Scottex Corp.

446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Scottex Corporation and Central States Region, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and Textile Workers' Union of America, Party to the Contract. Case 16-CA-4545 November 24, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On July 18, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Sidney J. Barban issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charg- ing Party, and the Party to the Contract all filed exceptions and briefs in support thereof. In addition, the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Scottex Corpora- tion, Carrollton, Texas, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the actions set forth in the recommended Order. i The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 2 The parties have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 3 The Respondent and the Party to the Contract made requests for oral argument Those requests are hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the positions of the parties TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard at Dallas, Texas, on February 15, 16, and 17, 1972. The complaint, issued on December 27, 1971 (all dates hereinafter are in 1971 unless otherwise noted), based upon a charge filed November 5, alleges that the above-named Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by rendering unlawful aid, assistance , and support to the above-named Party to the Contract (herein called TWUA), and by threatening employees against engaging in activities on behalf of the above-named Charging Party (herein called ILGWU), and violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminating against its employees through making membership in TWUA a condition of employ- ment. Respondent's answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices, but admits allegations of the complaint sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction under current standards of the Board ($50,000 annual interstate outflow), and to support findings that ILGWU and TWUA are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. Upon the entire record in this case, from observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, ILGWU, and TWUA, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND THE ISSUES Respondent has for some time operated textile manufac- turing plants in New York at which plants Respondent has had collective-bargaining agreements with TWUA cover- ing certain of the operations, while other operations in those plants have been subject to bargaining agreements between Respondent and ILGWU. In December 1970, Respondent began operations at a facility located at Cedar Hill, Texas, with a floor space of 10,000 square feet. Respondent's first employee at Cedar Hill was Virginia Johnson, assertedly recruited for that operation by TWUA from a local plant represented by that Union. Johnson shortly became president of the TWUA local. The General Counsel contends, and Respondent denies, that during the period material to this case Johnson was also a supervisor for Respondent at its Texas operations. On February 8, when only three employees were employed at Cedar Hill, Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with TWUA covering the operations at that facility. Respondent soon sought larger quarters and acquired plant facilities at Carrollton, Texas, with floor space of over 200,000 square feet. About August 10, at a time when there were about five unit production employees in two job classifications at Cedar Hill, Respondent and TWUA signed a letter agreement extend- ing the Cedar Hill bargaining agreement to Carrollton. However, the move from the Cedar Hill plant to the new facility was not made until October. Cedar Hill was thereafter closed down. Within a month after the move, 20 to 25 employees were hired. At the time of the hearing, Respondent employed approximately 52 nonsupervisory employees in about 9 different classifications. Beginning in June and running through October, ILGWU Representative John Vickers had several conver- sations with Virginia Johnson, whom he contacted con- cerning Respondent's operations, during which Johnson made several admissions upon which General Counsel relies. Respondent and TWUA dispute the admissibility of this evidence. About November 1, ILGWU also leafleted 200 NLRB No. 75 SCOTTEX CORPORATION the Carrollton plant, leading to certain responses by Respondent which the General Counsel contends inter- fered with the employees' rights under the Act. 1. The General Counsel contends, in effect, that Cedar Hill was at all times an experimental "pilot plant," to be used for training purposes only, with limited functions and few employees, and that Respondent's purpose was to establish a larger permanent plant, eventually employing as many as 300 employees, with a wide range of functions necessary to producing finished textile fabrics; that Carrollton "was a new plant, far different from the facility in Cedar Hill in terms of size, purpose and production"; and that by "recognizing the TWUA and extending the Cedar Hill contract with TWUA [to Carrollton] at a time when the Carrollton plant was not in production and Respondent did not employ a representative complement of employees," Respondent gave illegal aid and assistance to TWUA in violation of the Act. The General Counsel does not attack the validity of the Cedar Hill agreement with TWUA, which was executed more than 6 months before the filing of the charge in this matter, and which, therefore, by reason of the provisions of Section 10(b) of the Act, may not be considered as an unfair labor practice. 2. General Counsel further contends that Respondent aided and assisted TWUA, and violated the Act, (a) by assertedly requiring employees to agree to join the TWUA and/or sign checkoff authorizations in favor of TWUA as a condition of employment, (b) by actions of the alleged supervisor, Johnson, in soliciting support for TWUA, (c) by Johnson's activities in serving as president of the TWUA local while occupying the position of supervisor, (d) by Johnson's asserted activities in representing TWUA in contract negotiations with Respondent, and (e) by asserted conduct on the part of Johnson and other supervisors assertedly interfering with or coercing employ- ees in respect to their contacts with or support of ILGWU. Respondent and TWUA dispute these contentions. A Johnson's Supervisory Status Johnson was employed by Respondent on December 10, 1970 At Cedar Hill, she was an instructor of the knitter trainees. She assigned work, told employees which ma- chines and operations they were to work on, and moved them from machines and operations to other machines and operations. Johnson inspected the employees' work and corrected them. They were instructed to call Johnson if they had trouble with their machines or their work. She performed minor adjustments to the machines. Johnson's position changed somewhat after the move to the Carrollton plant. When Respondent set up the work at Carrollton on a three-shift basis, Johnson was assigned to I This clearly occurred between October It, when Ida Hillhouse was employed, and November 1, when Edna Elder was hired The former was trained by Johnson, the latter was trained on the first shift by Head Knitter Betty Owens 2 Thereafter, at a time when ILGWU was on strike against Respondent in New York, Buchanan and Carl Neal, a supervisor, told Alverson that Johnson was not a supervisor The circumstances of this conversation are not set forth in the record 3 General Counsel suggests that this was Lemoyne Carey, who was 447 the second shift, and was no longer used as an instructor of trainees.' On the second shift, where her title is head knitter, Johnson continued to assign the employees to machines and operations, and moved them to other machines or operations. Johnson drew up the employees' break schedule and posted it. On one occasion, Johnson criticized Susanne Hauerwas for her use of the break period. After making assignments, Johnson moved around among the girls, watching their work, correcting them, admonishing them if they seemed to be playing around and not attending to their tasks, even threatening that those who did not perform properly would be discharged. When the employees had problems with their machines and their work, they called upon Johnson first. She assisted the girls with their problems and continued to make minor adjustments to the machines. Johnson made reports to higher supervision with respect to the employees. While at Carrollton, according to the undenied and credited testimony of Armella Alverson, Earl Moyer, an admitted supervisor and agent of Respondent, spoke to Alverson