Fashiontime Ltd.

FASHIONTIME LTD. 403 Fashiontime Ltd. and Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union. Case 21-CA-18155 June 5, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER On November 18, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Roger B. Holmes issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, ARL, Inc.,' filed exceptions, and the General Counsel filed an anwering brief to the exceptions. 2 The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Fashiontime Ltd., Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. ARL, Inc.. asserts that it is a third party to the dispute between Fa- shiontime Ltd. and Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union inasmuch as it purchased the assets of Fashiontime Ltd.. Respondent herein. on January 28, 1980, and is currently operating the business formerly known as Fa- shiontime Ltd. 2 In the answering brief, the General Counsel in effect moved to strike ARL, Inc.'s exceptions for failure to comply with the provisions of Secs 102.46, 102.112, and 102.113 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Alternatively, the General Coun- sel requests that the Board accept the answering brief submitted to the Board by the General Counsel on January 13, 1981. Although ARL. Inc.'s exceptions do not conform in all particulars with the abo'e-cited sections of the Board's Rules and Regulations. we deem them acceptable considering that ARL Inc.. was not a party to the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent. Accordingly, the General Counsel's motion to strike is denied General Counsel's brief in response to the exceptions is accepted. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROGER B. HOLMES, Administrative Law Judge: The unfair labor practice charge in this case was filed on Sep- tember 5, 1979, by Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union, herein referred to as the Union. (See G.C. Exh. (a).) The Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, who was acting on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, issued on October 26, 1979, a complaint and notice of hearing against Fashiontime Ltd., herein re- ferred to as the Respondent or the employer. (See G.C. Exh. I(c).) The General Counsel's complaint alleges that the Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor 256 NLRB No. 67 Relations Act, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer to the General Counsel's complaint, and the Respondent denied that it had committed the alleged unfair labor practices. (See G.C. Exh. I(e).) The hearing was held before me on August 26, 1980, at Los Angeles, California. The time for filing post-hear- ing briefs was set for September 30, 1980. Both the coun- sel for the General Counsel and the attorney for the Re- spondent prepared and filed briefs which have been con- sidered. FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE EMPLOYER At all times material herein, the Respondent has been engaged in the business of providing sewing services for manufacturers in the garment industry. The Respondent's facility has been located at 106 East Adams Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. In the course and conduct of its business operations, the Respondent annually provides services valued in excess of $50,000 to manufacturers located within the State of California, which manufacturers, in turn, annual- ly sell and ship goods valued in excess of $50,000 direct- ly to customers located outside the State of California. In view of the foregoing admitted facts, and the entire record herein, I find that the Respondent has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE UNION It was stipulated at the hearing that the Union has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In view of the foregoing, and the entire record in this case, I find that fact to be so. Ill. THE WITNESSES In alphabetical order by their last names, the following seven persons appeared as witnesses at the hearing of this proceeding: Angela Castillo is the alleged discriminatee in this case. Gloria Cruz is a supervisor of the Respondent. Cruz was first employed by the Respondent in 1966. Raul Fernandez worked for the Respondent as a sewing machine operator from April 1979 until June 10, 1980, when he was laid off for lack of work. Joseph Goldfarb was a supervisor for the Respondent from February 1978 until the first part of December 1979. At the time of the hearing, Goldfarb was self-em- ployed in a retail business. Barbara Hertz has been an organizer for the Charging Party for the past 2 years. Louis Lesser became affiliated with the Respondent in September 1978. Lesser was a managing partner of the Respondent until January 1980. At the time of the hear- ing, he described his status as follows: "I am a partner of a partner of the partnership that owns the stock of the corporation." Fashiontime Ltd. and Anti-Racist Garment Workers' FASHIONTIME LTD 403 404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ramiro Vallejo was employed by the Respondent as a supervisor from 1975 until about 5 months prior to the time of the hearing in this proceeding. Credibility Resolutions There are significant conflicts between the testimony given by the witnesses called by the General Counsel and the testimony given by the witnesses called by the Respondent. In particular, the testimony of Castillo differs substan- tially from the testimony offered at the hearing by Val- lejo, Goldfarb, and