Fortex Manufacturing Co., Inc.

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fortex Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-3553 and 15-CA-3614 June 30, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On March 30, 1970, Trial Examiner Melvin Pol- lack issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in sup- port of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding 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 briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. pany, Inc., in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, has maintained and enforced an invalid no-solicitation rule; that it suggested that its em- ployees withdraw from the Charging Union, Amal- gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and assisted them in attempting to do so; and that Respondent discharged Ruth Pinkerton because of her membership in, and activities in behalf of, the Union . Briefs were filed by all parties. Upon the entire record in the case, ' and my ob- servation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, an Alabama corporation, manufac- tures men's sleepwear at a plant located in Fort Deposit, Alabama, and at two plants located in Greenville, Alabama. Respondent's interstate ship- ments were in excess of $50,000 during the 12- month period preceding the issuance of the com- plaint. I find, as Respondent admits, that it is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The No-Solicitation Rule 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 the Respondent, Fortex Manufacturing Company, Inc., Greenville, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: This proceed- ing under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was heard in Green- ville, Alabama, on January 6, 1970 Pursuant to a charge filed in Case 15-CA-3553 on May 19, 1969, and a charge filed in Case l5-CA-3614 on August 4, 1969, a consolidated complaint was is- sued on October 21, 1969, and amended on December 5, 1969. The complaint, as amended, al- leges that Respondent Fortex Manufacturing Com- On April 30, 1969,2 during the Union's organiza- tional campaign, Respondent posted a notice signed by Vice President Aubrey Duncan that "soliciting on company property without written approval from management is cause for discharge." The notice was posted on the bulletin boards and at the time clocks of the Fort Deposit and Greenville plants. Three Fort Deposit employees, including Emma Leona Sexton, advised Superintendent O. R. Duncan that they had signed union cards and were working for the Union. Duncan said that was their "privilege" but "All I ask is not to have any union activity on the company property."" On the morn- ing of May 2, 12 Greenville employees spoke to Aubrey Hayden, the Greenville manager, in his of- fice. Virginia Hooper, spokesman for the group, testified that she told Hayden they had signed union cards, they had all been to union meetings, and they were going to do anything they could "to help the Union get in there." Hayden said that was "all ' The unopposed motion of the General Counsel to correct the record is granted 2 All dates hereafter are in 1969 unless otherwise indicated ' Sexton's testimony concerning this conversation with Duncan is uncon- tradicted 184 NLRB No. 3 FORTEX MANUFACTURING CO. right" but that they "could not solicit on company property or during working hours, that lunch time and break time was [their] time, but not on com- pany property."4 The rule was still posted when this case was heard on January 6, 1970. Manager Hayden and John C. Norman, assistant to Respondent's production vice president, testified that the no-solicitation notice was directed against outside solicitors and was not enforced against em- ployees who wore stickers reading "Vote Yes" be- fore a Board election conducted on July 24, 1969. The text of the no-solicitation notice,5 its timing, the manner of its posting, and the uncontradicted testimony of Sexton and Hooper show that it ap- plied to employee organizing activity Respondent had no occasion to apply the rule against em- ployees who wore union stickers, since such con- duct of itself involved no solicitation. The record in fact shows no union solicitation at the Fort Deposit and Greenville plants after the no-solicitation notice was posted. As the no-solicitation rule posted by Respondent forbids employees from engaging in union solicita- tion on nonworking time, and as Respondent has shown no special circumstances making the rule necessary in order to maintain production or discipline, I find that Respondent has promulgated and maintained an invalid no-solicitation rule, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Lexington Metal Products Company, 166 NLRB 878. B. The Discharge of Ruth Pinkerton Ruth Pinkerton started to work at the Greenville plant in March 1965. Pinkerton, a utility operator, received a $50 bonus in April 1969 for working 25 weeks without being absent or late. Manager Aubrey Hayden considered her "in the top echelon as an operator." Pinkerton signed a union card on April 14, 1969. She handed out cards to other employees and received back three or four signed cards. She at- tended a union meeting held in the latter part of April and, about 6.45 a m on May 1, came "up the line and hollered `A meeting tonight at 7:00."' At 8:45 