about a complaint Johnson had made about Alverson, advising Alverson that Johnson was "over her," that he wanted Alverson "to get along with her, and not to make any waves," that Johnson would have the last say whether Alverson worked or didn't work.2 On one occasion, when an employee identified by Hauerwas only as "Le' 13 had made an error causing her machine to be out of commission for 2 days, Johnson gathered the girls together to look at the error. Johnson told them that this "was a stupid thing to have happen," that "the girl didn't know what she was doing," and that if anyone else committed such an error, she would be fired. It was apparently this same worker who was referred to in a conversation between Johnson and Armella Alverson, identified by Alverson as "Lamone." Johnson told Alver- son that "she was going to have to get rid of [this employee ] because she was too old, and she didn't need to be working there." This employee was discharged about 2 days later.4 On another occasion, Johnson stated to Alverson, with respect to some girls who had been late, that "they didn't need to be working there if they were going to be coming in late." The employees thereafter quit. It is also noted that when Hauerwas was called to a terminal interview with Moyer, on the first shift, at which she was discharged on the basis of a written report from second shift supervision, Johnson was also present during the first part of the interview. Johnson was not called as a witness. The only witness for Respondent was Howard Buchanan, who was first em- ployed by Respondent on August 30, and is the general manager of Respondent's Texas division. He asserted that Johnson is not considered a supervisor and does not have supervisory authority. He stated that she is a head knitter terminated on November I After consideration of the list of Respondent's employees, and the testimony of Armella Alverson and John Vickers noted hereinafter, I am satisfied that this must be the employee referred to 4 As discussed hereinafter, in a conversation with John Vickers about the last of October, Johnson told Vickers that she was going to have to fire one employee, named "Le," who wasn't doing her job properly At this point, according to Johnson, she had been advised by Earl Moyer to give this employee another chance 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on the second shift, paid at about the same rate as head knitters on the first and third shift. He testified that her duties, and those of the other head knitters are to assist the knitters on her shift with their problems, that she customarily roamed around making sure that the knitting machines are working properly. At some times material to this matter, according to Buchanan, Johnson reported to the shift supervisor, Max Yelverton, who was responsible to the superintendent of knitting (probably Earl Moyer, whose title was not identified), who reported to the plant manager (at that time apparently Carl Neal), who in turn was responsible to General Manager Buchanan .5 Buchan- an, however, admittedly has not had firsthand opportunity to observe Johnson at work or the actual day-to-day relationship between Johnson and the employees on the second shift. The evidence set forth above and the record as a whole is convincing that, at the very least, Johnson responsibly directs the work of employees on the second shift on her own initiative, and reprimands them for deficiencies in their work and conduct, reports on their work and conduct to higher supervision, which reports form a substantial basis for personnel action by supervision, and makes other decisions requiring independent judgment which affect the employees' work and employment. To the extent that Buchanan's testimony is to the contrary, it is not credited. It is therefore found that Johnson, at times material to this proceeding, was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. See N L.R.B v. Roselon Southern Inc., 382 F.2d 245 (C.A. 6, 1967). In addition to the above, the record establishes that the following were managerial personnel for whom Respon- dent was responsible: Max Goldman, Meyer Goldman, Jerry Goldman, and James DeCamp, who apparently was at one time a plant manager at Cedar Hill. B. Respondent's Operations in Texas and Bargaining Relationship With TWUA There is no question that Respondent's purpose has been to set up operations in Texas for the manufacture of textile fabrics. It is also clear that a number of knitters were trained at Cedar Hill to that end. It is difficult to see what other purpose was achieved there. Thus it appears that there were very few knitting machines set up at that facility. Respondent opened Cedar Hill about the begin- ning of 1971. Through the end of August, Respondent did not employ more than three knitter trainees, two knitters (including Johnson), and/or two employees in the category of general help in any 1 week. No other classification of employee was employed at Cedar Hill (other than clericals and supervisors). As has been noted, on February 8, Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with TWUA. It was signed on behalf of the union by two officials and by 5 In respect to this asserted line of authority, Linda Ann Alverson testified that on one occasion, when Yelverton was piqued at being overruled with respect to a personnel decision, he complained that Respondent gave Johnson more authority than it gave him and would be more likely to listen to her 6 Among other matters, it has a detailed seniority system and provisions under which employees can be transferred temporarily from job tojob, and permanently from department to department, although the agreement Johnson. At the time, Respondent employed three employ- ees including Johnson, classified as knitters and knitter trainees. The bargaining agreement provided for the following classifications: creelers, knitters, yarn handler, general help. For so small an operation, the agreement is remarkably full and complete .6 However, apparently because of the restrictions of Texas law, the agreement contains no provision requiring membership in the TWUA, but did provide for the deduction of dues and initiation fees from an employee's wages upon submission of written authorization by the employee in the form attached to the agreement. By sometime in August, Respondent had acquired larger quarters for all operations at Carrollton, located about 32 miles from Cedar Hill. By the end of August employees were being interviewed and hired at Carrollton, though they were then sent to Cedar Hill for training. TWUA, by letter dated August 10, referring to the fact that "over the past several months" Respondent had discussed with TWUA "the Company's plans to move from your present quarters in Cedar Hill, Texas to a more permanent location," requested agreement from Respon- dent that the contract in effect at Cedar Hill would be continued "and be applied in its entirety at the Company's successor plant in Carrollton, Texas." 7 Respondent signed the agreement as requested. As previously noted, the move from Cedar Hill to Carrollton did not occur until sometime in October. About six production employees were then transferred to Carroll- ton. From General Counsel's Exhibit 6(a) it would appear that in October, Respondent employed unit workers in only the following categories: knitters, knitter trainees, general help, junior mechanic, and examiner. Shortly after the move, the work force began to expand. About the first of November, TWUA negotiated an amendment to the TWUA bargaining agreement with the Respondent which expanded the job classifications cov- ered and granted wage increases. This was agreed by Respondent although the original agreement continued in force by its terms until February 1974, and contained no reopening clause. Johnson was among those representing TWUA in these negotiations and signed the agreement on behalf of that Union. The amendment to the bargaining agreement, which is dated November 2, establishes the following classifications covered by the agreement: Creel- er, knitter, general helper, yarn handler, head knitter, knitter trainee, examiner, mender, junior mechanic. In a document dated February 1, 1972, TWUA and Respondent signed another amendment to the TWUA agreement. Johnson again signed on behalf of TWUA. In this agreement the wage structure was again changed and the following additional job classifications added to those covered by the agreement, Slitter, washer/framer/beamer, recognizes at another place that Respondent at that point had only one department 7 TWUA based its claim that the agreement should cover the operations at Carrollton upon language in the agreement stating that the contract was