T & W Fashions, Inc.

T & W FASHIONS T & W Fashions, Inc and Pacific Northwest Dis trict Council, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO Case 20-CA- 19884 September 30 1988 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS STEPHENS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On February 17 1987 Administrative Law Judge Gerald A Wacknov issued the attached de cision The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup porting brief and the General Counsel filed an an swenng brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings i findings 2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order3 as modified 4 i In affirming the judge s denial of the Respondents motion to dismiss under principles of res judicata we find that the issues litigated in the proceeding instituted against the Respondent by the U S Department of Labor in Federal district court involved only violations of minimum wage overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the Fair Labor Stand ards Act These allegations involve different facts and thus different causes of action from allegations before the Board of constructive dis charges of employees who concertedly pursued redress of Federal wage and hour violations and allegations of surveillance of employees engaged in those protected concerted activities Because the district court adjudi cation did not constitute a prior valid final judgment on the merits in volvmg the same cause of action it is not res judicata z The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge s credibility findings unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 (1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Member Johansen does not accept the Respondents excep tions to credibility as they do not meet the requirements of NLRB Rules and Regulations Sec 102 46(b) and (c) In adopting the judge s finding that employees Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie engaged in protected concerted activity for which they were constructively discharged we note in addition to the evidence relied on by the judge (i e the evidence that both employees participated actively in the investigative meetings with the U S Department of Labor) that both Ng and Louie testified that they had traveled to the meeting as part of a group of other employees of which fact the Re spondent s owner Tammy Ho and her attorney were aware as they stood in the hallway outside the U S Department of Labor meeting room as employees entered Consequently Ng and Louie engaged in activities protected under Sec 7 with other employees were thus engaged in con certed activity within the meaning of the Act and the Respondent had knowledge that their activity was concerted s In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) interest on and after January 1 1987 shall be computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 US C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 4 The judge included a broad cease and desist provision in his recom mended Order We believe a narrow provision is appropriate under the standards of H,ckmott Foods 242 NLRB 1357 ( 1979) and we have modi ORDER 137 The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re spondent T & W Fashions Inc San Francisco California its officers agents successors and as signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(f) (f) In any like or related manner interfering with restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of ther rights guaranteed them be Section 7 of the Act 2 Delete paragraph 2(a) and insert the following as paragraphs 2(a) (b) and (c) and reletter the sub Sequent paragraphs (a) Offer Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantial ly equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previous ly enjoyed and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge s decision (b) Remove from its files any reference to un lawful retaliation against Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie and notify them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlawful action will not be used as a basis for any future action against them (c) Preserve and on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy ing all payroll records social security payment records timecards personnel records and reports and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge feed the recommended Order accordingly In addition we have added the customary requirement that the Respondent preserve records neces sary to analyze backpay We have also modified the recommended Order and notice to include the customary requirements that the Respondent remove from its records any reference to retaliatory action against Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie and that evidence of that action not be used against them in any way Finally we have modified the judge s rein statement language to conform to that traditionally used by the Board 291 NLRB No 18 138 DECISIONS 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 The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered 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 representa tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities WE WILL NOT Spy on you or attempt to spy on you or take photographs of you when you are meeting with representatives of the U S Depart ment of Labor for the purpose of claiming back wages due to you WE WILL NOT tell you that we are aware of ev erything that is said at meetings of the U S De partment of Labor that you attend WE WILL NOT threaten you with layoff because you provided information to the U S Department of Labor WE WILL NOT discharge you or cause you to quit because you cooperated with and provided in formation to the U S Department of Labor WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with restrain or coerce you in the exer cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or if those positions no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and other ben efits resulting from discrimination against them, less any net interim earnings plus interest WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the retaliatory action against Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie and notify them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlaw ful action will not be used as a basis for any future action against them