U-Wanna-Wash Frocks, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS , INC. 31
U-Wanna-Wash Frocks, Inc. and International Ladies'
Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO . Case 4-
CA-6041
April 19, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING , KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On December 11, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Arnold Ordman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
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 U-Wanna -Wash Frocks, Inc., Newville,
Pennsylvania , its officers , agents , successors , and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARNOLD ORDMAN , Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant
to a charge filed June 13, 1972, complaint issued against
Respondent ' on August 25, 1972. The complaint alleged
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by threatening its em-
ployees with plant closure and loss of employment and by
promising a wage increase to certain of its employees, all in
order to discourage union activities . The complaint further
alleges that Respondent violated Secion 8 (a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by discriminatorily discharging employee Steven
Miller because of his union activity and sympathy. Re-
spondent, admitting many of the subsidiary allegations of
the complaint , denied that it engaged in unfair labor prac-
' Occasionally referred to in the record as U-Wan -A Wash Frocks, inc No
issue was raised as to this discrepancy and the identity of Respondent is clear.
2 The complaint initially alleged the discriminatory discharge of a second
employee , Steven Fry. However, allegations relating to Steven Fry were
withdrawn in advance of the hearing herein.
tices . Hearing was conducted before me on the controverted
issues in Carlisle , Pennsylvania , on October 18 and 30, 1972.
Thereafter, General Counsel and the Respondent filed
briefs.
Upon the entire record , upon my observation of the wit-
nesses , and upon consideration of the briefs , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its princi-
pal place of business in Newville , Pennsylvania . Also in-
volved here is a plant which Respondent operates in
Shippensburg , Pennsylvania . Respondent manufactures
and sells garments and during the past calendar year ship-
ped and received , respectively , goods valued in excess of
$50,000 to and from States other than Pennsylvania. Re-
spondent admits, and I find , that it is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
The pleadings further establish , and I find , that the
Union , the Charging Party herein , is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Jurisdiction is properly asserted herein.;
3 Certain procedural problems arose at the beginning of the hearing on
October 18 Before any witnesses were called , Respondent 's counsel renewed
a request , previously made to the Board 's Regional Director and rejected,
that the hearing be continued because of the absence of Mortimer Halbreich,
Respondent's general manager , who, counsel reported, was unable to be
present because he was suffering from angina pectoris . General Counsel and
the Charging Party opposed the continuance on the grounds , inter aha, that
the principal agent of Respondent charged with having committed the alleg-
ed unfair labor practice was not Mortimer Halbreich but Otto Halbreich,
Respondent's board chairman ; and that Mortimer Halbreich had worked 2
days the previous week notwithstanding his angina pectoris condition.
Respondent's counsel acknowledged that Mortimer Halbreich had been at
work but stated that on the second day he had done so contrary to his
doctor's orders. After some further colloquy on the record, Respondent's
counsel made an alternative motion to proceed with direct testimony by
General Counsel's witnesses subject to Respondent 's right for a later recess
so that Respondent's counsel could consult with Mortimer Halbreich prior
to his cross-examination of witnesses . In view of this development , the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge permitted General Counsel to call his first witness.
That witness was Steven Miller , alleged in the complaint to have been dis-
criminatorily discharged . In the course of his direct testimony Miller made
reference to certain conduct and statements by Mortimer Halbreich . On this
basis and in the light of all the circumstances I decided that a continuance
before Respondent's cross-examination of Miller would better insure the
litigational rights of all concerned , and directed , over the objection of counsel
for General Counsel and the Charging Party, that the hearing be recessed
until October 30
On October 30 the hearing resumed . Respondent 's counsel announced at
the outset that, although Mortimer Halbreich's illness still precluded his
attendance at the hearing , counsel had conferred with Mortimer Halbreich
and was prepared to proceed . Respondent 's counsel stated further that he
had been told that Otto Halbreich had entered a hospital for a cataract
operation . Respondent made no request for a further continuance. Upon
completion of General Counsel 's case, Respondent presented no witnesses
but sought to introduce into evidence two affidavits given by Mortimer
Halbreich to a National Labor Relations Board agent . After some further
colloquy among counsel and me, this offer was withdrawn and a stipulation
was entered into as to certain testimony Mortimer Halbreich could give if
he were present at the hearing . Upon inclusion of this stipulation into the
record, all parties rested and the hearing was closed.
203 NLRB No. 9
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES but was keeping the plant open because of the employees.
Again, he stated that if the Union came in he would close
the plant. He further explained that he would have to go out
of business because the advent of the Union would cost him
$250,000 a year.
