Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation

)DEC(ISIONS OF NA'I'IONAL LABOR RELA'IIONS BOARD Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation, Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 15 CA 6685 September 28, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MIMBI!RS JNKINS ANI) PNIlI.,O On July 11, 1979, Administrative law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting 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.2 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 Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, Crystal Springs Shirt I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence coninces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc. 91 N.RB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951i. we have examined the record carefully and find no basis for reversing his findings. 2 In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that a "broad" cease- and-desist order is appropriate in the instant case. we additionally rely upon Hickmolt Food. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979j. In his Remedy. the Administrative Law Judge provided that the hackpay period for the unfair labor practice strikers entitled to reinstatement shall commence 5 days after Respondent's receipt of an unconditional reinstate- ment request and continue thereafter until an offer of full reinstatement is made. The Board has found that the 5-day period is a reasonable accommo- dation between the interests of the employees in returning to work as quickly as possible and the employer's need to effectuate that return in an orderly manner. Drug Package Company. Inc.. 228 NLRB 108 (1977) Accordingly if Respondent already has rejected or hereafter rejects, unduly delays, or ignores the unconditional offer to return to work, or attaches unlawful condi- tions to its offer of reinstatement. the 5-day period serves no useful purpose. and backpay will commence as of the unconditional offer to return to work. National Car Rental Srstem, Inc., Car Rental Diivision, 237 NLRB 172 (1978); Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Compani. 236 NLRB 1637 (1978). For the reasons set forth in their dissent in Drug Package (Comparv. Inc., supra, Chairman Fanning and Member Jenkins would not automati- cally grant this 5-day grace penriod. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that, until such time as the majority approving this practice changes, they are institutionally bound by this position. C('orporation, and Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corpora- tion, Crystal Springs. Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the at- tached notice is substituted for that of the Adminis- trative l.aw Judge. APPFND)IX N()oiI(l T( EMiMP.I()YILS P0SIEi) Y ORDI)IR () I i NA I()NAI LABOR RI.AIIO)NS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Boaid has found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been or- dered to post this notice and carry out its terms. WE WILl. NOI refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Work- ers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, by changing piece rates of pay and production quotas without no- tice to, or consultation with, said union. The ap- propriate bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees, excluding office clerical employees, watch- men/guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, employed by Crystal Springs Shirt Cor- poration at its Crystal Springs, Mississippi, fa- cility. WE wIl. NOI in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex- ercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. Wt. vwI.l., upon request, bargain collectively with Amalgamated ('lothing and Textile Work- ers Union, A:L CIO CLC, as the exclusive rep- resentative of all employees in the unit described above before changing piece rates of pay and production quotas. WLi wl.l., upon request, furnish Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO-CLC, with all records necessary and rel- evant to decide whether its desires restoration of the rates of pay and production quotas in effect prior to May 1977. Wt Wirl.1. revoke the unilateral changes of pay and production quotas instituted since May 1977 and restore the rates of pay and production quo- tas prior thereto, and w Wii.l. make employees whole for any losses they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful changes if the Amalga- mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-C'LC, as the representative of the em- 245 NLRB No. 112 882 CRYSTAI, SPRINGS SHIRT (ORPORATION ployees in the appropriate unit, so desires, with interest. WE Wlll., upon their unconditional offer to re- turn to work, reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers who began their unfair labor practice strike on April 3. 1978, to their former jobs or, if' those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equiv- alent positions, without prejudice to their senior- ity or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, dismissing if necessary, any replace- ments hired in their place, and make the strikers whole for any loss of earnings they may have incurred. as follows. If we do not reinstate the striking employees in the manner set forth above within 5 days from the date reinstatement is re- quired, backpay shall begin running, with inter- est, from the date on which the 5 days expire. CRYSTAL SPRINGS SHIRt CORPORATION ANI) BERNSTEIN AND SONS SIIIRI CORPORATION DECISION STAIEMFN1 OF IHE CASE JutLus COIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Crystal Springs. Mississippi. on August 9 and 10. 1978. Upon a charge filed by Amalgamated ('lothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO-CLC, herein called the Union, the Acting Regional Director for Region 15 issued a complaint on April 25, 1978, alleging that Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation, herein called Crystal, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unlawfully making unilateral changes without both notice to the Union or affording it an opportunity to bargain. Thereafter the complaint was amended to add Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation. herein called Bernstein, as a Respondent and to allege that Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation, herein collectively called Respondent. constitute a single employer. The complaint was thereafter further amended to allege that on or about April 3, 1978. certain employees of Respondent went on strike and that such strike was caused and prolonged by Respondent's un- fair labor practices. Respondent has denied that it has vio- lated the Act, as is alleged. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. Briefs were re- ceived from the General Counsel. Respondent. and the Charging Party and have been considered carefull. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor. I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT I. Ji RIS)I( II()N Crystal is a Mississippi corporation with a principal office and place of business at Crystal Springs. Mississippi. where it is engaged in garment manufacturing. [)uring the 12- month period preceding the issuance of the complaint. Crystal sold and shipped products alued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside of the State of Mississippi. The complaint alleges Respondent admlits. and I find that (Crsstal is an emplo(er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. As previously noted. ieneral Counsel contends that Bernstein and ('rstal constitute a single employer, The un- contradicted testimony on this issue was given hy .Joel Sho- fel. Paul Bernstein and Shofel are. respectively. president and ice president of Bernstein and Cr stal as. well as sev- eral other subsidiaries of Bernstein, all of whoml are en- gaged in manufacturing men's and bo's shirts and are lo- cated in the South of the nited States. Shofel testified that he is in charge of the operations of these plants. the sale of merchandise, and the controlling of cost. lie is therefore responsible for sales, pricing of goods. and the oerall ad- ministration of the operations of all of the plants. tile per- sonally visits each plant three or four times a ear. Bernstein's vice president of manufacturing is Richard Purnick, who spends forty percent of his timne isiting the plants in the South and is at the Crystal plant at least once a month and sometimes more. Purnick is responsible for quality control at all the plants. for coordinamtig shipments from ne to another. and for monitoring the da;-to-t-d; actiities of the plant manager at each facilit. he plant managers report to Purnick who appro,.cs or iad usts their actions. Purnick has wide authorit 5 in connection with co- ordinating production at the plants. but reports to Shofel who is second in conimmand of the entire organization. Shofel and Purnick are involved in day-to-day monitor- ing of costs at the southern plants. and in addition. Shofel reviews a payroll analysis chart submitted bh (Crstal and the others each month. As soon as cost increases are re- vealed to Shofel or Purnick, they institute remedial action to the plant managers involved. In this regard, Purnick makes recommendations to the plant manager as to the number of employees and makes the necessar' adjustlments if the plant manager has not done so directly. Orders are received by Bernstein and transmitted to each of the plants for manufacturing, who, in turn. ship finished merchandise to a central warehouse which then reships in accordance with order of the customers. A quality control system, implemented at the suggestion of a major customer. is followed closely by Purnick. Occasionally, work is shifted from plant to plant to expedite shipments. Plant managers are hired by Purnick. who has authority to transfer a plant manager from one plant to another, and. indeed, the Crystal plant manager at the time of the events involved herein was transferred to that location from an- other plant. Fringe benefits are similar at all the plants and are determined by Bernstein. Thus three plants are cox ered hby the same insurance policy. All plants have uniform holi- days which have been established by Bernstein. On the basis of the above, it is clear that (Crystal and Bernstein are a single tegrated husiness enterprisc. since the lacts establish that the factors normnill, considered hb the Board in deterntinlg such issues are present in this case. Thus. Paul Bernstein is the sole stockholder of both ol these entities. s Aell is ceral other shirt aInd m;ll1auactur- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing companies similarly integrated. Financial control is ex- ercised by Bernstein and Shofel, who testified that he moni- tors very carefully the reports of the individual subsidiaries. with particular attention to labor costs. Common manage- ment is also exercised by Shofel and his immediate subordi- nate, Purnick, who hires the plant managers at all the sub- sidiaries and controls their actions. Labor relations at Crystal and the other subsidiaries are also controlled by Bernstein in that wages, fringe benefits, and other condi- tions of employment are determined by Purnick and Shofel. Finally, the operations of the manufacturing subsidiaries are interrelated because Shofel and Purnick have the re- sponsibility of controlling and directing the flow of produc- tion, transferring work from one plant to another so that shipments can be timely made and consolidated. I find therefore that Bernstein and Crystal constitute a single inte- grated business enterprise.' Because Crystal is concededly an employer engaged in commerce, and as other subsidiar- ies controlled by Bernstein also have been found to be en- gaged in commerce,' I find that Bernstein is also an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I!. HE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts The fact with respect to the alleged unfair labor practices are not in dispute. In a prior proceeding, Crystal was found by the Board to have violated Section 8(a)( 1) and (5) of the Act by engaging in bad-faith or surface bargaining and uni- laterally putting into effect new rates of pay for unit em- ployees.2 Although the Union had been certified in 1974. there was no bargaining during the pendency of this prior case. The Board, having issued its order in that case in April 1977, the Union, and Respondent met to resume bar- gaining on July 22, 1977. Prior to that meeting, the Union had requested Respondent to furnish certain information, including a complete set of current piece rates. In June, Respondent forwarded to the Union a packet of informa- tion, including piece rates in effect at the time, some of which were for knit garments.' Jackson stated that he at- tempted to make a wage analysis based on the information that he had received just prior to the July 22 meeting. At the next meeting on September 29, Moore, attorney and sole negotiator for Respondent, delivered to Jackson another batch of piece rates which presumably were cur- rently in effect at the plant. Upon looking at these rates, Jackson became aware that they covered the production of knit shirts and that it appeared almost the entire plant was Stoll Industries, Inc., 223 NLRB 51 (1976). 