T & W FASHIONS INC Eugene Thom and Sally Spencer Esqs for the General Counsel Joseph L Strabala Esq of San Francisco California for the Respondent Victoria Chin Esq (Neyhart Anderson Nussbaum Reilly & Freitas) of San Francisco California for the Union DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GERALD A WACKNOV Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to notice a hearing regarding this matter was held before me in San Francisco California on 8 Octo ber 1986 The initial charge was filed on 16 September 1985 by Pacific Northwest District Council Internation al Ladies Garment Workers Union AFL-CIO (the Union) Thereafter on 31 October 1985 the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint and notice of hearing al leging a violation by T & W Fashions Inc (Respondent) of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard to call examine and cross examine witnesses and to introduce relevant evidence Since the close of the hearing briefs have been received from the General Counsel counsel for Respondent and counsel for the Charging Party On the entire record and based on my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent is a California corporation with an office and place of business in San Francisco California and is engaged in the manufacture assembly and nonretail sale of garments The Respondent annually sells goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 directly to Levi Strauss & Co an enterprise located within the State of California which annually sells and ships from its California facili ties goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 di rectly to points outside the State of California It is admitted and I find that Respondent is now and has been at all times material an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted that the Union is and has been at all times material a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Issues The principal issues raised by the pleadings are wheth er the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by T & W FASHIONS 139 engaging in surveillance of employees protected con certed activity and by constructively discharging two employees who were engaged in cooperating with and furnishing evidence to the Department of Labor in fur therance of a wage and hour claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act 1 B The Facts On 30 October 1984 the United States Department of Labor filed a civil action against Respondent in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the Fair Labor Standards Act for inter alia allegedly failing to properly pay its employees the prevailing minimu-n and overtime wages The total amount sought by the complaint was $405 000 In March 1985 the Department of Labor held group meetings with the Respondents employees to obtain fur ther information regarding the aforementioned lawsuit The employees were notified by letter and requested to attend meetings at the Federal Building in San Francisco on 20 and 21 March as part of the continuing litiga tion against Respondent Carol Fickenscher deputy regional solicitor for the Department of Labor testified that she participated in the aforementioned meeting on 20 March She observed Tammy Ho owner of the Respondent and her attorney Joseph Strabala in the hallway near the door to the meeting room as employees were arriving for the meet ing To Fickensher s knowledge neither Ho nor Strabala had been invited to the meeting Fickenscher asked Ho and Strabala to leave the area and spoke with an officer 1 The Respondent maintains that the Board is precluded from proceed mg on the complaint allegations concerning the constructive discharge of Ng and Louie and premises its argument on the identical circumstances presented in affidavit form to the district court as part of the Depart ment of Labor s request for a protective order infra Moreover the Re spondent argues because the Department of Labor has jurisdiction over matters of employer discrimination against employees for attempting to seek relief under wage and hour laws the Board should be precluded from attempting to harass the Respondent by asserting the same conten tions in a different forum Although it is true that the Department of Labor could have proceeded against the Respondent to seek remedial relief for Ng and Louie premised on the very same facts set forth in the instant matter the record contains no explanation for the Department of Labor s failure to do so It appears that the facts regarding Ng and Louie were merely utilized as evidence in support of the Department of Labor s motion for a protective order and were never incorporated in the under lying lawsuit for wage and hour violations Subsequently on the court s dismissal of the underlying lawsuit the matters alleged in the motion for a protective order including the alleged discrimination against Ng and Louie simply became moot It is clear however that the claims of Ng and Louie for whatever reason possibly mere inadvertence are not now the subject of any matter before that Agency Under the circumstances it appears that the language of Sec 10(a) of the Act is controlling The Board is empowered as hereinafter provided to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice (listed in section 8) affecting commerce This power shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement law or otherwise As under the circumstances outlined above Ng and Louie have never been provided a full and fair opportunity to present their specific claims to any appropriate forum I find that the Board should not be precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from asserting subject matter juris diction over their claims of discrimination under the Act See Kremer v Chemical Construction Co 456 U S 461 (1982) of the Federal Protective Service who in turn accompa need Ho and Strabala from the area Fickenscher testified that Ho returned about 10 min utes after the meeting had begun and stood in the hall way outside the closed door Each time the door would be opened by someone entering or exiting Ho would look into the room and make notes on a pad of paper Fickenscher then called an officer of the Federal Protec tive Service who again escorted Ho away from the area Fickenscher and two other individuals were among the last to leave the Federal Building that evening after the meeting Employees who attended the