between "Scottex Corporation (for its Cedar Hill, Texas plant) and its successors, assigns and subsidiaries hereinafter referred to as the 'Employer' or 'Company' and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO SCOTTEX CORPORATION 449 drugman , spotter. These latter were identified as dyeing and finishing classifications. At Cedar Hill, the employees made only unfinished griege goods . When Buchanan was hired on August 30, he was informed that it was management's intent to produce dyed and finished fabrics at its Texas operations, and these latter operations were instituted at Carrollton in Decem- ber. At the time of the hearing, there were about 52 employees in classifications covered by the TWUA agreement at Carrollton. C. Vickers' Conversations With Johnson As previously noted, Vickers, the ILGWU representa- tive, had several conversations with Virginia Johnson concerning the operations at Cedar Hill and Carrollton, beginning June 30 and continuing through October 26. In the earlier conversations, according to Vickers' testimony, Johnson told Vickers how she was assertedly recruited by TWUA representatives to go to work for Respondent; that DeCamp, the plant manager, had told her that the plant was going to be larger, much larger; that the new plant would be located about 2 miles south of Cedar Hill; that Cedar Hill was a pilot operation which would only train knitters for the larger plant, which, she had heard from Mr. Goldman, would eventually employ 300 people8; that she participated in the preparation of the original TWUA contract proposal, and its negotiation with Respondent; and that at the time, Respondent employed only three employees at Cedar Hill, all training to be knitters. Vickers testified that when he spoke with Johnson on October 4, she said that Cedar Hill had been closed down, and that seven employees, including herself, had been transferred. When Vickers first spoke to Johnson, she told him that she was a knitter in charge of training new employees. On October 26, she told Vickers, as he testified, that she had been made a supervisor on the night shift, that she was responsible for the girls, and for checking on their work; that she found some were lazy, not as good as they should be; and that she would have to fire one, Le, who wasn't doing her work properly; that she further said that Moyer had told her to give the girl another chance Respondent and TWUA objected to this testimony as inadmissible hearsay. The General Counsel and ILGWU urged its acceptance on the grounds that Johnson was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and on the basis that she was president of the TWUA local which, assertedly, occupied an identity of interest with Respon- dent. In respect to this latter contention General Counsel has referred me to that body of the law of evidence which treats with the admissibility of "vicarious admissions." See Wigmore on Evidence, vol. IV, sec. 1077 (3d edition); see also, McCormick on Evidence, secs 244, et seq.; Jones on Evidence, vol. 2, chap. IV. I have reconsidered the rulings 8 The General Counsel offered in evidence certain newspaper articles purportedly quoting Respondent's chief salesman in Texas which apparent- ly projected similar or higher levels of employment These were rejected It is clear that these articles came to the attention of Respondent's management It is disputed whether Respondent thereafter disavowed these statements Both Respondent and ILGWU have attached to their briefs photocopies of pages of the transcript of an arbitration proceeding in which this matter was discussed In order to preserve these for the record, admitting this evidence in light of the authorities and the arguments of the parties. Johnson has been found to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act quite apart from her admissions to Vickers. This, however, does not justify the receipt of the hearsay evidence as to the circumstances under which she was recruited to come to work for Respondent prior to the time she became a supervisor, and as to that testimony, upon reconsideration, it is rejected and stricken.9 Though I have considered other parts of her admissions to Vickers, I have not given them any weight unless supported by other independent evidence or the record as a whole. Thus, her admissions that Cedar Hill was a pilot plant training employees for a larger operation is supported by testimony of Buchanan and is consistent with the record generally, as is the testimony that she was given to understand that the operation was in a status of continuing expansion. Her statements as to the number of employees employed at the time of the execution of the TWUA agreement and at the time of the transfer to Carrollton generally are supported by the record. Likewise, her admissions of participation in the negotiation of the TWUA agreement are consistent with her execution of that document on behalf of that Union, and her participation in subsequent bargaining with Respondent on behalf of TWUA. D. Respondent's Hiring Practices Until well after the time that Buchanan became General Manager of Respondent's Texas operations, it appears to have been Respondent's normal practice to hand each applicant for employment, among other papers (such as employment application, W-2 forms, insurance papers, etc.), a copy of a check-off agreement to be executed in favor of TWUA. From testimony given at the hearing, it is clear that many, if not most, of the applicants understood this to be an agreement to join TWUA in 45 days, at the end of the probationary period. However, in fact, until about November, Respondent began deduction of dues and fees for TWUA from the pay of such employees beginning about a week after they were employed. Buchanan testified that this occurred due to a clerical error in New York, where the pay was made up. Such money deducted during the first 45 days of a worker's employ- ment was thereafter refunded by Respondent about the first part of November. Annie Louise Crow, who was interviewed for employ- ment by Moyer, and was hired by him, was directed to go to the office to sign the forms referred to above. Moyer specifically advised her of the TWUA form, stating, according to Crow, "I could sign a card, would I agree to sign a card after I was there 45 days to join the Textile Union. And I agreed." Sylvia Susanne Hauerwas, when applying for employ- ment, was taken to the office by Moyer to fill out the Respondent's brief is hereby received as TX Exh 1, and the ILGWU brief is received as TX Exh. 2 1 have given no weight to these newspaper articles or to issue as to whether they were disavowed 9 I am satisfied that no such identity of position between the TWUA local and Respondent has been shown that would justify holding that admissions of the president of the local should be taken as admissions of Respondent, within the authorities cited 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD forms. Moyer told her, "I guess you know that this is a Union shop and you will have to join the Union." He asked if she had any objections, to which Hauerwas replied in the negative, stating that she had never worked in "a Union place" before. When Anna Renee Elder applied for employment, Moyer told her "that they had a Union, that I had to join the Union is the way he told me." Ida Louise Hillhouse was handed the forms , including the TWUA form, by Sam Goldman, who told her to fill them out. When she questioned the union form, he told her, "Sign it . It is an agreement to join the Union... . You want to join the Union ." Hillhouse replied that it didn't matter to her, she had never belonged to a union before Armella Peggy Alverson testified that during her employment interview , Sam Goldman told her, "You know this is a Union shop," and asked if she was interested. None of the testimony set forth above was denied by either Moyer or Goldman, nor was any explanation offered with respect to their failure to testify. Upon consideration of the demeanor of these witnesses , as well as the record as a whole, their testimony as set forth above is credited.io General Manager Buchanan testified that after he was employed, he changed Respondent's procedures so that applicants for employment were not given TWUA check- off forms to execute with their applications for employ- ment. He stated that he informed his supervisors and those who dealt with applicants for work to advise applicants that they had the right to join or not join the union, and not encourage membership in TWUA Linda Alverson, who was employed on November 10, testified that when she applied for employment , she was handed an authorization card for TWUA with the other papers. Carl Neal, the plant manager, at the time