FJN Mfg.

656 305 NLRB No. 79 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The Charge in Case 6–CA–22351 was filed on January 2, 1990, and amended on February 28, 1990. 2 The charge in Case 6–CA–22356 was filed on January 4, 1990, and amended on February 28, 1990. 3 The charge in Case 6–CA–22356 was filed on January 5, 1990, and amended on February 28, 1990. 4 Pursuant to two requests from Respondent FJN’s counsel for ex- tensions of time to file an answer, two extensions were granted but no answer was filed. On July 3, 1990, an order postponing hearing indefinitely pending settlement issued. 5 On December 10, 1990, the Chapter 13 standing trustee filed a document which asserted that Filip J. Novac is a debtor in a vol- untary Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding filed July 30, 1990, and that, under the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee has no authority to cor- rect any improper business practice. The trustee requested that the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 be dismissed as to the trustee. Al- though the document was titled ‘‘Response to Complaint,’’ it did not purport to respond to the complaint allegations in Case 6–CA– 22998. 6 The Notice to Show Cause directed parties to respond to the Board in Washington, D.C., by March 28, 1991. 7 The Regional Office contacted counsel for Filip J. Novac to de- termine whether the document was intended to be a response to the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 or a response to the Board’s Notice to Show Cause and was informed that it was intended to respond to the Notice to Show Cause. Although the document did not com- ply with the filing requirements specified in the Notice to Show Cause, the Board’s Executive Secretary accepted the document. Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing and Debo- rah J. Kemp and Diane Smith and Mid-Atlan- tic Regional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL– CIO Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing and/or Jovanca Novac, d/b/a KD Sportswear and Mid- Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amal- gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO. Cases 6–CA–22351, 6–CA–22356, 6– CA–22361, and 6–CA–22998 November 21, 1991 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND RAUDABAUGH Upon charges filed by Deborah Kemp, an Indi- vidual,1 by Diane Smith, an Individual,2 and by Mid- Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO,3 against the Respondent, Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing (Respondent FJN), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on March 1, 1990, issued an order consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respond- ent FJN has violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Although prop- erly served copies of the charges, amended charges, and consolidated complaint, Respondent FJN has failed to file an answer.4 Upon charges filed in Case 6–CA–22998 on Sep- tember 10, 1990, and amended on November 9, 1990, by Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amal- gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL– CIO against Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing, and/or Jovanca Novac, an Individual d/b/a KD Sports- wear (Respondent KD), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on November 20, 1990, issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent FJN and Respondent KD were alter egos and a single employer, and that they violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. Although properly served copies of the charge, amended charge, and complaint, the Respond- ents have failed to file an answer.5 On November 20, 1990, Cases 6–CA–22351, 6–CA– 22356, 6–CA–22361, and 6–CA–22998 were consoli- dated. On March 11, 1991, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. On March 14, 1991, the Board issued an order trans- ferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted6 No timely response was received by the Board. On March 28, 1991, however, the Board’s Regional Office for Region 6 received a document written in behalf of Filip J. Novac, the Respondent, that referred to Case 6–CA–22998. The document stated, inter alia, that Filip J. Novac is a debtor in a voluntary bankruptcy proceeding, that all claims for damages should be filed with the Bankruptcy Court, that the Board has a basis for objecting to confirmation of a plan for reorganiza- tion if it believes that wrongful labor practices are con- tinuing, and that the Board has adequate means avail- able through the bankruptcy process to ensure that al- leged wrongful conduct does not continue. The docu- ment concluded with a request by Respondent Filip J. Novac that the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 be dis- missed. Although the document was styled ‘‘Response to Complaint’’ it did not purport to respond to any complaint allegations in Case 6–CA–22998.7 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Ruling on Motion For Summary Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides that the allegations of a complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from services of the complaint, unless good cause is shown. Section 102.20 also provides that any com- plaint allegation that is not denied or disputed is deemed to be admitted as true and shall be so found by the Board. The consolidated complaint in Cases 6–CA–22351, 6–CA–22356, and 6–CA–22361 states that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all the alle- 657 FJN MFG. 8 To the extent that either the December 10, 1990, or the March 28, 1991 document raises a claim of bankruptcy as a defense, we note that a respondent’s claim of bankruptcy will not stay unfair labor practice charges against a respondent. It is well settled that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction or authority to entertain and process an unfair labor prac- tice case to its final disposition. Phoenix Co., 274 NLRB 995 (1985), Cardinal Services, 295 NLRB 933 (1989). Board pro- ceedings fall within the exception to the automatic stay provision for proceedings by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regu- latory powers. See Phoenix Co., id., and cases cited therein. 