Bogart Sportswear Mfg. Co., Inc.

BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 609 Bogart Sportswear Mfg. Co., Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Texas District Council. Cases 16-CA-3662 and 16-CA-3746 November 17, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On March 24, 1970, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Exam- iner further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the General Counsel and the Respondent filed supporting briefs. The Charging Party filed a reply brief to the Respondent's exceptions and objections. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases 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 case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified hereafter. In May 1969, the Respondent commenced a garment manufacturing operation in Cleburne, Texas, subleasing premises previously occupied by A & S Manufacturing Company, which terminated its man- ufacturing operations on May 13, 1969. Martha Wilson, an alleged discriminatee, had worked for A & S from 1963 to 1966. In 1966, she was discharged by A & S's personnel manager; the reasons assigned for her discharge were that she didn't do her work, bothered other employees, and was an agitator. In July 1969, a representative of the Union contacted Martha Wilson and asked her if she would assist the Union in contacting Respondent's employ- ees for the purpose of starting an organizing campaign at the Cleburne plant. She helped arrange a meeting at her house and distributed union literature outside the plant during July and August. On September 4, 1969, Mrs. Wilson noticed an ad in the Cleburne Shopper placed by Respondent seeking experienced single-needle and special machine opera- tors, a position for which she was qualified. When she applied for the job Plant Manager Thompson had her application, and standing next to him was Mrs. Simons, one of the former owners of A & S. As Mrs. Wilson approached the desk, Mrs. Simons said, "Wait just a minute, I want to see the name on that application." She then said, "You are Martha Wilson. You get out of here right now. You are the one that started this union stuff." In answer to an inquiry by Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Simons replied, "Yes, I have the authority to tell you to get out. Now get out." Thompson confirmed that Mrs. Simons could ask her to leave the front of the building, and arose from his chair and walked toward the door through which Mrs. Wilson had entered the plant area. Mrs. Wilson followed him and asked if he was going to refuse to hire her because of the union activity. Thompson told her that up until then Respondent had not hired anyone who had been discharged by A & S. Thompson also told her that Mrs. Simons had mentioned to him that Mrs. Wilson had reported A & S to the health authorities. Mrs. Wilson then left the plant. The Trial Examiner correctly found that there is substantial evidence to conclude that after the commencement of Respondent's operations at the former A & S plant, Mrs. Simons was clothed with apparent authority to speak for Respondent, and noted that the Respondent permitted Mrs. Simons to hold herself out as a member of management and that it was reasonable for employees to conclude that Mrs. Simons spoke for Respondent. He further found that while there were factors supporting the inference that Mrs. Wilson was rejected for employment because of her union activities, there was equal support for the view that Respondent merely followed its avowed policy of not hiring anyone previously discharged by its predecessor, A & S, and concluded that the failure to hire Mrs. Wilson was not discriminatorily motivat- ed. We disagree. With respect to the hiring incident, Thompson not only did not bother to disavow Mrs. Simons' outburst but he essentially confirmed Mrs. Simons' authority when he informed Mrs. Wilson that she had the authority to order her from the front of the building. Thereafter, Thompson did not even discuss the employment application with Mrs. Wilson but pro- ceeded to escort her from the plant after Mrs. Simons had identified her as a union adherent. In this factual context we can only conclude that the Respondent did not hire Mrs. Wilson because of her previous participation in union activities, and that 186 NLRB No. 90 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent also unlawfully discriminated against Martha Wilson with respect to her application for employment, we shall order the Respondent to offer her immediate employment in the same or substantially equivalent position at which she would have been employed absent the discrimina- tion against her, when such position became available subsequent to the filing of her September 4, 1969, job application with the Respondent. We shall further order that the Respondent make Martha Wilson whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her as a result of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned from the date after the discrimination, when a job for which she was qualified became available, until the date of such offer, less her net earnings during the period. Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to backpay provided for in this proceeding to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Insert the following as paragraph 4: By discriminating against Martha Wilson with respect to her application for employment, Respon- dent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Bogart Sportswear Mfg. Co., Inc., Fort Worth and Cleburne, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommend- ed Order, as modified herein: Section 2(a) and 2(b) shall be modified by striking the language thereof in its entirety and substituting therefor as 2(a): Offer James Allen and Martha Wilson immediate employment at the same or substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been employed had they not been discriminated against, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges they might have acquired, the right of Martha Wilson to employment to be determined as provided in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy" and make the above-named employees whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them as provided in the sections of this Decision and the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."' Reletter paragraphs 2(c), (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs 2(b), (c), (d), and (e) respectively. In the last line of relettered paragraph 2(b) insert a period after 2(a). In relettered paragraph 2(c), change the third word "employee" to "employees" and in the second line change the word "his" to "their." In conformity with the changes in the Order, the last paragraph and the following two indented paragraphs of the Notice shall be changed to read as follows: It has been found that we discharged James Allen because of his union activities and membership and we refused to employ Martha Wilson because of her union activities and this discriminatory action violated the Act. WE WILL offer James Allen and Martha Wilson immediate employment at the same or substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been employed had they not been discriminated against, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights they may have acquired. WE WILL make up any pay they may have lost because of our discrimination against them with 6 percent interest. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to a charge filed on July 2, 1969, in Case 16-CA-3662 by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Texas District Council, referred to herein as the Union, a complaint issued on August 27, 1969. The complaint alleged that Respondent violated the Act by discharging James Allen from its Fort Worth, Texas, plant and by interrogating employees at that plant on two occasions. In its answer, Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. A hearing was held before me in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 24-26, 1969. At the outset of the hearing counsel for the General Counsel was permitted to amend the complaint to allege that Respondent also violated the Act by promising and granting its employees additional vacation and insurance benefits if they refrained from union activities. Respondent denied the additional allega- tions of the complaint. At the close of the hearing oral argument was waived, and the parties were given leave to file briefs. Meanwhile on September 17, 1969, the Union filed a further charge against Respondent in Case 16-CA-3746, alleging the commission of unfair labor practices at Respondent's Cleburne, Texas, plant. Thereafter, on October 31, 1969, the Regional Director issued his complaint in that case alleging that Respondent promised and granted the employees at the Cleburne plant additional insurance benefits if they refrained from union activities and that Respondent refused to hire Martha Wilson as an employee at that plant because of her union activities. Simultaneously counsel for the General Counsel moved to BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 611 reopen the record in Case 16-CA-3662 and to consolidate the two cases for further hearing and decision. Over the opposition of Respondent, the motion was granted, and the reopened hearing was held at Cleburne, Texas, on December 16 and 17, 1969. At the close of the hearing oral argument was waived, and the parties were given leave to file briefs, which have been received from all parties. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: its organizing campaign in April and it seems likely that some organizational work preceded the Union's first meeting, the evidence does not support a finding that the Union's organizational activity became known to Respon- dent until shortly before the union meeting.' B. The 1969 Vacation Benefits On May 19, 1969, Respondent posted the following notice in the Fort Worth plant: May 19, 1969 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Texas corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of sportswear at its Fort Worth and Cleburne, Texas, plants. During the 12-month periods preceding issuance of the complaints, representative periods, Respon- dent sold products valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly from its Fort Worth and Cleburne plants directly. to points outside the State of Texas. During the same period, Respondent received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped to its plants directly from points outside the State of Texas. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that assertion of jurisdiction herein is warranted. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Union Activities at Respondent's Fort Worth Plant The exact date when union activities started among Respondent's Fort Worth employees is not clear from the record. The first meeting of Respondent's employees was held by the Union on May 23, 1969. That night, the Union sent a night letter to Respondent, addressed to the attention of its president, informing Respondent that 31 named employees had authorized it to inform Respondent that they were serving as unpaid volunteer members of an organizing committee for the Union. The night letter was received by Respondent on the following morning. Charles Groden, Respondent's vice president in charge of manufacturing and manager of the Fort Worth plant, testified that he first became aware of the Union's interest in organizing Respondent's employees on the day of the first union meeting, and that before that he heard rumors that the Union was in town. After receipt of the night letter from the Union, Groden saw some of the employees wearing voluntary organizer cards in the plant. Although there is some testimony that the Union started I Shirley Hyder testified that the Union passed out leaflets in April, and Bertha Sowells testified that the campaign started in April. Even if one might infer that leaflets came to Respondent's attention, I am not TO OUR EMPLOYEES In an attempt to continuously improve benefits for our employees, effective this summer our employees will benefit from a more liberal vacation policy. All permanent employees who have been with the company one year as of June 1, 1969 and who have not been absent from work more than 12 working days, will receive one weeks vacation. Hourly employees will receive 40 hours at their hourly rates. Piece work employees will receive 40 hours at their average hourly earnings for the past year. Employees who have been with the company continu- ously for five years will receive two weeks paid vacation, computed as described above. Employees who normally would receive two weeks and who have been absent from work more than 12 working days in the preceding year will lose their right to receive one weeks vacation for the current year. They will, however, receive the second weeks vacation because of their seniority. This is another attempt to provide greater benefits for our employees as we have done in the past. We do have other benefits in the planning stage. Should you have any questions pertaining to this, please contact your department heads. /s/ Louis Bogart, Louis Bogart, President A few days later, on May 23, 1969, a second notice was either posted or distributed to employees. Its contents were: May 23, 1969 FOR ALL EMPLOYEES Vacations for Year June 1, 1968 to June 1, 1969. Since we have no permanent records for excused days absence of the year June 1, 1968-June 1, 1969, we are allowing one weeks paid vacation if you were on the payroll June 1, 1968. Employees with five years service will get two weeks paid vacation. /s/ Louis Bogart Louis Bogart, President Around the time the first notice was posted, the employees were called together during a break period and addressed by Respondent's President Bogart who told them about the new vacation plan. According to the employees persuaded that Mrs. -Hyder's recollection of the date was sufficiently precise to attribute knowledge of the Union's campaign to Respondent as early as April. 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD who were present, Bogart described the plan approximately as set forth in the first notice.2 According to the employees3 they had previously received only I week of vacation, regardless of length of service, and employees lost their vacation eligibility if they had been absent more than 12 days during the preceding year.4 Mrs. Burns testified that no distinction had been drawn previously between excused and unexcused absences. Charles Groden testified that the changed vacation plan resulted from a recommendation he made shortly after he was hired in August 1968 as plant manager. At that time, he was asked to observe the plant for a period of a week or so, and then make any recommendations as to changes he believed desirable. According to Groden, a week or 10 days later, in late August 1968 he met with Bogart and other officers of Respondent, including Vice President Seals, and outlined general policies which he thought should be instituted. He recommended a plan to give a I-week vacation to employees with from I to 5 years of service, and 2 weeks to employees with more than 5 years of service. He also recommended that employees in either category lose 1 week of their vacation if they had more than 12 unexcused absences during the preceding year. According to Groden, he also established a system to maintain accurate records of employee absences to show cause of absence and whether or not excused. Although Groden testified that he had been unable to discern any vacation plan from examination of company records, he testified that he understood the previous policy was to grant a 1-week paid vacation for employees who had been employed 1 year or more unless they had 12 or more unexcused absences. According to Groden he recommend- ed no change in the absence qualification. Groden testified that his recommendation was adopted and that Respondent started to keep better records with respect to absences starting in December 1968. According to Groden, the May 19 notice summarized the plan he had recommended. However, he testified, as Respondent started to make up vacation schedules for the vacation period which started on June 1, he discovered that records of absences from June 1, 1968, until December 1968 were not decipherable. He testified that it therefore became impossible to determine the number of unexcused absences during that period and that as a consequence on or about May 23 he recommended the change indicated in the May 23 notice removing the absence qualification for vacation eligibility. According to Groden, at a Christmas party in 1968, President Bogart spoke to the employees in generalities about improvements in vacations, but did not state any details. Although Groden testified that the new policy was put into effect immediately after he recommended it by starting to keep better records, he also testified that at Christmastime the new vacation policy had not been adopted and that he did not believe it had been adopted at the time of later employee meetings in February or March when a new incentive bonus was discussed, explaining that it was premature because he did not get into the attendance records until March or April. However, he testified that before March or April his recommendation as to vacations had been approved orally. There is no evidence that the policy was put in writing until the May 19 notice. Groden testified further that he took it for fact that the records had been maintained in a certain way so that he would know who was eligible and who was not, and he did not know he would have difficulty determining absence records. The General Counsel contends that Respondent changed its vacation policy to induce employees to refrain from joining or supporting the Union. There are two aspects of the change in vacation policy to be considered. The first is the change in vacation plan announced on May 19. The second is the modification announced on May 23. As for the first, while there is considerable vagueness in Groden's testimony as to when the change in the vacation plan was adopted, I am not persuaded that the General Counsel's contention is supported by the record. It is true that Groden was indefinite as to the date when his recommendation was accepted, and at times seemed to indicate that it was accepted as early as December 1968 while at others that it was accepted later in the Spring of 1969. However, as I have found above, the evidence does not establish with any precision when Respondent became aware of the union activities at the plant. Although Groden indicated he heard rumors the Union was in town before May 23, it is not clear when he heard them or became aware that a campaign was underway at the plant. The time chosen for announcement of the vacation plan was logical in that the vacation period was about to commence, although nothing would have prevented an earlier an- nouncement. I conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his contention that the May 19 change in vacation plan was designed to undermine the Union. The May 23 modification in the plan stands on a different footing. I find Groden's explanation of that change incredible. At one point he indicated that he reviewed records as early as August 1968, at another he indicated that he reviewed them in March or April 1969, and he also testified that he set up an improved system for recording absences in December 1968. In the light of this testimony I cannot believe his explanation that the impossibility of determining eligibility based on unexcused absences was discovered only after May 19 and caused the modification in the plan. Moreover, I cannot credit his testimony that a distinction had been drawn between excused and unexcused absences in the past or under the plan as announced on May 19. Not only did Mrs. Bums, an employee of some 8 years' seniority, testify to the contrary, but the May 19 notice sets forth no such distinction, and the only evidence as to what President Bogart told employees on May 19 supports a finding that he drew no such distinction in his oral description of the new vacation plan. Moreover, if eligibility had been determined in previous years on the basis of unexcused absences, it is unlikely that 2 Both Mrs. Hyder and Vira Burns testified that Bogart said that those 4 According to Mrs. Burns some years earlier the number of allowable who were absent 12 days or more would receive no vacation, but otherwise absences had been reduced from 22 to 12 days. Although Groden testified described the plan as in the notice. Neither testified that Bogart that he had been told by other personnel that the absence limit had always distinguished between excused and unexcused absences in his remarks. been 12 days, Mrs. Burns' testimony was not refuted by any witness with 3 Mrs. Hyder and Mrs. Burns. direct knowledge . However, this conflict is not material. BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 613 Respondent's records would not have revealed the necessary information before December 1968.5 Thus, I find that the vacation plan announced on May 19 made no distinction between excused and unexcused absences in its eligibility criterion, and that the modifica- tion announced on May 23, only 4 days later, was not due to any belated interim discovery that Respondent's records failed to show which absences had been excused during the previous year. I have also found that Respondent became aware of the union organizing campaign on or shortly before May 23. The effect of the change in vacation policy on May 23 was to give an extra week's vacation to all employees who had been absent more than 12 days during the past year, a grant of considerable value to those affected .6 Although the Union was not mentioned by Respondent in announcing the modification to the vacation plan, in the absence of any credible explanation for the modification, I conclude that the modification, which was announced on the same day as the Union's first meeting, was prompted by Respondent's awareness of the union activities and was adopted for the purpose of inducing employees to decide that they did not need union representation.? C. The Interrogation and Discharge of James Allen 1. Allen's employment and work record James Allen started to work for Respondent in April 1968 as a janitor. At some time thereafter he was transferred to the shipping department, and ultimately was placed under the supervision of Frank Vaughn, Respondent's traffic manager,8 with instructions to assist Vaughn and do whatever Vaughn told him. Allen's duties included setting up boxes, banding boxes for shipment, preparing orders for shipment, moving garments from one location to another, and doing whatever else Vaughn told him to do. His work station was near Vaughn's desk in the shipping department unless sent elsewhere in the plant by Vaughn. Although there is some conflict between the testimony of Allen and that of Vaughn and Groden as to Allen's work record, the evidence leaves little doubt that Allen was not a satisfactory employee in some respects. As Groden testified, Allen was not without appeal as an employee. Groden described him as clean, honest, and anxious to please. When given an assignment he set out to do it on a run. He was willing to do whatever was asked of him and what he did he apparently did well. Allen had a serious speech impediment and personal financial problems which, along with Allen's appealing qualities, caused Groden to 5 The records were not offered in evidence in support of Groden's testimony. 