Starward Fabrics, Inc.

510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Starward Fabrics, Inc. and District 65, Wholesale, Re- tail, Office and Processing Union. Case 2-CA- 12020 May 25, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On October 15, 1970, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it ceases and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a brief in support thereof.' The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein. The Trial Examiner found that Respondent unlaw- fully refused to bargain with the Charging Union for a unit comprised of sample clerks. Respondent acknowl- edges that the Union represented the clerks when the Union sought recognition. However, it asserts, in its brief and exceptions, that the unit found by the Trial Examiner is inappropriate and that only an overall unit, or an office unit including the sample room em- ployees, is appropriate. We agree with the Trial Ex- aminer's finding that the sample clerks constitute an appropriate unit, but do not rely on the precedent cited therefor in the Trial Examiner's Decision. Respondent is a textile converter with an office and place of business in New York City. It designs, sells, and distributes textiles. It buys unfinished (greige) cloth from weaving mills, ships it to a finishing plant where it is dyed and printed with Respondent's, or others', designs, and thereafter sells it to clothing manufactur- ers and fabric retailers. It conducts its business in a building where it occu- pies a main or street floor, mezzanine, and a basement. On the main floor Respondent employs a switchboard operator, two secretaries, a manufacturing sales manager, a retail sales manager, an assistant retail sales manager, two retail department clerks, five salesmen, a head convertor, an assistant convertor, three convertor staff clerks, and a bookkeeper. On the mezzanine floor there are two pattern creators and a salesman. In the basement there are three sample clerks and a super- visor. The duties of the employees relate to the design, sale, and shipment of piece goods. The two pattern creators create patterns and oversee the printing of the patterns at the finishing plants. The convertor staff forwards instructions and orders to finishing plants relating to the goods to be printed, finished, and shipped. The clerical employees perform usual office duties. The salesmen sell to manufacturers and to retail stores. They send some orders to the sample department to fill and ship. Other orders written by salesmen are sent to textile mills or Respondent's North Carolina ware- house for shipment. Sample clerks work in the sample room under the direction of their own supervisor. They receive cartons of materials, unpack and mark them, place them in bins, and fill salesmen's orders. They fill orders by removing material from the bins, marking and cutting it, folding, packaging, and shipping it to the customer. Their duties include keeping the sample room clean, and they wear a laboratory gown to protect their clothes. They are not assigned to work in any other area. Office employees go to the sample room to pick up sample swatches and salesmen go there to give or speed an order. As herein described, the sample room employees are the only nontechnical, nonselling, nonoffice-clerical employees at Respondent's place of business. While office and sales employees sometimes come into the sample room in the course of their work, such visits are only incidental to the performance of their primary work elsewhere. Because the sample clerks are located and supervised separately and their work is basically different from the pattern creators, salesmen, and office clericals who make up the remaining employees, and as there are no transfers or interchange, we find that a unit comprised of sample room employees is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.' Respondent also filed a notice of motion to reopen the record and a supporting affidavit requesting a further hearing to adduce testimony re- specting the unit issue General Counsel filed an opposition to Respondent's motion Respondent does not contend, and there is no showing, that such evidence is newly discovered or was unavailable at the time of the hearing We therefore deny the motion 2 Pacific Abrasive Supply Co, 182 NLRB No 48, TXD section entitled "2 The appropriate unit." Garrett Supply Co.. 165 NLRB 561 Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we do not hold that the sample room employees in the subject case, who perform warehousing functions, com- prise the type of warehouse unit contemplated in A. Harris & Co.. 116 190 NLRB No. 97 STARWARD FABRICS, INC. Having found that the sample clerks constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, Starward Fabrics, Inc., New York, New York, its offic- ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac- tion set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.' NLRB 1628 ' N.L R B v Bardahl Oil Co, 399 F 2d 365, 368-370 (C A 8), enfg 163 NLRB 260 In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding of an 8(a)(5) violation, Chairman Miller relies only on the fact that by its unlawful conduct, Respondent made a free election impossible NL R B v Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575 (1969) In footnote 4 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for" 10" days TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before me on August 3 and 4, 1970, at New York City, New York, on complaint of the General Counsel against Starward Fabric, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company. The issues are whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent after the close of the hearing. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Starward Fabric, Inc., a New York corporation, is a textile converter engaged in the wholesale sale and distribution of textiles and related products, with an office and place of business in New York City. During the past year, a represent- ative period, it purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to this place of business textiles and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which an amount valued in excess of $50,000 was transported and delivered to this place of business directly from States other than New York State. During the same period it sold and distributed textiles valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped on the Respondent's orders from the mills where they were manu- factured outside the State of New York directly into inter- state commerce. I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. 511 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED District 65, Wholesale, Retail, Office and Processing Un- ion, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This is a refusal-to-bargain case. In its New York City location the Respondent operates a stable three-man ware- house and shipping department, one person a supervisor and the other two rank-and-file workers. The two employees signed authorization cards in favor of the Union, which then demanded recognition and that the Company bargain with it. First, the company president evaded by disclaiming authority to act, on the ground that the Company is controlled by other interests centered in another state. Next, the Respondent's lawyer, while conceding the Union in fact represented a majority in the unit sought, rejected the demands by asserting that in his opinion the warehouse unit was inappropriate. This refusal was said to have been a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Upon learning that the employees had joined the Union the president interrogated them on the question, asked why they were so inclined and what their expectations were, learned that they wanted raises among other things, and told them he was thinking of moving the warehouse to a distant location. A few days later he gave a surprise raise to one of the two employees. The complaint alleges all this was violative of Section H(a)(l). The Respondent denies commission of any unfair labor practices. It contends that the interviews with the employees were no more than normal attempts to continue amicable personal and individual relationships proper in a small plant, as in the past, and that the raise, despite the timing, had nothing to do with the simultaneous union activity. As to the bargaining demand, the Company now reiterates the position first articulated, that the unit sought was inappropriate in law and that therefore the Company had a right to refuse to bargain. Inexplicably and, it would appear, inconsistently, it also asserts that in fact it did not refuse to bargain. Asked at the hearing was it willing to bargain then and there, it refused. A. Appropriate Bargaining Unit and Majority Status This Company buys raw cloth in large quantities, dyes and bleaches it, prints it in designs of its own creation, and sells it to the garment trade. It has what are called sample orders and stock orders. Sample orders mean when a customer- manufacturer buys only small quantities-5, 10, or about 20 yards each-of the various prints, to produce newly fashioned lead garments. When the garments sell and large quantities of the same cloth-lots reaching into thousands of yards of the same print-are purchased, the orders are called stock orders. The cloth is processed and stored in a North Carolina loca- tion, and all stock orders are packaged and shipped from there. In New York City the Company has a showroom, sales headquarters, and order handling facilities. It is a street level area, with a mezzanine and a basement. On the street level there are administrative offices, secretaries, salesmen quar- ters, office clerks, a bookkeeper, and a converting staff. Some clerks maintain orders and shipping records, and the rest do the usual office work. There are also two girls who do color- ing; i.e., create printing patterns which are sent to the South for processing cloth. Only three men work in the basement, and the Company calls them the sample department They receive stock and maintain fully printed rows of cloth of all kinds; this is the stock from which the sample orders are 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD filled. And these are the men the Union organized and wanted to represent in collective bargaining.' All purchase orders successfully obtained by the salesmen -from customers who come to the showroom, from custom- ers in the New York City area, and from customers solicited by traveling salesmen throughout the country-are checked and approved by the street level clerks and company officials. When found satisfactory, the stock orders go to the North Carolina plant for filling, and the sample orders go down- stairs to the basement for the sample department to look after. Here, really a warehouse in itself, the men sort the materials, select the indicated styles, cut the cloth as called for by each individual order, package it, and ship it out. Occasionally one will bring a package to the Post Office, but for the most part the packages are picked up by United Parcel or the Post Office people. Of the three men, Prentice Murray is a supervisor. On March 23, 1970, when the demand and refusal occurred, the other two were Ronald De Vault and Sylvester Achiampong. Achiampong was discharged the next day; by that time the Company was already looking for a replacement. He was replaced by Richard Washington a few days later. During the summer of 1970 there was also a student helper, but he was not expected to remain. No one ever works in that basement but these three sample clerks, and not one of them ever comes upstairs to do any work elsewhere. I