Aldon, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 579 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

ALDON, INC. 579
Aldon , Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Cases 23-CA-3720 and
23-RC-3441
February 2, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On June 30, 1972, Administrative Law Judge'
William W. Kapell issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, both the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent filed exceptions and support-
ing briefs, and the Respondent also filed a brief in
answer to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.
The Administrative Law Judge, as more fully set
forth in his Decision, found that shortly before the
election a meeting of supervisors was held at which
Plant Manager Doniger stated that the Respondent
anticipated a union defeat and told the supervisors to
take it easy on the employees for 2 weeks to give
them time to settle down after the union campaign.
Thereafter the supervisors were to put pressure on
the employees and get rid of the union supporters for
one reason or another. The Administrative Law
Judge concluded that Doniger's instructions to the
supervisors to find pretexts to discharge union
supporters was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The evidence in the record does not support the
Administrative Law Judge's findings. The findings
are based upon the crediting of the testimony of
employee Raul Huizar who was, at the time, a
supervisor who had attended the meeting. Although
on his original direct examination he testified that
the pressures were to be brought on employees,
"Especially the strongest for the union," he contra-
dicted himself repeatedly in his subsequent testimo-
ny. Thus when asked on cross-examination what
Doniger had said about getting rid of employees he
replied whether "union or non-union" and when
asked whether Doniger said "he would get rid of
them whether they were for the union or not for the
union. Is that right?" he answered "Right." When
asked on redirect examination by the General
Counsel what Doniger had said about "the union
people" at the supervisory meeting he replied "I
don't remember him saying anything about the union
people." And again on recross examination when
asked "Did Mr. Doniger say you were to put
pressure on the union people only or on everybody?"
he answered "Everybody."
Under these circumstances we cannot accept the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that Doniger
directed his supervisors to put pressure on employees
supporting the Union and find pretexts to enable the
Respondent to get rid of them even though the
findings are based, in part, on Huizar's demeanor.
On the contrary, the evidence we have cited shows
that, with the exception of his single statement on
direct examination set forth above, Huizar's testimo-
ny supported that of Doniger to the effect that the
meeting was concerned solely with production in the
plant, which had fallen drastically during the union
campaign, and that the pressure was to be applied to
those employees who were not meeting the Respon-
dent's production standards regardless of their union
sympathies. The Administrative Law Judge's finding
in this respect is therefore devoid of any support and
is, in fact, refuted by the evidence in the record. We
therefore dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that Respondent,
Aldon, Inc., San Antonio and New Braunfels, Texas,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended Order as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and substitute the
following:
"(a) Interrogating its employees about Amalgamat-
ed Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other union; threatening to discharge its employees
or take other reprisals against them because of their
union support; soliciting and/or assisting in the
revocation of their union cards; discriminatorily
enforcing a no-solicitation rule against union sup-
porters; promulgating and enforcing a rule to enjoin
employees from conversing in the plant in order to
preclude any discussions concerning the Union;
soliciting employees' grievances with the implied
promise of improving working conditions to discour-
The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
201 NLRB No. 75
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
age union support; impliedly promising benefits to
employees if the election turns out favorably to
Respondent; interfering with voters at representation
elections ; and discriminatorily issuing written warn-
ing notices because of an employee's union support,
all within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
in Case 23-RC-3441 on July 15, 1970, be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that said case be, and it
hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for
Region 23 to conduct a new election when he deems
the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargain-
ing representative.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT, within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, interrogate our employees
about union activities or threaten to discharge or
take other reprisals against them because of their
union activities, solicit or assist them in revoking
their union cards, discriminatorily enforce no-
solicitation rules, promulgate and enforce rules
enjoining employees from conversing with one
another in the plant for the purpose of precluding
any discussion of the Union, soliciting employee
grievances with the implied promise of improving
working conditions to discourage union support,
impliedly promise benefits to employees if the
election turns out favorably to us, interfere with
voters at elections, or discriminatorily issue
written warning notices to employees.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or
activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, by discriminating in regard to
the suspension of our employees, or by discrimi-
nating in regard to any other term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL make Josie Rodriguez whole for any
loss of pay she may have suffered as the result of
her suspension, and expunge from her personnel
file the warning notice issued to her because of
her alleged unfair distribution of work.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join , or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in any other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or to refrain from
all such activities.
ALDON, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Dallas-Brazos Building, Fourth
Floor, 1125 Brazos Street , Houston , Texas 77002,
Telephone 713-226-4296.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner : These cases
consolidated for hearing were tried at San Antonio, Texas,
on March 13, 14, 15, and 16 and May 2, 3, and 4, 1972,
with all parties participating . The complaint , as amended,'
in Case 23-CA-3720, issued on May 21, 1971, alleges, in
substance , that in violation of Section 8(axl) Respondent
interrogated employees concerning their union activities,
threatened termination of employees who signed union
cards or supported the Union, solicited employees to
withdraw their union cards and assisted them in doing so,
permitted antiunion solicitation while barring union
solicitation , denied job advancement to an employee
because she filed charges with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in protestation of discriminatory
employment practices, issued warning slips to employees
because of their union support , incorrectly informed
clerical employees that they were not qualified to vote in
the Board election , engaged in surveillance of union
meetings, promised to promote an employee to a better
paying job if the Union lost the election, denied an
employee a promotion to a better paying job because of the
pendency of the union election , warned employees of more
stringent working conditions if they voted for the Union,
threatened to ascertain the identity of those who voted for
the Union and to make it "tough" on them , and held
employee meetings to solicit their grievances concerning
their working conditions and to ascertain employee
sentiment towards their supervisors ; and that in violation
I Based on charges filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, hereafter referred to as the Union , on August 5 and 27, and
October 19 and 21 , 1970. (All dates hereafter referred to are in 1970 unless
otherwise noted.)
