Clothing & Textile Workers Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 747 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

(IO1'1 tlN(i AND) 'IXI 1.1 WVO()RKiRS I IONl()
Amalgamated Clothing and T'extile Workers tlnion,
AFL-CIO and its local nion No. 1566 (Belding
Corticelli, Fiberglass Fabrics Coinpan). a Division
of Belding Hemingway Company. Inc.) and Virginia
Overstreet. Case 5 ('B 2663
December 5. 1979
DE'ISION ANI) ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN [ANNIN(; ANI) MIEMBI RS JI NKINS
ANI) MURPIIY
On June 12, 1979, Administrative Law Judge John
P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting briefs.' and Respondents filed
exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefls
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge. as
modified herein.
The General Counsel excepts to the Administrative
Law Judge's finding at footnote I of the latter's Deci-
sion that the allegations in the complaint refer to a
single Respondent: that the reference in the caption
to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers.
Union, AFL CIO, is only fr the purpose of showing
the Local's affiliation; that he did not regard Amalga-
mated as being named as an individual Respondent
herein; and that there is no evidence that Amalga-
mated participated or engaged in any of the unfair
I On August 27. 1979. counsei for the G;eneral Counsel filed a motion for
permission to withdraw its memorandum in support f exceptins aind sub-
stiltute a new memorandum in support of exceptions. We grant such motin
and note that counsel for Respondents has indicated that he has no objection
IIo the granting of the motion. Also on the same date. counsel fior the (ieneral
Counsel filed a motion to reopen record to amend Jt Exh. I to include the
entire collectise-bargaining agreement, rather than portions thereiof pertain-
ing to seniority, arbitration, and grievances which were ointly offered and
received at the hearing. he General Counsel conlends that. although certain
relevant portions f the agreement were jointl) offered and admitted. the
entire agreement was not offered in an effort to save both time and expense
We grant the motion and find that the entire agreement is reles.anl It the
issues raised in the exceptions filed b both the General Counsel and Re-
spondents. We note that the record does not show that Respondents had
objected to admission of the entire agreement at the hearing Mlireover.
contrar) to Respondents' contentention. e find that the entire agreement does
not constitute new evidence. but merely completes evidence alread) jointly
introduced
2 Respondents have excepted to certain credibililt findings made b the
Administrative law Judge It is the Board's established phi c not Ito oter-
rule an Administratice l.aw Judge's resolutions with respect to credibilhit
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence colnvinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Sndurd Dr i/ll Prlofil,-i. In, 91
NLRB 544 11950). enfd. 188 .2d 362 (3d ('ir 1951) We have carelullb
examined the record and lind no hasis flr reversing his tindillgs,
labor practices ftound.' VWe ind merit in the (i;ellerl
(Coullsel's exceptions.
The complaint. in the caption and ii the pctllllg
paragraph, specifies that both the Interntaliotll anti
the local are namel; d as Respondetits and arlle lged
to haxe iolated the A\ct. lih (;netiral ( outisel', usc
of the singular torm Respondent rather thanl the
plural is not suLfficient to overcome the specilic allega-
titon: and the Administrative I.aw Judge giecs no re'a-
son for concluding that the use of' the singular torm
referred to the Local rather than to the International
which might just as logically have been said.
On the merits, the collect ve-ba rgaining agIreement
effective October 1. 1974. to October 1. 1977, shoiNs
that the agreement was made by and between the
Employer and "Textile Workers Union of' America.
AFL-CIO." referred to therein as the "Union." and
that the Textile Workers Union of' America. AFL.
CIO. was certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the representative. for the purposes o col-
lective bargaining of certain employees of the Em-
ployer. Only in article XVII, which deals with check-
off' of union dues, is Local Union No. 1566
mentioned. Significantly. the agreement was signed
by Wayne L. Dernoncourt. regional director Itr Tex-
tile Workers Union of America. AFL ('10. Although
Local Union No. 1566, TWUA, Bargaining Commit-
tee is referred to in the listing of the hourly wage rate
scale, the agreement does not provide tIr the signa-
ture of a representative of Local l.nion No. 1566.
