Louisiana Garment Manufacturing Co.

830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken-to comply herewith.4 I In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, We hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Team- sters Local 959, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees because of their concerted or union activities or in any other manner discriminate in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Leonard Thistle, Dennis Goodwin, and Charles Harlan and will make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them. WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi- tion of employment, against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization. BARRETT & LESH, INC., D/B/A PRODUCE WHOLESALE CO., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583- 4583. Louisiana Garment Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-2711. November 8, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On August 2, 1966, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer issued his Deci- sion in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec- 161 NLRB No. 78. LOUISIANA GARMENT MFG. CO. 831 ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 1 Respondent's exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision are in large part directed to the credibility resolutions of the Trial Examiner. We will not overrule the. Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Such a conclusion is not warranted here. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 P.2d 362 (C.A. 3). 2 The complaint alleged, and the Trial Examiner found , that Respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate Mrs. Deola Richardson on April 19 , 1965. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent decided on April 19 to refuse to reinstate Richardson in reprisal for her union activities . We find, however, that the violation of Section 8(a) (3) did not occur until June 7, since it was then that Richardson first reported she was avail- able for work and was discriminatorily refused ,reinstatement . Accordingly , Conclusion of Law No. 3 in the Trial Examiner 's Decision is amended by changing the date "April 19, 1965 ," to "June 7, 1965." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, on September 16, 1965 ,1 filed an 8 (a)(1) and (3) charge against the Lou- isiana Garment Manufacturing Company, herein called Respondent , and the General Counsel issued a complaint and notice of hearing on December 17, 1965. Respond- ent in its answer admitted the essential commerce allegations but denied it had violated the Act. The case was heard on April 18 , 1966, before Trial Examiner John M. Dyer, and all parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross- examine witnesses, oral argument was presented by Respondent, and helpful briefs were received from both General Counsel and Respondent and have been considered. Respondent, in its brief, makes a posthearing motion that its prior "motion to compel answers to interrogatories should now be granted and the case remanded for further proceedings after the interrogatories have been properly answered by the Board and the charging party." In support of its motion, Respondent alleges that the Board has an unalterable policy against discovery and that the Board abused its discretion in not granting it discovery of what Respondent feels is admissible evidence and which it states it needed to prepare its defense as shown in its pre- trial motions. Respondent's pretrial motions were denied before the hearing by Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner. At the hearing, Respondent entered what it termed a "formal objection" to pro- ceeding with the hearing since its motions for interrogatories had.been denied. 1 All dates herein unless otherwise indicated refer to the year 1965. 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent was asked by me if its objection was a request for an additional ruling on its motions. Respondent replied that the ruling had been made and it wished to preserve the objection on the record. Thereafter the case proceeded and General Counsel completed his case in half a day. Respondent was asked if it was ready to proceed, replied affirmatively, presented its case, rested with the statement , "That's Respondent's case," and thereafter presented oral argument. Respondent never re- quested any additional time or a postponement in which to prepare its defense, or in any way intimated it was unable to proceed . Nor did Respondent make any further reference to its interrogatories or its need for requested information before it proceeded. In these circumstances, I fail to see how Respondent has been prejudiced in not obtaining answers to its interrogatories . Respondent made its objection pro forma, did not seek a ruling on it at the hearing, thereafter did not pursue it or seek to show it needed the requested information before it could present its case, but on the contrary, proceeded immediately, presented its case, and rested. Certainly reasons urged for the discovery of evidence prior to a hearing when a party is seeking every- thing it can to prepare its defense have no weight once the hearing has been opened; General Counsel's case has been fully presented and Respondent has been able to proceed with its defense without finding it necessary to obtain additional time to prepare. Since it appears that Respondent has not been prejudiced, I hereby deny Respond- ent's dual motion to compel answers to its interrogatories and reopen the case for further proceedings. In his brief, General Counsel moved the deletion of complaint paragraph 8(a) since he had not offered evidence concerning this alleged allegation . This motion is in effect granted by my failure to find such violation. Upon the entire record in this case and on my evaluation of the witnesses' relia- bility based on