Sir James, Inc.

256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sir James, Inc. and Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-8751 June 10, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On March 5, 1970, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Sir James, Inc., Los An- geles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R. WEBSTER, Trial Examiner: This case, with all parties represented, was heard in Los An- geles, California, on December 9, 1969, upon a complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Sir James, Inc., herein called Respondent. The com- plaint was issued on October 6, 1969, on a charge filed August 26, 1969. The complaint alleges that Respondent has made unilateral changes in working conditions and has otherwise refused to bargain in good faith with the Charging Party and has thereby engaged in a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the Charging Party and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my obser- vation of the witnesses, I hereby make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a corporation, with place of busi- ness and plant in Los Angeles, California, is en- gaged in the business of cutting, sewing, and selling ladies' garments. During the past 12 months, Respondent has sold products valued in excess of $500,000. During the same period, Respondent purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 shipped to it directly from points outside the State of California. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Wor- kers' Union, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party, and hereinafter referred to as the Union, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Issues 1. Whether Respondent, after the expiration of its contract with the Union, discontinued payments to welfare funds on behalf of its employees under circumstances that would constitute a refusal to bargain within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) on the Act. 2. Whether Respondent has otherwise engaged in good- or bad-faith bargaining concerning the terms and provisions of a new contract. B. Negotiations Since certification of the Union by the Board in 1955, Respondent and the Union have been parties to a series of collective-bargaining agreements covering an appropriate bargaining unit of all em- ployees in Respondent's cutting department includ- ing cutters, choppers, graders, markers, and pat- ternmakers employed at Respondent's Los Angeles plant. There are five employees in the bargaining unit. The last contract that was executed between the parties was effective from July 4, 1966, through July 3, 1969. Each of the collective-bargaining 183 NLRB No. 31 SIR JAMES , INC. 257 agreements has been substantially like the others except as to wages . There has been no wage scale set forth in the contracts and wages have been negotiated separately by the party. At all times material herein, the Union is and has been the recognized bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the above -described appropriate unit. By letter dated April 26, 1969, from Mrs. Edwin Selvin, Respondent 's labor consultant , Respondent notified Basil Feinberg, attorney for the Union, that Respondent desired to terminate the collective-bar- gaining agreement and offered to meet and negotiate on the terms of a new contract. The parties met for the purpose of discussing contract terms on June 5 and on August 13, 1969.1 Selvin was the representative of Respondent and Feinberg was the principal representative for the Union. Charges were filed herein on August 26, 1969. At the outset of bargaining , the Union proposed that ( 1) the unit employees receive a 10-percent wage increase ; (2) the amount Respondent is pay- ing into the Vacation , Health and Severance Pay Fund be increased from 7 percent of the em- ployees' gross weekly wage to 9 percent ; and (3) the one-half percent of wages that Respondent has been contributing to the Supplementary Unemploy- ment Severance Benefits Fund be reallocated so that one-eighth percent would continue to go to the severance fund and three -eighths percent would go to a new drug plan. During the course of the two bargaining sessions and by Selvin's letter of August 16, 1969, Respon- dent made proposals and changes in the contract terms as follows: As to article I, recognition , Selvin proposed by letter dated August 16 , 1969, that some change in the language of this article be made so as to describe the unit as including all cutters and ex- cluding all other employees, rather than as described above. Article II, section 1, provides for at least a 24- hour notice to the Union of any need for additional employees before hiring . Selvin proposed that it be taken out of the contract, stating that Respondent did not follow this procedure. Article II, section 2, provides that Respondent shall have the right to discharge any employee within 2 weeks of the beginning of his employment but that after such trial period , no worker shall be discharged for any cause except incompetence, misconduct , soldiering on the job, insubordination in the performance of duties, or breach of reasona- ble rules which have been duly established and promulgated. Selvin stated that Respondent may wish to cut his work forces and that Respondent would like to be able to keep the better employees without regard to seniority . Selvin proposed that this section be rewritten to bring in the points that she is making or that the section be left out al- together; that Respondent wants the full right to operate its business. Article II, section 3, of the