Hickman Garment Co.

888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hickman Garment Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 9-CA-545 3 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE August 12, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING , MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On May 12, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice S. Bush issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. I 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, the brief, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,2 and recommenda- tions. 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, Hickman Garment Company, Hickman, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. ' The Respondent has requested oral argument . The request is hereby denied because the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and the position of the parties 2 We find at unnecessary to consider the Trial Examiner's construction of Johnnie's Poultry Co , 146 NLRB 770, enforcement denied 344 F 2d 617 (C A 8) It is clear, as the Trial Examiner found, that the interrogation of December 18, 1969, was coercive and violative of Sec 8(a)(1) All of the circumstances-including the facts that employee Robinson was questioned by the three top management officials in the main office, that he was asked by the management officials about the truth of certain in- cidents that they knew full well had occurred, and that Robinson was also asked whether he had, in fact, signed a union card, a matter not germane to the subjects under investigation-persuade us that the inquiry transgressed the bounds of lawful investigation and was, indeed, an effort to intimidate Robinson into signing a false denial of the charges lodged against Respon- dent MAURICE S. BUSH , Trial Examiner : The issues in this case are whether the Respondent Company through its president , its co-manager, and its al- leged office manager coercively interrogated an employee at its plant at Hickman , Kentucky, at various dates and whether the president made a threatening remark to the same employee that the Company would close its plant if the Union were successful in its organizational campaign, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Involved in these issues is also the question of whether the alleged office manager has that title and whether she is an agent of the Com- pany within the meaning of the Act. The complaint herein was issued on January 30, 1970, pursuant to a charge filed on December 15, 1970, and served upon the Company on December 17, 1970. The case was tried before me on March 19, 1970, at Hickman , Kentucky . Although all parties were afforded the opportunity to file briefs, only counsel for General Counsel has filed a brief. It has been carefully reviewed and considered. Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Hickman Garment Company, Respondent, is a Kentucky corporation engaged in the manufacture of clothing and garments at its plant in Hickman, Kentucky. During the 12 months preceding the is- suance of the complaint, which is a representative period, the Company had a direct outflow of its products, in interstate commerce, valued in excess of $50,000 which it sold and shipped from its Hickman plant directly to points outside of the State of Kentucky. It is admitted that the Respon- dent is an "employer" as defined in Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in "commerce" and in operations "affecting commerce" as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, respectively. 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 The Company in the operation of its plant at Hickman, Kentucky, a county seat with a popula- tion of about 2,000, employs about 200 employees. Philip Roseman is president of the Company and his wife, Nettie Roseman, is co-manager of the Company. Nettie Roseman is also an attorney by 184 NLRB No. 103 HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 889 profession. The complaint alleges and the record shows that Gayle Gray is the Company's office manager. She prepares and signs company letters variously under her signature as personnel director, office manager, or secretary. In October 1969, in her capacity as personnel director she addressed a letter to a former employee recalling that employee for employment. (C.P. Exh. 1.) She has authority to grant employees time off from their jobs to attend to personal matters. She has the authority to responsibly direct employees and to adjust em- ployee grievances under circumstances which requires the use of independent judgment. Under these facts she is found to be a "Supervisor" of the Respondent Company within the meaning of the Act. The Company has heretofore been involved in violations of the Act. On July 12, 1968, the Board, in 172 NLRB 1168, found the Respondent in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and ordered the reinstatement of 19 employees who had been dis- criminatively discharged because of their activities on behalf of the Union. The Board in that decision also found a number of independent 8(a)(1) viola- tions by company conduct which restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Due to the na- ture and extent of the unfair practices engaged in by the Company in that earlier case which the Board found "evidence [d] an attitude of opposi- tion to the purposes of the Act in general," the Board ordered the Company to "cease and desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act." Subsequent to the above-noted Board decision, the Company was the subject of a second complaint charging it with unfair labor practices under the Act. As a result of a 5-day hearing held under that complaint in December 1969, Trial