The record shows that Local [Union No. 1566 acts
as Amalgamated's agent through Wayne Dernon-
court, vice president of the south region of Amalga-
mated: and that ocal trnion No. 1566 acted as
Amalgamated's agent in processing Virgillia O(ver-
street's grievance and in engaging in the accoimpanN-
ing unfair labor practice.
The above facts clearly demonstrate, and e find.
that the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Inion, AFI. CIO, played the primary role in bar-
gaining with the Employer: that it was recognized bh
the Employer and certified by the Board as the repre-
sentative of the Employer's emplo ees in an appropri-
ate unit: and that it is the party signatory to the exist-
ing agreement with the Emploer.
We also find that Dorothy Dowd\ was an admitted
officer of Respondent Local Union No. 1566. and
that at the time she engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(b)t )(A) [)owdy was involved in the griev-
ance proceeding as an agent of Amalgamated. as pro-
vided for in Amalgamated's collective-bargaining
agreement. Accordingly. Respondent Amalgamated
and Respondent ocal l nion No. 1566 are equallt
'lovc'r, in In recommended ()rder ani not ice I lie ,\dlililstr.ilt e la
Juldge specilticalil included .'\mllga lated
246 NLRB No. 115
'47
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
responsible for the unfair labor practices found
herein.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and
Respondent Local Union No. 1566 have engaged in
and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act, we shall
order Respondents to cease and desist therefrom and
take specific affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Respondents' misconduct
caused Virginia Overstreet to be denied reinstatement
to her former job with the Company. We shall there-
fore order that Respondents request the Company, in
writing, to reinstate Virginia Overstreet to her former
job or, if this position no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed, and offer to represent her as it would a union
member in any negotiations with the Company which
may be required as a result of such request for rein-
statement.4 We shall also order that Respondents
make Virginia Overstreet whole for any loss of pay-
ment she may have suffered by reason of Respon-
dents' conduct by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to that which she would have earned from Feb-
ruary 8, 1978, until such time as she is reinstated by
the Company, or Respondents have requested her re-
instatement in writing and have pursued same as di-
rected. Backpay and interest thereon is to be com-
puted in accordance with the formula described in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 91 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 5
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and Respondent Local
Union No. 1566 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in the representation of Vir-
ginia Overstreet, because she had ceased to be a
member of the Union, Respondent Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and
Respondent Local Union No. 1566 have violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
We do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation that
Respondents be ordered to "sign the company proposal of February . 1978,.
should the company require that this be done as a condition to Overstreel's
reinstatement." Such requirement has the potential of forcing the parties to
rewrite the contract in contravention of the principles set forth in H K
Porter Co. v. N L.R. B.. 397 U.S. 99 (1970).
'5 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Hearing (. 138 NL.RB 716 (1962).
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondents Amalga-
mated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, New York, New York, and its Local Union No.
1566, Lynchburg. Virginia, their officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to represent Virginia Over-
street, or any other employee within a collective-bar-
gaining unit wherein Respondents are the collective-
bargaining representatives, either because said em-
ployees are not members of the Unions or because of
arbitrary or invidious considerations.
(b) Telling employees that they will not represent
nonmembers or fail to provide them equal representa-
tion with members.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Request the Company, in writing, to reinstate
Virginia Overstreet to her former job or, if this posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent po-
sition, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and represent
her in any negotiations with the Company which may
be required as a result of such request for reinstate-
ment as it would a union member.