2 See, e.g., Shaw Industries, Division of Crystal Springs Shirt Corp.. 218 NLRB 1196(1975). 3229 NLRB 4 (1977). ' At a negotiation in January involving another subsidiary of Respondent. Respondent had turned over to the Union negotiator, James Jackson, a list of piece rates in effect in December 1976. These were listed under three categories, one of which applied to knit fabrics. There is no indication, how- ever, from this information as to the number of styles being run at that time or which were knit or woven. working on knit goods. Realizing that his wage analysis based upon the rates he had previously received, which mostly pertained to woven garments, was no longer of use to him, he requested that Moore supply information on em- ployee earnings. Respondent furnished the requested earn- ings data to the Union at a meeting held on November I. It is conceded that an examination of the piece rates con- tained in the materials turned over at the September 29 meeting show at least three instances of a change of rate for the same three styles given to the Union before the Jul 22 meeting. In addition, at least two of the three also have changes in the dozens quota established for the particular operation. Thereafter in August, October. and November, according to certain time-stud forms produced by Respon- dent, changes of piece rates as well as daily dozen quotas were made in eight other styles.' The changes in piece rates were conceded by Respondent in the testimony of Plant Manager Tinsley, who stated gen- erally that these frequently came about as a result of style changes in a particular shirt, or change of material used to make a certain item, or for other reasons. Frequently., this was accomplished after time studies and. more often than not, the changes resulted in increased wages for the opera- tors involved. It is further conceded by Respondent that with respect to the eleven changes specifically noted in the record, no notice was given to the Union of the proposed or actual change. On the other hand, Jackson testified, without contradiction, that on some occasions over the years he re- ceived calls from Moore concerning Respondent's desire to effectuate a rate change and in those situations a procedure was worked out to consummate it. According to documents supplied by Respondent at the hearing, such as a list of weekly dozens of garments pro- duced, divided between woven and knit shirts. fi)r the latter half of 1976 and the entire year of 1977, it is clear that Respondent gradually began to introduce knit goods, and by the latter part of 1977, the plant was exclusively working on knits. No notice of a changeover from woven to knits was given to the Union. However, the data given to Jackson in January 1977 and in June, prior to the July 22 meeting. do show a small number of piece rates for knit styles. The Union held a meeting of employees on February 28, 1978. William Welborn, an organizer, spoke to the employ- ees and advised them of the negotiations with Crystal over the years. Welborn testified that he had told the employees about the unilateral rate changes the company had made when they went from woven to knit shirts. In reviewing the negotiations, he also told the employees that Respondent had engaged in surface bargaining. Welborn then introduced a Biggs. director of organizing for the Union in that area, who explained the difference between an unfair labor practice strike and an economic strike. When he finished, an employee, Doris Hall, stated that because Respondent had engaged in surface bargaining since the beginning of negotiations, she moved to authorize the Union to call a strike. This motion was seconded and unanimously passed at the meeting. Welborn stated that. At the hearing. a motion by General Counsel to amend the complaint to include charges in October and November was granted. 884 CRYSTAL SPRINGS SHIRT CORPORATION prior to the meeting, Hall had been told by Biggs to make this motion and he had prepared her as to the wording of it. After a month of preparations, the employees struck on April 3, 1978. B. Discussion and A nalvsis It is undisputed that on 11 occasions during the last three quarters of 1977, Respondent, in the course of having gradually converted from the use of woven materials to knits, unilaterally changed existing piece rates, as alleged in the complaint. Respondent concedes this, and indeed, from the testimony of its plant manager, it is apparent that there were even more of such changes in rates than have been specifically proved. A number of these changes came after the filing of the original charge in this proceeding, so that any contention on the part of Respondent that the Union did not seek or even desire bargaining on these changes is unwarranted. And Respondent's contention that the changes in piece rates did not involve changes in the exist- ing base rates of employees is also without merit since it is undisputed that as a result of the changes in piece rates, the majority of the total number of employees experienced in- creased wages, and some suffered a loss. Respondent's principal contention in this matter is based upon its operation as a style house. Thus, Respondent manufactures many styles of shirts, resulting in perhaps thousands of existing piece rates set by established time