explained "they had a union in, told me who they were, and he said, `You don't have to join if you don't want to, but . . . the Union and the Company gets along real well together.' And he said, `If I was you, I would but,' he says, `you don't have to if you don't want to.' " During negotiations for an amendment to the TWUA agreement, Susanne Hauerwas, on inquiry, was told that she didn't have to belong to TWUA, but that "if I did not belong to the Union that I would not have the protection that it afforded, you know, the protection that the Union could give me I wouldn't have it." According to summaries of its records submitted by Respondent at the request of General Counsel, a number of employees in the unit never signed TWUA authoriza- tions or had dues deducted from their pay on behalf of that union.ii Both before and after the move to Carrollton, Virginia Johnson went around among the employees seeking signatures to TWUA check-off authorizations. To those girls who had already signed such authorizations, Johnson stated that it was necessary because the original authorizations had been misplaced. A number of the employees refused to sign cards for Johnson. is In crediting these witnesses, I have carefully considered their testimony on cross-examination which Respondent argues as a basis for discrediting them E. Respondent 's Opposition to ILGWU About the first of November, ILGWU representatives appeared on Respondent's parking lot for the purpose of passing out leaflets about quitting time for the afternoon shift. Johnson instructed the employees not to leave the plant. Buchanan and Sam Goldman told the girls that they should not talk to the ILGWU men, that they were "on the property illegally." Johnson advised the employees that they could tear up the ILGWU papers and break their pencils. While the employees were waiting in the plant, TWUA Representative Boartfield arrived. Johnson told him that Goldman was upset over the appearance of the ILGWU and wanted Boartfield to call him immediately. Johnson gave Boartfield a telephone number to call Goldman. Thereafter, Boartfield told the waiting employ- ees that the ILGWU was leafleting the plant , that they should not accept anything, just roll up their windows and drive past. Some employees said they were curious and wanted to see what the ILGWU had to say. One stated that she was not going to take anything if it was going to interfere with her job, or cause her to be fired . Boartfield assured them that they could take the leaflets without fear of being discharged. A number of the employees did accept leaflets as they left the plant. On one or more occasion, Johnson questioned Anna Renee Elder at her work as to whether "another union" had been out to see her. Johnson said that Elder was "not to talk to them, to shut the door in their face, that I aught have a possibility of losing my job if I had anything to do with them." This occurred about the first of December. About the same time, Supervisor Yelverton told Linda Ann Alverson that "if he caught anybody talking in favor of the Garment Workers Union that he would personally see that they got fired." At various places in its brief, Respondent argues, in effect, that Alverson should be discredited or her testimony be given no weight because she was assertedly "hostile," was not discriminated against, gave allegedly contradictory testimony, and no "substantiating proof" was assertedly presented. Respondent states that it was unable to produce Yelverton as a witness because his whereabouts were unknown. From my observation of Alverson, and careful study of her testimony, I do not find that her testimony thus carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction, as indicated by Respondent. Though Respondent here de- nominates her "hostile," it is noted that elsewhere Respondent argues that her testimony concerning her employment interview with Plant Manager Neal, noted above, is favorable to Respondent. Also, while Alverson, in another connection, testified that she was not told that she would have to join TWUA in order to be hired, or that she would be fired "if she quit the Union," I do not find that so inconsistent with her testimony with respect to Yelverton that the latter must be discarded. On the other hand, I find her testimony consistent with Johnson's statement to Elder set forth above, as well as Respondent's general animus to I I Some of the authorizations executed by employees were lost In some cases, dues were deducted though Respondent could not locate the employee's authorization SCOTTEX CORPORATION 451 the appearance of the ILGWU at the plant . Alverson's testimony as set forth is therefore credited II. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The Contracts Between Respondent and TWUA Inherent to the right of employees under the Act to freely choose their own bargaining representative , and not have such representative foisted upon them, is the requirement that at the time the choice is made the operation in which they are employed shall be in substantially normal or expected production and the group of employees forming the electorate shall be fairly representative of the anticipat- ed employee complement . Thus a bargaining agreement executed before a substantially normal complement of employees is at work , or at a time when the employer's operations are incipient , merely preliminary , or insubstan- tial, tends to foist that union and that agreement upon the working force to be hired , and deprives the employees of the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Act See the excellent analysis by Trial Examiner Theeman in Ltanco Container Corp., 173 NLRB 1444, at 1447-8 B. The February 8 Agreement Without question, at the time the original TWUA agreement was executed, on February 8, covering the Cedar Hill plant, neither Respondent's work force nor its operations were representative of Respondent's anticipated Texas operations. At that time, a little over a month after the operation began, Cedar Hill employed three persons in only two classifications-knitter and knitter trainee. It is further evident that at no time was the operation at Cedar Hill more than a preliminary step on the way to Respondent's goal At no time did that operation consist of more than a very few employees in two or three classifications and a very few knitting machines. In fact, the record strongly indicates that Cedar Hill was used principally, if not entirely, as a training operation. It is noted that of the four basic job classifications provided for in the original TWUA agreement, two (creeler and yarn handler) were never filled at Cedar Hill It is manifest that from the outset Respondent's intent was to establish an operation in Texas to produce finished, dyed textile fabrics on a scale beyond the capacity of the Cedar Hill plant Thus the acquisition of the Carrollton plant, a few months after beginning at Cedar Hill, was clearly the result of Respondent's almost immediate quest for larger, more permanent quarters in which to achieve its production purposes. The letter agreement between Re- spondent and TWUA, dated August 10, confirms this.The move from Cedar Hill took place in October, at which time about six production employees were transferred to Carrollton. By December, dyeing and finishing operations, never performed at Cedar Hill, were in force at Carrollton. At the time of the hearing in this matter, as previously noted, Respondent was employing more than 50 employees 12 Respondent did not call as witnesses management officials in a position to know Respondent's anticipated employee complement and production goals at the Texas operations (a clearly critical issue in the case), leading to the conclusion that their testimony would be detrimental to in nine unit classifications . There are about 45 knitting machines available or in operation . Every indication is that the operations will further expand. Though the conditions under which the original TWUA bargaining agreement was executed fall far short of those required under the Act for a valid agreement , nevertheless the General Counsel agrees that the Board is precluded by Section 10(b) of the Act from finding that agreement violative of the Act because the charge in this matter was filed more than 6 months after the execution of the agreement. He does contend, however, that by its action in extending the original agreement to the Carrollton opera- tion, at a time when Carrollton was not in operation and a representative complement of workers was not employed, Respondent, within 6 months of the filing of the charge, interfered with the rights of its employees to freely choose their bargaining representative and allegedly assisted TWUA