9 The consolidated complaint relies on the bargaining order re- quested as the basis for alleging that Respondent FJN violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain with the Union. Similarly, the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 relies on the bargaining order re- quested in the consolidated complaint in alleging that Respondents FJN and KD violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain with the Union. 10 See Control & Electrical System Specialists, 299 NLRB 642 (1990); Protection Sprinkler Systems, 295 NLRB 1072 (1989); Binney’s Casting Co., 285 NLRB 1095 (1987); Bravo Mechanical, 300 NLRB 1019 (1990). Whether the discharge of 10 employees and other unfair labor practices have occurred in a unit of 11 employees or 1100 clearly is an important factor in determining whether it is appropriate for the Board to issue a bargaining order. The Board has informed the General Counsel through published precedent that allegations of unit size and dissemination are required in order for the Board to grant the extraordinary remedy of a bargaining order in a no answer sum- mary judgment case. We are merely applying that precedent here. Although the complaints in this case may constitute adequate notice pleadings for purposes of holding a hearing, contrary to our dis- senting colleague, we do not find them sufficient to warrant sum- mary judgment based on their factual allegations. 11 The consolidated complaint also alleges that December 22, 1989, the Union requested that Respondent FJN recognize and bar- gain collectively with it as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit, and that on the same date, Respond- ent FJN failed and refused to do so. The complaint in Case 6–CA– 22998 also alleges that on about June 18, 1990, the Union requested that the Respondent alter ego, i.e., the collective entity of Respond- ents FJN and KD, recognize and bargain with it, and that, on the same date, the Respondents refused to do so. In the absence of an answer to the consolidated complaint or to the complaint in Case 6– CA–22998, we find these allegations to be admitted. Because the 8(a)(5) and (1) allegations in both the consolidated complaint and the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 are tied to the bargaining order remedy, we shall leave their disposition to the judge. gations in the Consolidated Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board.’’ As noted, the Respondent, Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing, although granted two exten- sions of time in which to file an answer to the consoli- dated complaint, has failed to filed an answer to the consolidated complaint, and has failed to file a re- sponse to the Notice to Show Cause. Similarly, the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 states that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all the alle- gations in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admit- ted to be true and shall be so found by the Board.’’ As noted above, nothing purporting to be an answer to the complaint in Case 6–CA–22998 has been filed8 To the extent that the document filed on behalf of Filip J. Novac on December 10, 1990, by the standing trust- ee, or the document filed on behalf of Filip J. Novac, received by the Regional Office on March 28, 1991, might be considered an answer to the complaint, we note that neither specifically denies any complaint alle- gation. Accordingly, all allegations are deemed to be admitted. In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment insofar as the consolidated complaint in Cases 6–CA–22351, 6– CA–22356, and 6–CA–22361 alleges that the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment insofar as the com- plaint in Case 6–CA–22998 alleges that Respondent KD is an alter ego of Respondent FJN, a single em- ployer with Respondent FJN, and that it violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The consolidated complaint further alleges that Re- spondent FJN’s unfair labor practices are so serious and substantial that a bargaining order is required.9 In determining whether a bargaining order is appro- priate to protect employee sentiments and to remedy an employer’s misconduct, the Board examines the nature and pervasiveness of the employer’s unfair labor prac- tices. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 573 (1969). In weighing a violations’s pervasiveness, rel- evant considerations include ‘‘the number of employ- ees directly affected by the violation, the size of the unit, the extent of dissemination among the work force, and the identity of the perpetrator of the unfair labor practice.’’ Michigan Expediting Service, 282 NLRB 210, 211 (1986). The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent FJN threatened, interrogated, and created an impres- sion of surveillance among an unspecified number of employees and unlawfully discharged 10 employees. The consolidated complaint further alleges in conclusionary terms that the unfair labor practices pre- clude the holding of a fair election and that therefore a bargaining order is warranted. Although the unfair labor practices here are serious, the consolidated com- plaint does not allege the size of the unit or the extent of the dissemination, if any, of the violations among the employees not directly affected by them. Accord- ingly, we deny the General Counsel’s Motion for Sum- mary Judgment insofar as it alleges that a bargaining order is appropriate and that the Respondent therefore violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.10 We shall remand the case for a hearing before an administrative law judge on the issue of whether a bargaining order is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances of this case.11 On the entire record, the Board makes the following 658 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, Filip J. Novac, d/b/a as FJN Manu- facturing (FJN), is a sole proprietorship engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembling clothing, initially with an office and place of business in Allen- town, Pennsylvania, and then in New Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. During the 12-month period ending De- cember 31, 1989, Respondent FJN sold and shipped from its facilities products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to American Argo Corp. and Wright’s Knitwear Corp., enterprises which are di- rectly engaged in interstate commerce. Respondent FJN established Respondent KD as a subordinate entity to, and disguised continuation of, Respondent FJN’s business of the manufacture and as- sembly of clothing. Respondent KD commenced oper- ations about early to mid-June 1990 and continues to date, with an office and place of business in Butler, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture and assembly of clothing. Based on a projection of its operations since about June 1, 1990, Respondent KD annually will sell and ship from its facility in Butler, Pennsylvania, products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to American Argo Corp., Wright’s Knitwear Corp., and Kahn Lucas-Lancaster Inc., enterprises which are themselves directly engaged in interstate commerce. We find that Respondent FJN and Respondent KD are employers engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that Respondent FJN and Re- spondent KD are alter egos and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On about December 20, 1989, Respondent FJN, act- ing through Filip J. Novac, the owner of Respondent FJN and a statutory supervisor and agent of it, created an impression among employees that their union ac- tivities were under surveillance by Respondent FJN. On about December 22, 1989, Respondent FJN, act- ing through Jovanca Novac, a statutory supervisor and agent of Respondent FJN, threatened employees with plant closure if they selected the Union as their bar- gaining representative. On about December 22, 1989, Respondent FJN, act- ing through Filip J. Novac, informed its employees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining representative. On about December 28 and 29, 1989, Respondent FJN, acting through Filip J. Novac, interrogated em- ployees regarding their union membership, activities, and sympathies. On about December 28, 1989, Respondent FJN, act- ing through Filip J. Novac, by telephone, interrogated its employees regarding their union membership, ac- tivities, and sympathies. On about December 28, 1989, Respondent FJN, act- ing through Filip J. Novac, by telephone, threatened employees by conditioning their continued employment on their renouncing their support for the Union. By the conduct described in the paragraphs above, we find that Respondent FJN has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced and is interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On December 20, 1989, Respondent FJN discharged Deborah J. Kemp. On December 28, 1989, Respondent FJN discharged Judith Guthrie, Karla Kreibel, Diane Smith, Debra Toy, and Joyce Truitt. On December 29, 1989, Respondent FJN discharged Donna Atcheson and Crystal Rearick. On January 2, 1990, Respondent FJN discharged Michael Delp and Maxine Duncan. On December 29, 1989, Respondent FJN conditioned the reemployment of its employees on their renouncing their support for the Union. Respondent FJN discharged and refused to reemploy the employees named above because the employees, joined, supported, or assisted the Union, because they engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and in order to discourage employees from engaging in those activities. By the conduct described in this para- graph, Respondent FJN has discriminated and is dis- criminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, and Respondent FJN has been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The discharge of Deborah J. Kemp on December 20, 1989, was for the additional reason that Kemp filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. By this conduct, Respondent FJN has discriminated and is dis- criminating against employees for filing charges under the Act, and has thereby been engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. In early to mid-June 1990, Respondent FJN estab- lished Respondent KD as a subordinate entity to and disguised continuation of Respondent FJN’s business. Respondent FJN and Respondent KD are, and at all material times have been, alter egos and a single em- ployer within the meaning of the Act. Since about June 18, 1990, and continuing to date, Respondent KD, and Respondent FJN and Respondent KD collectively as alter egos and a single employer, have refused to employ Linda Fair, Linda Helper, Mi- chael Delp, Maxine Duncan, Judith Guthrie, Karla 659 FJN MFG. Kreibel, Crystal Rearick, Diane Smith, Debra Toy, Joyce Truitt, and Deborah J. Kemp. Respondent FJN and Respondent KD collectively refused to hire these persons because they joined, supported, or assisted the Union, and engaged in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and in order to discourage employees from engaging in those activities. By the conduct described in this paragraph, Respondent KD and Respondents FJN and KD have discriminated and are discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of their employees, thereby discour- aging membership in a labor organization, and Re- spondent KD and Respondent FJN have been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By creating an impression among employees that their union activities were under surveillance; by threatening employees with plant closure if they se- lected the Union as their bargaining representative; by informing employees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining representative; by interrogating employees regarding their union mem- bership, activities, and sympathies; by interrogating by telephone employees regarding their union member- ship, activities, and sympathies; and by threatening employees by conditioning their continued employment on their renouncing their support for the Union, Re- spondent FJN interfered with, restrained, and coerced and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and Respondent FJN thereby has been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By discharging its employees Deborah J. Kemp, Judith Guthrie, Karla Kreibel, Diane Smith, Debra Toy, Joyce Truitt, Donna Atcheson, Crystal Rearick, Michael Delp, and Maxine Duncan because they joined, supported, or assisted the Union, because they engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and in order to discourage employees from engaging in such activities, and by conditioning their reemployment on their renouncing their support for the Union, Re- spondent FJN has engaged in unfair labor practices af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. By discharging Deborah J. Kemp for the addi- tional reason that Kemp filed an unfair labor pratice charge with the Board, Respondent FJN has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. 