study procedures. In addition, the industry is affected by seasonal changes not only in style, but in the type of mate- rials used, such as occurred in the instant case when it changed from the use of woven material to knit goods. Moreover, its customers would occasionally ask for modifi- cations in previously established styles. As a result, Respon- dent argues that it would be chaotic for its managers to consult with the Union every time a minor change is made in an established operation that would necessitate a corre- sponding change in piece rate. While this argument may have some surface appeal, it is clear that Respondent can- not lawfully follow its previously established procedures in the setting of rates as it did prior to certification of the Union, because the changes obviously affect the wages re- ceived by its employees. Certainly the situation is not novel for Respondent, and presumably mechanisms are devel- oped among employers and unions to resolve this problem. In any event, recent Board cases have found without merit defenses relying on changes in styles, patterns, or material as the cause for unilaterally changing piece rates and quo- tas.6 1 find therefore that Respondent, by implementing new piece rates and daily dozens quotas in 1977, without notice to, or bargaining with, the Union, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. I find no merit to the allegation in the complaint that Respondent also violated Section 8(aX5) by unilaterally changing from the use of woven fabrics to knit fabrics. The determination of the type of material to be used in the manufacture of its product is clearly a prerogative of the I Kal-Equip Company, 237 NLRB 1234 (1978); Master Slack and/or Mas- ter Trousers Corp., e al., 230 NLRB 1054 (1977): Unoco Apparel, Inc.. 215 NLRB 89 (1974). employer. Insofar as this change affected the employment status of employees, it was manifested by the change of the piece rates necessitated by the difference in fabric. When Respondent unilaterally without notice to the Union changed the existing piece rates, at that point the Act was violated, as found above. I therefore shall dismiss Para- graph 10(b) of the complaint alleging the fabric change as a separate violation. C. The Strike of April 3. 1978 As noted above, at a meeting of employees on February 28, 1978, a vote was taken which authorized a strike. The General Counsel contends that the strike was to protest the unfair labor practices of Respondent. while the latter urges that the strike appears to have been the result of the Union's failure to obtain a contract and was not caused by any unfair labor practices. Welborn credibly testified that he addressed the meeting and informed the employees present about the status of negotiations and also told them about the unilateral changes in rates, which the company had made in the pro- cess of going from woven to knit goods. While it is true that Doris Hall moved that the employees strike because the company had engaged in surface bargaining and did not refer to the unilateral changes in rates, I find, nevertheless, that there is a casual connection between the unlawful uni- lateral changes and the strike. In view of the fact that the employees were informed of the unilateral rate changes at the same time as the alleged surface bargaining, I do not believe that a finding as to the cause of the strike need be restricted to the words of a formal motion. A partial moti- vation is sufficient to confirm the status of these employees as unfair labor practice strikers even though their other rea- sons may not have been found to be grounded in unfair labor practices.' Accordingly, I find and conclude that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike.' II. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with its operations described above, have a close intimate and substantial relationship to trade, traffic and commerce among the several states and tend to lead to la- bor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 7 Laredo Coca-Cola Botling Cornpany, 241 NLRB 167 1979); Albion Cor- poration, d/b/a Brooks, Inc., 228 NLRB 1365 (1977) I In view of this finding, I deem it unnecessary to further find. as con- tended by the General Counsel, that any stnke called before the consumma- tion of an agreement would be an unfair labor practice strike in view of the Board's decision in 229 NLRB 4, where it found that Respondent had un- lawfully engaged in surface bargaining. In this regard, I note that while the charge in the instant case alleged generally a bad-faith refusal to bargain, the complaint before me contains no surface-bargaining allegation, but merely alleges the unilateral rate changes discussed above. On the basis of this rec- ord, which reveals that Respondent and the Union had indeed engaged in bargaining subsequent to the Board order, there is no allegation nor can any finding be made that Respondent has continued to engage in unlawful sur- face bargaining. 885 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. HE REMEI)Y Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la- bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take appropriate affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Although the record reveals that the unilateral changes made by Respondent operated so that a majority of em- ployees actually received increases in their earnings, it also appears that a number of them were affected adversely. In such a situation it would be appropriate to order Respon- dent to revoke changes and to restore conditions in exis- tence prior thereto as to those adversely affected. Since it cannot be determined whether employees desire such revo- cation, I shall recommend that restoration be conditional upon the affirmative desire of the affected employees for such, as expressed through their collective-bargaining rep- resentative. I shall further recommend that Respondent make available to the Union, upon request, all records nec- essary and relevant to decide whether it desires restoration of the changes and rates of pay and production quotas. To effectuate the policies of the Act, it could be recommended that Respondent make all unit employees