Examiner Mel- vin Pollack issued a decision on March 17, 1970, in which he found violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and recommended orders requiring the Company to cease and desist from (a) discouraging membership in the Union by discharging or refusing reemployment to employees, by assigning em- ployees to more difficult work, or by discriminating against them in any other manner because of their union membership or activity, (b) refusing to bar- gain with the Union, upon request, as the majority representative of the involved unit in the plant, (c) threatening reprisals for engaging in union activity, promising or granting insurance , vacation, or other benefits in order to discourage union activity, and coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sentiments, and (d) in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. Trial Examiner Pollack's decision is pending before the Board on exceptions. The complaint here under consideration is thus the third complaint charging the Company with un- fair labor practices. It came to trial some 3 months after the second unfair labor practice proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Pollack. David Lee Robinson, approximately 50 years of age, has been employed by the Company for a little better than 3 years. He is the only employee under the complaint with respect to whom the Company is charged with unfair labor practices. He is em- ployed as a "bundle boy"; it is his job to physically carry fabrics under manufacture to various machine operators as needed. Because his job requires him to move about all parts of the plant, he is frequently asked to convey messages by the machine operators to the Company's front office. Robinson is completely illiterate; he can neither read nor write, except that he can print his name.' His schooling ended in the second grade. Robinson's wife, Min- nie, is also employed at Respondent's plant. She is employed as a machine operator and started work- ing for the Company some 2 weeks before her husband did. During the Union's organizational campaign in 1967, Robinson signed a union card by placing an X alongside his name on the card.' On or about November 5, 1969, Robinson was in the Company's offices on some errand. President Roseman and Office Manager Gray were there at the time. Roseman told Robinson that he had heard rumors that Beverly Callison, a recently reinstated discriminatee pursuant to the aforementioned order of the Board in 172 NLRB 1168, was trying to get Robinson's wife, Minnie, to sign a union card, and asked him if it was true. Beverly operated a machine alongside of Minnie's. Robinson denied the rumor, stating that his wife had never said anything to him about the matter. Robinson was again in the office on or about November 26. Roseman in the presence of Gray asked Robinson if he had been looking for another job. Surprised, Robinson asked why he was "sup- posed" to have been looking for other employment. Roseman replied that "if this Union comes in," management would have to close the plant as the plant was already paying the highest wages it could afford and couldn't afford to pay more. Some 2 days later Robinson was again in the of- fice. He was questioned by both Roseman and Mrs. Gray on whether he had signed a union card. They told him that there were other employees who had ' This is established by the testimony not only of Robinson and his wife, Minnie , but also that of Gayle Gray, the Company's office manager and personnel director The Company President Roseman testified that Robin- son could write He based his testimony on an alleged printed statement which Roseman said Robinson had printed in his presence and handed to him in which Robinson was said to have denied that he had signed a union card or had engaged in any union activity This alleged printed statement by Robinson , which Roseman described as "primative ," was not produced or offered in evidence by the Respondent The Examiner finds Roseman's testimony that Robinson could write wholly lacking in credibility ' It is inferred and found that the above-mentioned union card was an authorization card by Robinson to the Union to represent him in dealings with the Company 890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signed union cards but were now sorry they had signed up and that they were asking him to find out what the situation was so that they would "know more how to go about it." Although Robinson had in fact signed a union card as long ago as 1967, he denied that he had ever signed a union card.' The final occasion on which management person- nel spoke to Robinson concerning his union activi- ties occurred on or about December 18, 1969, after the Company had received a copy of the Union's charges of unfair labor practices against the Com- pany in the present case. The charges state that on certain dates in 1969 the Company by its agents and officers interrogated one of its employees con- cerning "his sympathy for, membership in and/or activities in behalf of" the Charging Party Union here involved. The charge specifically identified Robinson as the involved employee. The charge also accused the Company of threatening em- ployees with plant closure if the plant was unionized. At the end of the workday here in question, Robinson found his timecard missing from the rack. This was a signal that he was wanted in the front office. At the office he found Roseman, his wife, Nettie Roseman, and Mrs. Gray waiting for him. At the meeting Robinson was told about the Company's receipt of a copy of unfair labor prac- tice charges against it and that Robinson's name was prominently mentioned in the charge. Mrs. Roseman read the charge to Robinson." Mrs. Roseman, who as noted above is an