a.m., Pinkerton and Ruth Wilson," a training instructor, were summoned to Hayden's office. Hayden told them that "a serious thing" had been reported to him, that Wilson was sewing for Pinker- ton and giving her the "coupons" to turn in for money.7 He said he had not believed it, but he had watched them and observed that Wilson was sewing for Pinkerton, so he had to let them go. Pinkerton said, "Well, that's being done in the plant every day" and asked Hayden why he had not told them they were "doing wrong." Hayden said he knew ' Hayden did not testify concerning this conversation ' The penalty of discharge could only apply to employees ° Wilson subsequently married and testified at the hearing as Ruth Wil- son Parmer 23 nothing about such a practice and said he had re- ported the matter to Fort Deposit, saying that Wil- son and Pinkerton were two of his best hands, but he was told to let them go. Pinkerton asked Hayden, "If it's that much against the rules, how come you didn't tell us that it was against the rule?" Hayden said he thought they knew it was against the rules. Pinkerton explained to Hayden that Wil- son had asked to sew on Pinkerton's machine because to teach the trainees "she wanted to learn to put the pants leg through the folder like I was putting through there." Hayden did not comment on Pinkerton's explanation and Pinkerton asked him for "a showing why I was being terminated" but Hayden said he could not give it Pinkerton and Wilson "checked [their] cards" and left the plant. Respondent contends that there is no "proof" that it had any knowledge of Pinkerton's union ac- tivities and that she was discharged for engaging in a practice that amounted to stealing Pinkerton signed a union card, solicited other employees to sign cards, attended a union meeting late in April, and, on the morning of her discharge on May 1, "hollered" to other employees on the production line that there would be another union meeting that evening. The record contains ample "proof" that Respondent was aware of Pinkerton's union activities. Utility operator Jeannette Davis testified that James Duncan, supervisor of the Greenville cutting department, was visiting her home "around the middle of April" and asked her if she had heard anything about the Union at the plant.8 Davis said "no" and Duncan said, "Well, I don't know if you know it or not, but your good friend, Ruth Pinkerton, is a union organizer, she has always been for the Union." Davis said she "didn't know anything about it." Duncan spoke about "bad things" if the Union got in-" strikes and things of that nature. He felt the Company could offer us more." Duncan denied telling Davis that Ruth Pinkerton was for the Union or ever discussing the Union with her. Davis' testimony is quite detailed and she impressed me as a reliable witness. I credit her testimony that Duncan told her that Pinkerton was a union organizer. Ruth Wilson testified that Pete Norman,9 the training coordinator for the Greenville and Fort Deposit plants, meets with the training instructors at the Greenville plant approximately every 2 weeks. Norman told the instructors during meetings in April that they were not to engage in union ac- tivities and asked them "if we could figure out a way that we could find out who was pushing the Union in the plant." Wilson said that Ruth Pinker- ton, Jean Cooper, and Virginia Lowery were men- tioned at these meetings and that she "was asked one time to ask Mrs. Pinkerton for a Union card." r A production ticket is attached to each work bundle given an operator and shows the amount of money paid for the completion of the bundle ° Davis is Duncan 's niece ° Pete Norman is the son of Respondent 's president, Ralph Norman 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Norman told the instructors that the Union was having meetings on Thursday nights at the Holiday Inn in Greenville. Shortly before her discharge on May 1, Wilson was given copies of a 3-page docu- ment headed "Questions and Answers About Our Future" to distribute "to the girls in [her] depart- ment." The document advanced reasons why the employees should vote against the Union at the scheduled Board election. Wilson's 'testimony that Pinkerton was mentioned as a possible union "pusher" at a meeting with Norman and that she was aksed to get a union card from Pinkerton is un- contradicted.10 Her further testimony that Norman advised the instructors that the Union was holding meetings at the Holiday inn and that she was given antiunion material to distribute to employees is also uncontradicted It thus appears that Respondent was concerned about union activities at the plant and that it had reason to suspect that Pinkerton was a union organizer. Wilson in fact asked Pinkerton for a union card in April but Pinkerton refused to give her one. The next day, Pinkerton asked Supervisor Carolyn Kirk- land where she could find employee Boswell. Kirk- land remarked she knew what Pinkerton wanted with Boswell. Pinkerton said, "Okay, you know we're trying to organize the Union. I want you to find out how many employees is in Greenville." Kirkland said, "I will, but don't you let me down " Boswell came up and Pinkerton told her, in Kirk- land's presence, not to give Wilson a union card. It thus appears that Kirkland knew about Pinker- ton's union activity before Pinkerton