whole for any loss of earnings by reason of Respondent's unlawful con- duct. However, if the employees acting through their collec- tive-bargaining representative express the desire to retain the new rates and quotas, a make-whole remedy would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Accordingly, I shall recom- mend that employees be made whole for any losses suffered by reason of the unilateral changes only if the employees express the desire for restoration as provided above. In such event, all losses to be reimbursed shall be computed in ac- cordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), to which shall be added interest to be computed as prescribed in Florida Steel Cor- poration, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).9 Having found that the unit employees who engaged in a strike commencing April 3, 1978, are unfair labor practice strikers, I shall recommend their reinstatement upon their unconditional offer to return to work and the dismissal of persons hired on or after April 3, 1978, of that becomes necessary. Reinstatement shall mean reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without regard to seniority and other rights and privileges. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 236 NLRB 1637 (1978). Such unfair labor practice strikers are to be made whole for any loss of earn- ings they may suffer as a result of Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them in a timely fashion, by paying to each of them a sum of money equal to that which each would have earned as wages during the period commencing 5 days after the date on which each unconditionally offers to re- turn to work, to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less any net earnings during such period, with interest thereon to be computed in the manner described above in this Remedy provision? 9See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). i I make no provision, as requested by the Union, for the costs of this proceeding to be assessed against Respondent. Such request is based upon Respondent's alleged refusal to consummate a collective-bargaining agree- Finally, because Respondent has repeated one of the vio- lations found in the prior case, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and in any other manner from interfering with the rights of employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manuflcuring ('ompanv. 120 F.2d 532, (4th Cir. 1941). (CON( SI.tONS 1) LAW I. Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation are employers engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation constitute a single integrated busi- ness enterprise. 3. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. All production and maintenance employees, including office clerical employees, watchmen/guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act, employed by Respondent at its Crystal Springs, Mississippi facility, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. By making changes in piece rates of pay and produc- tion quotas of unit employees without notice to, or consul- tation with, the above-named Union, Respondent has en- gaged in, and is engaging in, an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Commencing on or about April 3, 1978, the unit of employees described above engaged in an unfair labor prac- tice strike in protest of Respondent's unfair labor practices, said strike being an unfair labor practice strike from its inception. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER" The Respondents, Crystal Springs Shirt Corporation and Bernstein and Sons Shirt Corporation, Crystal Springs. Mississippi. their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain with Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO CLC, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the unit de- scribed above, by changing piece rates of pay and produc- tion quotas without notice to, or consultation with, said union. (b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or ment with the Union. Because there is no issue of surface or hard bargaining before me, I do not find that the violations found herein are those for which the Board might entertain the extraordinary remedy of costs. " 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 recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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. 886 CRYSTAL SPRINGS SHIRT CORPORATION coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Amalga- mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO CLC, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit described above and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Upon request, furnish the above-named labor organi- zation all records necessary and relevant to decide whether it desires restoration of the rates of pay and production quotas in effect prior to May 1977. (c) Revoke the unilateral changes in rates of pay and production quotas initiated in May 1977, and restore those rates of pay and quotas in effect prior thereto, and make employees whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful changes, if the above-named labor organization, as the exclusive representative of the employ- ees in the appropriate unit, so desires. (d) Preserve, and upon request, make available to the Board and its agents for examination and copyiig, all rec- ords relevant and necessary to a determination of the amounts due employees under the terms of this recom- mended Order. (e) Upon their unconditional offer to return to work, re- instate the unfair labor practice strikers, dismissing if neces- sary, any replacements hired in their place, and make these strikers whole for any loss of earnings that they may have incurred in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (f) Post, at its Crystal Springs. Mississippi facility, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 15, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writ- ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. u In the event that this Order is enforced b 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 Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board." 887