attorney, asked if the contents of the charges, showing his involve- ment, were true. It appears and is inferred from the record that Mr. Roseman also engaged in inter- rogating Robinson along the same line, but there is no evidence that Mrs. Gray participated in the in- terrogation. Robinson replied that it was not true that he had been interrogated about his union in- terests or that any threats had been made to him that the plant would be closed if the Union came in as alleged in the charge. Asked if he would give the Company a written statement to that effect, Robin- son readily agreed to this. Mrs. Roseman drafted the statement, Mrs. Gray typed it up, and Robinson signed the document and several carbon copies thereof by printing his name thereon. The state- ment is in the form of an affidavit, but was not ac- tually notarized. It is dated December 15, 1969, but the actual preparation of the statement and the meeting at which it was signed by Robinson must have occurred some 3 days later as the pleadings show that a copy of the Union's unfair labor charges against the Respondent was not served on Respondent until December 18. Robinson 's wife, who had been waiting for her husband in the hall, was called in to countersign her husband's printed signature as a witness . The document was received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 2. The findings of the above paragraph are based on the joint testimony of Robinson, Philip Roseman, and Gayle Gray. (Mrs. Roseman did not testify herein.) The credited testimony of Robinson shows that he was also asked at the meeting under discus- sion whether he had signed a union card and that he had denied that he had. At the trial Robinson acknowledged that his denials to the Rosemans that he had signed a union card were untrue. His testimony established that he was untruthful to the Rosemans about this because of his fear that he might lose his job if he had admitted that he had signed a union card. It is inferred from the record that Robinson was similarly untruthful to the Rosemans in his oral and written denials (G.C. Exh. 2) that he had not been interrogated by Philip Roseman and Gayle Gray concerning his union sympathies and activities as found above. It is similarly found that his motive for making such un- true oral and written statements to the Rosemans was his fear that he might lose his job if he had been truthful. Although there is no conflict in the testimony of any of the witnesses that Robinson was questioned by the Rosemans on or about December 18, 1969, on whether he had anything to do with causing the unfair labor charges here involved to be filed against the Company, there is a direct conflict of testimony on whether the Rosemans and Mrs. Gray, prior to their questioning of Robinson , advised him in the words of the complaint "that he did not have to answer any questions or that his job would not be in jeopardy as a result of his answers or if he declined to answer."5 Both Mrs . Gray and Mr. Roseman were positive in their testimony that Robinson was advised as above-noted prior to his questioning . Mrs. Gray testified that Mrs . Roseman read the charges to Robinson in detail and that "After she got through reading them to him , she told him at that time that he did not have to answer any of her questions and that his job was in no way threatened." Mrs. Gray 3 The findings of the above paragraph and the two paragraphs preceding it are based on the credited testimony of Robinson which does not appear to be denied by either Roseman or Mrs Gray, except that Roseman denied ever telling Robinson that the plant would be closed if the Union came in or asking Robinson whether he had signed a union card at the time indicated above . These denials and others which may appear of record are not credited 4 The text of the charges read in pertinent part as follows. On or about November 5, 1969 , November 12, 1969 , and November 26, 1969 , the above-named Employer by its officers , agents, and representatives interrogated an employee of the above -named Em- ployer, one David Robinson , concerning his sympathy for, member- ship in and/or activities in behalf of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO On or about November 12, 1969 , the above-named Employer by its officers , agents and representatives threatened employees with plant closure if the plant was unionized. Par. 5 (c) of the complaint alleges that Philip Roseman , Nettie Roseman , and Gayle Gray interrogated an employee , identified at the trial as Robinson , about his union sympathy and activities on behalf of the Union, and questioned him concerning a charge filed with the Board "without telling that employee that he did not have to answer any ques- tions or that his job would not be in jeopardy as a result of his answers or if he declined to answer " HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY further testified that she likewise made the same thing clear to Robinson . Mr. Roseman testified in equally positive terms that Robinson had been given this warning prior to any questioning. Moreover, he stated that the warning was given to Robinson on advice of counsel. Robinson, on the other hand , denied that such a warning had been given to him . The record shows that Robinson's memory by his own admission is very poor. Counsel for General Counsel in his brief seeks a resolution of this conflict of testimony in favor of Robinson 's testimony solely on the ground that Roseman 's testimony is unreliable , but he wholly overlooks the fact that Mrs. Gray, the Company's personnel director, also testified that Robinson was fully apprised of his rights before he was questioned about his involvement in the unfair labor charges against Respondent . I find Mrs. Gray