6 The record does not show the number of employees who would have been disqualified under the May 19 plan as originally adopted. However, Mrs. Hyder and Mrs. Burns had both failed to qualify for vacations in previous years and testified that they had been absent more than 12 days in the year preceding June 1 , 1969. Timecards and related testimony show that during the 6 months preceding June 18 , 1969, Mrs . Hyder was absent 8 days, Mrs. Sowells and Mrs. Braziel were absent 13 days, and James Allen was absent 5 weekdays and 5 Saturdays. It is likely from this evidence as well as the fact that Respondent felt impelled to adopt an attendance standard for vacation eligibility that absenteeism was a common problem in the plant. 7 I.T.T. Semi-Conductors, Inc., 165 NLRB 716; Russell-Newman Mfg. feel some sympathy for him and to wish to help him. However, offsetting Allen's appealing qualities were the facts that he was chronically late for work, was occasionally absent, and often failed to follow assignments through to completion. In the latter regard, Allen was easily distracted by a request from anyone else for help, and frequently left assignments to assist others or to attend to personal matters. According to Groden, after attempting for some time to help Allen to overcome his deficiencies without success, he decided to place Allen under Vaughn in the hope that Vaughn, who supervised no other employees, could keep closer rein on him. In addition, as there was no one else in the plant familiar with Vaughn's duties, he intended to have Allen learn Vaughn's duties so that he could serve as a relief or backup man for Vaughn. Allen was instructed to take his orders from Vaughn, to remain near Vaughn's desk, and to perform work at the request of others only after getting Vaughn's approval. After his assignment to Vaughn, Allen's work habits did not improve materially. As Allen conceded, he continued to perform work at the request of others and did so without getting Vaughn's approval if he could not find Vaughn at the time. Vaughn testified, without contradiction, to several occasions when he noticed Allen absent from his work station and found him elsewhere attending to personal or other business. Allen conceded that he was reprimanded by Vaughn and Groden on at least two occasions for leaving his work and going to other departments without reporting to Vaughn.9 Vaughn also chided Allen about his tardiness on a few occasions after Allen was assigned to him. However, according to Vaughn he stopped reprimanding Allen when he saw that his efforts produced no improve- ment. Among the duties occasionally assigned to Allen was taking hangers from the shipping department to the pressing department. As garments were pressed, they were hung on hangers by pressers and kept on hangers in storage until shipped. When packed for shipment, they were removed from the hangers, and the empty hangers were accumulated in the shipping department. Periodically they were returned to the pressing department for reuse, and Vaughn occasionally instructed Allen to take them there. On these occasions, Allen often remained in the pressing department and hung the hangers on racks at the pressers' work stations so they would be immediately available for the pressers to use. Allen testified that Vaughn instructed him specifically to hang the hangers as well as carry them to the pressing department and that he had a standing Co., Inc., 153 NLRB 1312, 167 NLRB No. 152, enfd. as modified 406 F.2d 1280 (C.A. 5). 8 According to Allen, he was placed under Vaughn's supervision in November or December 1968. According to Vaughn and Groden, Allen was assigned to Vaughn in late April or early May 1969. Resolution of this conflict is not material to the issues herein. 9 Although Allen claimed that he took orders from persons other than Vaughn, he conceded that he had been told to take orders from Vaughn and that Vaughn had reprimanded him for performing work for others without Vaughn's approval. However, Vaughn also conceded that Allen naturally took orders from Boyd, who was also Vaughn's superior. I find that Allen was expected to follow the orders of Boyd and perhaps Groden, but not of all those at whose request he left work assigned to him by Vaughn. 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD instruction to take hangers to the pressing department and hang them whenever he had nothing else to do. Vaughn and Groden denied that he had,ever been told to hang hangers. They testified that they had indeed reprimanded Allen for staying in the pressing department to hang hangers, and Allen conceded that Vaughn and Groden had told him to stay away from the pressing department if he had nothing to do. Although Allen testified that he could not remember if Groden had told him not to hang hangers, he conceded that at the time of his discharge he felt that he might have gone to the pressing department once too often. I cannot reconcile this testimony with Allen's claim that he had been there at Vaughn's direction. I credit Groden and Vaughn in this respect and find that Allen hung hangers on his own volition and contrary to his instructions. Apart from his visits to the pressing department to hang hangers Allen also conceded that at times he went there during working time to talk to the pressers, that Vaughn and Groden both told him not to go there, and that he continued to do so because other employees did. - On one occasion Groden pulled Allen's timecard either for failing to report to work on a Saturday or tardiness. The pulling of a timecard normally precedes a discharge or other disciplinary action, but Allen persuaded Groden to give him another chance, and Allen was permitted to continue at work. 10 2. The alleged interrogation of Allen by Vaughn Allen testified that, during the second or third week in May, Harry Jordan, a cutter, gave him a union authoriza- tion card at afternoon breaktime, told him it was something that would help him, and asked him to sign it. According to Allen, he started to fill it out but, before he finished, Vaughn walked up and asked him what he was doing. Allen testified that he told Vaughn he was filling out the card, Vaughn asked to see it, and Allen handed it to him. It was Allen's testimony that Vaughn read the card, told Allen it would get him in "serious trouble," tore the card up, and threw it in the trash. According to Allen, Jordan was standing one or two tables behind Allen talking to another employee when Vaughn spoke to Allen. Allen did not know whether Jordan heard Vaughn's remarks. Allen testified that until this incident he had not seen a union card or heard anything about the Union. Vaughn denied Allen's version of this incident in its entirety, testifying he never spoke with Allen about a union card, never saw one, and did not know who signed a union card. Jordan did not testify. 3. Allen's discharge and interrogation by Groden On May 27, Jettie Copeland, another employee, asked Allen to sign a union card, and he did. On the following day he was given a volunteer organizer's card and a plastic holder in which to wear it pinned to his shirt. Allen wore it for a short while, but found that it got in his way when carrying garments and removed it. He did not wear it again and was not aware that any supervisor saw it while he wore it. On June 17, the Union sent a further night letter to Respondent setting forth the names of 14 additional volunteer members of its organizing committee. James Allen's name headed the list. The night letter was delivered to Respondent at 10:17 a.m. on June 18, 1969. On the same day Allen was discharged. The evidence concerning his discharge, like that concern- ing his interrogation by Vaughn, is in sharp conflict. Briefly, Allen's version of the events of that day is as follows: He reported to work at 7:30 a. m., his regular starting time, and worked through the morning uneventful- ly. During the afternoon, Vaughn told him to bring hangers to the pressing department and hang them. Between 2 and 3 p.m., Groden came to the pressing department and summoned him to his office where they went together. No one else was there. Groden asked Allen what he was doing in the pressing department. Allen replied that Vaughn had told him to take hangers to the pressing department and hang them whenever he was caught up in other work. Groden told Allen he wanted to ask him a very important question and asked him if he had signed a union card. Allen answered untruthfully that he had not. Groden repeated his question several times, and Allen repeated his denial. Groden then asked Allen to call Vaughn and Shipping Department Supervisor Boyd into his office. They came in and Groden asked them if Allen was of value to either of them. Both replied negatively. Groden then told Boyd to put Allen on some other job for the rest of the day. Boyd assigned Allen to clean a room where Allen worked for a short while. Boyd then assigned Allen to work with several other employees loading a truck. At or about 5 p.m. Groden came to where he was working and told Boyd to tell Allen his check was ready. Boyd conveyed the message to Allen, who went to the office, got his check, and left. He did not work thereafter. Respondent's version differs from Allen's in all but one significant respect. Thus, according to Respondent's witnesses, at the start of work on June 18, Vaughn was unable to locate Allen in the plant, and went to Groden's office around 8:30 a.m. to ask if Groden had assigned Allen to other work. Groden replied that he had not and suggested that Vaughn have Allen paged over the in-plant paging system. Vaughn did, but Allen did not respond. At or around 9 a.m. Respondent's President Bogart and Vice President Seals stopped in Groden's office to chat for a few minutes. Groden's office has a window through which one can look out over the production area. While in Gtoden's office, Bogart noticed Allen in the pressing department hanging hangers, and asked Groden what Allen was doing there as he had told Groden repeatedly that Allen was not supposed to be there hanging hangers. Groden said he would take care of it, Bogart and Seals left, and Groden had Allen paged to come to his office. Allen came to the office, and Groden asked him what he had been doing in the pressing department. Allen replied that he did not know. 10 Allen did not testify as to the time of this incident. Groden testified employee. Sherman DeVaughn . interceded on Allen's behalf on the first that he pulled Allen's timecard with the intent to discharge him on two occasion to persuade Groden to retain Allen. Groden displayed occasions, once in April or May and once 2 or 3 weeks before Allen's considerable confusion as to the cause and circumstances of the second discharge on June 18 . Groden testified, contrary to Allen, that another pulling of Allen's card. BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 615 Groden reminded him that he had ordered Allen to stay out of the pressing department, not to hang hangers, and not to waste the time of the pressers. He asked Allen for an explanation but Allen could give none. Groden then told Allen that he was terminating him immediately and asked him to accompany him to get his final check. Then he told Allen he wanted to ask him a personal question and asked, "James, have you signed a union card? Are you a member of the union?" Allen replied negatively, and Groden said, "James, answer me truthfully, are you a member of the union?" 