contract requires that Repondent give the Union written notice of the name, address, social security number, and rate of pay of new employees within 2 weeks of the dates of hire . Selvin proposed that this section be removed from the contract , asserting that Respon- dent has never done this and that the contract should cover only what Respondent is willing and able to do. At the August meeting she did propose, however, that a new contract contain a clause requiring Respondent to submit a list of unit em- ployees every 4 months instead of every 2 weeks. Feinberg pointed out that she was misreading the section . Selvin finally agreed to retain section 3 if the Union would agree to the elimination of section 1. The Union did not agree to this proposal. Article II, section 4, provides for a union shop. Selvin proposed that this be eliminated, asserting that some prospective employees were unwilling to work on this basis . Selvin made a counterproposal that membership in the Union shall not be required as a condition of employment. Article II, section 5, provides that Respondent shall guarantee to employ and give full-time work to no less than four cutters, who are eligible to membership in the Union , before it has any cutting work done in any other plant or factory. As to this section, Selvin stated at the June 5 meeting that there have been times when no work at all has been available for cutters ; also that Respondent is al- ready contracting out some of its cutting work; that Respondent does not want this section , and that Respondent may even want to close out the cutting department. Feinberg explained that this clause is to assure that the subject of collective-bargaining remains in existence; if there is no cutting work, there will be no cutters , and it is the Union 's job to see that these people's jobs are afforded some pro- tection; that during the 14 years of contractural relations , the employees have had this protection, and that it would be a disservice to them to in- troduce this element of uncertainty as to their jobs. At the second meeting the Union asked Selvin if she would change her mind on this clause and she replied, "No , because I don 't think he does it right now." Selvin stated that she was opposed to this section 14 years ago when Respondent agreed to it when she was away for 1 week; that the Union got Respondent to agree to it and other provisions when he did not have a bargaining representative. Article II, section 6, provides that when there is no full-time work for all of the employees in the bargaining unit, the available work shall be divided by alternating weeks of employment in such a manner that the earnings of each worker shall be as nearly equal as possible . Selvin stated that some of ' There is no contention that there was any inordinate delay attributable to Respondent on the scheduling of bargaining sessions 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's material is very expensive and some is not and that Respondent wants his very best man to work on the expensive materials . Feinberg ex- plained that this section did not require Respondent to give the more difficult and expensive work to each of the employees and it did not require Respondent to assign complicated jobs to less qualified employees . Selvin continued to contend that this section was not practical in this plant. Article III pertains to wages. Section 1 provides that all wage increases granted shall remain in ef- fect during the term of the contract. As to this, there was no disagreement. Section 2 provides for a cost-of-living increase or decrease when the revised Consumers Price Index maintained by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics for the city of Los Angeles increases or decreases 3 percent from its level at the beginning of the contract, provided, however, that in no event shall the total amount of decrease exceed the total amount of wage increases granted pursuant to the contract. Selvin wanted this section deleted and stated that this is the only contract that she has ever had that has had this provision in it; that Respondent can give merit increases to take care of this situation. Article IV with sections 1 and 2 provides that the regular workweek shall consist of 35 hours to be worked in the first 5 days of the week, with 7 hours of work per day. Overtime shall be paid at the rate of 1-1/2 times the regular pay for all work done in excess of 7 hours in a regular workday or in excess of 35 hours in the regular workweek and any work done on Saturday. Selvin stated that she would leave this paragraph in but that if she were negotiating a new contract she would not do so; that to avoid paying em- ployees' overtime for Saturday work , Respondent can send work out to contractors. Article V provides for six paid holidays a year. Selvin agreed to the paid holidays but proposed the addition of conditions for eligibility . She proposed that in order to be eligible for holiday pay, an em- ployee must work the last scheduled shift im- mediately proceding the holiday and the first scheduled shift immediately following the holiday, provided however that at the option of the Com- pany an employee with reasonable proof of illness may be exempted from this requirement. Article VI with five sections provides for Re- spondent's contributions to a Vacation, Health and Severance Pay Fund , a Supplementary Unemploy- ment-Severance Benefits Fund , and a Retirement Fund . Selvin proposed to take all of this out of the contract, and she proposed to give the unit em- ployees the same insurance that the other em- ployees in the