(b) Make Virginia Overstreet whole for the earn-
ings lost by her including interest as set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post at their union offices and meeting halls in
New York, New York, and Lynchburg, Virginia, cop-
ies of the attached notices marked "Appendix A" and
"Appendix B."6 Copies of said notices, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after
being duly signed by duly authorized representatives
of Respondent Amalgamated and Respondent Local.
shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by them fi)r 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent Amalgamated and Respondent Local to insure
that said notice are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Additional copies of "Appendix A" and "Ap-
pendix B" shall be signed by a representative of Re-
r In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment ofa United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notlice reading "Posted b Order ot the
National abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
itt the United States (Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
l.abor Relalions Board"
748
I.()THIIN(; AND) ITXI.. W()RK;IRS NION
spondent Amalgamated and by a representative of
Respondent Local 1566, respectively, and orthwith
returned to the Regional Director for Region 5. These
notices shall he posted, the Employer willing, at
places where notices to the Company's employees are
customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps Respondent Amalgamated and Respon-
dent Local 1566 have taken to comply herewith.
APPE N IX A
No'ICE To EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF TI1E'
NATIONAI. LABOR R.A TIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity
to present their evidence, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board has found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this
notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the
Board.
WE WNI.. NOT fail or refuse to fairly represent
Virginia Overstreet or any unit employee at
Belding Corticelli, Fiberglass Fabrics, Division
of Belding Hemingway Company, Inc., either
because of any employee's nonmembership or
because of arbitrary or invidious considerations.
WE Wll.t. NOT tell employees that our Union
will not represent nonmembers or fail to provide
them equal representation with members.
WI: WIl.. NOT in any like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the excercise of
their right to engage in or refrain from engaging
in protected activities guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL request the above-named Company
to reinstate Virginia Overstreet to her former job
or, if this position no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or any other rights or privileges en-
joyed, and offer to represent her in any negotia-
tions with the Company which may be required
as a result of such request for reinstatement as it
would a union member.
Wt: wii.l. make Virginia Overstreet whole for
losses in wages she may have suffered as a result
of our refusal to fairly represent her based on
arbitrary considerations and/or her lack of
union membership.
AMAIAMATED C.()IHtlING ANI) TEXIIt.E
WORKtRS UNION. AFL CIO
APPFNIDIX B
'l'ext, identical to that of Appendix B. has
been omitted from publication.]
L ()(AI. UNI()N No. 1566. AFFIl.IAIIi) WIIII
AMAI. (;AMA IH) C ()llIN(; AND) T XTILL
WORKIRS UNION, AFL-CI O
DF(CISION
SIAIlMLNI ()1 ItIF CASi
JoHii P. VON RolmR., Administrative l.aw Judge: Upon a
charge filed on May 23. the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 5 (Baltimore. Maryland). issued a complaint on
July 12. 1978. against Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union No. 1566.
herein called Respondent or the Union,' alleging that it had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) of the National l.abor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act. Respondent filed an answer
denying the allegations of unlawful conduct in the com-
plaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in
Lynchburg. Virginia, on December 12, 1978. Briefs were
received from the General Counsel and Respondent on
January 22, 1979, and they have been carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from m3 observa-
tion of the witnesses. I hereby make the following:
FINI)IN(;S ()oI FA(I
I. It It SINESS ()F llE MPI.(OYIR
Belding Carticelli. Fiberglass Fabrics Compan. a Divi-
sion of Belding Hemingway Compans, Inc.. herein called
the Compans, is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
manufacture of synthetic cloth products at its Bedford. Vir-
ginia, plant. During the 12 months preceding the hearing
herein, the Company purchased and received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points and
places located outside the Commonwealth of' Virginia. I
find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ti. It1f L.ABOR OR(ANIZATI()N
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union.
AFLICIO. and its Local Union No. 1566 is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of' the Act.
I Since the allegations in the complaint refer to a single "Respondent." I
construe the complaint as being against the local only and that the reference
in the caption to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile orkers L nion.
AF.L ('10. is onl for the purpose of shooing the Local's affillation In other
words, I do not, regard the Amalgamated as being named as an individual
Respondent herein Moreos.er. there is no eildence that the Amalgamated
participated or engaged in an 5 of the unt.ir labor practices herein.tler
found
749
ItlDECISIONS OF NATIONAL ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI)
111. 1111i. UNFAIR AB()OR RAt II{'S
A. 7he 1Flcts
Except for two private conversations hereinafter noted.
the facts in this case are not in dispute. Virginia Overstreet,
the ('harging Party herein, was employed by Respondent
for 8 years. Discharged on January 16, 1978, she was the
second most senior employee in her department.)