in violation of the Act. C. The August 10 Agreement The record in this case is convincing that it was the Respondent's desire to deal with TWUA for its Texas operations, and that in pursuance of that object it sought to have its employees to join that Union and further sought to discourage them from joining or assisting ILGWU. The August 10 letter agreement extending the Cedar Hill bargaining agreement to the Carrollton operations was of a piece with this course of conduct. Respondent and the TWUA clearly regarded the August 10 agreement as essential to the effectuation of a TWUA bargaining contract covering the Carrollton operations and the employees to be employed there. Contrary to the self- serving assertion by TWUA in the letter agreement, the original agreement by its terms was limited to Cedar Hill and was not necessarily transferrable to Carrollton located some 32 miles away. The fact that the Respondent and TWUA felt that there was need for a new agreement indicates their concern over this. It is further clear that at the time Respondent entered into this new agreement , neither Respondent's operations nor its work force, either at Cedar Hill or at Carrollton, was representative of its anticipated normal operations. On the date of the letter agreement, indeed, no production operations were being performed at the Carrollton plant. If any of Respondent's employees were engaged there at the time, they were employed only in preparing that facility for Respondent's future occupancy, which did not occur until 2 months thereafter. As previously noted, at the time of the letter agreement Respondent employed only five persons (including Johnson) in two work classifications (knitter and general help), who were not producing the finished fabrics contemplated to be made at Carrollton. Although we do not know what the normal operation at Carrollton may ultimately be 12, at the time of the hearing Respondent employed more than 50 employees in about 9 unit classifications, including dyeing and finishing operations Respondent's position The tenor of the record as a whole indicates a steady expansion beyond the situation at the time of the hearing in this matter To the extent that Buchanan 's evasive comments on the issue tend to the contrary, they are not credited 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not in existence at either Cedar Hill or Carrollton when the August 10 agreement was executed. Respondent and TWUA, citing a number of authorities, argue, in effect, that the move to Carrollton was merely the relocation of the Cedar Hill plant and that the execution of the August 10 agreement was only a formality acknowledg- ing the extension of the Cedar Hill agreement to the relocated facility. The General Counsel and ILGWU, on the other hand, cite countervailing precedents justifying a contrary position. Among the welter of legalisms pressed in this case, however, certain indisputable realities stand out rather clearly. Cedar Hill, at the time the August 10 agreement was signed, remained in the same incohate, preliminary, nonrepresentative state that had existed when the February 8 contract was executed. Manifestly the continued application and enforcement of that agreement, even at Cedar Hill, and certainly its reaffirmation at that time by the August 10 letter agreement, could only serve to frustrate the employees' right of free choice of representa- tives guaranteed by the Act, and to further impose upon them the Respondent's choice of such representative, in contravention of the policies and purposes of the Act. Moreover, Carrollton was not Cedar Hill transplanted. Cedar Hill was intended, and was used, as a preliminary operation, in preparation for the real thing. Carrollton was to be the real thing, the complete operation, as anticipated from the outset, removed from the operation at Cedar Hill in almost every aspect: purpose, production function, distance, size, equipment, number of employees, as well as employee skills and work functions. 13 Nor was the application of the Cedar Hill agreement to Carrollton a mere formality. The original agreement, as noted, was limited to Cedar Hill. Its application to Carrollton involved an affirmative act of the parties to the original agreement, as they acknowledged in the August 10 letter agreement.14 By entering into the August 10 letter agreement, the Respondent effectively reaffirmed its recognition of TWUA as the bargaining representative of the employees expected to be employed at Carrollton, and thereby, in effect, executed a new bargaining agreement with that Union to cover its new operations at Carrollton. Since that was done at a time when there were no operations at that plant, and neither a representative nor substantial part of the anticipated normal employee complement was em- ployed, the employees were foreclosed from any free choice of their own bargaining representative, in violation of their rights under the Act. Inasmuch as this action of Respondent occurred within the 6-month period prior to the filing of the charge in this matter, the Board is therefore not precluded by Section 10(b) of the Act from determining whether this conduct constitutes an unfair labor practice, quite apart from the 13 It is instructive to note that Cedar Hill remained stagnant for more than 8 months after its inception , with approximately the same employee complement and equipment, and almost no skilled classification of workers In 4 months at Carrollton , the work complement and equipment increased about ninefold, if not more, and the job classifications have tripled 14 Respondent suggests in its brief that it would have been subject to unfair labor practice charges if it had refused to agree to the extension of the Cedar Hill agreement to Carrollton However, if Respondent had actually desired to have a Board determination of TWUA's representative status at the time, it might have secured a decision from the Board by filing a petition original execution of the TWUA agreement. See, e.g., Distribution Centers of Detroit, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 1 (illegal domination of and assistance to union shown, inter aka, by reexecution of agreement during 6-month period after charge filed); Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 216 (Associated Pipe and Fitting Manufacturers), 172 NLRB 35 (". . . acts of continued enforcement of the contract within the six month period . . . constituted a new `entering into' the agreement...." See fn. 4 of Board decision); Kennedy v. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 108, 289 F. Supp. 65 (D.C. Calif.); Cf. Shumate v. N.L.R.B., 452 F.2d 717 (C.A. 4) (reaffirmation of illegal fines by acts within 6-month period not barred by Sec. 10(b)).i5 For the reasons stated, and upon the record as a whole, it is found that Respondent, by entering into the August 10 bargaining agreement with TWUA covering its anticipated operations at Carrollton, and by thereafter executing amendments to that agreement relating to working conditions at Carrollton, gave aid and assistance to TWUA in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act D. Respondent's Conditions of Employment and Related Assistance to TWUA The record shows that applicants for employment with Respondent in its Texas operations were handed check-off authorizations in favor of TWUA, or agreements to join TWUA at the end of their probationary periods, to be executed at the same time as their applications for employment and other normal employment papers. This procedure which continued until at least about the middle of November, could logically lead the applicant to conclude that it was necessary to execute the agreement to join TWUA and have dues and fees checked off in favor of that Union in order to be employed. In addition, the evidence shows that when questions were raised concern- ing this TWUA form, management officials and supervi- sors encouraged the applicants to sign the TWUA form. In some instances applicants were directed to sign the form. Respondent's bargaining agreements with TWUA, as heretofore noted, did not require membership in that Union as a condition of employment. Also, at least until November, Respondent regularly deducted dues and fees for TWUA from the pay of employees from whom it had check-off authorizations (and seemingly from some from whom it had none) within less than 30 days after their employment. At about the first of November, Respondent reimbursed those employees for the moneys deducted for TWUA during the first 45 days of their employment, but retained those deducted beyond the under Sec 9 of the Act is While, in Local Lodge No 1424, I A M. (Bryan Mfg Co.) v N LR.B, 362 U S 411, the Supreme Court held that a bargaining agreement valid on its face, executed more than 6 months before the filing of charges attacking it, could not be invalidated merely because it was thereafter maintained within the 6-month period, the Court made it clear that its decision was limited to the situation there presented, stating " . we need not go beyond saying that a finding of a violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period is directly at odds with the purposes of the 10(b) proviso." 