plant get ; that the Union's funds require contributions on a percentage basis and cost more . She stated that she was against the funds 14 years ago and would be against them 14 years from now . Selvin stated that she was opposed to all funds and has not seen one that she would approve. At the August meeting Selvin stated that she had thought Respondent had an insurance and health program for its other employees but that Respon- dent does not have any insurance or health pro- gram for them , and that this is the situation because Respondent could not get a sufficient percentage of them to sign up for it and Respondent did not want to carry it all. She stated that she was going to urge Respondent to get a health program for all em- ployees including the cutters. Selvin stated at the August meeting that she would be willing to grant the cutters a 10-percent wage increase; that she thought the employees would rather have the money than the fund benefits. She also stated that Respondent already had a retirement plan for its employees, being the social security program. As to vacation , which matter is included in the welfare paragraph , Selvin at first proposed that it remain the same and later proposed that it be the same as received by other employees . Feinberg ex- plained that under the fund program the cutters received the equivalent of about 2 weeks of vaca- tion whereas Respondent 's other employees receive 1 week of vacation. He stated that she was propos- ing a reduction in vacation time, and she replied that Respondent was also proposing to give the cut- ters a 10-percent wage increase. Article VII provides that there shall be no strikes or lockouts. Selvin proposed that this remain the same except that the Union be given the right to strike in certain circumstances as spelled out in her proposal on a grievance procedure. Article VIII provides that the Union will not en- courage or advise any contractor to refrain from doing business with Respondent . Selvin did not propose any change in this paragraph. Article IX, entitled Miscellaneous, contains a section 3 providing that the agreement shall be binding and effective on the heirs, successors, ad- ministrators , executors, and assigns of each of the parties . Selvin objected to this, contending that people cannot sell their businesses with this clause in their contracts. Article X provides for a grievance procedure and for arbitration. It also provides that representatives of the Union shall have the right to visit the plant during the working hours to confer with employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of carrying out the grievance procedure . Selvin stated that she did not want binding arbitration . By letter dated August 16, 1969, she submitted a grievance procedure proposal deleting any reference to ar- bitration. Her proposal provides that if at the final step the grievance cannot be satisfactorily disposed of by a representative of Respondent and a representative of the Union , the Union then may, by given due and timely notice, call a strike. Her proposal also provides that in the event of an in- vestigation of the grievance during working hours, any employee called from his work to confer with SIR JAMES, INC. the union representatives must first clock out and remain clocked out for the duration of the inter- view. The last article of the contract, article XI, speci- fies the duration of the agreement. In the August meeting Feinberg asked Selvin if there was any particular part of the contract on which she had changed her mind since the last meeting, and she replied in the negative. Since the meeting of August 13, 1969, neither party has requested a further bargaining conference, although as previously mentioned Selvin submitted by letter dated August 16, 1969, proposals on several paragraphs, as follows: representation, recognition, union membership, grievance procedure, strike and lockout, and a paragraph on management rights. C. The Discontinuance of Welfare Payments Upon the expiration of the contract on July 3, 1969, Respondent ceased all contributions to the employees ' health, welfare, vacation, and retire- ment funds. At no time did the Union receive from Respondent a written notification that this would occur. Respondent contends that the Union was notified of this fact during the contract negotia- tions. At the August 13 conference Selvin , in setting forth Respondent's positions on contract provi- sions, stated that "we do not intend to continue with the Welfare Fund." She also stated at another point in this meeting that "we no longer wish to continue with that [the Welfare and Retirement Funds] for one group of people in our plant." And at another point, she stated that she proposed to abolish all contributions to the welfare funds. Selvin stated during the August conference that after the owner of Respondent had a reed, in her absence, to the contents of the first contract between Respondent and the Union she resigned as his labor consultant. At his insistence , she returned to be his labor consultant about a week later; that she has stayed with his contract commitments since then, but that now she has been given the full authority to negotiate as she sees fit and is now, negotiating a new contract. At the conclusion of the August meeting, and after hearing Selvin iterate her positions on each of the provisions of the contract, the Union then made another proposal: that the agreement be renewed with existing provisions and with a 10-percent in- crease in wages . Selvin stated that as that proposal leaves the welfare funds in the agreement, she re- jected