meeting were also present Fickenscher observed Ho and Strabala standing in the street by a double parked vehicle Stra bala held a camera and was taking flash pictures Toy Fun Ng began working for Respondent on 19 February 1982 She operated a single needle sewing ma chine Her last day of work was 21 March 1985 She at tended the Department of Labor meeting on 20 March About 40 to 50 people were present She observed Tammy Ho in the hallway observing the employees through the meeting room door and writing something on a sheet of paper for about 5 minutes until the door was shut by the Department of Labor attorneys who were conducting the meeting During the meeting Ng gave the Department of Labor attorneys her name and told them that she had kept a booklet or diary in which she had recorded her hours and the volume of her work According to Ng Chau Fung Louie another employee spoke up and told the workers to present the letters they had received from the Department of Labor to the attorneys conducting the meeting Apparently this was for the purpose of enabling the attorneys to identify the employees who were present as the employers did not speak English Ng testified that at work the next day about 12 15 p in Tammy Ho announced to the employees on the fourth floor that she heard everything that was said at the meeting that the Department of Labor attorneys were not sincerely trying to help them because the attor neys were not being paid any money and that there were two employees who attended the meeting who worked on the fourth floor that she had been very good to and now they were trying to get back at her and hurt her and that day their hours would be cut At 1 45 p in Ho Kwok Hung the fourth floor supervi sor came over to Ng s machine and told her that The boss told me to tell you you work six hours today then you can leave Tomorrow also six hours Next week and thereafter four hours As a result of her hours being cut in half Ng did not return to work thereafter because she could not make a living working only 4 hours per day Chau Fung Louie worked for Respondent from July 1981 until 21 March 1985 Louie testified that on 18 March Tammy Ho held a group meeting and told the employees not to attend the Department of Labor meet ing that the Company had already won that case and the documents were returned to the Company and that the Department of Labor compensated Tammy Ho with $5 million and that she would distribute it to some of the 140 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workers She said if the employees chose to go to the meeting at the Federal Building she would go also with her attorney and reporters Louie attended the Department of Labor meeting on 20 March She observed Tammy Ho standing at the door of the meeting room and looking inside the room She and Ho looked at each other The doors were shut when the meeting started Louie spoke at the meeting and told the attorneys about her hours of work and told the em ployees to hand over their letters to the attorneys She heard Ng tell them about a diary she kept When Louie exited from the building with other employees she ob served Tammy Ho and her attorney standing by the en trance to the building Ho had a piece of paper on which she was apparently wasting something and Louie passed within 4 or 5 feet of her The following day at work according to Louie Tammy Ho held a meeting of fourth floor employees She said that employees had gone to the Department of Labor meeting that two employees she had treated best had tried to harm her at the meeting and that she knew everything that was said there Louie did not hear the remainder of Ho s remarks because Louie went to the restroom during the course of the meeting Later Floor Supervisor Kwok Hung Ho came to Louie s work station and told her he had instructions from Tammy Ho that Louie was to work 6 hours each day for the remainder of the week and 4 hours a day starting the following week Louie then went to the sixth floor to talk to Tammy Ho about the reduced hours She asked Ho why her hours were being cut and Ho said Because you talk too much at the Department of Labor She added that she had six witnesses who had told her that Louie had said a lot of things at the meeting Louie acknowledged that she spoke up at the meeting and related to Ho what she said to the Department of Labor attorneys about her working hours Ho said that from now on she would work 4 hours each day Louie said that would create dif ficulty with her livelihood Louie did not return to work thereafter because of the reduced number of hours Ac cording to Louie the factory manager Sunny Kwong was not present during this conversation Factory Manager Sunny Kwong testified that although the Respondent ran an ad for employees in a Chinese newspaper dated Friday 29 March 1985 2 the Company did not hire any new employees from March through 30 April and in fact was laying off employees during this period Company records show that the payroll declined from approximately 200 employees to 145 employees during this period According to Tammy Ho the reduc tion in the work force was occasioned by the adverse publicity of the Department of Labor lawsuit as custom 2 The ad is as follows Shirts and Trousers Sewing Factory Our factory is now expanding its space for sewing machines and hiring a large number of male or female skilled single needle double needle button holes trimming ironing operators in different depart ments starting from $3 50 to $4 50 plus over time paid holidays in surance annual vacation and other benefits Also hiring clerks and sales controllers Experienced sample makers Excellent pay ers were reluctant to send goods to the Respondent for sewing into finished garments Kwong testified that between 12 30 to 1 p in on 21 March 1985 Louie came up to his office and said the fourth floor supervisor had reduced her hours Louie asked for partial unemployment and Kwong told her to come back later and talk to Tammy Ho 3 Sunny Kwong testified later after the testimony of Tammy Ho that he was present on 21 March when Louie was talking with Tammy Ho According to Kwong Louie told Ho that the fourth floor supervisor had reduced her hours because there was not enough work Ho said the reduced hours would only last for two weeks and if business picked up Louie would be on full time again Louie then asked Ho to issue her unem ployment and Ho refused