4. By refusing to employ Linda Fair, Linda Helper, Michael Delp, Maxine Duncan, Judith Guthrie, Karla Kreibel, Crystal Rearick, Diane Smith, Debra Toy, Joyce Truitt, and Deborah J. Kemp because those per- sons joined, supported, or assisted the Union, and en- gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and in order to discourage employees from engaging in such activities, Respondent FJN and Respondent KD, individually and as alter egos and single employers, have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. These unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondents, Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing and/or Jovanca Novac, d/b/a KD Sportswear, Allentown, New Bethlehem, and/or Butler, Pennsylvania, have violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, we shall order them to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall order the Respondents to offer to employees Deborah J. Kemp, Judith Guthrie, Karla Kreibel, Diane Smith, Debra Toy, Joyce Truitt, Donna Atcheson, Crystal Rearick, Michael Delp, and Maxine Duncan immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and to make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. We shall also order the Respondents to offer Linda Fair and Linda Helper the employment that they would have been offered but for the Respondents’ unlawful discrimination against them. Backpay shall be com- puted as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). We shall order the Respond- ents to remove from their files any references to the unlawful discharges of or refusals to hire the above- named employees and to notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way. Finally, as noted above, we shall also remand the 8(a)(5) allegations for a hear- ing on the limited issue of whether a bargaining order is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances of this case. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondents, Filip J. Novac, d/b/a FJN Manufacturing and/or Jovanca Novac, d/b/a KD Sportswear, Allen- town, New Bethlehem, and/or Butler, Pennsylvania, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 660 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 12 If 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 Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’ 1. Cease and desist from (a) Creating the impression among employees that their union activities are under surveillance. (b) Threatening employees with plant closure if they select Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amal- gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL– CIO as their bargaining representative. (c) Informing employees that it would be futile to select Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amal- gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL– CIO as their bargaining representative. (d) Interrogating employees regarding their union membership, activities, and sympathies. (e) Threatening employees by conditioning their continued employment on their renouncing their sup- port for Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amal- gamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL– CIO as their bargaining representative. (f) Discharging and refusing to employ employees, or otherwise discriminating against employees, because they supported or assisted Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO or because they filed charges under the National Labor Relations Act. (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Deborah J. Kemp, Judith Guthrie, Karla Kreibel, Diane Smith, Debra Toy, Joyce Truitt, Donna Atcheson, Crystal Rearick, Michael Delp, and Maxine Duncan immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of earn- ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis- crimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (b) Remove from their files any references to the unlawful discharges or refusals to employ of the above-named employees and notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges and the refusals to employ will not be used against them in any way. (c) Offer to Linda Fair and Linda Helper the em- ployment that would have been offered to them but for the unlawful discrimination against them, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from the discrimination against them, with interest. (d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under this Order. (e) Post at their Allentown, New Bethlehem, and/or Butler, Pennsylvania facilities copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized rep- resentatives, shall be posted by the Respondents imme- diately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondents have taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER OREDERED that the 8(a)(5) and (1) al- legations are remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of holding a hearing before an administrative law judge on those issues. MEMBER RAUDABAUGH, dissenting in part. Contrary to my colleagues, I would impose a bar- gaining order on the Respondents, as requested by the General Counsel in the complaint. By failing to file an answer, the Respondents have admitted to the following unfair