11 Allen again answered that he had not signed a card. Groden told Allen to come with him. Allen asked Groden not to fire him, but Groden replied that he could no longer tolerate him. Groden and Allen then left Groden's office and went to Seals' office where Groden explained to Bogart and Seals what had happened. Seals had Allen's termination checks prepared, the checks were given to Allen, and Allen left. Allen was not seen in the plant thereafter by Respondent's officials or supervisors. Boyd and Vaughn were not called into Groden's office in connection with the discharge. 4. Concluding findings as to Allen's interrogation and discharge Allen's version of his discharge and his interrogation rests principally on Allen's testimony, supported as to his presence in the plant during the afternoon of June 18 by the testimony of Jannice Gipson, formerly employed by Respondent as a presser. Respondent's version rests on the testimony of Vaughn, Groden, and Seals. In their briefs, each side points to deficiencies in the testimony offered by the other and urges that its witnesses be credited in preference to the witnesses presented by the other side. Looking first at the testimony of Allen, there are a number of factors which raise questions as to its accuracy. With respect to the interrogation by Vaughn, apart from Allen's testimony there is no other evidence in the record that union authorization cards were being solicited in the plant at the time indicated by Allen, approximately 2 weeks before the first union meeting. Jordan, who allegedly solicited Allen, was not called as a witness to corroborate Allen's testimony. During Allen's testimony relating to his discharge, Allen was asked several times to describe in sequence his activities in the plant on the day of his discharge. Each time he described them differently. Thus, he testified initially that upon reporting to work Vaughn assigned him to finish banding some boxes in the perma-press building, a building separate from that in which the shipping department was located. 12 He testified that Vaughn then assigned him to help Garvis, another employee, take garments from the shipping department and hang them in a truck, where he remained until lunch. Next Allen testified that Vaughn's first assignment that morning was to help girls move garments until lunchtime. When asked if he banded boxes 11 Groden so testified on cross-examination . On direct examination he testified that he asked Allen initially, "James, since this is all over, are you a member or have you ever signed a union card in this place?" At that time he testified that after Allen's initial denial, he said, "James, even though you are not working here, we are still friends and you tell me whether you have or whether you haven't signed a union card." that morning, Allen commented that he was sleepy and could not think straight and stated that he helped move garments and then banded boxes, finishing before lunch- time. Then he was asked if he loaded a truck. After an initial denial and an assertion that he was mixed up, Allen testified that he first helped girls move some garments, then banded boxes, and then helped Garvis load a truck until lunch. Allen's testimony as to what he did after lunch until his discharge was similarly inconstant. First he testified that after lunch Vaughn instructed him to bring some garments from the perma-press building to the shipping department, after which Vaughn told him that because his work was caught up he should take hangers to the pressing department and hang them and that he remained there until called to Groden's office. Next he testified that after lunch Vaughn told him to give the girls in the stockroom a hand hanging something on a rack. Still later, he testified that after lunch Vaughn told him to go to the pressing department and hang hangers. Finally, Allen testified that after lunch Vaughn told him to help with order filling and shipping,13 after which he was sent to the pressing department, where he remained until called to Groden's office. Although Allen named several employees with whom he worked during the morning and in the late afternoon of June 18, none of them appeared as witnesses. Similarly, although Allen testified that he met several persons at lunchtime on the company parking lot, none of them were called to corroborate his testimony as to that encounter. Only Jannice Gipson, whose testimony is discussed below, appeared to testify concerning Allen's presence at the plant on the afternoon of June 18. During Allen's cross-examination he was asked to recite his activities for several workdays preceding his discharge. Although no internal inconsistencies were developed, Allen testified that he had worked on the Saturday preceding his discharge and described what he did on that day. His timecards, however, show that he did not work on that day. While Allen testified that he worked until a few minutes before 5 p.m. on June 18, when he was sent to the office to get his check, his timecard shows a quitting time of 4 p.m. written on it by hand. Respondent 's witnesses explained, without contradiction, that when an employee is discharged during a workday, he is paid for 8 hours or for his time worked if more than 8 hours. Allen was not examined as to the discrepancy between his timecard and his testimony. As I have noted above, although Allen testified that he had standing instructions to take hangers to the pressing department and hang them, when he had nothing else to do, I have not credited that testimony. Allen's testimony also revealed some additional inconsis- tencies or deficiencies both internally and in comparison to his affidavit given during the investigation of this case. Thus, Allen testified that on June 18 he told Vaughn he didn't think it was right for Vaughn "to do me that way." 12 According to Vaughn, this was the assignment Allen should have performed upon reporting to work but he failed to do so. 13 Allen was asked specifically whether filling orders was the same as carrying garments from perma-press, and testified that it was not. In this connection he testified that he did not think he carried any garments from perma-press after lunch. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Initially he testified that he said this to Vaughn while Vaughn was in Groden's office during the afternoon. Later he testified that he said this to Vaughn as he walked through the shipping department to get his check at 5 p.m. Allen also testified that while in Groden's office he was not told that he was discharged but felt that that might be the case and first learned he was discharged at 5 p.m. when he was told to get his check. In his affidavit Allen stated that while in Groden's office, Groden told him "he didn't need me any more." Although Allen in his testimony minimized his tardiness record, his timecards showed it to be worse than he described. The sole corroboration of Allen's version of the events of June 18 came from the testimony of Jannice Gipson, formerly employed as a presser by Respondent. Mrs. Gipson testified that she ate lunch with Allen that day and that she and Allen had the same breaktime and spent it together that afternoon. She testified further that, after finishing her work at 4 p.m. that afternoon, she waited at the perma-press building for a ride and saw Allen at or about 4:45 p.m. as he came to the perma-press building to get some garments to take to the other building. Mrs. Gipson was not cross-examined and was not asked if she saw Allen in the pressing department at any other time, although, according to Allen, he spent more than an hour there after lunch hanging hangers. Contrary to Mrs. Gipson, Allen and Vaughn both testified that Allen's afternoon break started at 2:30 p.m., and Mrs. Selmon, a presser, and Vaughn testified that the afternoon break for the pressers started at 2:15 p.m. Although Mrs. Selmon testified concerning other matters, she was not asked about Allen's presence in the pressing department on the afternoon of June 18.14 Turning to Respondent's evidence, a number of similar weaknesses appear. Thus, Groden's testimony at times was conclusionary and vague as to detail. He exhibited considerable confusion as to the reasons why he pulled Allen's timecard on the second occasion which he described and as to the circumstances surrounding a warning which he testified that he gave to Allen on June 16.15 Although Groden testified initially that among the kindnesses he extended to Allen was permission to leave work for personal reasons at Allen's request, he later denied that Allen ever asked him to be let off early. While Groden conceded that he questioned Allen about signing a card for the Union and joining the Union while Allen was in his office on June 18, his explanation that he did so for his "personal benefit" was hardly an explanation and was given only after he twice evaded questions on cross- examination as to his reasons for interrogating Allen. As set forth elsewhere herein, Groden's testimony as to the changes in Respondent's vacation policy was marred by inconsistency and his testimony as to institution of a new insurance plan was excessively vague. I have not credited him in either of these respects. In their versions of the events immediately surrounding Allen's discharge there are significant gaps between the 14 The record does not indicate whether Mrs. Selmon was at work that day. Mrs. Hyder, a presser, was also not questioned about Allen's presence in the pressing department , but her timecard indicates that she was absent from work that day. 15 Allen testified that he received no warning on that day, and in his testimony of Groden and Seals. Although Groden placed Seals in his office with Bogart when Groden's attention was called to Allen hanging hangers in the pressing department, Seals testified that, before Groden brought Allen to his office to get his checks, he had no occasion to talk to Groden about Allen that morning and did not think he had talked to Groden earlier that morning about anything. Seals was not otherwise questioned as to his presence in Groden's office or what he observed while there. With respect to Groden's visit to Seals' office, Groden initially testified that Bogart was not there when he and Allen arrived, that Grodert asked Bogart to come to the office, and that he and Allen sat down in chairs near Seals' desk while they were there. Later Groden testified that Bogart was already in Seals' office when he and Allen arrived. Seals testified that Bogart was in his office when Groden and Allen arrived and that Groden and Allen remained standing while in his office. Groden testified that either Bogart or Seals gave Allen