ALDON, INC.
of Section 8(a)(3) Respondent discontinued overtime work
to an employee and then laid her off because of her union
support and refused to reinstate her. In its answer and
amended answer Respondent denied engaging in any of
the alleged violations.
In representation Case 23-RC-3441, pursuant to a
Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election
executed on June 5, an election was conducted on July 15,
to which objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of an
Election were filed by the Petitioner (Union) on July 22.
On September 11, the Regional Director issued his Report
and Recommendations on Objections to Election, recom-
mending that the Board overrule Objection 2 in its entirety
and direct a hearing on issues raised on the remaining
objections. No exceptions to the Regional Director's report
having been filed within the time provided therefor, the
Board adopted his recommendations as contained in his
report and ordered that a hearing be held before a duly
designated hearing officer for the purpose of receiving
evidence to resolve the issues raised by the Petitioner's
Objections I and 3 through 12, and further ordered that the
Hearing Officer shall prepare a report containing resolu-
tions of the credibility of witnesses, finding of fact, and
recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said
objections. The Regional Director thereafter consolidated
said hearing with the hearing in Case 23-CA-3720.
All parties were represented and were afforded an
opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs were received
from the General Counsel and Respondent and have been
duly considered. Upon the entire record2 in these cases,
and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
At all times material herein, Respondent, a Texas
corporation, having its principal office and business in San
Antonio, Texas, with facilities located in San Antonio and
New Braunfels, Texas, has been, and is, engaged in the
manufacture and sale of full-fashion knit garments. During
the past calendar year, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, Respondent derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 from the sale of its goods and during the
same period purchased and had shipped to its facilities
directly from points outside the State of Texas goods
valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find,
at all times material herein, that it has been engaged in
business as an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, at all times material
herein that the Union has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2 The Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is
granted as requested.
3 Stafford denied questioning Martinez as related above, but admitted
discussing the possibility of a mechanics job with him. I credit Martinez, as
the pattern of Respondent's conduct supports the likelihood of the
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
581
A. Background and Issues
The Union began organizing Respondent's employees id
the fall of 1969, following requests from a group of women,
led by employee Frances Trevino, who had been laid off in
July 1969. The group had filed charges with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex dis-
crimination against them. On April 27 the Union, which
had obtained authorization cards from a considerable
number of Respondent's employees, filed a representation
petition with the Board. An agreement for a consent
election was followed, on July 15, by an election conducted
by the Board, in which 223 ballots were cast for, and 271
against, the Union, with 18 challenged. Objections to the
election were timely filed, and the Board directed that a
hearing be held on all the objections except one.
The issues before me concern some 32 allegations of
violations of Section 8(a)(l) by the Respondent between
February 5 and October 21, an alleged violation of Section
8(a)(3) by a change in the hours and subsequent suspension
of one employee, and the objections, which with few
exceptions parallel the 8(a)(1) violations occurring during
the critical period. Resolution of virtually all the allega-
tions turns on credibility; there are few questions of law on
interpretations involved.
B. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
1. Interrogation
Employee Irene Segovia, who began working for the
Company in January in the button hole department, signed
a union card about 3 weeks thereafter. Some time in
February, Dan Utterback, the head guard and an admitted
company agent and supervisor, approached her while she
was working and inquired whether she had signed a union
card. After she denied having signed a card he said that she
should because a union was "really good for the compa-
ny "
About 2 weeks before the election (July 15) Employee
Rudy C. Martinez approached Allen Stafford, an admitted
company agent and supervisor, about the possibility of
obtaining a mechanics job. About 4 days later, in another
conversation with Stafford, he was asked how he felt about
the Union, and about 6 or 8 weeks after the election, when
he again inquired about the mechanics job, Stafford asked
how he voted in the election to which he replied
enigmatically "you know how I voted." 3
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by these
two instances of interrogation.4
2. Threats of discharge or reprisal
Early in March 1970, Supervisor Irene Alejandro told
employees Josie Martinez, Emelia de la Cruz, and
Pasqualla Rodriguez that all union card signers would be
interrogations having occurred.
4 The complaint also alleges "interrogation" by Plant Manager Liberto
in February and by Supervisor Davila in May. The "incidents" do not show
interrogations and are considered with respect to other violations alleged as
to them.
582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laid off permanently. In May 1970, Supervisor Estella
Davila told employee Josie Rodriguez that she was going
to be discharged because all union supporters were going
to lose their jobs, but that, whenever she decided to revoke
her union card, she (Davila) would fix it up by taking her
to Plant Manager Liberto.5
Employee Maria Carreon testified that the day before
the election Supervisor Ledesma told her in the presence of
other employees that if the Union won there would be
changes requiring the submission of a doctor's certificate
when an employee failed to report for work because of
illness and that otherwise the employee would be dis-
charged. He also stated that if the Union lost the election
and the Company found out who voted for the Union,
those employees would be fired. Ledesma denies telling
anyone that the employees who voted for the Union would
be fired and explained that he mentioned the requirement
for a doctor's certificate only in answer to a new
employee's inquiry concerning the company practice when
an employee remained off the job because of sickness.
Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, Ledesma's denial
and explanation are not credited.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by these
threats of discharge and of changing the procedure
regarding illnesses.6
3. Solicitation of card revocations
In mid-February the Union sent a telegram to Respon-
dent listing the employees on the Union' s organizing
committee.? About a week later, Josie Rodriguez had a
conversation with Supervisor Raul Huizar in which she
expressed her uncertainty about remaining in the Union;
she and two other employees. Sylvia Mendez and Dolores
Munos, were escorted to the office of Plant Manager
Liberto by Supervisor Ayala and there questioned by him
while awaiting the returning Liberto, who had left the
plant, as to whether they wished to seek the return of their
union cards. Rodriguez informed Ayala that she had
decided to remain in the Union; the other two employees
indicated they were in favor of retrieving their cards. When
Liberto returned to his office he inquired of Rodriguez
whether she wished to recover her union card, despite the
fact that she had already indicated to Ayala her desire to
remain in the Union. She declined and was told to leave
and return to her work.
Carmen Mendez, another member of the union's
organizing committee, had a conversation with Huizar
about the same time, in which she expressed some doubt
about remaining in the Union. Shortly thereafter, Liberto,
having learned of her doubts, told Huizar to bring her to
his office. Upon being told by Huizar to go to Liberto's
office concerning her union card, she unequivocally
informed him that she had decided to stay with the Union.
When she failed to report to his office, Liberto inquired of
Huizar about her and was informed that she had decided
to remain in the Union. Liberto, nevertheless, then
5 These findings are based on the credible and uncontradicted testimony
of the employees involved.
6 1 do not include in this 8(a)(1) finding a statement by Supervisor
Stafford to a few employees , allegedly overheard by employee Frances
Trevino, to the effect that the plant would close if the Union came in,
instructed Huizar to come to his office with Mendez. When
they appeared, Liberto asked her whether she wished to
recover her union card and resign from the Union and told
her it was a decision she had to make. She refused to
resign.
Following a meeting of the pressers in the plant in May,
while Teresa Carreon was walking to her parked car, Head
Guard Utterback approached her and said he could help
her obtain the return of her union card, and he volunteered
to protect her against any union retaliation . She had never
previously said anything to him about a union card and
declined his offer.
Also, as related above, Supervisor Estella Davila, after
telling Josie Rodriguez that union adherents were going to
be fired, stated that whenever Rodriguez decided to revoke
her union card she would fix it up by taking her to Liberto.
The facts reported above show a pattern of Respondent's
soliciting employees to withdraw their union cards and
offering assistance to them in doing so. In one instance, the
offer of assistance accompanied a threat that union
adherents would be fired . In these circumstances, I do not
agree with Respondent's contention that it was only
offering assistance to those employees who actively sought
it, or that Plant Manager Liberto's statements to some of
the employees brought in to see him that they were free to
do as they pleased militate against the General Counsel's
contention that the individual solicitations and offers of
assistance were unlawful.
I find accordingly that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by these solicitations of employees to revoke their
union cards.
4. Respondent's alleged retaliation against Trevino
because she filed a charge with the EEOC
Frances Trevino was laid off along with a number of
other women on July 3, 1969. On August 18 she filed a
charge with the EEOC claiming that the layoff was
motivated by sex discrimination against women. She was
rehired on December 8 as a knitter after insisting on such a
job although Liberto told her there were no openings. Both
before and after she was rehired she solicited employees to
sign union cards and, as indicated above, was named as
one of the union organizing committee members in the
Union's telegram to Respondent dated February 13. Six
weeks after she was rehired she was taken off the knitting
machine and assigned to do miscellaneous work until a
barloading machine was prepared for operation by her. It
appears that on January 26 only two knitters, male
trainees, out of six were retained as knitters and that their
production for the previous 6 weeks exceeded hers; the
three shifts were also reduced to two. Supervisor Stu
Morrison told her about that time that he knew she had
been handbilling but did not want her to think she was
being pushed around because of the Union and that he
would try to find work for her. When the barloader was
made ready she was assigned to operate it. On February 5
because she did not even purport to hear the entire conversation and the
remark taken out of context cannot be the basis for a violation
r These employees were Josie Rodnguez , Vivian Gomez, Carmen
Mendez, Maria Tovar, and Teresa Carreon.
ALDON, INC. 583
she filed a second charge with EEOC claiming Respondent
had retaliated against her for having filed her first charge.
Bruce Doniger, who succeeded Liberto as plant manag-
er, called a meeting of the employees during May to
announce his takeover for Liberto, who had become ill,
and to discuss production problems. During the meeting he
inquired whether there were any production problems
which the employees wished to discuss with him. Accord-
ing to Trevino, she asked him when she was going to be
reassigned to operate a knitting machine, to which he
replied, "Frances, you know the reason why. It's been
explained to you. You have filed against the Company with
the Equal Employment." He also added "You and I can
talk about this latter." On cross-examination she did not
remember whether she had asked him whether it was
because she had filed a charge with the EEOC. Employees
Maria Carillio and Teofilo Covarrubia on direct examina-
tion corroborated Trevino's testimony that it was Doniger
who stated in reply to her question that it was because she
had filed the charge with EEOC. Doniger testified that
when Trevino asked when she was going to become a
knitter he replied, "Frances, you know the reason why. It's
been explained to you." And that then she said, "Isn't it
because I filed charges with EEOC and aren't you
retaliating me," to which he replied, "No Frances,
absolutely not." He then refused to discuss it because it
was a private matter. Employee Maria Carillio on cross-
examination changed her testimony by stating that it was
Trevino who asked Doniger whether or not he was
discriminating against her because she filed the charge with
EEOC, thereby corroborating Doniger's version. I find that
it would be unreasonable to assume that Doniger, a rather
sophisticated witness and a high officer in Respondent's
parent company, would make a public announcement such
as Trevino ascribed to him, especially when it was
commonly known that the retaliation charge of February 5
was being investigated by EEOC. In fact, EEOC had taken
statements from the Company during the preceding month.