Louie became very upset and said If you re not going to issue me unemployment I in going to make trouble Tammy Ho testified that on 18 March she held a spe cial meeting of all the employees at the factory and told them that work was going to be slow for awhile and that some workers would be put on part time However she advised them not to get other jobs because work would pick up soon Ho acknowledged that employees who are reduced to part time work will usually quit to take other jobs According to Ho she mentioned nothing about the Department of Labor meeting Ho further testified that on 21 March she held a meet ing on each floor and said the same thing to each group of assembled employees The sole purpose of the meet ings was to advise the employees that work may be slow Ho testified that she does not recall whether she said anything at these meetings about the Department of Labor meeting the previous evening Regarding her 21 March conversation with Louie Ho testified that Louie told her what the supervisor said about reducing Louie s hours and asked if she could get unemployment Ho said the reduction in hours would only be temporary and there would soon be more work Louie insisted on an arrangement to get partial unem ployment during the time her hours were reduced Ho said she could not do that and Louie began screaming and said If you don t help me and I won t help you and I will make trouble for you The Respondent called no witnesses other than Kwong above to corroborate Ho s testimony although Ho testified that there were about 20 employees within hearing distance Ho testified that she had received an invitation to the Department of Labor meeting and that is why she at tended Regarding the notes she was taking while stand ing in the hallway and outside the Federal Building Ho explained that she was taking notes about the way she had been treated by the Department of Labor attorney who summoned the guards to escort Ho from the prem ises Ho testified that before the Department of Labor meeting she posted notices about the meeting saying that she knew about the letter from the Department of Labor 3 At this point in the hearing Respondents attorney said he had no fur ther questions for Kwong Kwong was then cross examined and his tests mony was interrupted so that he could review various records T & W FASHIONS ' 141 and that this was a free country and the employees had a right to attend or not to attend Analysis and Conclusions The events alleged as violations of the Act took place herein on 20 and 21 March 1985 It is clear and I find that on 20 March 1985 Tammy Ho stood outside the door of the meeting room at the Federal Building where numerous employees had con gregated to provide information pertaining to the De partment of Labor lawsuit and paper and pencil in hand appeared to be attempting to hear see and take notes about what was occurring within the meeting room De spite the request to leave the premises she returned shortly thereafter and continued to attempt to observe the meeting Moreover it is clear that she and her attor ney Joseph Strabala remained outside the building at the conclusion of the meeting Ho continued to observe the employees and take notes and Strabala took flash photographs of employees who were leaving The next day at work according to the testimony of employees Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie Ho told the assembled fourth floor employees that she knew ev erything that had been said at the meeting and accused employees of attempting to harm her She also said ac cording to Ng that she would reduce the hours of two fourth floor employees who were trying to get back at her I credit the testimony of employees Ng and Louie I do not credit the uncorroborated testimony of Tammy Ho that she said nothing on 21 March to the assembled employees about the Department of Labor meeting on the preceding evening or that she does not recall what she said It is simply implausible that Ho who together with her attorney stood in the hallway peered through the doorway to the meeting room and appeared to be writing down employees names and who thereafter stood outside the building while she made notes and her attorney took flash photographs as employees were exit ing would simply refrain from even referring to the matter during her meeting with the employees the fol lowing day Respondent maintains that Tammy Ho received an in vitation to the Department of Labor meeting and there fore was privileged to attend The evidence discloses that it is highly unlikely that such a letter would have been sent to her Further while she claimed that she had such a letter in her possession she did not produce it at the hearing Finally even if she had received a letter she was informed by a representative from the Department of Labor conducting the meeting that she could not attend and should not remain there Nevertheless Ho re turned to observe the employees after she had been asked to leave Ho s purpose for attending the meeting was made crystal clear as she specifically told her em ployees the next day that she had been there to hear what they had to say and was upset with those that co operated with the Government representatives It is clear that such conduct namely engaging in sur veillance of the meeting appearing to write down the names of employees who attended and taking photo graphs of them and later specifically advising the em ployees that the Company was aware of everything that had been said and that action would be taken against em ployees who provided information is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged I so find Aztec Concrete 277 NLRB 1244 (1985) Western Yarns 274 NLRB 525 (1985) Link Mfg Co 281 NLRB 294 (1986) During the 21 March meeting at Respondents prem ises Ho threatened two unnamed employees with a re duction of hours because of their cooperation with the Department of Labor investigation Such a threat causes employees to be fearful of losing their jobs because of engaging in protected concerted activity in furtherance of their right to receive proper hourly and overtime wages from their employer and is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Southern Illinois Petrol 277 NLRB 160 (1985) Whether Ng and Louie were constructively dis charged is a more difficult issue First the two discrimin atees speak only Chinese and testified through an