his final checks as he does not give out checks. Seals testified that Groden gave them to Allen. While Groden testified that he told Allen that he was being discharged for disregarding orders to stay out of the pressing department, Seals testified that Groden said he was discharging Allen for being late and for being in the pressing department talking to pressers.16 Although both Bogart and Mrs. Parker, who prepared Allen's checks, played significant roles in the sequence of events described by Groden and Seals, neither was called to testify. The accuracy of Vaughn's testimony is also questionable. Although Vaughn testified that he was looking for Allen on the morning of June 18, he testified that he did not see Allen when Allen passed by Vaughn's work station to go to Groden's office, and Vaughn did not hear the page for Allen which Groden requested. Despite Allen's poor attendance record and Vaughn's alleged concern over Allen's whereabouts, Vaughn did not indicate that he made any effort to learn whether Allen had punched in before going to Groden to inquire about Allen. When Allen later walked by Vaughn's desk, according to Vaughn, Allen told him, "You're no good. I'll fix you, you got me fired." Vaughn denied that he knew about the discharge before then, that he even understood what Allen was talking about, or that he knew what to believe. But he did not pursue Allen and, according to his testimony, he was not interested in finding out whether Allen was fired because he didn't know what to believe. He made no effort to determine Allen's status, despite the fact that he had been looking for him to complete a job, until after he was told by others that Allen was fired. Only then, according to Vaughn, did he ask Boyd to get someone to finish the work Allen was supposed to have done.17 Vaughn conceded that the only time he went to Groden's office to inquire as to whether Groden had assigned Allen to other work was on the morning of June 18, despite the fact that Allen's disappearance from his assigned work on that day was not unique. By Vaughn's own account on that morning he visited the perma-press building, where Allen was assigned, affidavit he stated that he did not recall being warned on that day. 16 Allen's timecard shows that he clocked in on time on June 18. 17 Likewise, although both Vaughn and Groden testified that Vaughn had earlier inquired of Groden about Allen, Groden did nothing to apprise Vaughn of the discharge and the loss of his helper. BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. once at 7:30 and once at 8:00 a.m. He testified that he then performed some work at his desk until approximately 8:30 before going to Groden to inquire about Allen. On cross- examination after the gap between his last visit to the perma-press building and his visit to Groden's office was called to his attention, Vaughn was asked, "Well, when you told Mr. Groden that James wasn't working on the Sears job, at that time you didn't know for sure, did you?" Vaughn replied, "Yes, at the time I told Mr.-no, he wasn't, he wasn't-I didn't say he was not working at that time. I said when I went over there he wasn't working." His earlier testimony was that he told Groden that Allen was not where he was supposed to be and he didn't know where Allen was. Groden testified similarly. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Vaughn altered his testimony as he became aware of the implications of his preceding testimony as to the timing of his visits. With respect to his alleged interrogation of Allen, Vaughn testified that he had never seen a union card and would not know what one looked like if handed to him. He testified that whether or not Allen signed a card made no difference to him, that he knew nothing about the Union, and that he didn't know anything. He further testified that he didn't notice any employees wearing volunteer organizer badges and that he didn't know the Union was trying to organize the plant, but he had "seen people" and heard rumors. He testified that it didn't matter to him either way, he had no idea when he first heard rumors, and he had never talked to anyone about it. He later testified that he learned the Union was trying to come in before Allen was discharged. He had seen people handing out leaflets, but never took any because it didn't bother him. Vaughn's testimony in this connection appeared excessively guarded and his later testimony contradicted his own initial unrealistic denials of knowledge of union activities. The critical credibility issues which must be resolved are whether or not Vaughn interrogated Allen as to the card he started to sign in early May and whether Groden interrogated and discharged Allen before or after Respon- dent received the night letter from the Union on June 18 listing Allen among the members of the Union's voluntary organizing committee. As to the first, despite my negative impressions of Vaughn's disclaimers of knowledge of the union activities, I am not persuaded that Allen's testimony should be credited absent corroboration by Jordan. Whether or not Jordan heard Vaughn question Allen or saw Vaughn tear up the card, Jordan's testimony would have established the fact that he solicited Allen to sign a card at the time and place mentioned by Allen if that were the case. The absence of such corroboration in my view is of critical importance because the record otherwise fails to establish that there was any in-plant organizational activity or that Respondent had any knowledge of the union activities at the time fixed by Allen. Given the weaknesses in Allen's testimony generally, I have concluded that absent corroboration his testimony may not be relied on to establish a unique incident having no other parallel in this case which occurred at a time when, insofar as the record 617 shows otherwise, Respondent was unaware of the union activities. The question of the time and circumstances of Allen's discharge presents a more difficult question . In many cases testimonial deficiencies on both sides suggest that the truth lies somewhere between the versions of both sides, and this case is no exception. Thus, I am not persuaded that either version of the events on June 18 is entirely accurate, and as to the lesser details it may well be that none of the testimony accurately reflects what happened on the day of Allen's discharge. But as to the critical events I am persuaded that the proper resolution of the testimonial conflicts is sufficiently clear. Thus, there can be little doubt that at some point during the day Allen was observed by Groden hanging hangers in the pressing department and was called to Groden's office. Although Allen testified that he had gone to the pressing department at Vaughn's instruction, I have rejected that testimony as inconsistent with his testimony otherwise. Yet, in order to accept Respondent's version as to the timing of Allen 's summons to Groden's office, I must conclude that Groden's decision to discharge Allen only an hour before Respondent received the Union's night letter and his interrogation of Allen about his union activities at that time were pure coincidences, unrelated to each other and to the receipt of the night letter. It is true that Groden did not attempt to conceal his interrogation of Allen, which he might have done in an attempt to misrepresent the circumstances of Allen's discharge. But the circumstances of the interroga- tion as well as the weaknesses in the testimony of Respondent's witnesses concerning the events immediately surrounding the discharge persuade me that Allen's version of the timing of these events is more plausible and should be credited. It is undisputed that Groden interrogated Allen and that, when Allen denied any union activity, Groden repeated his question, urging Allen to tell him the truth. When asked the reason for his questions, Groden was at first evasive and then answered only that he questioned Allen for his personal benefit. That answer hardly explained his refusal to take Allen's initial response at face value and his repetition of his question to Allen. Rather, it would appear that Groden's questioning of Allen was prompted by receipt of the night letter and that he repeated his question after Allen's negative response because Groden had reason to believe that Allen's response was not truthful. Moreover, despite the fact that Groden identified Seals as present in his office with Bogart at the time Groden's attention was called to Allen's whereabouts, Seals not only failed to corroborate Groden as to the incident which allegedly triggered Allen's discharge, but testified that he did not recall talking to Groden until Groden came to Seals' office with Allen.is Vaughn's testimony concerning his efforts to locate Allen on June 18, his complaint to Groden, and his response when Allen passed by him that morning lacks plausibility in crucial respects. Vaughn's testimony that Allen threatened to "fix" him for getting Allen fired is more consistent with Allen's version that Vaughn played a role in the meeting in Groden's office than 18 As set forth, the testimony of Groden and Seals was also in conflict as to some obvious details of Groden's visit to Seals ' office with Allen 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with the version of Vaughn and Groden in which he had no role in the discharge. Thus, not only is Groden's testimony that he interrogated Allen before the night letter was received by Respondent less plausible than Allen's version, but the testimony of Groden, Seals, and Vaughn, relating to the critical circumstances immediately surrounding Allen's discharge as well as the other weaknesses in their testimony I have set forth above, reinforce the conclusion that Respondent's version of Allen's discharge should be rejected. While I have set forth at length above deficiencies in Allen's testimony and have not credited him as to his interrogation by Vaughn or his instructions to hang hangers, clearly he was both discharged and interrogated and his interrogation occurred at the same time as Groden's determination to discharge Allen. The deficiencies in the testimony of Respondent's witnesses which have persuaded me to reject their version of Allen's discharge necessarily lead to the conclusion that the timing of Allen's discharge and interrogation was other than as they testified and lend support to Allen's testimony at least to the extent that he placed these events at a time after Respondent's receipt of the night letter. I credit Allen in this respect and so find. The question still remains whether Groden's interroga- tion of Allen and Allen's discharge violated the Act. As to the first, I have little difficulty concluding that the interrogation was coercive. Wholly apart from whether or not the discharge of Allen was unlawful, the questioning of an employee at the time he is told that his employer no longer has any use for him 19 necessarily creates in the mind of the employee a relationship between his union activities and his employer's determination as to his utility. Moreover, the interrogation of Allen can hardly be dismissed as casual. It occurred in Groden's office, where Allen was called. Groden was a high ranking official of Respondent, Allen felt compelled to answer untruthfully, and Allen's response was challenged by a repetition of the question, prefaced by an appeal to tell Groden the truth. I conclude in these circumstances that the interrogation