find that they constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes 2 They are physically iso- lated from all the rest of the employees in the New York City operation; they do a kind of work totally unrelated in nature from that of the many other employees-warehousing and shipping; they are separately supervised-Murray supervises no one else; and there is no transfer of employees in or out of the unit, nor any temporary interchange. These are the distinguishing criteria which mark the appropriateness of a warehouse unit, particularly in the absence of any collective- bargaining history on a broader basis See A. Harris Co., 116 NLRB 1628. Murray, the supervisor, sometimes is responsible to see that the basement is adequately stocked with what prints are in season and being bought. When his stock is low he comes upstairs to advise the company officers of the need. Every once in a while a salesman will himself go downstairs to expedite a delivery, or obtain a piece of cloth for special need. But, as the Board said in California Physicians: " .. visita- tions by nonwarehouse employees does not detract from the ' Sidney Warner, the company president, in greater detail described the operation of the sample department as follows Ordinarily a salesman goes in to a manufacturer , sees the designer there who creates the dresses or blouses, shows either he (sic) or her our line and they select various patterns or plain shade colors of the fabrics that we have made and the designer would usually sample several yards to make these sample garments So the salesman comes back to the office, writes up the sample order on an order form that we have, and puts it into our office for approval, price and what have you, and then it is sent down to the sample department for filling, shipping The sample depart- ment then takes that order, cuts up the required yardages, and ships it to the manufacturer They (finished print cloth) come in They are received by the boys in the sample department They take them in from the freight elevator They open up the cartons They put them in the bins And proceed to fill the orders that have to be filled if a customer, for example, orders 5 yards of a certain pattern and color, and 20 yards of another color and pattern, they take it out of the bins, put it on a cutting table, they mark it off, cut it, fold it, put it in a package with a copy of the order and ship it out Cf, California Physicians Service, 178 NLRB No 116 fact that warehousemen are primarily engaged in duties clearly distinct from those of any other employees of the Employer." In its brief the Respondent for the first time called this a one-man unit, but the evidence belies the assertion. Nor is there merit in the companion contention that because the entire New York operation is small, and because only two rank-and-file employees are involved, these men are not enti- tled to collective-bargaining rights. I therefore find that all employees in the Respondent's sample department in New York City, but excluding supervisors, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. De Vault and Achiampong signed union cards on March 12, 1970, and when, on March 23, a Monday, Frank Cherry, union organizer, called on President Warner to demand recognition, he showed him photostat copies of the cards. Washington, hired during the week, also signed a card on March 30. As a witness Warner admitted he saw the two cards on the 23rd. His lawyer, Arthur Olick, who talked to Donald Grody, a lawyer for the Union, during the week and reiterated the refusal to bargain, also testified and told Grody that day, according to Olick's own testimony, "there was certainly no question that the union had authorization cards from a majority of those in the sample department." I find that the Union was, on March 23, 1970, the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees in the sample department, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. B. Demand and Refusal When Cherry called on Warner and demanded recognition and bargaining, the president, after satisfying himself that both men had signed-he called them upstairs so they could say hello to Cherry-said, according to his own testimony, that the union agent was going "too fast," that the Respond- ent was part of the Monroe Combine, and that he, Warner, was not free to bargain but must clear with Monroe. He asked for a week before giving any answer. He nevertheless asked for details of what the union demands were, and even made notes as to the various items; he said he wanted to foward them to the other company. He testified that he promised to telephone Cherry later. He never did. The next day Achiampong was discharged and Cherry telephoned to protest, to argue that the discharge was illegal, and asked that he be reinstated. Meanwhile, Warner had retained Attorney Olick to act for him with respect to the bargaining demand. Cherry testified that again on Thursday he called Warner to repeat his demand for recognition; either Tuesday or Thursday-the record is not clear-Warner gave Cherry Olick's name and telephone number, and then Grody, the Union's general counsel, telephoned Olick. Grody asked why had negotiations been broken off. Olick answered that although Warner had recognized the Union, on second thought it was believed that a unit limited to the sample department was inappropriate. His stated position was that if Grody could convince him such unit was appropriate the Respondent would bargain. Grody replied he was too busy to research the Board decisions to persuade the other lawyer. The refusal-to-bargain charge was filed on March 26. At the hearing a defense of the Respondent was that nei- ther Warner nor Olick ever refused to bargain with the Un- ion. It is a meaningless play on words. Between not doing something upon proper request, and