Harrisburg Children's Dress Co.

In the Matter of HARRISBURG CHILDREN's DRESS COMPANY anCT INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION Case No. C-171.-Decided Jwne °28, 1937 Children's Dress Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion : question- ing employees regarding organizational activity and union affiliation ; per- suading employees not to join union ; discrediting union ; engendering fear of loss of employment for union membership and activity-Discrimination: charges of not sustained. Mr. Samuel G. Zack for the Board. Mr. Isador E. Schlesinger and Mr. Leon Singer, of Schlesinger d Krinsky, New York City, for respondent. Mr. Aaron W. Warner, of counsel to the Board. DECISION STATEMENT OF CASE On December 24, 1936, the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Fourth Re- gion (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), alleging that the Harrisburg Children's Dress Company, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unf air labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, hereinafter referred to as the Act. On February 18, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, by its agent, the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, issued and duly served its complaint against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, sub- divisions (1) and (3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7), of the Act. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleges in substance that the respondent, on December 3 1 and 11,, 1936, respectively, discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Antonia A. Lalick 2 and Rose Prstak, employees of the respondent, because they joined and assisted the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, a labor organization, and engaged in concerted 'Erroneously stated as December 4 in the complaint , and amended at the bearing 2Incorrectly spelled in the complaint as Antonia A. Lallick, and amended at the bearing 1058 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1059 activities with other employees for" the purposes of collective bar- gaining and other mutual aid and protection ; and that the respond- ent, by these and other enumerated acts, has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On March 6, 1937, the respondent filed an answer to the complaint. It admitted the discharge of Miss Lalick and Miss Prstak, but averred that their employment was terminated for "good cause, and denied the alleged unfair labor practices. It also set forth that it had reinstated Rose Prstak, and that the latter was now in its employ. It alleged that the Act was unconstitutional for several reasons and requested that the complaint be dismissed. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Harrisburg , Pennsyl- vania , on March 12 and 13, and from March 22 to 25, 1937, before Emmett P. Delaney, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The respondent was represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to the heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence ' bearing on the issues was afforded to all parties. At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the respondent renewed the motion to dismiss made in the answer. The Trial Examiner denied the motion insofar 'as- it was based on general allegations concerning the unconstitutionality of the Act. This ruling is hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner reserved his ruling on as much of the respondent 's motion to dismiss the proceedings as was based specifically on the commerce clause of the Constitution. Upon the disclosure by the respondent at the- hearing that Rose Prstak had been reinstated to her former position prior to the issuance of the complaint , the allegations of the complaint in regard to her discharge were dismissed. Upon the record thus made, the Trial Examiner, on May 1, 1937, filed an Intermediate Report, denying the motion of the respondent to dismiss the proceedings ; finding and concluding that the respond- ent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions ( 1) and ( 3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act; and recommending that the respondent- (a) offer to Antonia A. Lalick immediate and full rein- statement to her former position with all the rights and privileges previously enjoyed, (b) pay to Miss Lalick a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of her reinstatement , (c)' post notices in its plant stating that its employees are free to join or assist -any labor organization, and (d) file a written notification with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region within a stated time, setting forth manner and form of compliance with the foregoing recommendations. 5727-37-vol. 11-68 1060 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondent thereafter filed exceptions to the record and Inter- mediate Report, taking exceptions to the Trial Examiner's rulings upon its motions and objections, as well as to the Intermediate Report. On May 26, 1937, pursuant to notice thereof, a further hearing for the purpose of oral argument on the respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report was conducted before the Board at Washington, D. C. On June 17, 1937, the Board issued an amended complaint, conforming the allegations to the proof, and on June 23, the respondent filed its answer thereto. We find no error in the Trial Examiner's rulings upon the respond- ent's motions and objections, and such rulings are hereby affirmed. As set forth below, we also find that the evidence supports the findings and conclusions made by the Trial Examiner in his Inter- mediate Report that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8, subdi- vision (1), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. However, we find that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint that the respondent, because of the discharge of Antonia A. Lalick, has committed acts in violation of Section 8, subdivision (3) of the Act, and these allegations will be