At Shippensburg, Otto Halbreich also made the reference
to the fact that he had been told five or six girls were getting
union cards signed and collecting them and that he could
"throw the girls the hell out of here tomorrow but I won't."
Otto Halbreich then informed the girls that they had a big
raise coming up in 2 or 3 months which should make them
happy and closed his remarks with the statement that the
girls should go back to work and forget about all this fool-
ishness.
In addition to the foregoing speeches Otto Halbreich later
that same morning met with the employees in the cutting
room and piece goods department at the Newville plant.
Among those present were Mortimer Halbreich,
Respondent's general manager, and Steven Miller who
worked as a spreader. In response to a suggestion that the
employees utilize this occasion to let the Halbreichs know
what they wanted, employee Nagley, also a spreader, ven-
tured the comment that the spreaders would be satisfied
with a dime raise . Otto Halbreich asked if that would be
satisfactory to everyone. There was a pause. Then Steven
Miller said he would not be satisfied. Mortimer Halbreich
told Miller to be quiet and to let the employees who had
been in the plant longer speak up. Mortimer Halbreich
added that inasmuch as Miller was a part-time employee,
Miller should be happy that he had a job at all. Otto Hal-
breich then made reference, as he had at Shippensburg, to
a big increase coming up for everybody, an increase to $2.20
an hour.5 Miller interjected that the minimum wage increase
would only be to $1.80 the current year, and $2 the follow-
ing year. Mortimer again admonished Miller to be quiet, to
let the other fellows talk and to be happy that, as a part-time
worker, he had a job at all. At that point Miller left the
meeting.
Mortimer Halbreich's version of his interchange with
Miller on this occasion did not differ substantially. The
parties stipulated (fn. 3, supra) that Mortimer Halbreich, if
present, would testify that Miller in the course of the meet-
ing asked where the cutters and spreaders would come in
after the government raises the minimum; that Mortimer
Halbreich told Miller that he was not right in speaking for
employees who had been there for 20 years since Miller was
only a temporary employee; and that Miller's tone of voice
was not right in speaking to his employer (Otto Halbreich)
who was almost 80 years old.
Minimum wage aside, Respondent in its answer to the
complaint admits that "Respondent through Otto Hal-
breich, on June 9, 1972, granted the cutting and spreading
employees wage increases." According to Miller these in-
creases amounted to 10-cent increase for spreaders and a
25-cent increase for cutters.
As the foregoing recitation demonstrates, there is virtual-
ly no dispute as to the relevant facts. The complaint alleges,
s Both here and at Shippensburg , Otto Halbreich's comments relating to
a big raise or big increase obviously had reference to the Federal legislative
increase which would result from congressional action raising the minimum
wage.
A. The Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The evidentiary basis for the allegations of threats of
plant closure , discharge , and loss of employment derive
from testimony as to speeches made by Otto Halbreich,
Respondent's board chairman , to employees at
Respondent's Newville and Shippensburg plants on the
morning of June 9, 1972.
Testimony as to Otto Halbreich 's speeches at the New-
ville plant was given by Newville employees Steven Miller,
Rebecca Blessing , and Mary Stum . Employees Dorothy
Robinson and Victoria Mozingo, who worked at the Ship-
pensburg plant, testified as to Otto Halbreich's speech there.
The findings as to these speeches are based on their testimo-
ny which is consistent in all material respects and which I
credit.4
Early on the morning of June 9 , shortly after working
hours began , Otto Halbreich came to the Newville plant-
his visits to the Newville plant were infrequent-and ad-
dressed the employees who had been assembled to hear him.
Otto Halbreich began his remarks with a reference to the
organizational campaign which had been going on in the
plant and stated that he had come to talk about the Union.
He pointed out that the plant had operated for many years
without a union and could continue to operate without a
union . He added that the employees were free to sign union
cards if they wished , but asked the employees not to do so,
stressing that he was the boss, not the union, that he was the
general and the employees were his soldiers . Otto Halbreich
continued with the theme that he was quite wealthy but that
if the Union came in the employees would have to pay the
Union $5.50 dues per month and he would have to make
payments of $5,000 and that he would go "broke ." He stated
in this connection that he would close the plant if the Union
got in.
Otto Holbreich also made reference in this speech to the
fact that he had kept the employees on in good times and
bad and that he was keeping the employees in the cutting
room at work although their work was not needed. He
closed his remarks at Newville with a plea to the employees
to stick with him and beat the Union.
That same morning Otto Halbreich spoke to the assem-
bled employees at the neighboring plant in Shippensburg
where he was also an infrequent visitor . His speech at the
Shippensburg plant followed the same general tenor as that
at the Newville plant . At the outset he explained that he had
come to the Shippensburg plant because union cards were
being circulated and signed , that the employees were being
brainwashed, and that they did not have to sign union cards.