I credit Doniger's version as to what occurred at this
meeting. In view of this finding and the fact that Trevino
had been rehired as a knitter after the filing of her first
charge with EEOC, and since it also appears that economic
conditions motivated the reduction in force of knitters,
which caused Trevino to be assigned to operate a
barloader, I conclude that the General Counsel has failed
to establish that Respondent retaliated against Trevino for
filing her first charge with EEOC.8
5. The Company's postelection policy toward
union supporters
Huizar testified that shortly before the election he
attended a meeting of supervisors at which Doniger stated
that they were anticipating a union defeat and instructed
them to go easy on the employees for the next 2 weeks to
give them time to settle down in their work, which had
been adversely affected by the union campaign, but that
thereafter they should put pressure on the employees and
get rid of the union supporters for one reason or another.
According to Doniger , he met with the supervisors the
day after the election to thank them for helping to defeat
the Union and then stated that the Company expected
production , which had fallen drastically , to improve, and
he was setting a 2-week period in which through gentle
coaxing the employees would become readjusted to better
production , and that following that period if employees
had not fallen into line there would be a concentrated drive
against those who were in "makeup."s
Based on a background of company opposition to the
Union and the demeanor of Huizar , I credit his testimony.
I conclude that by Doniger's instructions to his supervi-
sors that they in effect find pretexts to rid the Company of
union supporters Respondent violated Section 8(axl) of
the Act.
6. The alleged surveillance of the union meeting
It is undisputed that Foreman Refugio Segura attended a
union meeting in June and constantly interrupted the
meeting by heckling Union Representative Perales while he
was addressing the meeting , that Segura attended the
meeting in violation of a company rule, that he was
reprimanded for doing so, and that he was too drunk to
realize what he was doing . The General Counsel contends
that Segura's conduct constituted surveillance of employ-
ees' union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). I find
that Segura's conduct was self -inspired and that the
Company not only did not condone it but also took
appropriate action when informed of it . Under such
circumstances I conclude that Segura's conduct does not
constitute surveillance within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1).
7. The no-solicitation rule and its enforcement
Respondent claims that it prohibited solicitation of any
kind in the plant during working time . The General
Counsel contends that even assuming such a ban it was
discriminatorily applied to the Union.
Supervisor Huizar testified that Liberto did not give him
any rules about employee solicitations in the plant for
raffle tickets, collections for the benefit of employees, or
the sale of Avon or other products, except that he was told
to stop any talking about the Union during working hours
and if anyone insisted in doing so he was to issue a written
warning notice . About 5 months before the election,
Liberto gave him a list of the names of the five members of
the Union's organizing committee and told him to watch
them and in particular two of them, Vivian Gomez and
Carmen Mendez, who were on his shift, to see that they did
not solicit union cards during working time.
Respondent admitted that there were sales of merchan-
dise in the plant which were made in violation of company
policy, that it did not condone them, and that it took
8 11 appears that EEOC found that Trevino' s demotion from knitter to low that their guaranteed rate of pay exceeded the earnings warranted by
barloader resulted in part from her poor attendance and production as their production . Employees in that situation were expected to improve their
compared with other knitters and that her first charge was also a factor . production to the point where their actual earnings warranted pay rates in
Those findings, however, are not binding on me . excess of the guaranteed rates , which , in effect, would increase their wages
9 Employees were in "makeup" when their piecework production was so and also improve production.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
action against known violators. In support, Respondent
adduced testimony from employee Guadalupe Lazano that
she received a written warning notice the first time she sold
Avon products.10 Supervisor Ray Reyes testified that he
sold wallets only during work breaks before Christmas in
1969 and that the Company proscribed the sale of
merchandise during working time as appears in a company
notice posted on the bulletin board on March 16.
It also appears that in April employee Estella Vargas was
accused of soliciting union cards during working hours.
Despite her denial and claim that she solicited such cards
only during her lunchbreak, she received a written warning
notice.11
The General Counsel adduced credited testimony from
Maria Carreon, Josie Rodnguez, Carmen Mendez. Teofilo
Covarrubia, Teresa Carreon, Joise Martinez, Isabel Bar-
boza, and Gloria Flores to the effect that employees,
including supervisors, participated in the sale and/or
purchase of raffle tickets, tickets for sporting events, and
Avon or other products during working time.
I conclude that the overwhelming preponderance of the
credited evidence establishes that solicitation of all kinds
was permitted during working time except for prounion
purposes. Such discriminatory enforcement of the no-
solicitation rule clearly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The Company enjoins employees from talking
to one another in the plant
Employee Henrietta Cadena testified that in May she
attended an employee meeting at which Doniger told her
not to talk to anyone while working because it would be
assumed to be about the Union. No such restriction had
been in effect before that time. Doniger also told them not
to give any office information to union representatives.
