Aintree Corp.

In the Matter of. AINTREE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 373,, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-214O.-Decided August 12, 194, Jurisdiction : underwear manufacturing industry.- Unfair Labor Practices. Interference; Restraint;; and Coercion: posting of notice stating. that two em- ployees were laid off because they had distributed; union literature in respond- ent's plant, where, respondent had never before posted notices concerning ]ay-offs .or the reasons therefor. Disci t ninat'ion: lay-off of two employees for two weeks for -union membership and activity ; alleged reason for-lay-offs that employees violated respondent's neutrality and caused disorder by distributing union literature in respondent's plant-rejected.;., Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and, desist from unfair labor prac- tices, and to make whole laid-off employees the amounts they would have earned during the 2-week lay-off period. Mr. Bertram Diamond, for the Board.' Mr. flynan G. Stein and-Mr. Philip Gallop, of St. Louis, Mo., for the respoi deiit.:.. ' Mr. Morris J. Levin, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Union. Mr.-Gerard J. Manacle, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon-charges duly filed by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 373, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called' the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated February 18, 1942, against Aintree Corporation, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was, engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) .and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accom- panied,by'. notice of heating, were duly served upon the respondent ,and-the Union. 43 N. L. R. B., No. 1. 481039-42-vol. 43-1 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance, that the respondent: (1) on August 27, 1941, laid off employees Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy for a period of 2 weeks 'because of their union membership and activities; and (2) by the foregoing act and by posting a notice on August; 27, 1941, announcing that the two employees were laid off for their concerted activities, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter the respondent filed-an answer in which it admitted the allegations of the 'complaint as to its business, denied the jurisdiction of. the Board, denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices, and alleged certain affirmative defenses. - Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Fairfield, Illinois, on March 2 and 3, 1942, before C..W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the re- .spondent, and the Union were represented and participated in the .hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witilesses,'and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was af-- forded all parties. At the opening of the hearing and at the close of the Board's case, motions by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the .complaint were denied by the Trial Examiner. The same motion. was renewed at:tlie.close of the hearing.. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling but denied the motion in his Intermediate Report., . Also at the close of the hearing, a. motion of counsel for the Board. to' conform the pleadings to the proof was granted without objection. Various rulings were made by the Trial Examiner on other motions and on objections to the admission of'evidence during the course of the hear- ing. The Board has reviewed the rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. On March 20, 1942,- the Trial- Examiner filed his Intermediate ,Report,-copies of which were duly served upon the parties. The'trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged 'in and was engag- ing i'n unfair labor"practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and. (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom, and take certain - affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the payment of wages lost by two employees who were laid off. There- after the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and ^ The respondent contended that the local union was not capable of filing charges or of ,representing the respondent's employees because the International Union was without authority , under its constitution, to charter the local union . There is no merit to the contention . 'Cf: Pueblo - Gas & Fuel Company, a corporation v. N. L. R. B.,-118 F. (2d) 304, enf 'g Matter of Pueblo Gas & Fuel Company and International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, Local Union No. 667-B, 23 N. L. R. B. 1028. AINTREE CORPORATION 3 a brief in support thereof. No request for oral argument was received. The Board has considered the respondent's exceptions and brief, and insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclu- sions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. ` Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT . 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The respondent, an Illinois corporation' with its principal office and plant at. Fairfield, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture and sale 'of men's underwear. During the, year 1941, the respondent purchased and used materials valued at more than $170,000; approximately 90 percent of which was secured from points outside, the State-of Illinois, During the same period, approximately 82 percent of the finished products manufactured by. the respondent, valued at more than $435,000, were 'shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 373, is a labor. organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES . In May 1941.a hearing was held in a former. proceeding before: the Board, involving the same parties as in the instant case., On August 8, 1941, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Repoit On'December 31, 1941, the Board issued its decision and order ,2 wherein it found 'in conformity with the findings of the Trial Examiner, that the-respond- ent had engaged in unfaii labor practices within the meaning of. Sec- tion 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act, in that, inter alma, it had interfered in the formation and administration of The Better Union, herein called TBU, an unaffiliated labor organization. At' the time.. of the hearing in the instant proceeding, the respondent. admittedly, had' not complied with the prior order of the Board. On the morning of August 27, 1941, shortly after the issuance of the Intermediate Report in the prior proceeding, employees Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy brought union leaflets into-the plant bearing the following text : 2Matter of Aintree Corporation and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 373, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 37 N. L. R. B. 1174. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tune in To. "The Labor Board Decision" Station WEBQ Harrisburg, Illinois Wednesday, August 27 7:00-7:30 P. M. What will be the results of the Labor Board Decision? Under the law what will the Company .have to. do.? How will it effect the Company Union? ' Hear a' complete discussion of the Labor Board Decision and the Union. Hear Union members in other towns. Eichem and Keagy worked in the same room. Before 7 o'clock, when power was turned. on and'work began at the respondent's plant, Eichem distributed a few of these' leaflets-to other employees in her room: • Also before 7 o'clock, and in response to an inquiry-from an employee at an adjacent machine as-to why-she had come to work "all dressed up,'-" Keagy laid one of the leaflets before her. At the same time Keagy gave ,her neighbor a copy of "Justice," a•union periodical which frequently had been distributed among employees in the plant. According to the undenied testimony the following events occurred thereafter. At about 7:15 the power was turned' off and all employees in the sewing department, numbering about 200, were instructed, by the forelady to go to the-front of the room. Manager Gilton addressed the employees, declaring that someone had passed out union literature that morning, and that when he, found out'who had' done so, he would discharge them. Many of the employees cheered loudly, a demonstra- tion which neither Gilton nor the forelady undertook to curb. There- after one or more of the supervisory employees urged employees to report to the office if they knew who had distributed the leaflets. Soon after 7:30 Eichem and Keagy were instructed to report to Gilton. 'There is no conflict in the testimony as to what occurred in his office. When they arrived, they found a number of other workers assembled, most of them members of TBU. In response to Gilton's questions, Keagy admitted having shown one of the leaflets, in the manner above described, but said that she did not know she should not have done so. Eichem likewise admitted that she had distributed two or three leaflets, but denied, that she knew of any instruction forbid- ding it, or that she had "littered the floor with them." 3 Gilton asked the forelady if the girls had been instructed against such conduct. The forelady replied that she believed so, went upstairs, returned, and re- ported to Gilton that the "girls did know," and that the "bulletin" was still posted.4 Gilton remarked that the employees did• not appreciate The forelady had so charged to Gilton. The bulletin referred to is 'presumably the alleged neutrality notice of January 15, discussed hereinafter. AINTREE CORPORATION 5 what lie was doing for them. One of the TBU members replied, "That's why we're fighting so hard," a remark understood by Keagy to refer to -TBU's fight against the Union. Gilton further stated that it was not yet a "union shop," and that if and when it was, "it would be a horse of a different color." Thereafter all the employees returned. to work. At about 9: 30 a. in., Keagy and Eichem were again called. to the office, where Gilton informed them that they were to be laid off for 2 weeks because they had distributed union literature. Eichem pro- tested that they had done nothing "worse" than Evelyn Matthews who had exhibited similar literature in the plant on the previous afternoon.' Matthews, who had been present at the earlier conference with TBU members and had been asked by Gilton if she had seen Keagy, and Eichem distributing leaflets, was again - summoned to his office. Ac- cording to the uncontradicted testimony of Keagy and Eichem, which we credit, as did the Trial Examiner, Gilton told Keagy and.Eichem, prior.to Matthews' arrival, that if Matthews-had shown the leaflet she would be laid off also. Keagy and Eichem testified that when 'Mat- thews came into the office she admitted to. Gilton, in their presence, that she had shown the leaflet, which she had received by mail, to another employee on the floor of the plant during working hours. , At the hearing, however, Matthews denied that she had shown the leaflet to anyone or that she had admitted doing so to Gilton. She testified that she had gone to the post office on August 26, and had taken her