their testimony and demeanor and the evidence received, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a Louisiana corporation with its principal office and plant in New Orleans, where it is engaged in the manufacture and wholesale sale of pants. Respondent annually ships its finished products, valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points outside the State of Louisiana. Respondent admits, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in interstate com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent further admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and issues Deola Rhodes Richardson, the alleged 8(a)(3), was first employed by Respond- ent in February 1958. She worked for Respondent until 1961, when she was laid off because Respondent attempted to eliminate her job of turning pockets by having the pocket setters perform this operation. After determining that pocket turning was still needed as a separate job, Respondent reemployed her. In 1963 Richardson was laid off some 5 or 6 months because of lack of work. After being called back she worked continuously until April 1965. During her employment with Respondent, according to her testimony, Richardson closed pockets (sewed the two pieces of cloth together to make a pocket), turned pockets (turned them inside out), faced pockets, marked cloth in the cloth room, made tabs, and on occasions cut tickets. With the exception of the occasional work of cutting tickets, making tabs, or marking, Richardson worked on the main pants assembly line. Until the fall or winter of 1964, Richardson closed pockets using a stitching machine and then turned the pockets. Respondent then bought "surging" machines and put three on pocket closing and returned Richardson to pocket turn- ing. After the two pieces of cloth which make the pocket are faced, the "surging" machine operators close them (sew them together) and Richardson the only pocket turner in the plant, turns the pockets to pass them on to the next operation, setting the pockets in the pants. When work was slack in turning pockets, Richardson would sometimes use another "surging" machine if it was idle and would fill in when one of the pocket closers was absent to produce more front pockets. LOUISIANA GARMENT MFG. CO. 833 The union campaign started in September 1964 . Richardson signed a union card near the beginning of the campaign and helped the organizers in getting cards signed. According to Richardson, she helped sign up approximately 110 employees. About the first of March (near Mardi Gras), Richardson was absent from work to see her doctor and was asked by Mrs. Lasserre, Respondent's personnel director, to bring a certificate from the doctor. When she gave the certificate to Lasserre, she informed her that her doctor said it would be necessary to have an operation . She testified that Lasserre asked when she was going to the hospital and she replied that there were no beds available at that time, and she would like to have the operation around Eastertime. She testified that Lasserre said when she got ready to leave to let her know and her job would be waiting when she got back. Richardson testified that about March 1 (prior to the 10 (b) date in this case), her supervisor, Emelda Hill, spoke to several employees including herself, the three pocket closers, Beatrice McDonald, Shirley Priestly, and Shirley Fredericks and employee Pappas saying that Mr. Bonck, Respondent's president, had said that if the Union won the election the plant would have to close down , the Company could not afford it and they would not have any work. Richardson testified that Bonck spoke to her around March 15 (prior to the 10(b) date ), saying he heard she was going to vote for the Company and he was glad because he needed all the help he could get. Richardson testified that at about the same time she spoke to her supervisor, Emelda Hill, about leaving for her oper- ation and that Hill told her to see Lasserre . She stated that she went to see Lasserre again, and Lasserre told her to let her know exactly when she was leaving, and that she would have her job ready when she came back , simply to call Lasserre and let her know when she was ready to come back. The issues in this case determinative of violations are: (1 ) Whether Respondent determined not to reemploy Richardson because of her union activities and senti- ments and so acted; (2) Whether President Stanton Bonck committed two inde- pendent violations of Section 8(a)(1) in statements he assertedly made to employees. B. Respondent's leave practices and the refusal to reinstate Richardson On March 23, the Union sent a telegram to Stanton Bonck listing names of employee union members who were members of the Union's organizing committee at Respondent's plant. Richardson's name is included in the 21 names listed. Rich- ardson testified that while working, Stanton Bonck, with a piece of paper in his hand, which she took to be the telegram from the Union , stood near her workplace and to her and possibly to some other employees near her, said they were no good so and so's, that he thought they were for the Company, and then found out they were for the Union. The NLRB election was held March 25, and Richardson , together with one other union committee organizer, named in the telegram, were the two observers for the Union at the election. On April 12 or 13, according to Richardson , Lasserre came to the table where she was working and told her that Emelda Hill, her supervisor, had said Deola was leaving April 16 .2 Richardson said she was , that she had to be in the hospital on the 20th. Lasserre asked her how long she would be out and Richardson said 6 to 8 weeks or whenever the doctor said she would be able to come back. Richardson testified on cross-examination, that just prior to her operation on April 21, she received a call from employee Myrtle Dalmas, who told