refusing to do it, there is little of substance. There are no magic phrases This was no academic discussion on labor law between the two law- yers When, in response to the repeated demand for bargain- ing, Olick said not until and unless you convince me, he was STARWARD FABRICS, INC saying no, until I think otherwise. I find that on March 23, 1970, when Warner first told Cherry he was powerless to act, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent refused to recog- nize the Union and to bargain with it. C. Violations of Section 8(a)(1) President Warner spoke to the sample department em- ployees three times about this union business. The first was when Supervisor Murray reported to him that the men had signed union cards, on a date between March 12 and 23, when Organizer Cherry arrived. Warner called all three men to his office as a group. He asked why they had signed and what their demands were. De Vault testified that at this meeting Warner said: "I don't want the union in here because I don't want a third party to be here," and that in the event of a union in the shop, "he might have to close the sample department and ship from New Jersey, and there would be no overtime if the union came in." Warner spoke to the men again on March 23, shortly after the union representatives left his office. First he called De Vault and Achiampong in separately and then had all three men in together. Again he asked did they really want to join the Union and why, and they told him it was for higher pay and other fringe benefit improvements. Warner, who recalled all of these interviews in his office, gave a somewhat different version. He admitted asking them each time why it was that they wanted a union, and what their economic demands were. " ... to see if they had things on their mind." He asked De Vault "are you happy here ... if he had anything he wanted to tell me. If he had any sugges- tions." He added he asked the same questions of Achiam- pong. Warner then said it was on the second date, March 23, that he told them: " .. I want you to be aware that we also may have to make a decision about the sample department, because we were beginning now to outgrow our premises. . we as management, were considering having to take larger quarters, because of out growth. For the sample de- partment. And we had several choices at that moment . . I told the boys that we may have to make a choice our- selves about the sample department, whether we may take a loft in New York City or go to New Jersey, of find some increased space." Warner denied having threatened to close the sample department or to discontinue overtime. Murray, the supervisor, corroborated these last two denials, but he too testified it was at the first group questioning, before March 23, that the president told the department employees operations might be moved out of the State. It will be recalled that Achiampong left that week and Washington became the new hire. During the same week Warner told De Vault he would raise his weekly pay by $10. The last mention of any raises before these events was the past Christmas, when Warner told the men that his practice was to evaluate the men for possible raises once every 6 months. De Vault said the raise came without advance notice, and that Warner did not tell him it was because he had worked hard and done a good job. Warner spoke of this raise twice, first when he appeared as a witness at the start of the hearing, and again when called in defense towards the end. His first statement was that be- cause Supervisor Murray had been out sick for a week or two, he wanted to reward De Vault for extra work well done. "Sometime in March I think Prentice was sick and was out for about 10 days, and the bulk of the work was on Ronnie's shoulders. I mentioned to Ronnie he was doing a good job. And we appreciate it. And I was going to give him another raise." He made clear Murray had already been out 10 days and that he told De Vault, "And the first of the next month 513 there will be an increase for you ... I believe it was April 1st." After Warner had left the stand the General Counsel placed into evidence the payroll work records of De Vault and Murray. They show that Murray was not absent from work at all during March; in fact for each workweek that month his record shows the precise number of overtime hours performed and paid for. De Vault's record shows that in fact the raise he got was for the first full week of work in April. With this, Warner altered his testimony when he returned to the witness stand. Now he said that he first told De Vault of his intention to give a raise "the first of (sic) second week in April, and I made it retroactive as of April 1." Warner's reversal of testimony in the attempt to explain away the obvious conflict between his first story and the Company's own records, coupled with the otherwise unex- plained injection into his interrogations of the danger inher- ent to the employees in a possible transfer of their jobs to a distant location, gravely impaired his credibility. He knew, when he called De Vault and Achiampong into his office after Cherry's departure, that they had joined the Union, for he had questioned them about it once before. His purpose there- fore could not have been that proper concern of which the Board spoke in Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062 Rather, as the record in its entirety makes clear, his object was to explore their ultimate motivation with an eye to satis- fying them if possible and thereby avoiding having to bargain with the Union. And the surprise raise to De Vault, now not persuasively explained as coming after Murray's absence, serves only to confirm the inference. I credit De Vault. I find that by its repeated questioning of the employees concerning their union activities the Respondent illegally