asked Kirk- land where she could find Boswell. I find from the foregoing facts that Respondent knew that Pinkerton was a union organizer before it discharged her on May 1, 1969. Manager Hayden's explanation for the May I discharges may be summarized as follows: Training Coordinator Pete Norman told him on April 30 that Wilson was sewing for Pinkerton. Hayden told Nor- man he "would check it out." Hayden walked into the sewing area and observed Wilson and Pinkerton from a distance of about 50 feet. He saw that Wil- son was sewing and that Pinkerton was "clipping and stacking " He "went on around through the plant and came back by the machine shop and 10 Pete Norman denied telling Wilson or anyone else that Pinkerton or any other employee was in the Union Wilson did not say who had asked her to get a union card from Pinkerton 11 Eva Webb testified that in February 1969 she held back tickets given to her by Supervisor Valerie Lowe Hayden asked her some time later if she had tickets she "didn't put on " Webb told him she " didn't show it because it was more than I could have sewed " Hayden said "they had to keep up with the amount that was going down the line" and that he would send Su- pervisor Glenda Williams to recount the tickets It appears from Webb's uncontradicted testimony that Hayden was concerned that all production be reported and not whether Webb was turning in tickets for bundles she had not sewn herself 11 Pinkerton testified that she actually lost production when Wilson took over her machine because Wilson " couldn't sew as good as I could, and it was just delaying my work for her to sew and me standing there waiting for her Because what she sewed , half of them had to be repaired, ripped out and fixed anyway " stood there and observed it again for quite a while." He estimated that Wilson sewed and Pin- kerton clipped and stacked for "at least an hour " He called the two women into his office the next day and told them what he had observed. He told them it was against the company rules to sew for others and give them the production coupons to turn in. They "admitted they were doing that" and he discharged them. Hayden said he could not remember asking Wil- son why she was sewing for Pinkerton In his opinion, it was "stealing" for Pinkerton to turn in "coupons for cash money that she did not sew " I do not credit Hayden's testimony that Pinkerton breached a plant rule by turning in tickets on bun- dles sewed by Wilson, and that her doing so was "stealing" from Respondent. Hayden admitted that the alleged rule against operators turning in tickets on bundles they had not sewn was never published and the record shows that supervisors sewed from time to time in the in- terest of production and gave the production tickets to employees to turn in.I I Pinkerton, Wilson, Virginia Hooper, and Guinevere Boswell testified that they knew of no rule against getting credit for work performed by a supervisor. Respondent does not dispute that its supervisors occasionally sew in the interest of production and give the production tickets to employees to turn in for credit. It argues, however, that this practice is far different from a supervisor or training instructor "helping [an employee] on the clock." It would be reprehensible for a supervisor or training instructor to neglect his own work to sew or otherwise help an employee either to conceal the employees lack of ability or to increase his earnings But Pinkerton was admittedly an employee in the "top echelon" and Pinkerton's earnings could easily have been reviewed for any inexplicable increase in her productivity. 12 Hayden, however, made no effort to check Pinkerton's explanation at the discharge in- terview that Wilson sewed on her machine for teaching purposes 1 t Although Hayden claimed that he observed Wilson and Pinkerton on April 30 for about an hour,14 he offered no explanation for not discharging them at once if their conduct was tan- tamount to "stealing." " Wilson testified that she asked Pinkerton to let her use the machine because "1 had a girl on my training line who was doing pants bottoms and I felt maybe if I sewed, I could teach this girl and it would help her " Wilson also testified that for about 2 weeks before her discharge on May I, she sewed at Pinkerton 's machine twice a day, every other day, up to 20 minutes at a time, not only in the afternoon when Training Coordinator Pete Norman was at the Fort Deposit plant, but also in the morning when Norman was at the Greenville plant In light of this testimony and Respon- dent's failure to adduce evidence to the contrary , 1 find that Wilson and Pinkerton made no effort to conceal from management Wilson's sewing at Pinkerton 's machine " Pinkerton and Wilson estimated that Wilson sewed on Pinkerton's machine no longer than 20 minutes at a time As Pinkerton received a production credit of only about 30 minutes a day for clipping and stacking, Hayden's testimony that Pinkerton did such work for about an hour while Wilson sewed is implausible I consider Pinkerton and Wilson reliable wit- nesses and reject Hayden 's testimony that Wilson sewed at Pinkerton's machine continuously for about an hour on April 30 FORTEX MANUFACTURING CO. 25 I find for the foregoing reasons that Pinkerton's turning in of tickets for work done in part by Wil- son was neither a