Lesser. In addition, the testimony of Fernandez conflicts with a portion of the testimony given by Cruz. In such circumstances, it is necessary to make a decision as to which one of the conflicting ver- sions of the events is credible. In doing so, I have given consideration in this case to the demeanor of the wit- nesses while they were on the stand, their ability to recall past events, the various positions occupied by the witnesses at the times relevant to the issues in this case and their possible interest in the outcome of the litiga- tion, the inherent probabilities in the accounts which they gave, and the weight of the evidence. After considering the foregoing, I have found the testi- mony of both Castillo and Fernandez to be credible. I am persuaded that they related the facts truthfully and accurately. Therefore, I will rely on their versions in making the findings of fact herein. Having accepted the testimony given by Castillo, it follows that I cannot accept as accurate and reliable the testimony of witnesses who gave versions which are in- consistent with her account and contradictory to her version. As pointed out above, the testimony given by Vallejo, Goldfarb, and Lesser fall into that category. Ac- cordingly, I have not credited nor relied on their ver- sions in making the findings of fact. Particularly uncon- vincing was the assertion by the Respondent's witnesses that numerous and repeated verbal warnings were given to Castillo for several months prior to her termination, because of numerous and repeated complaints regarding Castillo's inspection work by the Respondent's only major customer, which provided 80 to 85 percent of the Respondent's gross income during that period of time. Yet, in the Respondent's version, the Respondent not only tolerated for months Castillo's alleged continuous poor performance, which the Respondent was told could cause the loss of its only major customer, but also the Respondent gave Castillo a 25-cent-an-hour wage in- crease just 2 weeks before her termination. Castillo denied receiving such warnings, and I accept her version as accurate. Cruz acknowledged at the hearing that she was aware that the Union had earlier distributed a leaflet which re- quested, as a contract demand, that Cruz and two other supervisors be terminated by the Respondent. I have considered that fact, but I will base certain findings of fact on portions of her testimony which do not conflict with Fernandez' account. In particular, I will rely on Cruz' account of her reaction to the speech given by At- torney Lopez and her conversation with Lesser regard- ing it. In view of the parties' stipulation regarding the status of the Charging Party as a labor organization, the brief testimony given by Hertz no longer raises issues in this case. The Employment of Castillo Castillo worked for the Respondent from July 1975 until July 20, 1979, when she was terminated. When she started working for the Respondent, Castillo performed repair work. Then for approximately 2-1/2 years prior to the end of her employment, she performed the duties of a final inspector. While she used the term "supervisor" at the the hearing to describe her title, it was made clear that she meant that she supervised the completion of her job as an inspector of finished work, as distinguished from a statutory supervisor of employees. During her entire period of employment by the Respondent, Castillo was never laid off from work prior to her termination. At the time of her termination, she was earning $3.75 an hour. Castillo was one of three inspectors employed by the Respondent. The other two inspectors were identified by her as being Betty and Rosa. According to Castillo, Rosa had been hired by the Respondent as an inspector about 6 months before Castillo was terminated. She said that Vallejo had stated that Rosa was not producing enough work, and Vallejo gave some of Rosa's work to Castillo to inspect. The garments produced by the Respondent included pants, jackets, and skirts. When the inspectors found gar- ments which needed repair work, those garments initially were not put in the same place. However they were bun- dled together according to the type of repair needed. For example, Castillo explained, "This one is for hem- ming, this one is for buttonhole, this one is for button." After the final inspection of the garments had been made by the three inspectors, the garments were placed to- gether on a rack. The garments were not segregated ac- cording to the inspector who had examined the gar- ments. There was no way to identify which one of the garments on the rack had been examined by a particular inspector. The Domino account was a major customer of the Re- spondent. Domino used the "Tomboy" label on its gar- ments. Joann Bogiala was a quality control inspector for Domino. She visited the Respondent's plant to examine the garments being made for the Domino account. Cas- tillo observed Bogiala look at garments as they came from the pressers prior to the time that the final inspec- tors were supposed to examine the garments. She also observed Bogiala show certain garments, which had been incorrectly made, to Vallejo, who told Bogiala that the garments would be repaired. However, Castillo said that the garments were subsequently shipped by the Re- spondent without the repairs being made. Sometimes when Bogiala came to the Respondent's plant, the inspectors had put aside the garments being made for the Domino account. Those