According to Herlina Villaneuva, a posting clerk, she
attended a meeting in May of office employees at which
Doniger told them office personnel were not going to be
permitted to vote and that if they talked to employees out
in the plant it would be assumed that they were talking
about the Union and passing information to which they
had access by reason of their work in the office. Some time
thereafter Supervisor Stu Momson saw Villaneuna talking
to another employee and asked whether they were
discussing the Union. When she replied they were not, he
told her to go back to her work. This also had never
happened before.
Doniger testified that at a meeting with the clerical
employees about 10 days before the election he told them
they could talk to anyone on their breaks and nonworking
time about any subject other than what they learned from
their work on the company records. Supervisor Stafford
related that on one occasion he saw a plant clerical, Linda,
visit the knitting department during working time and
10 The record, however , contains testimony to the effect that written
warning notices were issued only after oral warnings failed to stop a
prohibited practice
i i It was company policy upon the issuance of a written warning notice
to require the offender to sign it , allegedly only to establish that it was read
by the offender and not as an admission of guilt The offender was not
permitted to resume working unless and until the notice was signed
converse with an employee in that department and that he
told her to leave and return to her own work station.
Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony of
Cadena and Villaneuva is credited.
The undenied testimony of employee Isabel Barboza
shows that following the Company's receipt of a telegram
on June 2 from the Union, which listed her as a member of
the Union 's organizing committee at the New Braunfels
plant of Respondent, her supervisor began watching her
constantly. On one occasion while leaving on her lunch-
break she stopped to talk to another employee to pick up
the latter's house keys to be given to her daughter who was
returning from school. It took but a few moments, but
when she returned to work Plant Manager Sanders gave
her a written warning notice because she had bothered
another employee who was actually working at the time.
When she remonstrated, claiming that she had never
received a warning notice before for talking to another
employee and asked why she was being singled out,
Sanders replied that it was not just her and that the
warning notice didn't mean anything and to sign it, which
she did.
It appears, and I find, that Respondent changed its
preexisting practice regarding conversation among the
employees in an attempt to forestall any discussion relating
to the Union. The promulgation and enforcement of this
"gag" rule in the context of the Company's union animus
and the forthcoming election restrained the employees
within the meaning of and in violation of Section 8(axl).
9. Respondent's alleged discrimination against
Estella Vargas 12
Estella Vargas testified that she worked in the looping
department and was laid off on September 30 with several
other employees. About 3 weeks later Respondent Person-
nel Manager Hammond telephoned her at her home on a
Wednesday about 10 a.m. requesting her to report back to
work the next morning at 8 a.m. She replied that she would
be unable to report at that time because she had to make
arrangements to obtain a babysitter for her young children
but that she would be able to report the day following, on
Friday.13 Hammond declined to give her the additional
day and instructed her to call him if she planned to report
for work as requested. About 10 a.m. the following day, she
called Hammond to advise him she had made arrange-
ments for a babysitter but before she was able to tell him
anything he stated that he had hired somebody else.14 She
testified further that thereafter she never had any contact
with the Company. On cross-examination she recalled that
Hammond called her about 10 a.m. asking her to return to
work but was unable to recall any other calls referred to in
Respondent's Exhibit 15 (see infra) or several other matters
set forth in her pretrial affidavit. Evidence submitted by
12 Paragraph 7W of the complaint relating to this alleged violation was
amended during the hearing to change the date of May 1 , 1970, to October
21, 1970.
13 As appears , supra, Vargas had been given a written warning notice in
April for soliciting union cards during working hours.
1+ Hammond died prior to the hearing.
ALDON, INC.
Respondent to refute Vargas' testimony consisted of an
exhibit (Resp. Exh. 15)15 and the testimony of Bart
Mitchell and Rita Funari. The exhibit contains a handwrit-
ten notation in red ink, identified as the handwriting of
Hammond, stating : "Called 2:20 p.m. 11-4-70 daughter
said she was not at home. 11-5-70 Estella called 9 a.m. &
stated she could return to work. I told her she did not call
at 2 p.m. 11-4 as I requested, we had gotten someone else. I
was advised by Mitchell later to call her and tell her we
needed more loopers & to come in 8 a.m. 11-9-70. 4
calls-no answer ." This notation is followed by another
one in handprinted letters stating: "Called at 11:30 a.m.
11-5-70. She stated she would come in at 8 a .m. 11-9-70 to
loop." There is also a typed notation on the sheet, allegedly
from Hammond's typewriter, stating, "She stated she
would have to find a babysitter and would call personnel
by 2 p.m. on 11-4-70 and state if she could report for work
on 11-5-70 at 8 a.m." According to Rita Funari, who was
Mr. Hammond's assistant , she was also laid off shortly
after Vargas but in the same month of October and was
recalled about 2 weeks later on November 9. She testified
that Mr. Hammond had a heart attack on November 5 and
did not return thereafter. She also stated that she made the
handwritten inscription on Exhibit 15 in black ink reading,
"11-9-70 [an illegible word then appears] Mitchell waited
from 4 to 9. She did not show do not rehire," "and that
pursuant to Mitchell's instructions she typed the following
notation on the top of the blue sheet:
November 9, 1970
As Per B. Mitchell
Estella Vargas called back to work primarily on
11-4-70 and after calling back and forth (see attached
slip) she was supposed to return to work on 11-9-70
and she did not show up. Mr . Mitchell decided we had
waited enough and she would not be dependable if she
did, therefore , we are not to rehire her at all.