her that she had overheard Bonck telling Lasserre that since Richardson was out of the plant, Bonck was going to keep her out. Employees Myrtle Dalmas and Dorothy Whimzey in essence corroborated each other's testimony which was that on April 19, each overheard President Stanton Bonck say that since Deola was out of the plant they would try to get the girls to change their minds about the Union and would try to keep her out. - On April 20 , Lasserre prepared a form notice which she sent to the Louisiana Employment Security Division alleging disqualification of Richardson for unemploy- ment compensation. The reason given for Richardson's separation was "Quit to have a major operation . Will be absent for an indefinite length of time ." This form in two places states it must be submitted within 72 hours after the worker's separation. From the date thereon, the form was not submitted within the allotted time. Richardson actually left on April 15. 264-188-67-vol. 161-54 834 DECISIONS OF•'NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD Richardson testified she did nothing about the report. from Myrtle Dalmas because ,she was about to undergo an operation and was going to, be out of work for, some time anyway. On June 7, she went, for her 6-week, checkup and was given a state- ment from her doctor certifying she was able -to go to work. On the same day she called Lasserre and told her she was able to return to work. Lasserre replied she would check with Emelda Hill to determine if anything was available for her to do and would send a message to her by her sister, Mable Pierce. When her sister came home that evening she had no message for Richardson and so she called Lasserre the next morning. Lasserre was not in her office, and Richardson left a mes- sage that if the Company had nothing for her to do, she wanted to go to the unem- ployment office but did not have. the proper form to turn in. A short time later Lasserre called and told Richardson to go to the unemployment office and sign up. After hearing nothing from the Company for 2 months, Richardson, on September 9, went to the office to see Lasserre. She told Lasserre she was there to apply for her job, and Lasserre said they had hired someone for, her job and there were no other job openings at the plant for which she was qualified. On cross-examination Rich- ardson said she did not think Lasserre was truthful in telling her there were no jobs for her since the Company had hired some other girls since she had been out but she did not know their names. On April 20, the same day Respondent sent the notice to the Louisiana Unemployment Compensation Commission, it hired Grace Taylor, an untrained worker who had appeared at the plant seeking work, and put her on Richardson's job of turning pockets 3 Grace Taylor apparently remained on that job and according to Respondent, on the average makes her production quota more than Richardson did. Respondent asserts it does not have a policy of rehiring employees who are out on maternity or sick leave for indefinite periods of time but, that it hires those best qualified for the jobs it has available.. As to Richardson, it, needed a pocket turner during her absence and hired one. Lasserre stated that work was slack from April through September and with Richardson's skills limited to pocket, turning and pocket closing, there were no jobs she could perform. Further she testified several times that she never promised to hold a job for an employee who left the Company, and when an employee leaves'for an operation, the employee, is terminated ,and the proper form is sent to the Louisiana Employment Security Division. According to Lasserre, Richardson did not call in, but rather came to her office in June to apply for a job but there were no openings for a pocket closer or turner which she stated 'to Richardson who then left. Richardson returned again in Sep- tember and again Lasserre stated there were no openings and she so informed Richardson adding that she would place her on the waiting list. On cross-examination, Lasserre was asked about the sickness or maternity absences of a number of employees. In most instances she did not recall if the employee was out or for how long or whether Louisiana Employment Security Division forms were submitted for the individuals. As to an. employee named Roberts, Lasserre stated she was out for an operation a normal length of time .4 Lasserre did not recall whether she had submitted a Louisiana Employment Security Division form for Pierce (Richardson's sister) when she was on maternity leave. On the whole, Las- serre stated that most of the people' concerning whom she was questioned were returned to their jobs after being released by their doctors. Later asked about the "waiting list," she stated there was really no such list, but only a penciled or mental notation that the person was available. During her later testimony Lasserre referred to Richardson's personnel file and read a note that Richardson had called in on June 7, reported that she was able to work, and that she responded that work was slack with vacation coming up and she would call Richardson when there was an opening. This note contradicts Las- serre's testimony about Richardson coming to the office in June, and inferentially contradicts the "waiting list" statement, since this indicates she knew Richardson was available and would contact her. Lasserre also denied that she had any conversation with Bonck in which Deola Richardson was the subject and stated that the testimony of Myrtle Dalmas and Dorothy Whimzey was untrue. The testimony of Dalmas and Wbimzey was repeated for Stanton Bonck who said,that it was not true since he did not have anything to do with the machine operators and that the personnel work, the hiring and firing ' The testimony indicates that on many occasions employees from other departments are assigned to fill in for