mail to the plant to read; that the mail included an invitation to a union meeting;' that-she had placed her purse on the bench beside her ma- chine; that Mrs. Lang, an employee who worked on the machine next to Matthews, "just took it and read it"; and that she did not object to Mrs. Lang, "very good friend," reading her - mail. Matthews further testified that both. Eichem and Keagy were leaving Gilton's office as she entered and were not present at any time during her explanation to Gilton. Gilton was not called as a witness. - , .. . The testimony ofd Eichem and Keagy appears more credible than that of Matthews; for, unless they were present, we deem it unlikely that they would have testified, as they did, that they heard Matthews explain that she had 'shown a union document received by mail. The record does not indicate that Matthews made this explanation to any: one else or at any other, time prior to the hearing. Moreover, Matthews testified,.as stated above, that the union document was an invitation to a union meeting, whereas both Eichem and. Keagy testified that it was the same leaflet that Keagy and Eichem had . shown.. Eichem further testified that her machine was located close to that of Matthews' and that she had witnessed the whole incident. Her testimony-follows : Q. Just tell us what she did or said that, you saw? A. I just saw her [Matthews] put it down by.her and I saw DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other girls go down to bet it and the next thing I knew she had it before her reading it. Q. The ``it" you are referring'to is A. One of those [indicating]. . V 5. Q: Leaflets like Board's Exhibit Number 5? A. Yes, and whenever she was reading it she said to the girl sewing next to me, she asked her "Jeannette, have you a radio?" . . Q. -Who said that? A.-Evelyn [Matthews]. While this other girl was reading it, she said, "Jeannette, have you got a radio?" and Jeannette said,' 'Yes," and she said, "Well, you want to tune in WEBQ tomorrow - - .,night," and I said, "You haven't time, have you, Jeannette ?.. You have to.go to the'fair." . I j'ust.passed it. off in a joking way.. Matthews did-not deny that this conversation occurred. The Trial Examiner, who'observed the'witnesses, also credited the testimony.of Keagy and Eichem. , Under all the circumstances, we find that Mat- thews,- upon being 'questioned by. Gilton, admitted having shown the. leaflet to 'employees.-on, the previous 'day. However,' Matthews was not laid off dr disciplined in any manner. V At noon'on-the 'same day, the respondent posted a notice in the plant stating that Keagy and Eichem have this day been laid off for two weeks on account of their _having distributed union literature in the company's plant this morning. Any, repetition,of such conduct by any.. employee -in .the future will result in such employee being promptly discharged. At'the conclusioli•of.the 2-week period,'Keagy and Eichem were rein- stated by the, respondent.. The respondent.contends; .in its .pleadings,6, that 'both Eichem= and Keagy "did engage in union organizational'activities, and distribute union literature in the respondent's plant, both before the commence, meat of" aid ; during: working hours," and "did thereby undertake to and did breach plant discipline, promote and create inter-union con- troversy in respondent's plant and on respondent's time, impugn and violate respondent's aforesaid 'neutrality, create and cause, disorder and uproar among respondent's employees in the plant, arid' interfere with and disrupt the proper^.and orderly conduct of respondent's said plant and the operations thereof." The evidence supports only the contention that the two employees distributed union literature in the plant before working hours. The testimony. of the witnesses is undirsputed, and we find, as did the Trial Board's Exhibit. Number 5 is one, of the union leaflets, for the, distribution of which Eichem and Keagy were laid off, - -- 6 Other ' than calling and questioning Matthews , the respondent caned: no witnesses to testify concerning the merits of the case. AINTREE, CORPORATION Examiner, that no leaflets Were shown or distributed by Eichem or Keagy after the workday began. The testimony of numerous witnesses is likewise undisputed, -and we find, that the distribution of the leaflets caused no commotion or disorder. Whatever disruption of operations occurred, followed and. was the direct result of the shutting off of power, the assembly of all employees in the shop; and the threat of Gil"ton to discharge distribu- tors of the leaflets when their identity became known to him. Since this disruption; if any, was caused solely by the respondent it may not; with validity, be urged that the two -employees were responsible. The respondent further contends that the aforesaid activity of Eichem'and Keagy breached plant discipline, because it violated"the respondent's neutrality as established by a notice posted in the' plant on January 15, 1941.7 According to the respondent,' this notice im- posed a 'rule,- of conduct upon.all employees which prohibited theln from engaging in any union activity-on company property; and that since "great bitterness and hostility" existed between the Union and TBU,B any organizational activity in the plant by either organiza- tion would tend to produce violence, disorder; and disruption of work, and,that,.therefore;_ythe.respondeiit had the right to prohibit any such actiyity in its plant. Irrespective of the respondent's right .to estab- lish. such rules of conduct; it ,is clear that no such rule was. imposed by,`the. respondent: The neutrality' notice by its terms, applied-to activity - which: might be interpreted as -indicating' the respondent's opinion and policies. That the notice was so- interpreted- by the re- spondent, as . well. "as the employees, is .established by the uncontra- dicted testimony that in the period between January 15 and August 27, 1941, employees openly brought union literature into the plant and distributed it; that members of the Union wore"union buttons in the plant;.