RcF
Mitchell testified that following the general layoff in
1970, employees were recalled as needed on a seniority
basis as production picked up, that Vargas was among the
loopers he instructed Hammond to recall, that thereafter
he was informed by Hammond that Vargas had babysitter
problems and could not come back when called, that
shortly thereafter he again asked Hammond to call Vargas
and find out whether she could come back to work, and
that when she failed to report for work on November 9 he
instructed Funari to terminate her.
I find that Vargas' inability to recall certain events
mentioned in her pretrial affidavit and the necessity to
change the dates of her layoff and recall make Respon-
dent's version of the incident appear far more plausible
and reliable, and it is credited.
The General Counsel contends that because Vargas was
an active union supporter, who had been previously
reprimanded for her union activity in soliciting union
cards, she was given disparate treatment when denied an
585
additional day to arrange for a babysitter before reporting
for work, especially in the light of the testimony of
employee Antonio Garcia whose request in similar circum-
stances for an additional day to find a babysitter had been
granted. Garcia's situation was with a different supervisor,
and she was also a union member. Furthermore, the
Vargas incident occurred long after any of the other unfair
labor practices found or alleged to have been committed
herein, and after charges had been filed. In these
circumstances, and in view of Vargas' confused testimony,
I do not regard the evidence as sufficient to establish that
Respondent did not take her back because of her earlier
union activities.
10. Solicitation of employee grievances
Teresa Carreon , a member of the Union's organizing
committee , attended a meeting with other pressers in May
at which Assistant Plant Manager Bart Mitchell inquired
how their supervisors were treating them and in what way
their working conditions could be improved . Carmen
Mendez, another member of the union organizing commit-
tee, also attended that meeting and testified that Mitchell
asked whether they had any grievances and told them he
would try to resolve them. As a result, complaints of
insufficient stretching frames and lights were thereafter
remedied . Trevino testified that she attended a meeting on
May 11 at which Doniger told a group of 22 employees to
voice their job complaints and expressed a hope of being
able to resolve their problems.
Employee Armando Arrambide testified that 2 or 3 days
either before or after the election Doniger approached him
and in an ensuing conversation asked what he thought
about having an employee committee formed to handle
their problems . Arrambide then mentioned it to five or six
other knitters . According to Doniger about 2 days after the
election production virtually had come to a complete
standstill and he went into the plant and spoke to
Arrambide, one of the best knitters, and asked what was
wrong . After Arrambide said he didn't know , he replied,
"Well, if your committee of knitters ever figure out what
was wrong I would be more than happy to hear it." He
thereafter never heard from Arrambide about the matter.
In view of the Union's defeat at the election , it would be
more plausible to credit Doniger's version of their
conversation and I so find.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by conducting meetings with employees prior to the
election and questioning them for the purpose of soliciting
their complaints and grievances and then impliedly
promising to remedy those complaints . Tom Wood Pontiac,
Inc., 179 NLRB 581. Such conduct also interfered with the
election . Flight Safety, Inc., 197 NLRB No. 40.
11. The Company's offer of mechanic trainee jobs
Employee Teofilo Covarrubia testified that about a week
before the election Supervisor Stafford, the head mechanic,
told him that the Company was going to hire some
mechanic trainees and asked whether he was interested in
15 Admitted as an entry in the normal course of business constituting a
written recall record on Vargas placed in her personnel file
586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such a job after the election. When Covarrubia said he was,
Stafford replied that he could not promise him anything
because he didn't know how the election would turn out,
but he could give him the job if the election turned out all
right. The next day Covarrubia passed out leaflets for the
Union and was seen by several supervisors. The following
day Stafford remarked to him that he had seen him
handbilling for the Union. When Covarrubia replied that
he would continue to do so, Stafford said nothing.
Thereafter, Stafford never mentioned the trainee's job to
him.
Rudy C. Martinez , a collar machine operator , testified
that about 2 weeks before the election he asked Supervisor
Stafford about the possibility of obtaining a mechanic's
job. Stafford replied there probably would be an opening
after the election. About 4 days later Stafford asked him
how he felt about the election, to which he replied that he
was neutral. About 8 weeks after the election when
Martinez inquired again about the mechanic's job, Stafford
asked how he voted. He replied, "you know." He never did
get the mechanic's job. He did, however, state on cross-
examination that after the election work fell off to the
extent that a foreman mechanic was demoted to a knitter's
job and that three mechanics' jobs were eliminated.
Stafford testified that in the latter part of 1969 the
Company was unable to obtain experienced mechanics to
operate their complex machines, so they decided to train
their own employees. With this in mind he spoke to
Martinez, Covarrubia, and Arrambide. Thereafter, when
these employees inquired again about the mechanic
trainee's job in January he told them they were still under
consideration. Business then fell off and it was decided not
to make any immediate transfers. In August or September
the number of mechanics was reduced to two. He denied
ever telling Martinez or Covarrubia that a decision could
not be made to appoint mechanic trainees until after the
election or seeing or telling Covarrubia he had seen him
handbilling for the Union.
Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony of
Martinez and Covarrubia is credited. Although the fact
that Covarrubia and Martinez did not get the jobs in
question was manifestly not based on other than economic
considerations, the implicit promise of benefit to these
employees if the election turned out favorably to Respon-
dent was plainly violative of Section 8(a)(1), and I so find.