of Allen by Groden violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Turning to Allen's discharge, other than Groden's interrogation of Allen and the grant of benefits found herein to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, indicative of a subtle but nonretributive animus against the Union, there is no other evidence in the record to suggest an aggressive hostility to the Union on the part of Respondent. Allen was only 1 of 48 20 employees at the Fort Worth plant whose names were identified to Respondent as members of its voluntary organizing committee, and there is no suggestion of discrimination against any of them other than Allen. Allen's record for attendance and sticking with his job were poor, and he continued to exhibit the same faults despite repeated efforts by Respondent to induce Allen to change his ways. Nonetheless, the fact remains that despite Allen's shortcomings, Respondent over a long period of time regarded Allen as a worthwhile cause for the further expenditure of corrective efforts. Although there is evidence that Allen's timecard had been pulled with the intent to terminate him, Groden stated the cause as a failure on the part of Allen to report for work on a scheduled workday. Despite the fact that both Groden and Vaughn had spoken to Allen about going to the pressing department to hang hangers or visit and leaving assignments, there is no evidence that this conduct had been treated as seriously as Allen's failure to report for work, and indeed Vaughn's testimony indicates that, after speaking to Allen a few times about it, he let it go without speaking to Allen further. While Vaughn testified that he felt it useless to speak to Allen, his determination not to pursue the matter indicates also that he did not regard Allen's performance in this regard as vital to his continued employment. Apart from the problems with Allen's attendance and leaving assign- ments before they were completed, the evidence indicates otherwise that he was an able and willing worker with many affirmative attributes. That Respondent so regarded him is also indicated by its decision to train him as a relief man for Vaughn who held a responsible position. While Respondent was free to discharge Allen because of his deficiencies or for any reason at all other than union activities, it is difficult to conclude that the notification of his union activity played no role in Groden's decision that he could no longer tolerate Allen. Rather the inference is strong that while Respondent accepted the union activities of its employees generally without punitive reprisal, Groden greeted the news of Allen's union activities as a sign of rank ingratitude from an employee for whom he had extended himself and decided when he saw Allen in the pressing department once again that the time for protective treatment had ended. Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent's decision to discharge Allen was not caused simply by its longstanding dissatisfaction with aspects of Allen's performance, but was triggered by the notification from the Union that Allen had joined in the union activities and was furnishing aid to the effort to organize the plant. I find therefore that Allen's discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. D. The Refusal to Hire Martha Wilson In May 1969, Respondent commenced a garment manufacturing operation in Cleburne, Texas, subleasing premises previously occupied by A & S Manufacturing Company which terminated its manufacturing operations on May 13. As A & S employees completed work in progress, they were placed on Respondent's payroll and commenced work on Respondent's products. A & S was owned and operated by John Henry and Mary Frances Simons. When Respondent began the Cleburne operation, it hired John Henry Simons to manage and operate factory outlet stores for it at Cleburne and Fort Worth. The Cleburne store was located in the front of the building in which Respondent's manufacturing operations were conducted. At the time of the transfer, A & S had finished goods and materials in its inventory which 19 As set forth, the evidence is in conflict as to whether Allen was told impact of his interrogation the same. he was discharged in so many words while in Groden's office, or was 20 After Allen's discharge, the Union notified Respondent that three merely told that he was no longer of any value to his supervisors, leading more employees had become volunteer organizers for Respondent. him to believe that he was discharged. In either event, I would find the BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 619 Respondent allowed it to continue to sell at the Cleburne factory store. Although Mary Frances Simons never was hired by Respondent, she was permitted to work for A & S at the store in disposing of its inventory and was allowed free access to all parts of the plant. During the transition period at the Cleburne plant, Mrs. Simons made some efforts to contact former employees of A & S and urged them to return to the plant in anticipation of the commencement of Respondent's operation, telling them that Respondent wanted to fill up its machines. Some of them returned shortly before the transition date, worked briefly for A & S, and then became employees of Respondent. All of A & S's employees were required to fill out applications for employment with Respondent. None were rejected by Respondent. At the time of the transition, Louis Thompson became manager of the Cleburne plant. He had not previously worked for A & S. Mary Ledbetter became floorlady, directly supervising Respondent's employees. She had previously occupied the same position for A & S. Although Respondent Vice President Seals testified that Thompson was instructed to tell the employees that Mary Frances Simons had nothing to do with Respondent's manufactur- ing operation, there is no evidence that the employees were ever told this. Martha Wilson had worked for A & S from 1963 to 1966. During that period she had quit once because she did not receive a wage increase. Shortly thereafter she was persuaded to return with an increase in pay. However, in 1966, she was discharged by A & S's personnel manager during the absence of Mr. and Mrs. Simons from the plant. The reasons assigned for her discharge were that she didn't do her work, bothered other employees, and was an agitator.21 Immediately after her discharge, Mrs. Wilson com- plained to Texas authorities about toilet facilities in the plant which had been a source of concern to Mrs. Wilson and others while she had been employed. Mrs. Wilson also telephoned Mrs. Simons after her discharge to discuss it with her, but Mrs. Simons refused to do so. In July 1969, a representative of the Union contacted Martha Wilson and asked her if she would assist the Union in contacting Respondent's employees for the purpose of starting an organizing campaign at the Cleburne plant. Mrs. Wilson agreed to assist the union representatives and helped arrange for a meeting at her house between a union representative and several of Respondent's employees. Mrs. Wilson also assisted union representatives distribute union literature outside the plant during late July and August and was observed doing so by Floorlady Ledbetter and Mr. and Mrs. Simons.22 On September 4, 1969, Mrs. Wilson noticed an ad in the Cleburne Shopper placed by Respondent seeking experi- enced single-needle and special machine operators. Mrs. Wilson went to the plant to apply for ajob.23 She first spoke with Reba Laxton, an employee assigned to the factory store. Mrs. Wilson told her that she was looking for work and wanted an application. Mrs. Laxton gave her an application blank and asked her to fill it out. Mrs. Wilson completed the application, indicating on it that she had previously worked for A & S and had been discharged. She returned the application to Mrs. Laxton who asked Mrs. Wilson to wait and went to the manufacturing area of the plant. Within a few minutes Mrs. Laxton returned and asked Mrs. Wilson if she worked for the Union or had ever belonged to it. Mrs. Wilson replied negatively, and Mrs. Laxton then asked her to accompany her to the rear of the plant. Mrs. Laxton led her to a desk and left. Plant Manager Thompson was seated at the desk, holding Mrs. Wilson's application, and Mrs. Simons was standing next to the desk. As Mrs. Wilson approached the desk, Mrs. Simons said, "Wait just a minute, I want to see the name on that application." She looked at the application which Thompson was holding, commented that she knew Mrs. Wilson, and then said to Mrs. Wilson, "You are Martha Wilson. You get out of here right now. You are the one that started this union stuff." Mrs. Simons also stated that Mrs. Wilson had reported A & S to State health authorities because of the plant restroom. Mrs. Wilson asked Mrs. Simons to wait a minute, and Mrs. Simons said, "I said for you to get out of here." Mrs. Wilson asked Thompson if Mrs. Simons had authority to tell her to leave. Mrs. Simons replied, "Yes, I have the authority to tell you to get out. Now get out." Mrs. Wilson again asked Thompson if Mrs. Simons had authority to tell her to leave, and Mrs. Simons again replied, stating that she owned the building, that she had authority to tell Mrs. Wilson to leave, and that Mrs. Wilson should "get the hell out of here." Thompson told her that Mrs. Simons could ask her to leave the front of the building, where the store was located. Thompson arose from his chair and walked toward the door through which Mrs. Wilson had entered the plant area. Mrs. Wilson followed him and asked if he was going to refuse to hire her because of the union activity. Thompson told her that up until then Respondent had not hired anyone who had been discharged by A & S. Thompson also told her that Mr. Simons had mentioned to him that Mrs. Wilson had reported A & S to the health authorities. Mrs. Wilson then left the plant. According to Respondent's Vice President Seals, when Respondent commenced the Cleburne operation, it adopt- ed a policy against hiring anyone who had been previously discharged by A & S and so instructed Thompson. Seals testified that the policy had been adhered to. The General Counsel contends that Mrs. Simons was an agent of Respondent and that Mrs. Wilson was refused employment by Respondent because of her activities on behalf of the Union. Respondent contends that Mrs. Simons had no authority to speak or act for Respondent and that Mrs. Wilson was not hired because of her previous discharge by A & S which her application disclosed. In addition to the facts set forth above relating to Mrs. Simons' capacity in the plant there is some additional evidence relating to the agency contention. Thus, in late 21 During her exit interview, the personnel manager also indicated a testify, and Mrs Wilson testified without contradiction that on September belief that Mrs Wilson was mentally ill. 4 Mrs Simons mentioned that Mrs Wilson had started the union "stuff " 1 22 Although several employees who testified that they handed out have credited Mrs. Wilson leaflets on some occasions did not identify Mrs Wilson as one of those 23 Mrs Wilson testified without contradiction concerning her job present at the time, Mr and Mrs Simons and Mrs Ledbetter did not application, and f have credited her 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD July in the plant at breaktime, Floorlady Ledbetter asked the employees to remain in the