it. 2 The Celotex Corp, 146 NLRB 48 , Bethlehem Steel Co, 136 NLRB 1500, enforcement denied and case remanded 320 F 2d 615 (C A 3), Sup- plemental Decision 147 NLRB 977 D. Conclusions 259 Although an employer 's contractual obligations expire with the expiration of a collective -bargaining agreement, nevertheless, if the employees are represented by a bargaining agent , the existing terms and conditions of employment-that is, mat- ters pertaining to the relationship between an em- ployer and his employees , as distinguished from matters pertaining to the relationship between an employer and a union , must not be unilaterally changed and must be continued by the employer until bargaining thereon has culminated in an agreement or in an impasse . This is so irrespective of whether or not the employer has given notice to the union of a desire to make a change, except, however, if an employer gives notice of such an in- tent and the union fails to seek bargaining on the matter, then the making of the announced changes do not constitute a refusal to bargain.2 In the instant case, upon the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement on July 3, 1969, Respondent discontinued all contributions to the employees' Vacation , Health and Severance Pay Fund , to their Supplementary Unemployment- Severance Benefits Fund , and to their Retirement Fund . These were economic benefits or remunera- tions that the employees received from Respondent in exchange for their labors and constitute terms and conditions of their employment. At the bargaining meeting of June 5, Selvin stated that Respondent desired a change in the in- surance plans covering the unit employees, that Respondent was paying them social security plus the retirement fund and that Respondent did not wish to continue doing that; that Respondent proposed "to delete and substitute these things in different ways." At the conclusion of the June 5 session , after Selvin had gone through the contract paragraphs, she agreed to furnish certain informa- tion wanted by the Union and also to prepare cer- tain proposals and would have available "copies of his [Respondent's] insurance." Thus, it would ap- pear that bargaining was contemplated , not that Respondent was going to unilaterally and im- mediately discontinue these welfare benefits. I find that by Respondent's unilateral action of discon- tinuing all fund contributions after the expiration of its collective-bargaining agreement on July 3, 1969, it has refused to bargain in good faith with the Union over terms and conditions of employment.3 In addition to this, I find that Respondent did not approach negotiations "with an open mind and pur- pose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties ."4 After 14 years of ' Harold Hinson, dlbla Hen House Market, 175 NLRB No 100, Tormod Langemyr, d/b/a Tom Carpentry Construction Co , 176 NLRB No 1 1 ' Tex Tan Welhausen Co v N L R B , 419 F 2d 1265 (C A 5) 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 18 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining relations, during which time only two grievances have been presented by the Union, with at least the last having been resolved in favor of the employer, Respondent comes to the bargaining ta- ble, not with minor refinements or even a few major revisions of the contract, but with a position that every paragraph of any significance to the em- ployees be deleted or greatly changed. Judging from the proposals made and the reasons advanced therefor, it would appear that Respondent is not really seeking a contract with terms more favorable to the employer but is seeking to undermine and destroy the bargaining relationship and the em- ployees' utilization of the Union as a bargaining representative. To start with article I, Selvin proposed a change in the description of the bar- gaining unit to include only "cutters"; it is not quite clear whether this was for the purpose of simplicity or otherwise since the bargaining unit includes all employees in the cutting department, including those in other named classifications. In addition to cutters, Respondent employs a spreader and a grader in this department. Selvin proposed that each of the six subsections of article II be deleted. This included matters of special concern to the employees such as protec- tion from discharge after a 2-week trial period ex- cept for cause, no subcontracting of their work un- less there is more work than at least four cutters can handle, a division of work in any period when there is no full-time work available for all em- ployees, and a union shop. Selvin would leave in a provision to notify the Union within 2 weeks of any newly hired employee if the Union would agree to delete a provision that it be notified at least 24 hours in advance of any vacancy. Selvin would delete all contributions to welfare funds, would eliminate arbitration from the grievance procedure and would eliminate the provi- sion binding any successor to the collective-bar- gaining agreement. She would also eliminate the provision for cost-of-living increases in wages, reduce vacation time to conform to that received by nonunit employees, and add conditions to eligi- bility for holiday pay. The only provisions that she would retain were those pertaining to workweek and overtime (art. IV), number of paid holidays (art. V), strikes and lockouts with some modification (art. VII), and the provision providing that the Union would not en- courage or advise any contractor to cease doing business with Respondent (art. VIII). She did, how- ever, agree to a 10-percent wage increase, but this was