362 U S at 422 (Emphasis supplied.) SCOTTEX CORPORATION 453 probationary period and continued such deductions thereafter. By its hiring practices noted above, by encouraging and directing applicants to sign forms agreeing to join and pay fees and dues to TWUA, and by deducting dues for TWUA within 30 days of the hire of employees, Respon- dent aided and assisted TWUA in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights under the Act, and discriminated against those employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. See Western Building Maintenance Co., 162 NLRB 778; see also, Shreveport Packing Corp., et al., 196 NLRB No. 78.16 In addition to the above, the following give further evidence of support and assistance to TWUA at the Carrollton plant: 1. Johnson, a supervisory employee, and president of a local of TWUA, solicited check-off authorizations for TWUA from employees on a number of occasions while at work. In addition, despite Johnson's anoma- lous position, Respondent continued to deal with her as a representative of the employees, thus putting Respon- dent on both sides of the bargaining relationship. 2. After ILGWU became active at Carrollton in November, Johnson questioned an employee as to whether ILGWU had been to see her, and suggested that she shut the door in the face of representatives of that other Union and not talk to them, stating that the employee might lose her job if she had anything to do with them. About the same time, Supervisor Max Yelverton told another employee that he would see to it that anyone talking in favor of the ILGWU would be fired. 3. When ILGWU appeared on the parking lot of the Carrollton plant with leaflets, about the first of November, Johnson, General Manager Buchanan, and Management Official Goldman told the employees not to take the leaflets or talk to the ILGWU representa- tives. Johnson suggested that the employees "break their pencils," a fairly graphic way of advising employees not to sign ILGWU designations. Respondent, by reason of Johnson's solicitation of authorizations for the TWUA while she was a supervisor and threat that employees might lose their jobs if they had anything to do with the ILGWU, and by Yelverton's threat that employees speaking in favor of ILGWU would be discharged, interfered with the rights of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and aided and assisted the TWUA in violation of Section 8(a)(2). See, e.g., Shreveport Packing Corp., et al, supra. Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(2) by dealing with Johnson, a supervisory employee, as a representative of TWUA and the employees in respect to the bargaining relationship between that 16 In coming to these conclusions, the Trial Examiner has considered the fact that Respondent does not have in its possession authorizations from a number of employees whom it hired for whom deductions for TWUA were not made , that some employees refused Johnson 's request to sign authorizations after originals were assertedly lost (which may account for the absence of such forms from Respondent 's files), that there is no evidence that any employee was discharged for not joining TWUA, and that some employees beginning in November were told that they did not have to join or remain in TWUA (though encouraged to do so), as well as other similar matters urged in Respondent 's brief These matters, neverthe- Union and the Respondent, thus resulting in Respondent being represented on both sides of the relationship, and depriving the employees of their full right to representa- tion. See, e.g., E.E.E. Co., Inc., 171 NLRB 982. While the remaining evidence set forth in the items above have been considered insofar as it sheds light upon Respondent's animus toward ILGWU at its Texas opera- tions, and its preference for TWUA, I do not consider that they were fairly alleged as separate violations of the Act, and inasmuch as they would, for the most part, not require any different remedy than the violations previously found, I find it unnecessary to pass upon these matters as independent violations of the Act. E. Related Litigation During the pendency of this matter Respondent has called my attention to the decision and opinion of Judge Hill in Youngblood v. Scottex Corporation, 80 LRRM 2619 (D.C. Tex., 4/19/72), denying the General Counsel's request for a 10(j) injunction in the situation involved in the present case (though finding " `reasonable cause' to believe unfair labor practices have occurred") and to the decision and opinion of Judge Tyler in Textile Workers Union of America, et al. v. Scottex, (D.C.N.Y., 6/20/72). This latter case involved requests by TWUA and ILGWU to have the Court enforce each of two separate, incompati- ble arbitration awards. The first arbitration award was granted upon a grievance of ILGWU that Respondent's establishment and maintenance of the Carrollton plant violated article 24 of the bargaining agreement between ILGWU and Respondent covering Respondent's New York operations. This provision of the agreement reads as follows: The Employer shall cause all the work for which his shop, factory or mill shall have facilities and suitable machinery and equipment to be performed in his own shop, and he shall not cause any such work to be made or obtain such fabrics outside of his own shop unless the workers of his own shop are fully supplied with work, and then only in shops or from firms which are under contractual relationship with the Union and which comply with the terms thereof. As stated by Judge Tyler, "After hearings, the impartial chairman [Mintzer] entered an award in which he agreed substantially with the Local 155 [ILGWU]; required that within 60 days . . . [Respondent] would cease all knitting operations at its Carrollton plant; and that upon failure to comply with this direction, [Respondent] would be liable to Local 155 in damages at the rate of $2,000 per week. . . ... 17 The second arbitration award was issued upon a grievance of TWUA under the bargaining agreements less, do not obviate the conclusion reached, that Respondent's conduct, in the context of this case, clearly tended to obstruct the free exercise of rights under the Act, discriminated against the employees, and illegally aided and assisted TWUA it it would appear that at the time of this award Respondent's employees were "fully supplied with work" within the meaning of art. 24, inasmuch as Judge Tyler found that both in 1959 , when Respondent gave notice "that it planned to commence operations in Texas" and "today both of [Respon- dent's ] Brooklyn plants are in full operation with no layoff, and the same is true at the Carrollton plant indeed, [Respondent] claims without refutation (Continued) 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD considered hereinabove, after Respondent notified TWUA that it would close its Texas plant. In respect of this, Judge Tyler states, "After hearings, arbitrator Wildebush found as a fact that [Respondent] . . was contrained by the Mintzer award to close down its Carrollton operation. Thereupon, Mr. Wildebush rendered an award enjoining Scottex from closing its Texas plant. Further, he provided that if [Respondent] disregards his award, Textile Workers may come before him again for the purposes of proof and assessment of damages." During the course of the proceedings, Respondent filed charges with a regional office of the Board charging that article 24 (set forth above) was a "hot cargo clause" illegal on its face under the provisions of Section 8(e) of the Act. It appears that the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on the charges because the agreement involved had been signed more than 6 months prior to the charges. There is no indication Respondent appealed this ruling. After the Mintzer award, Respondent filed amended charges with the Regional Director. In this instance, the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on the ground that he was bound by the Mintzer award.18 Respondent has appealed this ruling. It appears that this appeal is still pending. Judge Tyler ordered "the parties here to submit their differences in tripartite proceedings before an impartial arbitrator .. ," and gave the following direction to the impartial arbitrator: In addition to questions or issues heretofore indicat- ed, I note specifically that the tripartite impartial arbitrator will be required to explore another substan- tial legal issue as to whether or not the Mintzer construction of Article 24 of the Local 155 collective- bargaining agreement is correct. Put differently, Scot- tex has raised a serious question as to whether or not the Mintzer construction of Article 24 constitutes a violation of Section 7 and 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. 