Otto Halbreich again invoked the military analogy, iden-
tifying himself this time as your "little Colonel ." As at New-
ville, he reiterated that he had kept the plant open in good
times and bad , adding that he had enough money to retire
It should be noted here that , upon Respondent 's motion , all these wit-
nesses were sequestered except for Steven Miller who was the first witness
and was permitted to remain pursuant to the policy of the Agency not to
sequester individuals alleged to have been the victims of unlawful discrimina-
tion.
U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS , INC. 33
the answer admits, and the evidence establishes that Otto
Halbreich told the employees he would close the plants if
the Union came in. A threat to close a plant because of
impending organization is a patent interference with organi-
zational rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent seeks exoneration of Otto Halbreich's state-
ments in this regard on the ground that they were intended
not as a threat but as the prediction of an inevitable eco-
nomic consequence if Respondent should have to pay union
wages in an extremely competitive industry. The contention
is ingenious but, in total context, spurious. An employer
may close his plant even if the liquidation is avowedly moti-
vated by vindictiveness toward the union. Textile Workers
Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co., 380 U.S. 263, 274
(1965), but as the Supreme Court also noted in that same
decision, " [n]othing we have said in this decision would
justify an employer's interfering with employee organiza-
tional activities by threatening to close his plant, as distin-
guished from announcing a decision to close already
reached by the board of directors or other management
authority empowered to make such a decision." Id., at fn.
20. Here, as in Fotomat Corporation, 199 NLRB No. 116
(1972), it is apparent that the threat to close the plant arose
directly from the current organizational campaign and was
not based on economic prediction and demonstrated inabil-
ity to meet known and specific union demands. See also
N.L.R.B. v. Erie Marine, Division of Litton Industries, 463
F.2d 104 (C A. 3, 1972).
Respondent also denies that Otto Halbreich threatened to
discharge employees for engaging in union activities or that
he threatened the cutters at the Newville plant with loss of
employment. The relevant evidence in this respect is also
undisputed. Otto Halbreich made reference in his speeches
to the fact that he had kept the employees in good times and
bad and that, notwithstanding his financial readiness for
retirement, he was keeping the plants open because of his
concern for the employees. In Newville, Otto Halbreich
stressed that he was keeping the cutters on the job even
though their work was not needed. In Shippensburg he in-
formed the employees that he had been told five or six girls
had been circulating union cards and stated further that he
could "throw the girls the hell out of there tomorrow but I
won't." Otto Halbreich also pressed his desire that the em-
ployees not sign union cards although he did state they were
free to do so.
Naked syntactical analysis would not support a finding
that the foregoing statements were threats in the literal
sense . Otto Halbreich did not in haec verba, threaten to
discharge the girls who were distributing union cards or
state that he was going to get rid of the cutters; indeed, he
verbally suggested the contrary. But as Judge Learned
Hand long ago observed, " [w]ords are not pebbles in alien
juxtaposition. . .. " N.L R.B. v. Federbush Co., Inc., 121
F.2d 954, 957 (C.A. 2, 1941). In the context of speeches
delivered by a top management official, who visited the
plants only infrequently, to employees assembled during
working hours to hear those speeches, in the further context
of an antagonism toward unionization so strong as to bring
forth statements that unionization would result in plant
closure, the real thrust and intended meaning of Otto
Halbreich's remarks were only slightly veiled: active union
supporters could or would be discharged and the services of
the cutters could or would be dispensed with.
On all the evidence, therefore, I find that Otto Halbreich,
to discourage union support and activity among the em-
ployees, not only threatened plant closure, but also threat-
ened to discharge union supporters and to terminate the
employment of cutters. I find that by these threats, consid-
ered separately or together, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The promise and/or grant of a raise in the course of a
known organizational campaign is a familiar technique to
defeat union organization. See N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts
Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964), and authorities there cited. Here
Respondent initiated discussions on June 9, 1972, concern-
ing a wage increase and on that day admittedly granted a
wage increase to cutters and spreaders against a known and
current organizational effort by its employees. Respondent,
in its answer to the complaint, denies that the increase was
given to discourage support for the Union. On the other
hand, the record is devoid of any other explanation for
Respondent's action, a particularly significant omission in
the light of Respondent's contemporaneous protestations
that it was confronted with a tight competitive situation and
that it did not need the services of its cutters at all. Under
all the circumstances I find that the promise and grant of
the wage increase on June 9, 1972, constitute a further viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
B. The Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and( (1)
The only issue remaining for resolution has to do with the
legality of the discharge of Steven Miller. Miller was admit-
tedly discharged on June 12, 1972, and returned to
Respondent's employ on August 15, 1972. The complaint
alleges that the discharge was because of Miller's union
activity and sympathy. Respondent denies that the dis-
charge was for these reasons and asserts that the discharge
was for "causes unrelated to any union-related activities."