garments had not yet been inspected "because we had another job, another job that was needed...." Castillo observed that Bo- giala would check those garments to determine what was FASHIONTIME LTD. 405 wrong with them before they were inspected. Then, when those garments were inspected, Castillo explained, "[W]e would notify them, but they didn't do anything, and the work would leave like that." Prior to her last raise in pay, Castillo was earning $3.50 an hour. She asked Vallejo to help her get a raise. She told him that she had been working for a long time. According to her, Vallejo replied, "Well, I am going to see to it that I am going to help you get the raise." Val- lejo further told her, "That he agreed that I should be given a raise, because my work came out all right." Castillo also spoke with Lesser regarding a raise. She stated, "Well, I asked him whether he liked my work, and he said, 'Yes.' I said, 'You like?' And he says, 'Yes, your work is very good."' During the time of her employment by the Respond- ent, Castillo received no warnings about her inspections, and no one connected with the Respondent ever indicat- ed to her that her inspections were not properly done. The Events About 15 Days Before the Termination of Castillo Union representatives carrying picket signs walked up and down in front of the Respondent's factory, and they handed out union bulletins to employees as they left the Respondent's doorway at 4 p.m. Castillo spoke with rep- resentatives of the Union about three or four times. About 15 days before the termination of Castillo, Cas- tillo took a union bulletin from one of the female union representatives who was outside the Company's door. The Union's bulletin contained a union authorization card. Castillo signed the union authorization at that time, and she returned it to the union representative. While Castillo was signing the union document, she observed Vallejo and Goldfarb come out of the Respondent's door. However, as soon as they appeared to see Castillo, they went back inside the doorway. The Events the Next Day The next day Castillo gave four or five union authori- zation cards to employees at work. However, she stated that, to her knowledge, no one from management at that time observed her handing out the union bulletins. During the morning breakfast time that same day, Cas- tillo was with three other employees. The other employ- ees present were Esperanza, Tere, and Guillermina. Esperanza was handing a paper from the Union to Cas- tillo. At that point, Vallejo said to show the paper to him. Esperanza replied that she would not give the paper to Vallejo because he "earned good money," and he did not want the others to earn more. Subsequently that morning, Castillo saw Vallejo show- ing one of the union bulletins to Lesser. The Conversation Between Vallejo and Castillo on the Following Day About 10 a.m. on the following day Vallejo spoke with Castillo at the Respondent's plant. She testified, "He told me not to be getting involved in f- things, be- cause that wouldn't help me or anybody else." On that occasion Vallejo also told her, "Well, that he was not in agreement with that; that the boss had found out that all of us were getting into the Union, and the person that was doing that, he had orders to take them out." In addition to the foregoing, Vallejo also told Castillo, "That the man had already been told that there was a lot of them, especially me; that I was handing out pamphlets or bulletins." The Meeting With Employees at which Lesser and Attorney Lopez Spoke A few weeks after the union organizational campaign had started, the Respondent held a meeting of its em- ployees at the 2 o'clock break inside the Respondent's fa- cility. Lesser and Attorney Gloria Yda Lopez spoke to the employees at the meeting. Lesser spoke in the Eng- lish language, and Attorney Lopez translated what he said from the English language to the Spanish language. Then, Attorney Lopez spoke to the employees in the Spanish language and distributed a document to them. (See G.C. Exh. 2(a), which is a copy of the document, and see G.C. Exh. 2(b), which is an English translation of the wording on the document which was written in Spanish.) According to Fernandez, the following took place at the meeting: Well, first, the boss, Louis Lesser, said that-he introduced the lady attorney and said he had brought this lady attorney over to help us to settle papers for residency in this country. After that, of course the boss would speak, and then the lady at- torney would translate. Then the boss continued talking and said the situation at work was very diffi- cult because the companies that gave him work were closing, and that the situation was very diffi- cult, and due to this, he could not give us a raise in wages. And after that, he said that because of that it was very dangerous to pay attention to the ones from the Union, because they made exaggerated promises that they were never going to keep up with, but that if the workers wanted the Union, that the last word was his, and if he did not want to accept the Union, there was no law that would force him to do it. But in spite of that, he said, "I want to help you, and that is why I have brought this lady attorney. The help that I am going to give you is that I am going to pay you the first hearing that you will have with this lady attorney, so that you can settle your papers for residency." I don't recall something else, but at the last, he said that the