breach of a plant rule nor "stealing" and that Hayden had no basis for a con- trary belief Prior to Pinkerton's discharge, Respondent dis- tributed an antiunion document to its employees and posted an invalid rule prohibitng the employees from engaging in union solicitation at the plant dur- ing nonworking time Subsequent to Pinkerton's discharge and after a Board election, Respondent, as shown below, unlawfully solicited employees to withdraw from the Union. In view of Respondent's hostility to the Union, its knowledge of Pinkerton's union activity, and its unconvincing explanation for her discharge, I find that Respondent discharged Pinkerton on May 1, 1969, to discourage member- ship in, and support of, the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I ) of the Act. 15 C. Assisting Employees to Withdraw From the Union About November 10, 1969, Respondent furnished employees at the Greenville and Fort Deposit plants with copies of the following letter signed by President R. R Norman and Secretary- Treasurer C. B. Haisler. TO OUR EMPLOYEES: QUESTION: You ask us if you must join the union to work for Fortex2 ANSWER Fortex does not require anyone to join the union in order to hold a job with For- tex. Do not let anyone pressure you to sign a union card if you do not want to sign. QUESTION. You ask us how you can cancel you union card once you have signed up? ANSWER: You may cancel your membership card anytime by writing the union and so noti- fying them. Keep a copy of your letter to the union Your supervisor will assist you if you ask. Emma Leona Sexton testified that she went to President Norman's office and "asked him if it was so, that we- could sign a slip of paper and get our membership cards back." Norman said he had some forms if she wanted to sign one and handed her a copy of the following letter which he had prepared. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America 15 Union Square New York, N. Y. 10003 Dear Sir. I am an employee of Fortex Manufacturing Company, Inc. working at Fort Deposit or Greenville Alabama IS The complaint does not allege that Wilson's discharge was violative of the Act and the parties did not litigate the matter at the hearing I therefore do not reach the question whether her discharge was an unfair labor prac- tice Please cancel my union membership card Yours truly, Sexton signed the form letter and Norman dated it. He asked Sexton for her address and wrote it on the form He gave Sexton another copy to sign and said she should keep one and he would "keep one to mail to the Union." - Tiny Ellen Stinson testified that early in November she asked Training Instructor Avis Hamm how she felt about the Union. Hamm said she had signed a union card while "in training" but had since written the Union to get her card back, and if Stinson wanted her card back, she could get the address of the Union from Hayden A little later Hamm told Stinson that Hayden wanted to see her Stinson went to the office where Hayden said Hamm had told him that Stinson wanted to talk to him about getting her union card back and about getting the Union's address Stinson said that was so. Hayden wrote the Union's address on a piece of paper and also wrote on a blank piece of paper, "Dear Sirs, I would like to revoke my membership in the Union as of this date." He gave her "the car- bon and the copy of the stuff I was to write," and told her "to put 15 minutes time on [her] time sheet "16 Head Training Instructor Barbara Nix told Stinson that afternoon she was glad Stinson had reconsidered and she wished Stinson would try to get Jewel McCormack "to get out of it too." Nix gave Stinson "a three page sheet of questions and answers about the Union and asked her to read it and try to get the other girls to read it and change their minds about the Union." About a week later, Hamm asked Stinson if she had sent the letter off to the Union and Stinson told her no Later that day, Hamm told Stinson that Hayden had information about the Union and if she wanted to get her union card back, that Hayden had forms available. The next morning, Hamm told Stinson and two other trainees that Hayden had in- formation about the Union "and if we wanted to go in there and talk to him about that, that he would talk to us " Hamm accompanied the three trainees to Hayden's office and left. Hayden said he was glad they had reconsidered about the Union, he had forms available "if [they] wanted to sign," and he wished they would try to get their friends to recon- sider. He said the Union was not in the "best in- terest" of the Company and the employees, the em- ployees would still have to pay union fees and dues if they went out on strike "with no income," and the Company would have no market to sell pajamas and "would go broke" if it "went union." He handed the three employees withdrawal forms "with the carbon to them." They signed the forms. Hayden put the originals "in an unsealed envelope on his desk" and gave the carbon copies to the em- ployees. " Stinson was in Hayden 's office about 5 minutes 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pauline Mills testified that Supervisor Eufa Goodson told her early in November, " Pauline, if you would like to get your union card back, Mr. Hayden has some forms in the office. All you have to do is go fill out a form." Mills said , "the