The relevant evidence on this issue derives almost exclu-
sively from the testimony of Miller who was extensively
cross-examined by Respondent.' Based on my observation
of Miller and the evidence of record, I find Miller to be a
credible witness and credit his testimony.
Miller, a college student, was during the period under
consideration here one of several spreaders in Respondent's
employ at the Newville plant. His employment with Re-
spondent began in 1970 when he worked during the summer
months, and he worked for Respondent again during the
summer months of 1971. He resumed work in February
1972 and worked until his discharge on June 12, 1972. In
May 1972 Miller was given a 10-cent hourly increase pur-
suant to Respondent's policy of granting 10-cent increases
to spreaders every 3 months until they reached a $2.20 cent
maximum. During the entire course of his employment,
6 Relevant here also is the stipulation, already detailed, as to what Mortim-
er Halbreich, if present at the hearing, would testify concerning his conversa-
tion with Miller late in the morning of June 9 at the meeting between Otto
Halbreich and the employees relating to raises Nothing in that stipulation
is materially inconsistent with-indeed, it corroborates in relevant part-
Miller's testimony
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
management never criticized Miller's work and the possibil-
ity of discharge was never mentioned.
Miller became active in the organizational campaign
prior to the events related herein. He attended union meet-
ings and actively solicited his fellow employees to join the
Union.? Miller made no secret of his support for the Union.
On at least two occasions Miller made his union sympathies
known to Saverio Amertrano, an admitted supervisor in
Respondent's employ who acted as plant manager in Mor-
timer Halbreich's absence. In the first conversation with
Amertrano, which occurred before the Otto Halbreich
speeches of June 9, Miller took sharp issue with Amertrano
who was opposed to the Union and stated that it would not
be good for the employees. At the meeting of June 9 relating
to the raises, Miller's outspoken opposition to Respondent's
wage proposal evoked two stern admonitions from Mortim-
er Halbreich, already noted, that Miller "be quiet" and that
Miller ought to be happy that, as a part- time worker, he had
a job at all. When Miller left the meeting, he walked back
to the piece goods department where he again talked to
Amertrano. In response to an inquiry as to what was going
on at the meeting, Miller told Amertrano that the employees
"were selling themselves out for a dime, and that they
shouldn't even be talking to Otto [Halbreich), that they
should leave the ILG talk for them." Amertrano again
sought to persuade Miller that the ILG was no good and
that the Union "wasn't the answer to things."
The foregoing events took place on Friday, June 9. The
next workday was Monday, June 12. Miller reported to
work at 7 AM., the starting hour. About 9 AM Mortimer
Halbreich approached Miller at the latter's worktable and
told him that Otto Halbreich "is very disappointed in you
and as of now you no longer have a job here; go up to the
office and get your check." Miller went to the office, ob-
tained his check, and left the plant. Except for Mortimer
Halbreich 's statement, no explanation was given Miller to
explain or justify his discharge.
The foregoing pattern of events affords cogent support
for a finding that Miller's discharge was discriminatorily
motivated. To be sure, direct evidence of discriminatory
motive is not present in this record. But, as Chief Judge
Parker long ago noted in the much cited case of Hartsell
Mills Company v. N. L.R.B., 1 I 1 F.2d 291,293 (C.A. 4, 1941),
"direct evidence of a purpose to violate the statute is rarely
obtainable. Where, however, the total circumstances afford
the basis for a conclusion of discriminatory discharge, such
a finding has warrant ." Hartsell, supra; Shattuck Denn Min-
ing Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9,
1966).
Here the total circumstances proved virtually compel the
inference that Miller was discharged because of his out-
spoken adherence to the Union and Respondent's demon-
strated antipathy to the unionization effort among his
employees. Miller's work had never been subject to criticism
and no mention of any shortcoming in that regard was made
at the time of his discharge. In its brief to the Administrative
Law Judge, filed after the close of the hearing and addressed
only to the legality of the discharge of Miller, Respondent
7 Miller', wife , currently employed by Respondent , was, according to Mill-
er, also active in the Union
now contends that the real reason for the discharge was
"Mr. Miller's disrespectful conduct toward Mr. Otto Hal-
breich ." (Br., p. 1) The reference , of course , is to Mortimer
Halbreich 's stipulated testimony that Miller , at the June 9
wage increase meeting : "was not right to talk to his employ-
er, who was almost 80 years old , in that tone of voice." In
that respect , to the extent here relevant at all, the record
demonstrates merely that at this meeting Miller , as an em-
ployee and a union adherent , was registering his opposition
to Respondent 's proposed action with respect to a wage
increase , an opposition which Otto Halbreich invited when
he asked the assembled employees whether the proposed
10-cent increase would be satisfactory to everyone . In these
circumstances Miller's comments lay in the area of protect-
ed activity. Hugh H Wilson Company, 171 NLRB 1040,
1046 (1968), enfd . 414 F.2d 1345, 1351-54 (C.A. 3, 1969).