lady attorney also wanted to say some words to us; to pay attention. And the lady attorney spoke after that. Immediately following the remarks by Lesser, Attor- ney Lopez spoke to the employees in the Spanish lan- guage. According to Fernandez, the following took place: FASHIONTIME LTD. 405 406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Well, the lady attorney said that the boss, Lesser, had taken her there because he had a problem with the Anti-Racist Union; that she had enough experi- ence in this type of thing, because she worked for several companies, and she was also willing to help us. She said that the majority of the workers in that factory came from Latin-America, where we lived in a very bad situation, and that now we are better than we were over there, and that is why we had no reason to be complaining, and she repeated what the boss had said about that the Union only makes false promises; that the only thing the Union wants is to obtain money from workers to make them- selves rich, but at the end, they were not going to gain anything with the Union; first, because orga- nizing a union meant a lot of work, it takes a lot of time, and she said that the Union promised the em- ployees that if they signed the cards they would or- ganize a union, but that that was a lie, because there should still be an election period in which the boss can be in to fire the employees, using any excuse, like coming in late, getting up from the place of work before their time, or anything similar, and also added that, with difficulty, after organizing the Union, we would not be able to enjoy the privileges of the Union, because we would not remain long in the country; that we would have to leave the coun- try. Then she said that if we paid attention to the Union, we were going to go into a very big prob- lem, because the Union was leading us into unlaw- ful acts, and that could mean jail for us. At the last, she said that, on the other hand, the boss was an honest person who was willing to help us; that he was going to pay each one of us the hearing with her, and that at the time that the meet- ing would be over she was going to hand out some forms for us to fill out and start the process of get- ting our papers ready, and she said that if we paid more attention to the Union than to the boss, it was because we were very stupid. That is what she said. The Conversation Between Cruz and Fernandez After the Meeting After the above-described meeting was over, Fernan- dez returned to his work station in the factory. Cruz had a brief conversation with Fernandez. There were other employees present. Fernandez identified one such employee as Consuelo Ibarra, and he identified an- other employee as being Laura Herrera. According to Fernandez, the following took place in his conversation with Cruz: "She said that the boss is going to fire everyone that had signed the card and the ones that are gossiping to the Union." The Meeting the Next Day at Which Lesser Spoke Following the speech made by Attorney Lopez to the employees at the meeting described above, Cruz dis- cussed that speech with Lesser. While Cruz understands the Spanish language, she ac- knowledged at the hearing regarding the speech by At- torney Lopez, "I wasn't really paying attention too much to her." However, Cruz observed during that speech that the employees were becoming upset, and Cruz overheard remarks during the speech by employees to the effect that they felt that Attorney Lopez did not have the right to talk to them in the way she was doing, and they felt that it was none of her business as to where the employ- ees had come from. As a result of the foregoing, Cruz informed Lesser of her opinion that Attorney Lopez had spoken to the em- ployees "for her convenience, not for the Compa- ny...." She told Lesser that Attorney Lopez had not said anything in his favor, but instead she had talked about her job, rather than what Lesser had wanted her to say. In Cruz' opinion, Attorney Lopez "was caring more to make the people understand that she wanted to be willing to help them on other problems, except the Company problems." Lesser told Cruz that he was very sorry, and that he had no idea that the attorney had spoken that way to the employees. Lesser told her that he would apologize to the employees, and he asked Cruz to act as his interpret- er when he spoke. Cruz declined to do so because she "didn't want to be in the middle .. ." At the 2 o'clock break on the day after the first meet- ing, Lesser spoke briefly to the Respondent's employees once again. Lesser spoke in English, and a mechanic named Alberto interpreted for him. Fernandez testified regarding Lesser's remarks at that second meeting: That he wanted us to forget what had happened at the previous meeting, and repeated what he said about the Union; that it was false promises that the Union made, and that the situation was very bad, and that we should give thanks that we had the job, because other companies were closing. Just that. The Termination of Castillo On July 20, 1979, at 2:30 p.m. Vallejo came over to where Castillo was working. He called her into the bun- dling room. Vallejo told Castillo that he was sorry, but that she was being laid off for 2 weeks. Vallejo further stated that it was possible that she might be called back. Finally, Vallejo told Castillo, "You see the problems that you have got upon yourself because of the Union?" Castillo replied that they should tell her clearly whether