12. Respondent's interference with voters at the
election
Elvira Martinez, a union card signer who was laid off in
February, testified that Respondent refused to permit her
to vote when she appeared at the pools because she had
been laid off and was, therefore , ineligible to vote. Emelia
de la Cruz, a button machine operator who had signed a
union card in February, was laid off in March. When she
attempted to vote, Utterback stopped her, and her former
supervisor, Irene Alejandro, who was present told her she
was too late to vote because the laid-off employees had
voted the day before. Plant Manager Liberto was then
16 Rodriguez was an expeditor which entailed distributing the work to
the pressers for ironing The unfair distribution accusation was based on her
called and he permitted her to cast her ballot. Pasqualla
Rodriguez , also a button machine operator who had signed
a union card, was laid off in March . She testified that on
three occasions when she attempted to vote she was
restrained from doing so by Utterback. On the fourth
occasion , Alejandro, who was present , told her she was too
late, the laid-off employees having voted the day before.
She then attempted to vote on a fifth occasion and was
permitted to do so.
Rather than follow the regular procedure of allowing
employees to cast challenged ballots , Respondent arrogat-
ed to itself the right to determine their eligibility. Such
action also intimidated other prospective voters. Respon-
dent thereby not only interfered with the right of
employees to vote but also usurped the prerogative of the
Board in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Marine
Welding and Repair Works, Inc., 174 NLRB 661, 674, fn. 2,
enfd . 439 F.2d 395, 398 (C.A. 8); Ace Letter Service Co.,
187 NLRB No. 79.
C. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations
1. The denial of overtime work
The General Counsel contends that Josie Rodriguez was
unlawfully denied regular overtime work because of her
union support . She testified that in June Supervisor Ray
Reyes told her that he could not continue to give her the I
hour overtime (a half hour before and after her shift) she
had been getting because Assistant Plant Manager Bart
Mitchell knew she had been soliciting union cards and had
signed one herself . Thereafter, she received no overtime
work.
Reyes testified that he had never told Rodriguez that her
overtime work would be cut, while Mitchell disputed her
claim that her overtime work had been cut after being
given a warning notice (see infra). Rodriguez' timecards
show that after May her working hours were increased to 9
hours from the 8-1/2 previously worked since February 9,
that in I week her working hours actually rose to 9 hours,
and that after May they went down to 8-1/2 hours until
September when she was laid off . Respondent contends
that the fluctuation in her overtime work was due to
production requirements . I find her overtime not only was
not cut but actually increased during June , and thereafter
reduced to the 8-1/2 hours she had worked prior to May. I,
therefore , conclude that the General Counsel has failed to
establish any reduction in her overtime work which was
related to her union support , and I find no violation in this
respect.
2. The suspension of Josie Rodriguez
Rodriguez testified further that the week after she
declined to revoke her union card (see supra) she was called
to Liberto 's office and accused of not being fair in
distributing the work to the girls, 16 and was told that some
unidentified girls had complained about it. She denied it
but a few days later Doniger met her while she was
working and made the same charge . She again denied it.
favoring union adherents by giving them easier and more lucrative work
than was given to nonunion supporters
ALDON, INC. 587
She also testified that pnor to the Union's telegram of
February 13 to the Company listing her as a member of the
Union's organizing committee there had not been any
complaints about her distribution of the work. About June
18 she was called to Mitchell's office and, after again being
accused of not distributing the work properly and of using
obscene language to the girls, she was given a written
warning notice and asked to sign it. Otherwise, if she did
not sign it she was to punch out and not return to work
until she agreed to do so. She not only denied using bad
language but demanded to be told who her accusers were.
When Mitchell refused to tell her she refused to sign the
warning and left the plant. After being out of work for
about 2 weeks she was called in to see Liberto and asked
whether she wished to return to work. He assured her that
signing the notice would not affect her adversely, and she,
thereupon, signed and resumed working.
Doniger testified that pnor to the election employee
Hope Martinez and another girl had complained to him
about Rodriguez' unequal distribution of work; that he
then spoke to her and, after asking whether she had
previously been spoken to about it by Liberto, which she
admitted, he warned her to stop it; and that when she
persisted in doing it again a warning notice was issued to
her. Mitchell testified that, after receiving complaints
about Rodriguez' not giving efficient service and equal
distribution of work to some employees and also using bad
language, he gave her an oral warning and that when she
ignored his warning a written warning notice was given to
her and she was laid off until she signed it. Employee Mary
M. Lucio testified that Rodriguez favored union adherents
in distributing the work by giving the nonunion supporters
more arduous work; that after complaining to Reyes, a
supervisor, without avail she wrote to Liberto; and that
after Rodriguez received a warning notice she stopped
doing it.17 Reyes also testified that nonunion pressers
complained about Rodriguez' unfair distribution of work,
that he spoke to her about it, and that following the
issuance of a warning notice to her there were no more
complaints. However, on cross-examination Reyes stated
that he directed Rodriguez where to put the bundles of
work which contained an assortment of easy and more
arduous work and that some went to union members and
some to nonunion members.
I credit the testimony of Rodriguez and Reyes that she
did not favor union adherents in the distribution of work,
nor did she indulge in the use of foul language other than
that commonly used in the plant by the girls.
I find that a warning notice was discriminatorily issued
to Rodriguez because of her union support and that as a
result she was unlawfully deprived of employment during
her suspension in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING
The record shows that there were approximately 560
eligible voters and that, of the 512 ballots cast, 223 were for
the Union, 271 against the Union, and 18 were challenged;
the challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. As related above, a
hearing was ordered for the purpose of receiving evidence
to resolve the issues raised by the Union's Objections 1 and
3 through 12 to the election. They are:
1. The Employer interfered with the mechanics of the
holding of the election , inter alia, by improperly posting the
notice of election, by preventing people from voting, by
campaigning near the voting area , and by irregularities on
the Excelsior list.