plant because Mrs. Simons wanted to talk to them. Mrs. Simons spoke to the assembled operators. She said that she had loved the older girls that had worked for her and would learn to love the new girls as well. She expressed regret that some girls had quit the week before and advised the employees not to worry about layoffs or lack of work. She told them that Respondent had a history of providing ample work for its employees. Finally she told them that if they had any problems concerning their production or work to feel free to come to her "because she still had a little something to say about it." On another occasion in early August Mrs. Simons passed out copies of a notice of a change in insurance benefits to the employees and, sometime after the refusal to hire Mrs. Wilson, she was observed performing some of the duties of an office employee who was absent from work. There is substantial evidence to conclude that after the commencement of Respondent's operations at the former A & S plant, Mrs. Simons was clothed with apparent authority to speak for Respondent. Although the employees were informed of the change in their employment, there is no evidence that they were told the details of the relationship between Respondent and A & S or Mr. and Mrs. Simons. There is similarly no evidence that they were told that Mrs. Simons had no role with Respondent, and from outward appearances there were strong indications that she continued to have a voice in the running of the plant. Whether or not she did so as a courtesy to Respondent, as Seals testified, Mrs. Simons actively recruited and hired additional employees to work in the plant at the time that A & S was winding up its operations, so that Respondent's machines would be manned when it commenced operations. Although Respondent required A & S employees to fill out applications for employment with Respondent, all A & S employees were hired by Respon- dent, and Respondent did nothing to negate the impression new employees gained that Mrs. Simons had recruited and hired them in Respondent's behalf. Mrs. Simons continued after the transfer to have access to the entire plant and performed functions which appeared to be for Respondent rather than A & S. When she spoke to the employees in July, the employees were asked to stay to hear her by Mrs. Ledbetter, an admitted supervisor. The insurance letter which Mrs. Simons delivered informed the employees of benefits that they were to receive as employees of Respondent. In view of the fact that Mrs. Simons had previously been a member of management for A & S, and in the absence of any steps taken by Respondent to inform the employees that Mrs. Simons no longer had authority to speak for management, I find that Respondent permitted Mrs. Simons to hold herself forth as a member of management and that it was reasonable for employees to conclude that Mrs. Simons spoke for Respondent.24 Mrs. Wilson to be sure was not an employee of Respondent at the time of the transition. She was not present at the July speech and had no occasion to observe Mrs. Simons in the plant until September 4 when she applied for employment. Unlike other employees she did not have the same reason as other employees to believe Mrs. Simons continued as an agent of Respondent. Thus, the question remains whether Mrs. Simons' conduct in the presence of Plant Manager Thompson and in the light of his response warrants the inference that Mrs. Wilson was rejected as an applicant for employment because of her union activities. The undisputed evidence shows that Mrs. Simons did most of the talking while Mrs. Wilson was in the plant. She asserted authority to bar Mrs. Wilson from the plant, and Thompson only partially disputed her authority. Mrs. Simons' outburst followed on the heels of Mrs. Laxton's questioning of Mrs. Wilson about her union activities after Mrs. Laxton had delivered Mrs. Wilson's application to the plant where Mrs. Wilson next saw it in Thompson's hands. Mrs. Simons quickly associated her antipathy to Mrs. Wilson with Mrs. Wilson's efforts to help the Union, as well as her report of A & S to health authorities 3 years before, after Mrs. Wilson's discharge. Thompson made no clear disavowal of Mrs. Simons' outburst. To the contrary, his first action was to effectuate Mrs. Simons' instruction to Mrs. Wilson to leave by leading Mrs. Wilson to the door, and he partially confirmed Mrs. Simons' assertion of authority, answering Mrs. Wilson's question with a statement that Mrs. Simons had authority to order Mrs. Wilson from the front of the building. However, in so doing, Thompson at least by implication partially contradicted Mrs. Simons by indicating that she lacked authority over the portion of the building where the Respondent's manufacturing operations were conducted. At the same time, while Thompson indicated he had previously been told of Mrs. Wilson's report to the health authorities, in response to Mrs. Wilson's question as to whether she was being refused a job because of her union activities, Thompson replied that he had not yet hired anyone who had been discharged by A & S. Thus the ultimate question is whether, by the latter response, Thompson negated any inference otherwise to be drawn and thereby indicated Respondent's reason for refusing to hire Mrs. Wilson. According to Seals, Thomp- son's statement reflected a policy determination made and communicated to Thompson at the time of Thompson's retention as plant manager. While the General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that there is no substantial evidence that the policy existed, the fact that Thompson made this statement to Mrs. Wilson as he ushered her out indicates that, unless Thompson fortuitously raised her prior discharge at this time, the policy existed and was in his mind when he terminated the interview. Certainly much suspicion surrounds the entire incident. Although Mrs. Laxton had no authority to speak for Respondent, her interrogation of Mrs. Wilson after delivering her application to the rear of the plant strongly suggests that someone told her to ask Mrs. Wilson about her union activities before bringing her to the rear of the plant. In the absence of testimony by Mrs. Laxton, Mrs. Simons, or Thompson, it is impossible to know what inspired Mrs. Laxton's questions, although ordinarily one would expect that, if Mrs. Simons had no authority to hire, 24 Pearson Corporation, 138 NLRB 910; Jackson Daily News, 90 NLRB 565. BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 621 it was Thompson to whom the application was delivered and who would ordinarily have originated any instructions to Mrs. Laxton. However, the record otherwise affords little basis to evaluate the claim that Mrs. Wilson was rejected because of a policy against hiring those who had been discharged by A & S. There is no indication as to whether anyone other than Mrs. Wilson had been discharged by A & S and, if so, whether anyone else who had been discharged by A & S had applied for employment with Respondent. The policy asserted by Respondent was not unreasona- ble. While the Simons no longer had a managerial role in the manufacturing operation and Thompson was new to the plant, Mrs. Ledbetter continued as the direct supervisor of the operation in the same position she had held with A & S for some time before. It would be clearly reasonable for Respondent to have taken the position that anyone whom A & S had discharged in the past was an unlikely prospect for reemployment under Mrs. Ledbetter's supervision in the future. In sum, while there are factors which support the inference that Mrs. Wilson was rejected because Mrs. Simons identified her as responsible for union activities, I find the evidence too closely in balance to conclude that it was that reason rather than application of the policy described by Respondent which caused her rejection by Thompson. Accordingly, I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by its refusal to hire Mrs. Wilson. E. The Changed Insurance Benefits On August 4, 1969, Respondent distributed or posted a notice to its employees at the Fort Worth and Cleburne plants announcing a new insurance program, as follows: TO OUR EMPLOYEES Effective September 1, 1969, all of our present employees who have been with our company for 90 days will come under a hospitalization, life and sick benefit insurance policy. This will not cost you one cent. The company will pay the entire premium. This is the plan we told you about a long time ago. Complete details of this plan will be announced to you before September 1, 1969. This is just another step we have been able to take in providing you with benefits and improved working conditions. This has been our policy for over 18 years. We hope that you will never need to use this hospitalization and sick benefit insurance, but, if you should, it will be a comfort to us and to you to know that you have insurance protection. On August 19, 1969, Respondent distributed a further notice supplying further details: 25 TO ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES SUBJECT: Group Life, AD & D, Disability Income, Hospital, Surgical, Outpatient Accident Benefits, and Major Medical. 25 The evidence shows only that this notice was distributed at the Fort Worth plant However, the record indicates that the new insurance Starting September 1, 1969 all the above coverages as explained below will become effective. The Company will pay the entire cost of these coverages. All permanent employees who have been with the company for 90 days are eligible to receive these benefits. These benefits will become effective on the first of the month following 90 days from the date of employment. For example: An employee who came to work for this company June 20th would be eligible for the above benefits October 1st. The benefits are as follows: Bogart Sportswear, Inc. Life Insurance 1,000.00 AD & D 1,000.00 Disability Income 20.00 Hospital 30.00 300.00 (double & triple) (weekly, benefits to start 8th day of accident, 15 weeks maximum.) per day --120 days Special charges 10.00--20.00 Ambulance Fee 100.00 Maternity 250.00 Surgical Schedule 150.00 Out- patient, Accident charges Major Medical $10,000.00 200.00 Deduct- ible per year 40.00 Daily Hospital Benefits Our representative from the insurance company will visit our offices Thursday, August 21st to enroll each one of you. He will explain how you can enroll your dependents at a small weekly cost to you. You will also be able to buy an additional $1,000.00 in life insurance for 20 cents per week. program was put in effect at both plants 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Before the first of these notices was distributed, the Union distributed a leaflet to Respondent's Fort Worth employees on July 3, describing health and welfare benefits provided by the Central States Health and Welfare Fund, ILGWU. A covering note addressed to Bogart employees invited a comparison of their existing benefits to those provided by the Union's plan, asserting, among other things, that thousands of union members working in Texas and nearby States were provided the benefits under its plan at the expense of their employers. A number, but not all of the benefits described in the Union's plan, were similar to those set forth in Respon- dent's August 19 letter.26 Before September 1, Respondent's employees had been eligible to participate in a group insurance plan for which the employees paid through