she was going to be laid off or fired. Vallejo responded, "It is possible, but I have not been told anything yet." Castillo then went to talk with Lesser in his office. A truckdriver named Tito served as an interpreter. Castillo asked Lesser whether he was laying her off or firing her. Lesser replied that work was very slow, and that Cas- tillo earned too much money. Lesser said that Rosa, who made $3.25 an hour, would remain with the Company. FASHIONTIME LTD. 407 Conclusions In its decision in South Shore Hospital, 229 NLRB 363 (1977), the Board stated: In determining whether a respondent created an im- pression of surveillance, the test applied by the Board is whether employees would reasonably assume from the statement in question that their union activities had been placed under surveillance. Schrementi Bros., Inc., 179 NLRB 853 (1969).... Without repeating here the findings of fact previously set forth above, I conclude from the Board's test referred to above that both Vallejo and Cruz created the impres- sion of surveillance of employees' union activities by their statements set forth in those sections. South Shore Hospital, supra; Dillingham Marine and Manufacturing Co., Fabri-Value Division, 239 NLRB 904 (1978); Star Kist Samoa, Inc., 237 NLRB 238 (1978). In addition, I further conclude that Vallejo and Cruz in the same con- versations described herein threatened employees of the Respondent with discharge from work because of their union activities. Based on the findings of fact set forth above, I con- clude that Lesser promised employees of the Respondent aid in arranging for residency papers in order to induce or cause employees of the Respondent to reject the Union and to refrain from activities on behalf of the Union. As also described, Lesser did speak to the em- ployees at a second meeting the following day. Among other things, Lesser told them to forget what had hap- pened at the previous meeting. Nevertheless, the testimo- ny of Fernandez and Cruz revealed that Lesser made ref- erence to what Attorney Lopez had told the employees at the first meeting. Lesser did not specifically disavow or retract his own comments at the first meeting. After considering the foregoing, I conclude that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged in the General Counsel's complaint. It should be noted that the General Counsel does not allege that any unfair labor practices were attributable to the Respondent based on the remarks made by Attorney Lopez. Turning now to the allegations made with regard to the Respondent's termination of Castillo on July 20, 1979, I conclude that Castillo did engage in activities on behalf of the Union prior to her termination, and that agents of the Respondent had knowledge of some of those activities. In this connection, it will be recalled that Vallejo and Goldfarb observed Castillo outside the Re- spondent's door at the time that she was signing a union authorization card for a union representative. (See "The Events About 15 Days Before the Termination of Cas- tillo" herein.) Additionally, Vallejo observed Esperanza handing a union paper to Castillo the next day. (See "The Events the Next Day" herein.) Furthermore, the conversation between Vallejo and Castillo on the follow- ing day shows that the Respondent knew of her union activities. It will be recalled that Vallejo not only warned Castillo against getting involved in such things, but also Vallejo told her, "That the man had already been told that there was a lot of them, especially me; that I was handing out pamphlets or bulletins." Finally, the statement made by Vallejo to Castillo at the time of her termination by the Respondent is further evidence that the Respondent knew of her union activities. As more fully described above, Vallejo told Castillo, "You see the problems that you have got upon yourself be- cause of the Union?" The animus of the Respondent toward the rights of employees to engage in union organizational activities is demonstrated in the findings of 8(a)(1) conduct described above. Note particularly the threats to discharge employ- ees because of their union activities. As I have described, the reasons given by the Re- spondent at the time of the termination of Castillo were that work was very slow, and that Castillo earned too much money. The Respondent asserted different reasons for her termination at the hearing. (See "Credibility Res- olutions" herein where the assertion of those reasons was not credited.) According to Castillo, she had received no warnings regarding her inspection work, and no one from the Respondent had ever indicated that her inspec- tions were not properly done. Significantly, both Vallejo and Lesser agreed to give Castillo a 25-cent-an-hour wage increase just 2 weeks before they terminated her, and both of them indicated to her that they were pleased with her work at that time. (See "The Employment of Castillo" herein.) Finally, I conclude that Vallejo re- vealed the true reason for the termination of Castillo when he told her at the time of her termination, "You see the problems that you have got upon yourself be- cause of the Union?" Accordingly, I conclude that the reasons advanced by the Respondent for the termination of Castillo are pre- textual reasons to hide a discriminatory motivation, and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it terminated her on July 20, 1979. General Battery Corporation, 241 NLRB 1166 (1979); Louisiana Council No. 17, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 250 NLRB 880 (1980); Haynes Industries, Inc., 232 NLRB 1092 (1977). 