hell you say. There ain't no way." Goodson said, "Well, all I know is what he said." Hayden testified that at Greenville the withdrawal forms were kept in his office, that 10-15 employees came to his office and signed withdrawal forms, and that for some employees Respondent furnished postage and envelopes, and mailed the withdrawal letters to the Union. Pres- ident Norman testified that about 20 employees signed withdrawal forms at Fort Deposit and af- firmed Sexton's testimony that she signed a form in his office, which he mailed to the Union. In his letter of November 10 to the employees, President Norman invited them to ask their super- visors for assistance if they wanted to cancel their membership in the Union. When Sexton came to his office and inquired about getting back her mem- bership card, Norman handed her a withdrawal form he had prepared for signature, dated the form, supplied her address, and mailed the withdrawal letter to the Union. Greenville Manager Hayden summoned Stinson to his office early in November, where he wrote out a withdrawal letter to the Union for Stinson when she affirmed that she had spoken to Training Instructor Hamm about getting out of the Union. About a week later, Hamm brought Stinson and two other trainees to Hayden's office to talk about the Union. Hayden said he was glad they had "reconsidered" about the Union, ex- plained to them why the Union was not in their "best interest" or the Company's, and gave them copies of the withdrawal form prepared by Pre- sident Norman to sign. Hayden kept the original signed copies and mailed them to the Union. Super- visor Goodson suggested to Pauline Mills that she fill out a withdrawal form in Hayden's office. By thus encouraging and assisting employees to withdraw from the union, Respondent interfered with the right of its employees to "decide of their own free will, independently of employer solicita- tion, to withdraw their union designations." Martin Theatres of Georgia, Inc., d/b/a WTVC, 126 NLRB 1054, 1058. Cf. Cumberland Shoe Company, 160 NLRB 1256, 1259. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By discharging Ruth Pinkerton on May 1, 1969, because of her activity on behalf of the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating and maintaining a plant rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union sol- icitation during nonworking time and by assisting employees in the withdrawal of union designations. THE REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, that it reinstate Ruth Pinkerton with backpay computed according to the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and that it post an appropriate notice. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, con- clusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend is- suance of the following: ORDER Respondent, Fortex Manufacturing Company, Inc., its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of his membership in or his activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (b) Promulgating and maintaining a rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union sol- icitation on Respondent 's premises during non- working time. (c) Assisting employee withdrawal from Amal- gamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessa- ry to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Ruth Pinkerton immediate , full, and unconditional reinstatement to her former or sub- stantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights , privileges , or working conditions , and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered , in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify Ruth Pinkerton, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (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 backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. FORTEX MANUFACTURING CO. 27 (d) Post at its plants in Fort Deposit and Green- ville, Alabama, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall 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 its employees are customarily posted. Reasons -le steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 18 'r 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 " is 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 1969. If she should currently be serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, we will notify her of her right to full reinstatment upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces in accordance with the Selective Ser- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise dis- criminate against employees because of their union activity. Our employees are free to engage in union solicitation on our premises during nonworking time. WE WILL NOT assist our employees in withdrawing their membership from Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer- cise of their rights of self-organization under the Act. All our employees are free to become and remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor or- ganization. FORTEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. (Employer) Dated By APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer Ruth Pinkerton her former job and pay for wages she lost since May 1, (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, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-527-6391.