to be a completely forthright , honest, and sincere witness and accord her testimony full credibility.' While it is true that Roseman 's testimony as a whole did not inspire confidence,? his testimony that Robinson was apprised of his rights before he was questioned is credited because it was cor- roborated by Mrs . Gray and also because circum- stances compel the conclusion that such a warning would have been given Robinson before he was questioned . Prior to the commencement of the present proceeding , the Company had undergone two unfair labor practice trials . In each of these earlier trials as well as in the instant case it was represented by counsel . Roseman credibly testified that he questioned Robinson on the charges here involved on the advice of counsel. Mrs. Roseman who apparently did most of the questioning of Robinson is herself an attorney . These facts make it fairly certain that Mr. and Mrs. Roseman would have in their own self-interest sought to protect themselves against another unfair labor charge by following their counsel 's advise that they acquaint Robinson of his rights before they started question- ing him about the charge. I find that Robinson, despite his denials , was fully apprised in advance of his questioning on the unfair labor charges of his right to remain silent and of his right not to have his job jeopardized by his silence or as a result of his answers . Whether such for- malistic compliance with what the Rosemans be- lieved to be the requirements of the law constitutes a defense to the allegations of paragraph 5(c) of the complaint will be determined below. Mrs Gray , for example, under cross-examination promptly and unequivocably acknowledged that Robinson could neither read nor write. She was in a position to know as she was payroll master , personnel director, and office manager The record shows that Robinson consulted her on per- sonal matters, such as making a loan from the Company ' Contrary to the testimony of his own personnel director , Mrs Gray, and that of Robinson and his wife , Minnie, Roseman testified that Robin- son could write He based this claim on an asserted statement he said he saw Robinson print in his presence , but did not produce the document Discussion and Conclusions 891 Of the various offenses against the Act charged to the Respondent by the complaint herein, the most serious appears to be the admitted interroga- tion of employee Robinson by Philip Roseman and Nettie Roseman, his wife, on December 18, 1969, on whether or not Robinson had a part in instigat- ing the charges which lead to the issuance of the complaint. Robinson's credited testimony further shows that he was also interrogated by the Rosemans on whether or not he had signed a union card. The circumstances surrounding the meeting to which Robinson was summoned were ominous. At the end of the workday that day, Robinson found his timecard missing from the rack. This meant that he was wanted at the front office. At the office, he found the two Rosemans and Mrs. Gray waiting for him; for Robinson these three persons constituted the Company. They waived a paper at him and told him that it was a charge filed against the Company by the Union. They told him that his name was mentioned in the charge and read to him the charge which alleged that he had been inter- rogated by officers and agents of the Company on various dates and asked him whether it was true. Out of-fear of losing his job, Robinson denied to the Rosemans and Mrs . Gray the allegations of the charge that he had been interrogated by officers and agents of the Company (although the evidence herein shows that in fact he had been so inter- rogated), and readily agreed upon their request to give the Rosemans an affidavit to this effect . Robin- son, in making such untruthful denials, was un- doubtedly motivated by his remembrance that the Company had in a previous year fired many em- ployees because of their union sympathies and ac- tivities . (Reference is again made to the Board's Decision and Order of July 12, 1968, in 172 NLRB 1168, in which it was found that Respondent had engaged in massive terminations in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a)(3)). I find and conclude that the interrogations discussed above were markedly coercive in nature constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In the complaint issued herein the Regional Director saw fit to couple the allegation that Philip and Nettie Roseman and Mrs. Gray questioned an employee ( Robinson ) concerning the charge filed with the Board with the allegation that such questioning of the employee was done "without telling that employee that he did not have to answer This claim is not credited The record also otherwise shows testimony by Roseman which reflects on his sincerity as a witness Asked on cross-ex- amination if his wife , Nettie Roseman , was an attorney, he replied half-eva- sively, " 1 believe she is." Upon further inquiry from union counsel, Roseman answered , "She is not a practicing attorney if that 's what you mean." Pressed for an answer if his wife ever practiced law, Roseman replied , " I have no idea. I met her after the War She hasn 't practiced all this time . She has practiced on me " 892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any questions or that his job would not be in jeopardy as a result of his answers if he declined to answer." Presumably this was done on the authority of Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 775, en- forcement denied 344 F.2d 617 (C.A. 8),8 as coun- sel for General Counsel cites the case in his brief. (It will be recalled that neither the Respondent nor the Union herein filed a brief.) The Board in that case held that "despite the inherent danger