29 U.S.C. §151 et seq. In the absence of circumstances such as fraud, this court would ordinarily lack authority to inquire into the correctness of Mintzer's award. See United Steel Workers v. Enterprise Wheel, 362 U.S. 593 (1960). Because the awards are in direct conflict, however, the impartial arbitrator will have to inquire into the correctness of Mintzer's award in an attempt to resolve the controversy. The parties have not argued the applicability of these decisions to the current matter. I have carefully considered both. I find Judge Hill's decision on General Counsel's request for a 100 injunction inapplicable to the present proceeding, in which the facts have been considered on their merits. In the absence of any express indication by Respondent, its contention as to the application of Judge Tyler's decision to the issues before me is unclear, unless there is an implicit suggestion intended by Respondent that here that it has added a total of about 150 employees as a result of the start up of its Texas operation " 18 But Cf International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, (Bigge Drayage Company), 197 NLRB No 34, and especially Chairman Miller's concur- rence 19 In addition to the fact that under Board precedents art 24 reads much decision in this matter should be deferred to the arbitration ordered by Judge Tyler. Assuming that the purpose in bringing Judge Tyler's decision to my attention is to suggest deference to the arbitration process, I find it to be without merit. None of the proceedings had to date suggests that the arbitrators have been concerned with rights of the employees under the Act, nor (with the exception of Judge Tyler's direction that the validity of the New York agreement be consid- ered) does it appear likely that special attention to employee rights under the Act will be granted in the future. Indeed, the crucial issue in this case-the validity of the TWUA agreement and, in fact , the right of TWUA to bargain for the Texas employees in the first place-have apparently not been considered by the previous arbitrators at all, and are unlikely to be considered in the future. This is not in criticism of the arbitrators , or the arbitral process, which is geared to rights and obligations grounded in the contractual process, not to the resolution of wide-ranging legal problems involved in effectuating governmental policies derived from the Act in which the Board has particular responsibility and expertise.19 For the reasons stated, I believe the Court decisions to which I have been referred inapposite to the resolution of the issues before me. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. TWUA and ILGWU are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent, after May 5, 1971, by recognizing and dealing with TWUA as the collective-bargaining represent- ative of the employees employed at its Texas operations and entering into, maintaining, and enforcing collective- bargaining agreements with TWUA with respect to the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of such employees, by maintaining employment practices and engaging in other conduct encouraging, directing, or coercing employees at its Texas operations to join and pay fees and dues to TWUA, by threatening employees with reprisal for joining or assisting ILGWU, by recognizing, negotiating, and dealing with a supervisor at its Texas operations as a bargaining representative of its employees on behalf of TWUA, as set forth hereinabove, gave aid, assistance, and support to TWUA in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and by its employment practices and other conduct causing employees to join and assist TWUA, referred to above, also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. like clauses that have been previously condemned by the Board, it would also appear that insofar as that article forbids the Respondent to open other plants unless they are placed under contract to ILGWU, this may well constitute a prehire agreement illegal under other precedents previously discussed SCOTTEX CORPORATION 455 THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respon- dent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In order that the employees at the Texas operations may be restored as nearly as possible to the rights which they would have enjoyed absent Respondent's actions in violation of the Act, it is appropriate that Respondent be ordered to withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWUA as the collective-bargaining representative of any of its employees at its Carrollton plant, or other Texas operations, and cease giving any force or effect to any collective-bargaining contract with TWUA covering such employees, or to any modifications, extensions, supple- ments , or renewals of such contract or contracts, unless and until TWUA shall have been certified as the bargaining representative pursuant to a Board -conducted election among such employees of Respondent in a unit or units appropriate for collective bargaining.20 Nothing in the Recommended Order set forth hereinaft- er, however, shall be construed to require the Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority , or other substantive feature of the relationship between Respondent and its Texas employees , inuring to the benefit of such employees , which may have been established pursuant to any such contract, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees of any rights they may have under such contract, or any established practice in regard to wages, hours of employment, or conditions of employment. General Counsel and ILGWU urge that Respondent be ordered to reimburse employees from whose pay dues and fees were checked off in favor of TWIJA. The record in this matter justified a presumption that those employees authorizing such checkoffs did so by reason of Respon- dent's direction, encouragement, solicitation, the inclusion of the checkoff papers with other employment papers, and/or because of the fact of the invalid agreement with TWUA providing for such checkoff, and did not do so freely and voluntarily . It is appropriate that Respondent be ordered to reimburse employees for dues and fees deducted from their pay for TWUA pursuant to such authorizations not freely and voluntarily given.21 Reim- bursement shall include interest on the monies due, to be computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers International Union of North America, 138 NLRB 1142, fn 3 ILGWU also requests a number of other specialized remedial provisions to assist in dissipating the effect of Respondent's special treatment of TWUA, and to give ILGWU "a fair opportunity to effectively communicate with the employees," including ILGWU use of Respon- dent's bulletin boards , access by ILGWU nonemployee 20 ILGWU urges that the Trial Examiner order that any such Board- conducted election not be conducted until after a 6-month " insulation period " It seems to me that the Board's Regional Director would be in the best position, in the first instance, to determine when an election may be held free from the effects of the unfair labor practices found herein, and I am satisfied to leave this matter to his informed discretion, subject to the Board's rules and practices in these matters 21 If a compliance hearing becomes necessary, Respondent will have an opportunity to show by probative and objective evidence, if it desires, which organizers to factory parking lots and plant approaches for solicitation and literature distribution , provision for read- ing of the notice attached hereto by Respondent or a Board agent to the employees dunng working hours, provision for Respondent's mailing the notice to each employee, opportunity for ILGWU to speak to employees on Respondent's property during working hours, and Respondent's furnishing lists of employees and their addresses to ILGWU, to be kept current for 1 year. It does appear to the Trial Examiner upon consideration of this entire matter that nonemployee ILGWU organizers should be permitted reasonable access to employee parking lots and other areas maintained by Respondent outside its Texas plants where employees may normally be met and may receive communications . Also, considering the fairly constant turnover of employees shown by the record, in light of the assistance rendered TWUA, the request that ILGWU be furnished the names and addresses of the employees on a current basis appears justified . These two special provisions should suffice to afford the employees with an opportunity to hear what ILGWU has to say so that the employees may make an informed decision with respect to representation . Such lists shall be kept current for a period of 6 months from the time the first list is furnished to ILGWU, or until the date a Board election may be conducted among the employees concerned if that occurs earlier. The remaining requests of ILGWU for special remedial provisions are rejected. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and the entire record, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER22 Respondent, Scottex Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing or contracting with Textile Workers' Union of America, or any of its locals, as the representative of any of its employees at Carrollton, Texas, or at other Texas operations, for the purpose of dealing with said organization concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified as such representative pursuant to a Board-conducted election among Respondent's employees at such location or locations. (b) Giving effect to, performing, or in any way enforcing in whole or in part, any collective-bargaining contract with Textile Workers' Union of America, or any of its locals, relating to grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of employment, rates of pay, or other conditions of employ- ment, covering employees at the Carrollton plant, or at other Texas operations, unless and until said labor individuals may have been members of TWUA before employment with Respondent, or otherwise demonstrated a free and voluntary choice in joining TWUA and authorizing deductions in its behalf 22 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, 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 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization shall have been certified as representative of the employees covered by such contract pursuant to a Board-conducted election among such employees, in accordance with the provisions of the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy." (c) Recognizing, negotiating, or dealing with any of its supervisors as a representative of Textile Workers' Union of America, or any other labor organization, or as bargaining representative of its employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. (d) Contributing support or assistance to Textile Work- ers' Union of America, or any other labor organization, or discriminating with respect to the hire, tenure, or condi- tions of employment of any employee, by engaging in the practice of furnishing prospective employees, job appli- cants, or newly hired employees prior to the expiration of 30 days after their hire, with membership application, or check-off forms, in favor of any labor organization, or by coercively directing, encouraging, or requiring any such employees to join or assist or execute authorizations in favor of any labor organization. (e) Checking off membership fees or dues in favor of Textile Workers' Union of America, or any of its locals, for employees at Carrollton, Texas, or any other Texas corporation, pursuant to any authorizations executed prior to the date of compliance with this Recommended Order. (f) Making express or implied threats of reprisal if its employees join, support, or select International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, or any other labor organization, as their bargaining representative. (g) In any like or related manner assisting, supporting, or interfering with the administration of Textile Workers' Union of America, or its locals, or otherwise interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join, form, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in 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 it is found will effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Textile Workers' Union of America, and any of its locals, as the collective-bargaining representative of any of its employees at Respondent's Texas operations unless and until such organization shall have been certified as such representa- tive pursuant to a Board-conducted election. (b) Reimburse all present and former employees for all fees and dues deducted from their pay pursuant to authorizations in favor of Textile Workers' Union of America executed prior to the date of compliance with this Recommended Order, in accordance with the provisions of this Decision as set forth in the "Remedy" section hereinabove. (c) Permit nonemployee organizers of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union reasonable access to employee parking lots and other areas maintained outside Respondent's plant or plants in Texas where employees may be normally met and receive communications, for the purpose of providing that organization an opportunity to have oral and written communication with Respondent's employees. (d) Furnish International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union with lists of names and addresses of its employees at its Texas operation engaged in production, maintenance, and related activities, in accordance with the provisions of the "Remedy" section of this Decision. (e) Post at its plant in Carrollton, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."23 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Employer, shall be posted 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 date of the receipt of this Decision what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.24 23 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 " 24 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the 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 recognize or deal with Textile Workers' Union of America, or any of its locals, as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees at our Carrollton, Texas, plant, or at any other of our Texas operations, unless and until that union has been certified as representative of our employees after an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT give any further effect to any collective-bargaining agreements we have with Textile Workers' Union of America covering employees at our Carrollton plant, or any other Texas operations, and WE WILL NOT enter into any more contracts with that union covering our Texas operations, unless and until that union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the bargaining representative of our Texas employees. WE WILL NOT engage in a practice of encouraging or requiring membership in Textile Workers' Union of SCOTTEX CORPORATION 457 America, or any other union, by givingjob applicants, prospective employees, or new employees checkoff authorizations, or agreements to join Textile Workers' Union of America, or any other union, as part of our employment procedures, and WE WILL NOT coercively direct, encourage, or require any employee to sign any such authorization in favor of any union. WE WILL NOT check off any dues or fees from employees' pay for Textile Workers' Union of America at our Texas operations except on lawful authorizations signed after that Union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the bargaining representative of those employees. WE WILL NOT recognize or deal with any of our supervisory employees as the collective-bargaining representative of any of our production and mainte- nance employees, or as the agent or representative of any union which may represent any of our employees WE WILL NOT threaten any of our employees with harm or reprisal if they loin, assist, or select Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our Texas employees in their right to join or assit any labor organization, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, or engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all such activties. WE WILL reimburse our Texas employees for any fees or dues deducted from their pay for Textile Workers' Union of America pursuant to authorizations not freely and voluntarily given by the employees in favor of that union, in accordance with the applicable Order of the National Labor Relations Board or its Trial Examiner issued after a hearing on charges and a complaint against the Company under the National Labor Relations Act. Dated By SCOTTEX CORPORATION (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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 8-A-24, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 817-334-2921.