labor practices: threat- ening employees with plant closure if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative; creating an impression among their employees that their union ac- tivities were under surveillance; informing their em- ployees that it would be futile for them to select the Union as their bargaining representative; interrogating their employees regarding their union membership, ac- tivities, and sympathies; threatening their employees by conditioning their continued employment on their re- nouncing their support for the Union; discharging nine employees because of their union or other concerted activities; discharging another employee because of her union or other concerted activities and because of her filing an unfair labor practice charge with the Board; and conditioning the reemployment of these employees on their renouncing their support for the Union. The Respondents have further admitted that these acts ‘‘are so serious and substantial in character that the possibility of erasing the effects of these unfair labor practices and of conducting a fair election by the use of traditional remedies is slight, and the employ- ees’ sentiments regarding representation, having been expressed through authorization cards, would, on bal- 661 FJN MFG. 1 NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). 2 In view of my position, I would overrule the case cited at fn. 10 of the majority opinion. ance, be protected better by issuance of a bargaining order than by traditional remedies alone.’’ In addition, the Respondents have admitted that the Union rep- resented a majority of the unit employees, that the Union was their exclusive bargaining representatives, that the Union demanded recognition, and that the Re- spondents’ failure and refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Despite these admissions, my colleagues refuse to impose a bargaining order. The sole basis for their re- fusal is that the complaint ‘‘does not allege the size of the unit or the extent of the dissemination, if any, of the violations among the employees directly affected by them.’’ There is no legal or logical basis for this position. The Board’s Rules and Regulations provide that the complaint must contain ‘‘a clear and concise descrip- tion of the acts which are claimed to constitute unfair labor practices.’’ See Section 102.15. However, there is no requirement that the complaint contain the evi- dence which establishes that these acts are unfair labor practices. Thus, for example, an 8(a)(3) complaint would plead that the respondent discharged an em- ployee because of his union activities and that the dis- charge violated Section 8(a)(3). The complaint need not plead the evidentiary support for this allegation, i.e., that the employee was a union adherent, that the respondent had knowledge of his union activities, that the timing of the discharge was suspect, and that the respondent had animus toward the union. Although such facts are clearly relevant to the alleged unfair labor practice and would be adduced at the hearing by the General Counsel, the complaint states a valid cause of action and the General Counsel is entitled to sum- mary judgment in such case if the respondent fails to file an answer. Similarly, complaints, such as the in- stant one, routinely plead the supervisory status of those alleged to have committed unfair labor practices, without pleading the evidentiary indicia of their super- visory status, and the Board, including my colleagues in this case, give effect to a respondent’s admission of this legal conclusion. Applying these principles to the instant case, the General Counsel’s complaint alleged the acts that con- stitute the 8(a)(1) and (3) unfair labor practices; he fur- ther alleged the Gissel1 test for the imposition of a bar- gaining order; and he alleged the refusal to bargain as the act that constituted an 8(a)(1) and (5) unfair labor practice. The Respondents admitted all of that. It was not necessary for the General Counsel to allege the evidentiary factors that support these allegations. Ac- cordingly, I would not find technical fault with the complaint and I would enter a bargaining order based on the Respondents’ admissions.2 APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these pro- tected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT create the impression among employ- ees that their union activities are under surveillance. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with plant closure if they select Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT inform employees that it would be fu- tile to select Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees regarding their union membership, activities, and sympathies. WE WILL NOT threaten employees by conditioning their continued employment on their renouncing their support for Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to employ em- ployees, or otherwise discriminate against employees, because they supported or assisted Mid-Atlantic Re- gional Joint Board a/w Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO or because they filed charges under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer the following employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL 662 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from our discrimination against them, with interest. Deborah J. Kemp Judith Guthrie Karla Kreibel Diane Smith Debra Toy Joyce Truitt Donna Atcheson Crystal Rearick Michael Delp Maxine Duncan WE WILL notify the above-named employees that we have removed from our files any references to their unalwful discharges and/or refusals to employ and that we will not use the discharges or refusals to employ against them in any way. WE WILL offer to Linda Fair and Linda Helper the employment that they would have been offered to them but for the unlawful discrimination against them, or to substantially equivalent positions, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from our discrimination against them, with interest. FILIP J. NOVAC, D/B/A FJN MANUFAC- TURING AND/OR JOVANCA NOVAC, D/B/A KD SPORTSWEAR