in- terrogated them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find that Warner threatened to close the warehouse oper- ation in this location, to move it to another State, and to discontinue overtime work if the employees persisted in their union resolve, all threats intended to discourage their union activities, and thus further restraint and coercion contrary to the specific proscriptions of the Act. And, finally, I conclude that the raise given De Vault at that moment was intended to satisfy his economic wants and to dissuade him from con- tinuing as a union member, a further violation of Section 8(a)(1). N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405. D. Violation of Section 8(a)(5) The Board has held that refusal to recognize a union on the basis of a good-faith but erroneous belief about the appropri- ateness of a bargaining unit is not adequate defense to a refusal-to-bargain charge under this statute. Stecher-Traung- Schmitt Corporation, 172 NLRB No. 186. Even assuming, therefore, that the Respondent's refusal in this case was moti- vated by no other purpose than to test the Union's request for bargaining in the warehouse unit, the violation of Section 8(a)(5), as alleged in the complaint, is clear. That the Re- spondent was motivated by another objective, no more availa- ble as a defense, is equally clear. Warner's threat to move the sample department to a distant location and to eliminate overtime was calculated to induce the employees to abandon the Union. With Washington only a recent arrival in the department, the substantial raise to De Vault, adequate to satisfy his principal interest in signing the union card, served all the more to reduce the probability that anyone in the small group would persist in the concerted union resolve. In the light of this unlawful conduct of the Respondent, its ultimate statement that the Union must first convince a lawyer of his mistake in law appears as a delaying tactic to permit the coercive effect of the unfair labor practices to take root. In another situation, a threat or two and a single benefit con- 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ferred on only one employee might appear in a different light. Where, as here, the only oldtime employee is bought off, and a substantial threat is made, it must be concluded that thereby the Respondent made a free election impossible. Its purpose being to influence, the employees away from their desire to bargain collectively, its methods illegal, and the end result of its activities such as to "impede the election process" so that "a fair and reliable election cannot be held," it follows that the Respondent must be found also to have violated Section 8(a)(5) on these further grounds and, in necessary consequence, be ordered to bargain now with the Union as was its duty in the first place. N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575. 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 opera- tions 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 All employees in the sample department at the Respond- ent's New York City, New York, location, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropri- ate for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union was on March 23, 1970, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain with the above-named labor or- ganization in good faith on March 23, 1970, and thereafter, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) 6. By the foregoing conduct, by coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, by threatening to discontinue overtime work and to move its work location to another State, and by granting a raise in pay, all for the purpose of discouraging union activities, the Respondent has coerced and is coercing its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforementioned unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that Starward Fabrics, Inc., New York City, New York, its offic- ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit. (b) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, threatening to discontinue overtime work and to move its work location to another state, and granting a raise in pay (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its place of business in New York City, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms approved by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being duly signed by the Re- spondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing 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. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 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 Sec 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 Ap- peals, 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Dis- trict 65, Wholesale, Retail, Office and Processing Union, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with this Union as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, em- body such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees in the sample department of our plant at New York City, New York, excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union activities, threaten to discontinue overtime work and remove our work location to another STARWARD FABRICS, INC. 515 state, or grant a raise in pay for the purpose of discourag- ing union activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form , join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep- resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re- frain from any and all such activities. Dated By (Representative) (Title) STARWARD FABRICS, INC. (Employer) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. 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, 36th Floor, Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York 10007, Tel. 212-264-0300.