of coer- cion" in interrogations by an employer of an em- ployee on matters involving his Section 7 rights, an employer may interrogate an employee in an "in- vestigation of facts concerning issues raised in a complaint where such interrogation is necessary in preparing the employer's defense for the case." The Board in that case specifically held that it was not passing on the question of whether such privilege of investigation by interrogation of an employee would ordinarily extend to a case where "the Board was still investigating charges and before any com- plaint issued." ( Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case the interrogations by Philip and Nettie Roseman of Robinson on the charge filed with the Board took place on December 18, 1969. The complaint herein was issued on January 30, 1970. In view of the fact that the interrogations took place approximately 6 weeks prior to the is- suance of the complaint, the privilege accorded an employer by Johnnie's Poultry Co., to interrogate employees on matters involving their Section 7 rights without incurring an 8(a)(1) liability is clearly inapplicable because the Johnnie case makes that privilege applicable only after a com- plaint has been issued. In view of this, I find and conclude that that part of the allegations of para- graph 5(c) of the complaint which states that the questioning of an employee (Robinson) by Respon- dent's agent (Philip and Nettie Roseman) on the charge filed with the Board was done "without telling that employee that he did not have to answer any questions or that his job would not be in jeopardy as a result of his answer or if he declined to answer" is surplusage and contains an element of proof not required of General Counsel. As a corollary I further find and conclude from the finding above that the Rosemans and Mrs. Gray prior to the Rosemans ' questioning of Robinson on the charge filed by the Union with the Board told him that he did not have to answer any of their questions and that his job was in no way threatened is not a defense to the interrogation which I find to be markedly coercive in nature and, accordingly, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that in any event the privilege of the Johnnie case under all the circumstances of the instant case would not be applicable to the Respon- dent. The Johnnie case described the privilege as follows: In allowing an employer the privilege of ascertaining the necessary facts from em- ployees in these given circumstances, the Board and courts have established specific safeguards designed to minimize the coercive impact of such employer interrogation. Thus, the employer must communicate to the em- ployee the purpose of the questioning, assure him that no reprisal will take place , and obtain his participation on a voluntary basis; the questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization and must not be itself coercive in nature; and the questions must not exceed the necessities of the legitimate purpose by prying into other union matters , eliciting information concerning an employee's subjective state of mind, or otherwise interfering with the statutory rights of employees. When an employer transgresses the boundaries of these safeguards, he loses the benefits of the privilege. [ Emphasis supplied.] It is noteworthy that the Board 's description of the privilege is not rigid and inflexible . On the con- trary, any fair reading of the conditions under which the privilege is to be accorded reflects the rule that the trier of the facts in each case must determine whether the employer obtained the par- ticipation of the employees on an essentially volun- tary basis, whether the interrogation by itself was coercive in nature , and whether the conduct of the employer under all the circumstances of the case transgressed the boundaries of the safeguards set forth in the Johnnie case and thereby forfeited the benefits of the privilege under discussion. The circumstances of this case requires the find- ing that the Rosemans trangressed these safeguards. Philip Roseman knew or should have known in ad- vance that he was the unnamed officer named in the charge who was alleged to have interrogated Robinson about his union sympathies and activities. Consequently his true purpose was not to inter- rogate for information purposes but to intimidate Robinson. Roseman and his wife, Nettie, knew that Robinson was an uneducated, illiterate person and that Robinson and his wife, Minnie, were totally de- pendent upon their jobs at the plant for a livelihood. The interview of Robinson was not con- ducted by Philip Roseman alone. Nettie Roseman was in on the interview and Mrs. Gray, although she did not interrogate, was present. The obvious purpose of the interview was to intimidate Robin- son. That is what happened. Robinson for fear of losing his job denied, contrary to the facts, that he had had any complicity in the charges and acceded to the Rosemans' request for a written statement to this effect. It is inferred that the Rosemans wanted Robinson's written statement for the purpose of warding off a complaint, if possible. 