payroll deductions. The benefits paid under that plan were not described on the record. That plan was made available to Cleburne employees as they went on Respondent's payroll. Fort Worth Plant Manager Groden testified that among the recommendations he made in August 1968, when he came with Respondent, was a recommendation that Respondent supply paid hospitalization, medical, and life insurance for its employees. According to Groden, Respondent talked with a number of insurance companies about possible plans and finally settled on the plan described in the August 4 and 19 notices. He explained that it took a long time and a number of meetings and discussions to negotiate a new plan because a large expenditure was involved. However, Groden did not take part in the meetings between Respondent and insurance company representatives, and did not participate in the insurance arrangements after he made his initial recom- mendation. According to Groden, the arrangements were handled by President Bogart and Vice President Seals. Although Seals testified as to the applicability of the insurance plans and the August 4 letter to the Cleburne employees, he was not questioned about the decision to change the insurance benefits or its implementation. According to Groden, at the 1968 Christmas party, Bogart spoke to the employees in general terms about Respondent's plans to improve employee benefits as Groden had recommended.27 He testified that Bogart later spoke to the employees in each department about a new bonus system which was being instituted and in the course of his comments again mentioned generally that the Company was striving comments again mentioned general- ly that the Company was striving to establish a new insurance plan and other benefits. However, according to Groden, Bogart did not mention any details as to what the improved insurance would be, as it was still under discussion at that time.28 Groden testified that the insurance changes were discussed continuously at executive level meetings but he could not specify any dates when 26 The disability income, daily hospital rate , ambulance fee, maternity, and surgical schedule benefits described were substantially the same. The life insurance, accidental death and disability, and major medical benefits set forth in the August 19 letter were either greater than those in the union plan or not provided for in it. There were some features in the union plan not set forth in the August 19 letter, and other features in the two plans are difficult to compare from the face of the two documents. 11 Seals also testified that Bogart mentioned to the employees at the these discussions occurred. Employee Shirley Hyder testified that she did not hear Bogart mention that Respondent was working on a new insurance program at the 1968 Christmas party, and she and Vira Bums testified that they had never been told they would receive free insurance until they received the August 4 notice. As in the case of the vacation benefits, there is no direct evidence of a connection between the grant in benefits and the union organizing campaign. Respondent never men- tioned the Union in informing the employees of the new insurance. Any finding that the insurance benefits were changed to discourage the employees from their union activities must rest on an inference to be drawn from the circumstances, particularly the timing of the first an- nouncement of the new benefits a month after the Union's insurance leaflet. To offset that inference Respondent has offered the testimony of Plant Manager Groden that the new insurance plan was recommended and adopted in principal long before the Union appeared on the scene and in process of development when the organizing campaign began. The testimony of Groden beyond that going to his own recommendation is most insubstantial. Although he testified that many meetings were held between Respon- dent and insurance company representatives, he did not participate in these meetings, and Seals, who apparently did, was not asked about them. Groden also testified that the insurance was continuously discussed at executive level meetings, but he could not say when these discussions occurred. While Mrs. Hyder's testimony is in conflict with the testimony of Groden and Seals as to whether Bogart said anything at all about insurance at the December 1968 Christmas party, her testimony and that of Mrs. Bums is uncontradicted that before August the employees were never told they would receive insurance for which Respondent would pay the entire cost. It is not unheard of to consume several months in developing an insurance program, but, if Groden is to be believed, almost a year elapsed between his recommenda- tion and the announcement of the new plan to employees, and approximately 8 months elapsed between the time of the Christmas party when it was allegedly first mentioned to employees and the August 4 notice. Surely if the negotiations were long and involved there were written exchanges between Respondent and prospective insurers and other documentary evidence to confirm that the new insurance plan was under negotiation when the union campaign began. Yet not only was there no such evidence presented, but Seals, identified as a direct participant, was not questioned about the negotiations, and Respondent relies instead on the testimony of a witness who admittedly had no direct involvement in them. In sum I am not persuaded by the testimony of Groden that the decision to provide fully paid insurance to the Christmas party that Respondent planned to institute an employees' hospitalization plan. 28 The Cleburne employees were not employed by Respondent at that time. Seals testified that the Cleburne employees were told of Respondent's existing insurance plan when they joined Respondent's payroll in May. However, he testified that he did not know whether they were told about Respondent's future insurance plans. BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO. 623 employees had been made by Respondent before the Union ever appeared on the scene. Rather I find that the decision was influenced and caused by the Union's organizing campaign and its publication to employees of its own insurance program which it asserted was available without charge to employees whom it represented elsewhere. Accordingly, I find that the new insurance plan was announced and placed in effect in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.29 Texas District Council, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By announcing and granting improved vacation and insurance benefits to its employees to discourage union activity, by coercively interrogating employee James Allen, and by discriminatonly discharging James Allen, Respon- dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Although I shall recommend that Respondent be required to cease and desist from announcing or granting to its employees increased benefits for the purpose of discouraging union activities, nothing in the Recommended Order is to be construed as requiring Respondent to rescind vacation or insurance benefits previously granted to its employees. As I have found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged James Allen on June 18, 1969, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, to which shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bogart Sportswear Mfg. Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 29 See In 7 above The complaints, as amended, allege separate violations at Fort Worth and Cleburne based on the announcement and institution of the new insurance plan The evidence shows that the announcement of the plan at Cleburne was almost concurrent with the start of open union activities by the employees in the Cleburne plant It is likely, as Seals' testimony indicates, that the plan would have been RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions 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 that Respondent, Bogart Sport- swear Mfg. Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Texas District Council, or any other labor organization by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employees or any term or condition of their employment. (b) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to their concerted or union activities. (c) Announcing or granting to employees increased benefits for the purpose of discouraging union activities. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Texas District Council, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer James Allen immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. (b) Make James Allen whole for any loss he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the above section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (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 relevant and necessary to a determination of compliance with paragraphs 2(a) and (b) above. (d) Notify the employee named in paragraph 2(a) above if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in extended to the Cleburne plant whether or not the organizing campaign was extended to the Cleburne plant. Accordingly, I do not find that the extension of the plan to the Cleburne plant was motivated by the union activities at that plant However, as I have found that the plan was instituted in response to the union activities at Fort Worth, the announcement and institution of the plan at both plants violated the Act 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (e) Post at its Fort Worth and Cleburne, Texas, places of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."30 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it 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 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.31 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations in the complaint not found to have been sustained in the Decision herein be dismissed. 30 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 National 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, it has been found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to post this notice to inform employees of their rights. The Act gives all employees these rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or help unions To bargain as a group through representatives they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things We have also been ordered to assure our employees that: WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. You are free to join International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Texas District Council, or any other union, and by majority choice, to select any union to represent you in bargaining with us. WE WILL NOT fire you or punish you or treat you differently in any way because you join or favor a union. WE WILL NOT question you about your union membership or activities. WE WILL NOT attempt to discourage you from supporting a union by giving you improved vacations, insurance, or other benefits. It has been found that we discharged James Allen because of his union activities and membership and that his discharge violated the Act. WE WILL offer to restore James Allen to his job and seniority. WE WILL make up any pay he may have lost because of his discharge with 6 percent interest. Dated By BOGART SPORTSWEAR MFG. CO., INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 8A24, Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.