to be in lieu of the contributions to the funds. Article XI, duration of agreement, was not reached. Selvin's reasons for her deletions and changes were for the most part not cogent. She wanted some of the items eliminated because Respondent was not following them; others because Respondent wanted the full right to operate his business, or because a provision was not practical for Respon- dent's plant. Regarding the welfare funds, Selvin contended that there should be the same insurance program as for the other employees, but it developed that there is no insurance program- other than social security-for the other employees. Although Selvin continued to talk about a sub- stitute insurance program, at no time was one brought forward. From the considerations set forth above, I find that Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union.' IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec- tion III, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, 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 thereof. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sir James, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Wor- kers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All employees in the cutting department in- cluding cutters, choppers, graders, markers, and patternmakers employed by Respondent at its Los Angeles plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the recognized bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described bargaining unit. 5. By unilaterally discontinuing payments to the employees' Vacation, Health and Severance Pay Fund, the Supplementary Unemployment- Severance Benefits Fund and the Retirement Fund, and by conducting negotiations without an open mind and purpose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties, Respon- dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair A H Belo Corp, 170 NLRB 1558, Alba-Waldensian, Inc, 167 NLRB 695 SIR JAMES, INC. labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affir- mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice by its discontinuance of pay- ments to the employees' welfare funds, I shall recommend that Respondent make whole the em- ployees involved therein (1) by paying all welfare contributions, as provided in the expired collective- bargaining agreement, which have not been paid and which would have been paid absent Respon- dent's unlawful conduct found herein, and (2) by continuing such payments until such time as Respondent negotiates in good faith with the Union to a new agreement or to an impasse. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, I recommend that, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Board issue the following: ORDER Sir James, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of its employees in the bargaining unit described below, by unilaterally discontinuing payments to the em- ployees' welfare funds, and by conducting negotia- tions without an open mind and purpose to reach an agreement consistent with the respective rights of the parties. (b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of the employees in the following described ap- propriate unit, as to rates of pay, wages, hours of work and conditions of employment, and, if an un- derstanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The appropriate bargaining unit is: All employees in the cutting department in- cluding cutters, choppers , graders, markers, and patternmakers, employed by Respondent at its Los Angeles plant. (b) Make whole the employees in the ap- propriate bargaining unit by ( 1) paying all con- 261 tributions to the Vacation, Health and Severance Pay Fund, the Supplementary Unemployment- Severance Benefits Fund and the Retirement Fund, as provided in the expired collective-bargaining agreement, which have not been paid and which would have been paid absent Respondent's unlaw- ful conduct found herein, and (2) continuing such payments until such time as Respondent negotiates in good faith with the Union to a new agreement or to an impasse. (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 and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of fund contributions due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Los Angeles plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. "6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees 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 21, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Local 84, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative of our employees in the follow- 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing described appropriate unit , with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment and, if an un- derstanding is reached , embody such un- derstanding in a signed agreement . The bar- gaining unit is: All employees in the cutting department including cutters, choppers , graders, mar- kers, and patternmakers, employed in our Los Angeles plant. WE WILL NOT unilaterally discontinue con- tributions to the welfare funds of our em- ployees without notifying and bargaining in good faith with the above-named Union prior to doing so. WE WILL NOT interfere , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights. WE WILL make whole the employees in the above-described appropriate bargaining unit by paying all contributions to welfare funds which we have not made and which we would have made absent our unilateral discontinuance of these contributions. SIR JAMES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway , Los Angeles , California 90014, Telephone 688-5254.