declet. Apparently under the belief that Habib would
want them to give up the Union if they returned to work,
and in support of the Union's strike action, the three em-
ployees did not accept reinstatement, but remained out on
strike. The following Monday morning, the Union began
picketing in protest of the Company's unfair labor practices.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Iris Declet on March 20, and by
discharging Fritzner Belony, Fritz Geffrard, and Alberto
Martinez on March 22, because of their union activity, the
Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By coercively interrogating and warning employees
about their union activity, and by attempting to keep the
union activity under surveillance, the Company violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The Company did not constructively discharge
Adolphus Hams.
REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it
necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like
or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights, and
to take certain affirmative action.
As found, the Respondent Company responded to the
Union's organizing campaign by discriminatorily dis-
charging an employee-organizer on March 20 and three
754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union supporters on March 22, and by unlawfully interro-
gating and warning employees about the union activity and
by attempting to keep the activity under surveillance. It
failed to offer reinstatement to the employee-organizer, and
failed to remedy the other unfair labor practices except to
offer reinstatement to the three other illegally discharged
employees on March 24. These three employees declined
reinstatement and became unfair labor strikers, along with
some of the other employees who also joined the strike
which was still in progress at the time of trial. These unfair
labor practice strikers are entitled to reinstatement upon
application. Johnson Sheet Metal, Inc., 179 NLRB 644
(1969), enfd. 442 F.2d 1056, 1061 (C.A. 10, 1971). I therefore
find it necessary that the Respondent be ordered to offer
employee-organizer Iris Declet immediate and full rein-
statement, and be ordered, upon application, to reinstate
discharged strikers Fritzner Belony, Fritz Geffrard, and Al-
berto Martinez, as well as Adolphus Harris, Linden Knott,
and any other employees who joined the unfair labor prac-
tice strike, discharging, if necessary, persons hired on and
after March 22, 1972. In addition, I find it necessary that
the Respondent be ordered to give backpay, computed on
a quarterly basis , plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962), to employee Declet from date of discharge to date
reinstatement is offered, to employees Belony, Geffrard,
and Martinez from March 22 through March 24, and to
employees Belony, Geffrard, Martinez, Harris, Knott, and
any other employees who joined the strike, for any lost
earnings suffered by reason of its refusal, if any, to reinstate
them upon application.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions of law,
upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2
Respondent, Sol Habib, Irving Habib, Victor Habib
d/b/a Twin Frocks Co., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for supporting Local 90, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other union.
(b) Coercively interrogating any employee about union
support or union activity.
(c) Warning or threatening any employee with dis-
charge or other reprisal for joining or supporting a union.
(d) Inducing any employee to engage in surveillance of
union activity.
(e) Keeping its employees' union activity under surveil-
lance.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to,
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediately to Iris Declet, and offer upon
application to Fntzner Belony, Fritz Geffrard, Alberto
Martinez, Adolphus Harris, Linden Knott, and any other
employees who joined the unfair labor practice strike which
began in March 1972, full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for their lost earnings
in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's
Decision entitled "Remedy."
(b) Notify immediately the above-named individual(s),
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application
after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act.
(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, person-
nel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Hometown, Maryland, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
2, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
2 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 , 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.
3 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after
trial, that we violated Federal law by discharging four em-
ployees for supporting a union, and by otherwise interfering
with our employees' right to join and support a union:
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting
Local 90, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Un-
ion, AFL-CIO, or any other union.
TWIN FROCKS CO.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Iris Declet, with
full backpay plus 6 percent interest.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Fritzner Belony,
Fritz Geffrard, and Alberto Martinez, with backpay
from date of discharge until March 24, 1972, when they
declined reinstatement and joined the strike.
WE WILL offer, if not reinstated upon application,
backpay to the following-and to any other employees
who joined the strike-for lost earnings from date of
application until date of reinstatement offer: Fritzner
Belony, Fritz Geffrard, Adolphus Harris, Linden
Knott, and Alberto Martinez.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you for support-
ing a union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about union
activities or union support.
WE WILL NOT ask any of you to observe and report
on union activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with your union
activities.
755
SOL HABIB , IRVING HABIB, VICTOR HABIB
d/b/a TWIN FROCKS Co
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named individual(s),
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application
after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act.
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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 36th Floor Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, N. Y. 10007, Telephone 212-264-
3311.