-that members of both organizations openly discussed organizational matters in the plant before working hours and during the lunch period;-and that all of these activities-had been carried . on without reprimand. or discipline by the management. ''Under these NOTICE JANUARY 15-, 1941. The charge has been , made that certain employees of this company have made state- ments which are interpreted as reflecting the opinion and policies of this company. This company has been, and will continue to be neutral , and will not take sides - in any differ- ences that may exist between different unions and organizations. Any employees , regardless of. the position they hold , either' operator , presser, cutter, forelady, foreman, office help-or any other employee of this company , found guilty of such practice will be instantly dismissed. This company has no' connections in any way , manner, shape or form with any of the organizations ' iavolved'in this .controversy. We are neutral, and we intend to remain so. ". _ AINTREE CORPORATION. By IRVING p'LAMBERG. . 8 The parties stipulated that' on July 2, 1941 , two organizers . of the Union , not em- ployees, were . "mobbed in front of the plant by 2 or 3 dozen employees ," who were not members of the Union. . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD circumstances, the respondent cannot seriously contend that the leaflet distributed by Keagy andEichem violated the neutrality notice of -January 15. No other rule governing union activity by the employees or the distribution of union literature was alleged or shown to have been promulg'ated.9 In the absence of -any rule forbidding what had been common practice, the respondent's action in laying off Keagy and Eichem for the distribution of union literature, was.. dis- -criminatory.lo . That the respondent's motive was solely to discourage union activity, is further established by its failure .to impose a similar penalty on Matthews.. Keagy and Eichem were active union members. Keagy joined the Union in November 1940; Eichem in April 1941. Both attended union meetings regularly and solicited union members: Just prior to the lay-offs, Keagy was elected financial secretary of, the Union: Both wore their union buttons .in the plant regularly. Matthews, whom the respondent failed to lay "off, although advised that she had engaged in similar activity, was, a member of the company=dominated TBU.iI In view of the respondent's failure to .object to the distribution: of other' union literature. in the plant, it is a fair .inference and we find; as did the Trial` Examiner, that the respondent objected to: the par- ticular literature distributed.. by Keagy and Eichem, because of its con- tent, which called attention to the respondent's sponsorship. of TBU and its other .unfair labor. practices. This inference is further' sup- ported by Gilton's remarks.to the .employees in his office'that if and when a union shop was established "it would be a hoise• of a different color." Since the respondent discriminated against Keagy and Eichem by imposing a disciplinary. lay-off because of .thei-r<:.union' activity,' it follows that the' posted notice, announcing that it had'taken.this action, was also violative of the Act. Aside from this however, it is clear that the respondent intended.by the notice to discredit Keagy and Eichem and their activities to, their fellow-employees. ' The testimony is un- contradicted that never before had the respondent posted notices con 'It is clear that the testimony of Jewell Elliott in the prior. proceeding that a super- visor had warned her in-October 1940 that "we had better not catch you talking it [the Union] does not establish the existence of a rule relating to union activity in the plant. "'10 N. L. R. B. v. Oregon Worsted Company, 96 F. (2d) 193 (C. C. A . 9)' enf'g Matter of Oregon Worsted Company, a corporation and United Textile Workers of Americ a, Local 2435, 1 N. L. R. B. 915 ; N. L. R. B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 106 F. (2d) 263 (C. C. A. 3) en'fg a's mod. Matter of Botany' Worsted Mills and Textile Workers Organizing Commit- tee, 4 N. L. R. B. 292; Matter of Paragon Die Casting Company, a corporation and Na- tional Association of Die Casting -Workers, : affiliated with Congress ' of, Industrial Organi- zations, 27 N. L. R. B. 878. 