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. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following acts and conduct: (a) Threatening its employees with discharge from work because of their union activities. (b) Creating the impression among its employees that the Respondent is engaging in surveillance of their union activities. (c) Promising its employees aid in arranging residency papers in order to induce or cause its employees to reject the Union and to refrain from activities on behalf of the Union. 4. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the FASHIONTIME LTD 407 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act by terminating Angela Castillo on July 20, 1979, be- cause of her union activities. 5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Since I have found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend to the Board that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in those unfair labor practices. I shall also recommend to the Board that the Respond- ent take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Such affirmative action will in- clude an offer of immediate reinstatement to Castillo, or, if her former job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without the loss of her seniority or any other rights and privileges. I shall also recommend to the Board that the Respondent make her whole for her losses which have resulted from the Respondent's termi- nation of Castillo. Backpay for Castillo, together with in- terest on such backpay amounts, will be computed in ac- cordance with the Board's decisions in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). In order to more effectively communicate the provi- sions of an appropriate notice to employees, I shall also recommend to the Board that the notice be posted in both the English language and the Spanish language. Hasa Chemical, Inc., 235 NLRB 903 (1978). In accordance with the Board's decision in Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979), I shall recommend to the Board that a narrowly drafted cease-and-desist order be entered against the Respondent, rather than a broadly drafted order. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con- clusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' The Respondent, Fashiontime Ltd., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with discharge from work because of their union activities. (b) Creating the impression among its employees that the Respondent is engaging in surveillance of their union activities. (c) Promising its employees aid in arranging residency papers in order to induce or cause its employees to reject the Union and to refrain from activities on behalf of the Union. I In the event that no exceptions are filed, as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec- ommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Board's 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. (d) Terminating any of its employees because of their union activities. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Angela Castillo immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former position of employment, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position of employment, without the loss of her seniority or any other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole Angela Castillo for her losses, with appropriate interest thereon, which have resulted from her termination by the Respondent. Such backpay and interest are to be computed as set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to agents of the Board for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all of the other records necessary to analyze the amount of money due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Los Angeles, California, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix," 2 and simulta- neously post a notice containing a translation from the English language to the Spanish language of the wording on the attached notice. Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by 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 no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 2 In the event that this 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 read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United states Government WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis- charge from work because of their union activities in behalf of Anti-Racist Garment Workers' Union, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT create the impression among our employees that we are engaging in surveillance of their union activities. FASHIONTIME LTD. 409 WE WILL NOT promise our employees aid in ar- ranging residency papers in order to induce or cause our employees to reject a union and to refrain from activities on behalf of a union. WE WILL NOT terminate any of our employees because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer Angela Castillo immediate and full reinstatement to her former position of employ- ment, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan- tailly equivalent position of employment, without loss of her seniority or any other rights and privi- leges. WE WILL make whole Angela Castillo for her losses, with appropriate interest thereon, which have resulted from her termination on July 20, 1979. FASHIONTIME LTD.