The more plausible conclusion , by far , is that Respondent's
resentment against Miller arose not from Miller's "tone of
voice" but from his opposition to Respondent 's wage pro-
posal, an opposition registered by an employee known both
to Respondent 's work force and its management and super-
visory staff as a vigorous union adherent.
The timing of the discharge is also significant . Friday,
June 9 , was a high point in Respondent 's antiunion cam-
paign . Otto Halbreich made early morning speeches to the
assembled employees at both Newville and Shippensburg
and later that morning initiated and implemented a wage
increase for the cutters and spreaders . Miller registered his
opposition to Respondent's efforts at the wage increase
meeting and immediately thereafter demonstrated to Amer-
trano his continued adherence to the Union . The following
Monday morning , Miller was discharged with the simple
comment that "Mr. [Otto] Halbreich is very disappointed in
you and as of now you no longer have a job here ; go up to
the office and get your check."
On all the evidence of record , including the lack of short-
comings in Miller's work performance, his known union
activity , Respondent 's demonstrated hostility to that union
activity , the precipitate nature of Miller's discharge follow-
ing his opposition to Respondent 's wage proposal of June
9, and the absence of any plausible explanation of that
sudden discharge , I find that Respondent discharged Steven
Miller because of his union affiliation and sympathies and
because he engaged in protected activity in that regard. I
conclude , and find , that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 8
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
from the unfair labor practices found and, because of the
s Only brief reference need be made to the plethora of cases cited by
Respondent in its brief to the Administrative Law Judge . Essentially they
establish the familiar and accepted principles that the burden of proof to
establish unlawful discrimination or interference with statutorily guaranteed
employee rights rests upon General Counsel and that even known union
activity does not shield an employee from discharge for insubordination or
other culpable misconduct These propositions are, of course , valid Howev-
er, unlike the situations in the cited cases, Miller did nothing here to deprive
himself of the "protective shield of Section 7 " See , e.g., Boaz Spinning Co
v N LR B, 395 F.2d 512,515 (C A 5, 1968), cited by Respondent in its brief
U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS, INC. 35
character and scope of such unfair labor practices, from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed em-
ployees in Section 7 of the Act.9
Affirmative relief is also appropriate here . Accordingly, I
shall direct that Respondent make Steven Miller whole for
earnings which he lost between June 12, 1972, the date of
his discharge, to August 15, 1972, when he returned to
Respondent 's employ, less his net earnings during that peri-
od. The amount due shall be determined in the manner
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962).
To facilitate and achieve these ends, the remedial order
will include customary recordkeeping and notice-posting
provisions. However, nothing contained in the Order set
forth hereunder shall be construed as requiring Respondent
to vary or abandon any economic benefit it has heretofore
conferred upon its employees.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I shall issue the following recommended: 10
be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to see that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing , within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
9 Brad's Machine Products, Inc., 191 NLRB 274.
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and the Order herein shall , as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the
Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
11 In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.
APPENDIX
ORDER
Respondent , U-Wanna-Wash Frocks , Inc., its officers,
agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening its employees with plant closure, dis-
charge , or other loss of employment benefits to discourage
union or organizing activities.
(b) Promising or granting wage increases to discourage
union or organizing activities.
(c) Discharging , or otherwise , discriminating against, any
employee for supporting International Ladies ' Garment
Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
(d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights given
them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Steven Miller for earnings lost as a result
of his discharge to the extent set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "Remedy."
(b) Preserve and , upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll
records and other financial or personnel records necessary
to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order.
(c)Post at its plant in Newville and Shippensburg, Penn-
sylvania , copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant or to dis-
charge or layoff employees because they are active in,
or support International Ladies' Garment Workers
Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interfere in any other manner with the
rights of our employees to engage in organizational
activity or collective bargaining , or with their right to
refrain fom such activity.
WE WILL pay Steven Miller for the earnings he lost
because we discharged him.
U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS, 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 direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building,
Walnut & Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107, Telephone 215-597-7608.