3. The Employer held meetings within 24 hours of the
election.
4. The Employer promulgated and discriminatorily
enforced a no-solicitation rule.
5. The Employer promised employees benefits if they
voted against a union and threatened employees that
choosing a union would be futile.
6. The Employer granted , changed, and withdrew
benefits during the campaign to convince employees to
vote against the Union.
7. The Employer threatened employees with discharge
if they joined the Union.
8. The Employer laid off, transferred, discharged, and
otherwise discriminated against employees because of their
concerted activities.
9. The Employer attempted to survey employees.
10. The Employer assisted employees to have their
authorization cards returned.
11. The Employer changed working conditions because
of union activities.
12. By these and other acts the Employer interfered
with the holding of a free election.
The Union relies on the proof of the alleged unfair labor
practices herein as the basis for the foregoing objections.
As determined and indicated above , Respondent com-
mitted many violations during the period from April 27,
when the representation petition was filed , to July 15, when
the election was held . These include interrogating employ-
ees concerning the Union, threatening discharge or other
reprisals to discourage union support , soliciting and/or
assisting employees to revoke their union cards, discrimi-
natorily enforcing no-solicitation rules, promulgating and
enforcing a rule enjoining employees from talking to one
another in the plant in order to preclude any discussions
concerning the Union , soliciting employee grievances with
an implicit promise to improve working conditions in order
to discourage union support, impliedly promising benefits
to employees if the election turned out favorably to
Respondent , interfering with employees attempting to vote,
and discriminatorily issuing written reprimand notices to
employees.
The Board has consistently held that conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) a fortiori interferes with the exercise of a
free and untrammeled choice in an election.is In addition,
it also appears, based on the testimony of employees
Gloria Flores and Isabel Barboza , and I find, that on or
about July 10 on a regular payday they and other
employees each received two checks ; one for $4 and the
17 She also testified that the more arduous work adversely affected the IB Oleson 's Foods No. 4, Inc., 167 NLRB 543, 551 , and Irving Air Chute
wages of the nonunion supporters , but this was proven to be inaccurate Company, Inc, 149 NLRB 627, 629.
because there was a higher rate of pay for this type of work.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other for the balance of their wages. Upon inquiring of
Hammond and Doniger why they had been given two
checks instead of the usual one, they were told that if the
Union won and obtained a union-security clause in its
contract $4 would be the amount withheld for payment of
union dues. When they protested that it would cost them
an extra 10 cents to cash two checks instead of one,
Doniger replied that it was a cheap lesson to learn about
union dues. In Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association, 163
NLRB 777, footnote 2, the Board held that "by
temporarily withholding ficitious union dues-from each
employee's paycheck shortly before the election, Respon-
dent interfered with the laboratory conditions in which a
free choice may be made." I, therefore, find merit in and
sustain the Union's objections to the extent found during
the critical period as indicated above and recommend that
the election be set aside and a new election ordered.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein, Respondent has
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. At all times material herein, the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating employees about the Union, threat-
ening employees with discharge or other reprisals because
of their union support, soliciting and assisting employees in
the revocation of their union cards, discriminatorily
enforcing the no-solicitation rule, enjoining employee
conversation in the plant, soliciting employee grievances
with the explicit promise to improve working conditions,
impliedly promising benefits to employees if the election
turned out favorably to Respondent, interfering with
employees attempting to vote at the election, and discrimi-
natorily issuing written reprimand notices to employees.
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily issuing a written notice to Josie
Rodriguez, which had the effect of causing her suspension
for about 2 weeks, Respondent discriminated in regard to
the tenure of her employment in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. Except as found above, Respondent has not engaged
in any unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl) and
(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that
Respondent discriminatorily caused the suspension of
Josie Rodriguez , I shall recommend that it make her whole
for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as the result
of the discrimination against her, with interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum , and that it expunge the warning
notice issued to her from her personnel file.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 19
ORDER
Respondent Aldon, Inc., its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees about Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other
union ; threatening to discharge its employees or take other
reprisals against them because of their union support;
soliciting and/or assisting in the revocation of their union
cards ; adopting a postelection policy to get rid of union
supporters ; discriminatorily enforcing a no-solicitation rule
against union supporters ; promulgating and enforcing a
rule to enjoin employees from conversing in the plant in
order to preclude any discussions concerning the Union;
soliciting employee grievances with the implied promise of
improving working conditions to discourage union sup-
port ; impliedly promising benefits to employees if the
election turned out favorably to Respondent; interfering
with voters at representation elections ; and discriminatori-
ly issuing written warning notices because of an employee's
union support , all within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of
the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership and activities in Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization , by discriminating in regard to the
suspensions of their employees or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to any term or condition of
employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization , to form , join , or assist any labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or to refrain from all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Josie Rodriguez whole for any loss of pay she
may have suffered as a result of her suspension in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy ," and expunge from her personnel file the
i9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings , its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec deemed waived for all purposes
ALDON, INC.
warning notice issued to her because of her alleged unfair
distribution of work.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, 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 recommended Order.
(c) Post at its plants in San Antonio and New Braunfels,
Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.1120
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by its
representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately
20 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
589
upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places , includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.2t
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
21 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."