inter preter who had some difficulty with the dialect spoken by Chau Fung Louie Further counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party both of whom understand and speak Chinese corrected the in terpreter on several occasions Moreover the alleged un lawful layoffs of Ng and Louie were made a part of the Department of Labor s motion for a protective order in volving the aforementioned lawsuit and the affidavits of Ng and Louie submitted to the court in the Department of Labor proceeding are not entirely consistent with their testimony herein 4 Finally it is significant that al though many individuals overheard the remarks of Tammy Ho on various occasions neither of the parties attempted to call any disinterested employee witnesses in support of their respective positions Respondent maintains that Louie s account of the 21 March conversation with Tammy Ho is a total fabrica tion I have credited Ng who heard all the comments of Ho at the fourth floor meeting to the effect that two un named employees on the fourth floor who had attended the meeting the night before would have their hours cut Within a short time thereafter the fourth floor supervi sor Kwok Hung Ho told Ng and Louie that their hours were to be reduced and attributed this instruction to Tammy Ho whom the record clearly shows does not customarily become involved in decisions of this nature Louie on lengthy examination adhered to her testimo ny regarding the events of 21 March Further the testi mony of Sunny Kwong is highly suspect Louie testified that Kwong was not present during the conversation be tween Louie and Tammy Ho and Kwong testified on direct examination without even mentioning that he was present Then on resuming the witness stand following the testimony of Tammy Ho he maintained that he did witness the conversation and corroborated Ho s testimo ny in its entirety I do not credit Kwong s testimony Fi nally I was not impressed with the abbreviated and im probable testimony of Tammy Ho and her alleged failure of recollection concerning her meetings with the em 4 On careful consideration I conclude that the inconsistencies which are perhaps the result of translation and interpretation difficulties do not compromise the reliability of the employees testimony 142 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees She is not credited For the foregoing reasons I credit Louie s account of her conversation with Tammy Ho who admitted I find that Louie s hours were being reduced because of her participation at the meeting The various business records introduced into evidence are not helpful To be sure there were about 60 employ ees laid off during the period in question However about 140 employees were not laid off And as noted above Supervisor Kwok Hung Ho did not recall what he said to Ng and Louie about the matter and gave no reason for specifically selecting two longtime employees for reduction of their normal working hours rather than two other employees On the basis of the foregoing I find that a preponder ance of the credible record evidence supports the com plaint allegation that the Respondent reduced the hours of Ng and Louie by 50 percent for an indefinite period of time causing them to quit their jobs and seek employ ment elsewhere and that the motive for such treatment was the participation by Ng and Louie in the Depart ment of Labor meeting where they sought to assist and provide information to that Agency Under such circum stances the two employees were constructively dis charged as alleged in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(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 violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent violated and is vio lating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and from in any other manner interfering with restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act Moreover Respondent shall be required to post an appropriate notice attached as Appendix The notice shall be both in English and Chinese as the record shows that virtually all of the Respondents employees will not be able to comprehend an English notice Having found that Respondent constructively dis charged Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie it is recom mended that Respondent offer them immediate reinstate ment to their former positions without loss of seniority or other benefits and make them whole with interest for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them Backpay is to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) and Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) See generally Isis Plumbing & Heating Co 139 NLRB 716 (1962) On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed5 ORDER The Respondent T & W Fashions Inc San Francis co California its officers agents successors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Engaging in surveillance of employees protected concerted activity in furtherance of wage and hour claims before the Department of Labor (b) Telling employees that the Company is aware of everything that has been said at the meeting with repre sentatives of the Department of Labor (c) Taking photographs or appearing to take photo graphs of employees who attended the Department of Labor meeting (d) Telling employees that they will be laid off or oth erwise discriminated against because they provided infor mation to the Department of Labor (e) Discharging or constructively discharging employ ees for cooperating with and providing information to the Department of Labor (f) In any other manner interfering with restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted protected activity for purposes of mutual aid or protection 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer full reinstatement to employees Toy Fun Ng and Chau Fung Louie and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) Post at its place of business in San Francisco Cali forma copies of the attached notice marked Appen dix 6 The notice shall be both in English and Chinese Copies of the notice signed by Respondents representa tive shall be posted by it in conspicuous places includ ing all places where notices to employees are customan ly posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur poses 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 Nation al 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