'The enforcement proceeding in 344 F.2d 617 has no bearing on the principle for which Johnnie's Poultry Co , case is here cited. HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 893 Although Mrs. Gray did not personally engage in the interrogation of Robinson, the fact that she was at all times present at the interrogation in her capacity as office manager and personnel director and that she had personally participated in the preliminaries to the actual questioning by putting Robinson on notice of his Section 7 rights made her for all practical purposes a party participant in the interrogation. Accordingly, I find and conclude that her participation to the extent noted in Robinson's interrogation was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The remaining allegations of 8(a)(1) violations of the Act do not require extensive discussion. Under paragraph 5(a)(i), the complaint alleges that Philip Roseman on November 5, 1969, interrogated an employee concerning his or his spouse's union sympathies and activities. As no evidence was ad- duced in support of this allegation, it will be recom- mended that that portion of the complaint be dismissed for failure of proof. However, the record does show, as found above, that Roseman on November 5, 1969, did interrogate Robinson on whether his wife, Minnie, another employee at the plant, was being solicited to sign a union card by Beverly Callison, a recently reinstated dis- criminatee. Although this incident is not alleged in the complaint, it was litigated by consent. I find that this incident, especially in the light of the findings made in 172 NLRB 1168, supra, and in the light of the events of December 18, 1969, as above- described, constitutes coercive interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Similarly, I find Philip Roseman 's remark on November 26, 1969, to Robinson that the plant would be closed if the Union comes in constitutes a threat against the rights guaranteed in Section 7 in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Finally, with reference to the findings made above that Philip Roseman and Mrs. Gray questioned Robinson on November 26, 1969, on whether he had signed a union card, I conclude that the interrogation was coercive in nature as the record supports the finding by inference that the purpose of the interrogation was to find employees who were "sorry" they had signed up with the Union so that the Company could aid them in withdrawing from the Union. The mere act of try- ing to find employees who were "sorry" that they had signed up with the Union would have a power- ful coercive effect on employees so interrogated with respect to their Section 7 rights. It follows that the interrogation of Robinson by Philip Roseman and Mrs. Gray was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9 The complaint also alleged that Robin- son on the same occasion was questioned about his wife's union sympathy and activities. As no evidence was adduced in support of that allegation, that part of the complaint will be recommended for dismissal for failure of proof.10 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent en- gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. Due to the nature and extent of Respondent's previous unfair labor practices as found by the Board in 172 NLRB 1168, and the continuation of similar unfair labor practices as further reflected in the findings herein , it is also recommended that an order again be entered requiring the Respondent to again cease and desist, as was done in 172 NLRB 1168, from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, I make the follow- ing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Respondent, s This interrogation of Robinson by Roseman and Mrs Gray as to whether he had signed a union card is deemed to be an interrogation of Robinson "concerning his ... Union sympathy and activities " as alleged in par 5 ( b) of the complaint as a violation of Sec 8 ( a)(I) of the Act 10 This little case with a transcript of testimony of only 92 pages bristles with problems which were either not recognized by counsel for General Counsel or ignored and passed on to the Trial Examiner without benefit of briefing in his 3-1/2-page brief under the caveat , "While this brief may not treat all aspects of the case , this is not to be construed as an abandonment of any conclusions of law or findings of fact in support of the complaint, which can or should be drawn from the record as a whole." 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hickman Garment Company, of Hickman, Ken- APPENDIX tucky, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercive questioning of employees as to whether they have signed union authorization cards. (b) Questioning employees as to whether other employees have been soliciting union authorization cards from fellow employees. (c) Questioning employees as to their union sympathies and activities. (d) Questioning employees in a coercive manner concerning charges filed with the Board. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant at Hickman, Kentucky, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by Respondent's 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 employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 12 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed to the extent that it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein. " 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 said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT unlawfully question you about your union sympathy and activities. WE WILL NOT unlawfully question you about the union sympathy and activities of other em- ployees at the plant. WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the plant if the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, becomes the bargaining representative of the employees in our plant. WE WILL NOT unlawfully question you about any unfair labor charge filed against our Com- pany with the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce any employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion , or to refrain from any or all such activi- ties. HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY (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, Room 2407, Federal Office Build- ing, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 684-3686.