dismissed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS The respondent, Harrisburg Children's Dress Company, is and has been since January 27, 1936, it Pennsylvania corporation, having its principal office and place of business in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture of children's dresses. Prior to its incorporation, the respondent did business under the seine name for approximately 16 years, during which period it was owned and operated by Leo J. Goldberger. It now operates exclusively, according to the testimony of Benjamin A. Goldberger, its president, as a "contractor" 3 for L. Wold & Co., and maintains an office on the premises of that company in New York City. L. Wohl & Co., hav- ing its principal offices in New York City, was formerly a partner- ship, but is now owned and operated individually by Leo J. Gold- berger, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of children's dresses. It produces approximately 100,000 dozen dresses a year, has It was testified at the hearing that many of the manufacturers in the children's dress industry avail themselves of the services of "contractors" in the manufactuie of their product The raw materials are supplied by the manufacturers, who also dispose of the finished product. The intermediate processing, or some of it, is turned over to the "contractors" on a contractual basis It was further testified that it is not uncommon for a "contractor" to operate exclusively on behalf of a single manufacturer DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1061 a yearly volume of sales in excess of $1,000,000 and ranks among the first ten manufacturers in the industry. Although the respondent designates itself as a `-contractor" for L. Wohl & Co., the relation between the two organizations is in reality much closer. Prior to the incorporation of the respondent, L. Wohl & Co. maintained cutting and pressing departments for the manufacture of its product, and receiving and shipping departments, in New York City. It also utilized the facilities of the respondent's plant, and of other plants located in Carbondale, Pennsylvania, Hagerstown, Maryland, and Puerto Rico. In November, 1935, upon the expiration of an agreement between L. Wohl & Co. and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Leo J. Goldberger determined to remove the cutting, pressing, receiving and shipping departments from New York City to the respondent's plant in Har- risburg, Pennsylvania. He thereupon caused the Harrisburg Chit= dren's Dress Company to incorporate, and placed his brother, Ben- jamin A. Goldberger, in charge of the corporation as its president. He also gave to his wife, Ida Goldberger, and to his son, Irving Goldberger, the offices of vice-president and secretary-treasurer, re- spectively. Although Benjamin A. Goldberger shares in the profits of the respondent, the entire investment in the corporation was made by Leo J. Goldberger, who testified that "if Ben Goldberger were to quit, it (the respondent) would be under . . . (my) control", and that he had assumed "the responsibility for all losses in the plant". It is therefore clear that it was the intention of Leo J. Goldberger to retain full control over the respondent, and that the severance of the relation between the respondent and L. Wohl & Co. through the incorporation of the former was a matter of convenience only, and does not in effect alter their fundamental identity of interest. The operations of the respondent in the manufacture of children's dresses consist of pattern making, marking and cutting, sewing, pressing, and examining. The design and quantity of dresses to be made are determined by L. Wohl & Co. Raw materials, consisting chiefly of print cloth materials, are delivered to the receiving depart- ment of L. Wohl & Co. located in the respondent's plant, and are then turned over to the respondent. The respondent manufactures approximately 700 to 800 dozen dresses a week; it also cuts a quantity of material which is shipped by L. Wohl & Co. to plants located in Carbondale, Pennsylvania, Hagerstown, Maryland, and Puerto Rico for further processing, and is then returned to the respondent for pressing and finishing. The dresses completed by the respondent are taken to the shipping department of L. Wohl & Co., which is also located in the respondent's plant, and are then distributed to purchasers. The respondent rents all of the equipment in its plant from L. Wohl & Co., and is paid by L. Wohl & Co. for the number 1062 -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of dresses produced. In the conduct of its business, the respondent employs approximately 269 workers. The raw materials used by the respondent, as described above, are delivered to the respondent's plant by train and truck, consigned either to the respondent or L. Wohl & Co., and originate in mills lo- cated in Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. The finished product is shipped by L. Wohl & Co. to customers lo- cated in 27 States and Canada. II. THE UNION The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a national labor organization , having a membership of approximately 240,000 of the 300,000 workers engaged in the ladies' garment industry. Included in this membership are about 8,000 of the 12,000 to 15 ,000 workers employed in the children's dress industry. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Respondent's interference with the organization of its employees The attempt by the Union to organize the respondent's employees was begun in October, 1936, and was conducted by means of visits to the employees' homes and solicitation by members in the plant. There were also a number of Union meetings held during this period, including one at the Bolton Hotel, Harrisburg, on December 8, 1936. which were attended by many of the respondent's employees, some of whom became members of the Union. Active in this work were Antonia A. Lalick, Rose Prstak, and Zora Barber, all employees in the pressing department of the respondent's plant. The respondent was cognizant almost from the first of the activities of the Union in its plant. Robert Strahl, the superintendent in the pressing department, testified that Benjamin A. Goldberger has asked him early in November, 1936, whether he had heard of union activities among the girls in his department. Later in the month Strahl re- ceived reports from the foreladies in his department that union organizers were visiting the homes of the employees. This informa- tion Strahl conveyed to Goldberger. Strahl was also informed by the foreladies that several employees had been warned by union organizers that unless they became members of the Union they would lose their jobs when the plant was organized, and that in some instances these warnings had been accompanied by threats of phy- sical violence. Thereafter, beginning late in November, Strahl and Goldberger each made two speeches in the plant, informing the employees that there was no cause for alarm, that the respondent DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1063 'would afford protection to non-union members, and that the em- ployees could join the Union or not, as they saw fit, without fear of losing their jobs. The evidence indicates that both Strahl and Goldberger, in spite of their denials at the hearing, also stated that the employees were to pay no attention to the union organizers, that all grievances and complaints could be taken up through a shop committee which existed in the plant, and that in the event of a strike the respondent would continue to manufacture its product by the simple expedient of sending the work to a contractor. In addi- tion to these speeches, there was a further talk by Leo J. Gold- berger, who came to the respondent's plant in order to conduct an investigation on behalf of the respondent ns a result of the Union's filing of the charge herein. On this occasion, the employees were requested to sign a petition reading as follows : "This is to certify that I do not recall any members of the firm, or superintendent, of the Harrisburg Children's Dress Company, interfering or intimidating any of the employes in connection with their joining any organization of their own choosing." 4 We are not convinced by the respondent's argument that the sole ,concern of its officials in making these talks was the necessary guid- ance of its employees in the face of the threats of union organizers. The evidence is conclusive that the respondent utilized many devices, including its pretended solicitude for the welfare of its employees, to frustrate the Union's attempt to organize its plant. The speeches themselves were obviously not disinterested, as the respondent con- tends; no employee could have misinterpreted the clear command contained therein to ignore the Union. In addition, the respondent's officials questioned Zora Barber, the most active union member among the employees, as to her union affiliation. Miss Barber testified that on December 7 or 8, 1936, Strahl called her to the cloak room in the plant and said : "I heard from some of the girls, which I don't believe, that you are (a member of the Union), but I thought it would do you good to talk to you." When Miss Barber denied that she was a union member, Strahl then asked whether she was dissatisfied with her wages or other conditions of employment. A day or two later, after the Union meeting at the Bolton Hotel, Strahl visited Miss Barber at her home. Mar- garet Vergot, an employee, and Mary Gusten, a former employee, were also visiting Miss Barber at the time, and remained through- out the ensuing conversation. According to Strahl's testimony, his visit was purely social, as in the case of several visits to Miss Barber * This petition was signed by approximately 200 employees Respondent's Ex. No 21. 1064 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the past, and passed with no reference on his part to the Union. Miss Barber, however, testified that Strahl said he was not satisfied with the answer he had received from her in the cloak room, and wanted to know why she was so interested in the Union. In regard to the' Union, he added : "You know, they dine you and they wine you, and after they get you, they don't give a damn about you", and, "They paint beautiful pictures for you, and, of course, you don't know what the union is." This testimony was corroborated by Miss Vergot and Miss Gusten. About a week later, Miss Barber received a visit from Benjamin A. Goldberger, who had never called upon her before. Goldberger also referred to the Union in a deprecatory manner, and insinuated to Miss Barber that "The union will go so far as to get you a boy friend, just until they get you into the union". He added that the employees, if not satisfied with their wages, should bring the matter before the shop committee, which would then consult Strahl, who in turn would come to Goldberger. In conclusion, he offered to bear the expense of sending Miss Barber and one or two of her fellow em- ployees to Carbondale, Pennsylvania, to observe the attitude 5 toward the Union of the girls employed in the Carbondale plant .6 As we have indicated above, the respondent has on several occa- sions, in its admonitions to the employees, made reference to a shop committee. Strahl testified that this committee was formed at his suggestion in order to provide the employees with a means of ad- justing grievances with regard to the amounts paid by the respond- ent for their work.? The function of the committee is primarily to, correct errors on the part of the foreman in setting prices and calculat- ing the wages due the employees ; beyond this, the committee is in no sense the representative of the employees for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining with the respondent. Strahl testified further that a similar committee had existed in the respondent's plant about two years before, but had functioned for only a short time. The pres- ent committee was organized by Strahl in September or October, 1936, at approximately the same time the Union began its activity In regard to what this attitude was and the reason for 'it, Goldberger testified "We did have some trouble down there There were 125 or 130 employees, and 12 of them walked out on strike and the others remained at work "I told her (Miss Barber ) that none of the employees , those that remained at work, wanted to join the union "As a matter of fact, we took a secret ballot in the presence of the Mayor of the city of Carbondale and one of the reporters of the Carbondale Leader, a news- paper iiportei, of the employees to find out whether they wished to join the union We addressed them in the presence of the Mayor of the City, and the iepoiter of the Carbondale Leader . . . Although the relation of this plant to the respondent is not discussed in the record, it may be inferred from the testimony that it is also under the control of Leo J. Goldberger. 