11 The respondent asserts that Matthews was a member of the Union . It is true that Matthews signed a card for union membership in the forepart of 1941, but she never paid any,dues or.. attended union meetings . Moreover, the secretary of TBU testified , and we and, that Matthews was a member of the latter organization in 'August 1941. AINTREE CORPORATION 9 cerning lay-offs or, the reasons therefor. Had the respondent merely intended to establish a rule for future conduct, as to the v-_alidity..of.. which we express no opinion, it would not have inserted the reference to Keagy and Eichem in the notice. Upon all the evidence and in conformity with the findings of the Trial Examiner, . we - find that the respondent, by laying off Eichem and Keagy for a 2-week period beginning August 27, 1941, discrimi- nated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment; thereby dis- couraging membership in the Union, and by such discrimination and by posting the notice of August 27, 1941, in connection therewith, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE. The activities of ' the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in connection with the - operations of the respondent de- scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tion to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of. commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain ' unfair labor practices we shall order it to cease and desist from such practices and to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy: We shall therefore order that the respondent make Eichem and Keagy whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered, by -reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by payment to each of a sum of money equal to the- amount that each -normally would have earned as wages during the 2-week period' following August 27, 1941, less the net earnings of each during the said period.12 We have found that the respondent, by acts other than' the lay-offs of Eichem: and Keagy, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the! exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act: We have also found, in a prior proceeding' that the respondent 'has previously engaged in- other unfair labor practices, which at the 12 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation , room, .and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for the discrimi- nation and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . Sec Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R.,B. 440. 13 See footnote 2, supra. 10 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time of the hearing had not yet been remedied. Thus it is established that the respondent is engaged in a course of conduct designed to'defeat self-organization.14 In order to effectuate the purposes of the Act; we deem it necessary and shall direct that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of self -organniza- tion guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 373; affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi- t, I zation; within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. - 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy, thereby discouraging meni- bership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' U nion,'Local No. 373, the respondent has engaged . in and'is engaging in unfair laboi practices; within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the" Act. 3. By interferiing with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights'guaranteed in Section 7 of the At, the respond- ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8.: (1) of the Act- 4.4. The aforesaid unfair labor - practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the. meaning of Section 2 (6) and. (7), of the Act. Upon-the basis of the foregoing findings offact',and;conclusionsof law., and.-pursuant to Section 10. (c) of;the National Labor Relations Act,_ the National. Labor._ Relations Board' hereby orders that the, re- .spondent, Aintree Corporation, and _its officers, agents, successors, and assignsshall: 1. Cease and desist from.: (a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies'.. Garment Workers' Union; Local. No. 373, affiliated, with the American Federa- tion of Labor; or any other labor organization of its employees, by -laying off or in any other manner discriminating against employees with. regard to their hire or tenure of employment -or any term or condition of their employment; 14 See Natioizal Labor Relations Board v. Bradley Lumber Company of Arkansas, a cor- poration (C. C. A. 8, decided June 26, 1942), enf'g platter of''Bradley.Luiniber Conipdny of Arkansas and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Local 2645, A. F. L., 34 X. L. R. B. 610. AINTREE CORPORATION 1.1 (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through .rep= resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties for the purposes of collective bargaining 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) Make whole,Mamie Eichem and Josephine Keagy for any-loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimi- nation against them by payment to each of them of a'sum of money equivalent to the amount she would normally have earned as wages 'during the 2-week period following August 27, 1941, less her net earn- ings during said period; (b) Immediately 'post notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its plant in Fairfield, Illinois, and maintain such notices fora period of at.least.sixty (60) consecutive days. from the date of posting, stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the con- duct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a.) and (b) of this Order; (2) that the respondent'-will' take the-affirma- tive action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;: and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to become or remain members ^of International Ladies' Garment Workers'. Union, Local No. 373, affili- ated with the American Federation of Labor, and that the respond- ent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of said labor organization; - (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this. Order what steps the respoiidenthas taken to comply herewith. MR. GERAan D: REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order..