employees out sick or for an operation. ' There was no explanation of what type of operation was involved or what " a normal time" was. LOUISIANA GARMENT MFG. CO. 835 was handled by others . -Bonk did admit that he fired an employee thereafter. Bonck was not asked to deny Richardson's testimony about the incident at her work station concerning the piece of paper and the statement about employees being for the Union. Instead, Bonck testified that after receiving the telegram and reading it, he placed it beneath his desk blotter and did not take it out again until he showed it to Respondent's attorney. I cannot credit Bonck's denials of these two happenings because they are not specific but are attempts to explain the event away with an inference that it could not have happened . Bonck's denial of the conversation between himself and Las- serre is based on his assertion that he has nothing to do with machine operators, not that he did not make the statement. Similarly he does not deny making the other statement attributed to him, but inferentially denies it by saying he did not take the telegram into the plant or discuss the telegram's contents with employees. Noting the contradictions in Lasserre's testimony concerning Richardson when the note in Richardson's file was available to her, and her inexactitude when confronted by specific examples, I have concluded that Lasserre was not precise or completely truthful in her testimony but shaded her testimony to suit Respondent 's position. I do not credit her denial of the testimony between herself and Bonck. The testimony of Myrtle Dalmas and Dorothy Whimzey was precise and exact as to the occurrence and I was further impressed by the corroboration given it by Richardson on cross- examination. Reconciling the testimony, the following appears to have happened : ( 1) Richard- son was active for the Union as an organizer and one of the two union observers at the election; (2) Bonck expressed strong disapproval of Richardson's union activ- ity; (3) Richardson informed Respondent she was leaving for a needed operation and was told by Lasserre her job would be waiting on her return, in the same man- ner that other employees such as Richardson's sister had been reemployed; (4) Bonck told Lasserre on April 19, that since Richardson was out of the plant, they would keep her out and try to get the other employees to turn against the Union; (5) Lasserre then sent the Louisiana Employment Security Division form and hired a replacement, even though work was slack in the plant and it probably would other- wise have had other employees such as the pocket closers filling in for Richard- son; (6) Richardson has not since been reinstated or offered other positions by Respondent. These events make out a picture of discrimination and I find and conclude that Respondent, on and after April 19, 1965 , determined not to reinstate employee Deola Richardson because of her union activities and sentiments, did not there- after offer her further employment, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). C. Alleged threats of discharge Edward Falls worked for Respondent from September 1964 until September 1965. He testified that in March 1965, the day before the union election, he together with two other employees were cleaning a hall, when Stanton Bonck spoke to them and said if anyone did not vote for the Company he might as well keep going out the gate. Bonck testified that he did not recall having a conversation with Falls or the other two employees, and that he did not make the threat to the three people which Falls alleged. Bonck further testified that in September 1965 , he had a run-in with Falls, and alleged that Falls cursed him and that be had no alternative but to fire him on the spot. On cross-examination, Falls stated that he and Bonck used obscene language toward one another, that it had been a misunderstanding, and that he bore -no ill will toward the Company. Hubert Sentina was a bundle boy, who worked for the Company approximately 3 years. Sentina testified that 4 or 5 days after the union election while at the water cooler with another employee, Bonck told them that if they did not get back to their jobs he would get rid of him, his brother, and the whole union committee. Sentina stated that the other employee with him at the water cooler was also a member of the union committee. Bonck testified that Sentina was a source of complaints from supervisors in that he did not work, but was always away from his job, either in the dressing room or some place else in the plant. Bonck stated that on one particular day, he had com- plaints about Sentina, and when he saw him goofing off, told him to cut it out and -straighten out, and that if he did not do his work, he was going to get him. Bonck -stated that he did not mention the union committee to Sentina. 836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Apparently neither the General Counsel nor Respondent attempted to produce corroborative witnesses to these conversations . However, Bonck's testimony illus- trates he was closely concerned with the attitude and work of the employees and' was not divorced from personnel matters as he sought to claim in his roundaboa attempt to deny the conversation between himself and Lasserre concerning Deola Richardson . I do not credit Bonck's denials in these two situations but believe and find he made the statements as attributed to him by Falls and Sentina. The first statement is a threat to discharge employees if they voted for the Union.. The second statement although starting as an enjoinder to return to work, ends up as a threat to get rid of the union committee which was composed of 21 people. Bonck, here, lost his temper and seeing two members of the union committee at: .the water cooler, vented his spleen at the Union which had just come into his plant. The statement which may have started innocently ended with a threat which is violative of the Act. I find and conclude that these statements are violative of. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section II, above, and therein: found to constitute unfair labor practices , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, occurring in connection with Respondent 's business operations as set forth 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. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth, above, it is recommended that it cease and desist therefrom , and take affirmative- action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows: Respondent having terminated and thereafter having refused to reinstate Deola. Richardson, because of her union activities , it is recommended that Respondent offer to her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and priv- ileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discriminatory termination to the date Respondent offers her reinstatement,. less any net earnings for the interim 5 Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90, NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It is further recom- mended that Respondent make available to the Board, on request, payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due and! the rights of reinstatement of Deola Richardson. Having found that Respondent discriminatetd against Deola Richardson because she exercised her rights under the Act and Respondent having interfered with the rights of its other employees by its discrimination against Deola Richardson, and having otherwise invaded its employees' rights under the Act, I am of the opinion. that the danger exists that Respondent may commit other unfair labor practices . Since- a part of the purpose of the Act is to prevent the commission of further unfair labor practices , and being mindful that Respondent may again invade the rights of its employees, it is recommended that Respondent be placed under a broad order- to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed its. employees by the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Louisiana Garment Manufacturing Company is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5 Any period in which she was unable to work shall be disallowed as. is normal in these- cases. LOUISIANA GARMENT MFG. CO. 837 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily terminating and refusing to reinstate Deola Richardson ,on April 19, 1965 , and not thereafter reinstating her because of her union activities .and desires , Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and ( 1) and 2 (6) and (7) ,of the Act. 4. By threatening to discharge employees if they voted for the Union and by threatening to rid itself of the union committee , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case considered as a whole , it is recommended that Lou- ,isiana Garment Manufacturing Company of New Orleans , Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of Amalgamated Cloth- ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by termi- nating and not reemploying its employees or by discriminating against them in any other manner. (b) Threatening to discharge its employees if they vote for the Union or threat- ening to discharge the union committee. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to Join or assist the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or .protection. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the pol- icies of the Act: (a) Offer to Deola Richardson reinstatement in accordance with the recom- mendations set forth in "The Remedy" above. (b) Make Deola Richardson whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against her, in accordance with the recom- mendations set forth in "The Remedy" above. (c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records or reports, and all records necessary to analyze the .amount of backpay due and the rights of Deola Richardson under the terms of .these recommendations. (d) Post at its plant in New Orleans, Louisiana , copies of the attached notice .marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc- tor for Region 15 (New Orleans, Louisiana), after being signed by the represent- ative of Respondent, shall, be posted by Respondent and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any -other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply :herewith? 0In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 'If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT try to discourage you from helping or joining the Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, by terminating or refusing to rehire our employees. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees for voting for the Union or threaten to discharge the union committee. WE WILL offer Deola Richardson her former job with all of her rights and any backpay due. All our employees are free to become or remain union members. LOUISIANA GARMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 527-6361. Raymond's, Inc. and Local 224, Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-8570. November 9,. 1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer S . Anthony diCiero. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs have been filed by the Employer,' the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Fanning and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case , including the briefs filed by the parties, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. ' The Employer's request that the Board hear oral argument in this case Is hereby denied as the briefs , the Hearing Officer's report, and the transcript of the testimony and exhibits adequately present all the issues involved herein. 2 The Raymond's Associates , Inc., was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a current contract with the Employer. 161 NLRB No. 80.