7 The respondent operates on a piece work basis , and varies the rates of pay of its employees in accordance with the type of article produced. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1065 at the respondent's plant. When questioned at the hearing as to whether the interest of the employees in the Union was the reason for the revival of the committee, Strahl answered : "No, nothing like that at all." However, in the light of the respondent's reiterated appeals to its employees to utilize the services of the committee rather than those of the Union, we can only conclude that the respondent-was deliberately attempting to divert the potential demands of its em- ployees for increased wages, lesser hours, and improved working con- ditions, as represented by the program of the Union, into the less consequential channels afforded by the committee. It is clear from the record, therefore, that the respondent, in its anxiety to forestall the progress of the Union in organizing its em- ployees, has coerced its employees and interfered with their right to self-organization. It is true that the type of coercion described in the preceding paragraphs lacks, in the main, some of the customary trappings, such as threats of discharge, increased work loads, and other similar forms of discrimination; nevertheless the tactics of the respondent have proven effective without the aid of these cruder manifestations. Miss Prstak testified that after Strahl's first speech, several of the union members became frightened and relying on Miss Prstak's judgiinent, requested that their names be withdrawn along with her own' if she intended to abandon the Union. As we have already seen, Miss Barber deemed it necessary to conceal her activities from the respondent and to deny her union membership. Miss Catherine Mikan, another employee, testified that she signed the petition circulated by Leo J. Goldberger because everybody else did, because she wanted to be a good sport, and because she did not want to get into any trouble. Mrs. Catherine Cassell, an employee and a member of the respondent's shop committee, testified on behalf of the respondent that "after they (the employees) got the speech (made by Benjamin A. Goldberger), that they would not lose their jobs, quite a lot of them tore up their (union) cards . . ." The respond- ent has thus, by subtle contrivance, made the most of the credulity of its employees, and has succeeded in its purpose of decimating the ranks of the Union. We find that the respondent, by its above described conduct, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The discharges During the period discussed in the preceding section, the respond- ent, on December 3 and 11, 1936, respectively, discharged Antonia A. Lalick and Rose Prstak, allegedly because of their activities in assisting the Union. Miss Prstak, as shown above, has since been reinstated. We will now consider the discharge of Miss Lalick. 1066 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Miss Lalick was first employed by the respondent in February, 1936. In November she applied for membership in the Union, and became very active on behalf of the Union in the respondent's plant. She testified that on December 2, 1936, while distributing union cards to fellow employees in the cloak room of the plant, she was observed by Mrs. Gonder,$ forelady in the pressing department. On the fol- lowing morning, she was discharged by Strahl on the ground, ac- cording to her testimony, that she had pressed two dozen dresses and only one dozen bloomers, whereas the rules of the respondent, as allegedly stated by Strahl, required that she press the same number of each. She testified, however, that there was nothing unusual in pressing a lesser number of bloomers than dresses. She also testi- fied that Strahl gave no other reason for her discharge. Further testimony on behalf of Miss Lalick indicates that she at- tended several meetings of the Union, and had frequently solicited members in the dining room of the plant during lunch hour. In November, she was questioned by Strahl concerning her union activ- ity, and replied that she knew nothing about the Union, although she was in fact at that time a member. She testified that Strahl then said the Union was a racket. She also testified that up to the time of her discharge her work had been satisfactory, that whatever complaints she had received from the foreladies were usual in the plant, and that she had been complimented on her work a few days before her discharge by Mrs. Gonder, who told her : "You are putting very nice work out." Miss Lalick testified that at the time of her discharge, she was asked by her fellow employees not to mention the Union to them, because they were afraid. According to her testi- mony they said "they wouldn't care if they were laid off after Christmas, but ... they were scared to be laid off before Christmas, because they said they needed some money for Christmas so bad". The respondent, on the other hand, has painstakingly reviewed Miss Lalick's conduct in its plant, and has convincingly demonstrated that, while its own conduct in relation to the Union was wholly im- proper, the discharge of Miss Lalick was based on other grounds. Although Miss Lalick professed not to remember the incident, it is clear from the record that she had previously been discharged on August 11, 1936 because of the unsatisfactory quality of her work. She was reemployed two weeks later, after promising that she would improve. The evidence shows that thereafter her work was average, until about three weeks prior to her final discharge on December 3. Strahl and both foreladies in the pressing department testified that her work then became progressively worse, that an unusual quantity had to be returned as unsatisfactory, that she would resent being 8 Also referred to in the record as Miss Maiy Stare. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1067 asked to do work over, and would often refuse to do it. Strahl testi- fied that he frequently warned her during this period that the fore- ladies had complained of her work and her hostile attitude. At the hearing, the foreladies described Miss Lalick as "mean and hateful". Mrs. Gunder testified that she had tried everything, including com- plimenting Miss Lalick,on her work when it was satisfactory, but that nothing seemed to do any good. Miss Mikan, who testified on behalf of the Union, admitted that "Tony (Lalick) did get a little angry" and was sometimes "pretty hot and excited". Miss Mikan testified that on one such occasion Miss Lalick began to cry, and said thiit if Mrs. Gonder did not "stop picking on her", she was going to "beat her up". Miss Vergot, another of the witnesses testi- fying on behalf of the Union, had heard rumors that Miss Lalick was determined "to get one of the foreladies". Other witnesses testi- fied that Miss Lalick was "not peaceful at all", and that she had threatened to "beat hell out of Mary Stare". A fellow employee, Mrs. Cassell, testified that Miss Lalick would "grab" the work re- turned by the forelady, and would refuse to follow instructions. On the night before her dischitirge, Miss Lalick ' informed Mrs. Cassell that "she was going to get" M vs., Gunder, whom she referred to as Mrs. Cassell's "girl friend", and was "going to beat the hell out of her tomorrow". She added that "she was going to take up a sleeve board, and she' was going to strike Mary ; (Gonder) over the head before Mr. Strahl could get anywhere 'near ' her". Mrs. Cassell re- ported this episode to Mrs: Gonder, who, in turn notified Strahl. Miss Lalick was discharged on the following morning. In addition to the above testimony, 'the respondent has introduced in evidende a number, of records for the purpose of demonstrating the inferior quality of Miss Lalick's work, particularly during the last few weeks of her employments These records indicate that Miss Lalick earned, during the period from June 20, 1936 to November 27, 1936, an average of 29.8 cents an hour, that during the period from November 30 to December 2 the average increased to 34 cents an hour, and that on the final day of her eriiployinent the average again increased to the surprising figure of 42 cents an hour. Mrs. Murphy, one of the foreladies, testified 'that this'increase in output was accompanied, by an increase in bad work' and that on the final day, when Miss Lalick -did more work than 'any other girl in the department, about 80 percent of the work had to be done over. In the light of all the testimony in regard to Miss Lalick, we are unable to find that her discharge was occasioned by her activities on behalf of the Union. The allegations of the complaint in regard to Miss Lalick, as we have previously indicated, will therefore be dis- missed. 9 See Respondent's Exhibit No 17. 1068 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES We have found, in Section 3 (a) above, that the respondent, having interfered with the union activities of its employees, has committed acts in violation of the Act. We now find that these acts of the respondent, occurring in connection with the operations of the re- spondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. We have shown that the respondent's conduct, by instilling in its employees the fear of losing their jobs, has resulted in deterring them from engaging in union activities. It is now necessary, in order to restore their confidence, that the respondent take active measures to reassure its employees that their rights under the Act will be respected, and we will order the respondent to post notices in its plant to that effect. Furthermore, the respondent must refrain from advising its employees, either by means of speeches or any other means, as to their right to organize and engage in union activities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW • Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes the following conclusions of law : 1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union is a labor or- ganization, within the meaning of Section 2 , subdivision (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act. 3. The respondent, by discharging and thereafter refusing to re- instate Antonia A. Lalick, has not thereby discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment to discourage membership in a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 8 , subdivision (3) of the Act. 4. The unfair labor practices referred to in paragraph 2 above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1069 the respondent, Harrisburg Children's Dress Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act ; 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post notices in conspicuous places in each department of its plant, stating (1) that the respondent will cease and desist as set forth in paragraph 1 of this Order; (2) that its employees are free to join or assist the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, or any other labor organization of their own choosing ; and (3) that such notices will remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writ- ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further ordered that the allegations of the complaint with respect to the discharge of Antonia A. Lalick be, and they hereby .are, dismissed.