The Union has been the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the ('ompany's production employees since about
1962 or 1963. Although Overstreet was a member of the
Union for about 6 or 7 years, she withdrew her membership
from the Union on June 2. 1977, when the Union's monthly
dues were raised from $7 to $8.
Overstreet was out sick on January 12, 1978, and at this
time so apprised her supervisor. On January 16. at which
time she was still out, she asked her daughter to call the
Company and tell them that she would remain out for the
same reason. The Company, however, apparently did not
receive the call and has no record that any such call was
made. On January 16, Overstreet called Personnel Manager
Ann Croft to say that she would return to work the f'ollow-
ing Monday. but C'rof't at this time advised that she was
discharged. Although there appear to be some mitigating
circumstances, it is undisputed that Overstreet was properly
terminated because she failed to give the Company proper
notice that she was out on sick leave in accordance with the
sick-leave provisions of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment.
Overstreet was finally able to meet with Phillip GCarbari-
ni, the plant manager, on January 25. Garbarini was sym-
pathetic to Overstreet's plea that she needed her job back
and told her that, although his hands were tied. he would
talk to the company attorney and see if anything could be
worked out. On or about February 1, the attorney drafted
the following document:
Dear Mrs. Overstreet:
The Company will accept your doctor's certificate
concerning your recent illness and your failure to abide
by contract sick leave provision, provided that it is un-
derstood that this act will not be a precedent, binding
upon the Company in any future actions: and, pro-
vided that the ('ompany is not asked to make this
judgement in the future.
Agreed:
Virginia W. Overstreet
l.ocal ('ommittee for L.ocal Union No. 1566
BElI)ING CORTICELI.I FIBER GLASS FAB-
RI('S, IN('.
P. J. GARBARINI
PLANT' MANAGER
The ('ompany made it clear to Overstreet and the Union
that it would not reinstate Overstreet unless the above
document was signed by both parties. A meeting to take up
the matter was held at an office in the plant on February 8.'
2 nless otherwise noted, all dates refer to the year 1978.
In view of the ultimate issue in this case, there is no need to relate the
details concerning the communication of the Company's offer to Overstreet
and the Union and the arrangement of the above meeting.
The first part was a private meeting of' the Uinion's six-
member grievance committee which was held for the pur-
pose of determining whether it would agree to and sign the
aforenoted document containing the Company's proposal
concerning Overstreet's reinstatement. ]The members of this
committee included Jesse Orange, the president of local
1566, three other officials of the Local, including Dorothy
Dowdy, the recording secretary, (above whom more will be
said later), and two committee members. Orange testified
that he advised the committee to reject the ('ompany's pro-
posal on the ground that it violated the contract. Orange
also testified that "it was brought up in the meeting that
Mrs. Overstreet was not a union member."' Dorothy
Dowdy later testified that it was Orange who brought up
the fact that Overstreet was not a member of the Union. In
any event, upon an oral poll of individual members, the
committee unamimously voted to reject the ('ompany's of:-
fer. President Orange thereupon suggested a counterpro-
posal, which the committee adopted, the terms of which
provided that the Company agree "to take Mrs. Overstreet
back as a new employee over employees laid off." Specifi-
cally, Orange conceded that he was well aware that the
Company would not accept this counterproposal. His rea-
son for doing so, he testified, "was to show the Company
. . . how could they expect us to sign a proposal violating
the contract when they wouldn't do it themselves."
Immediately following the above meeting, the union
committee met with Personnel Manager C('roft and advised
her of their decision not to accept the Company's proposal.
Orange thereupon conveyed the Union's counterproposal.
Later that day, apparently after taking the matter up with
Plant Manager Garbarini, Croft apprised Orange that the
Company would not accept the counter-proposal. Garbari-
ni testified that it was impossible to rehire Overstreet as a
new employee, as the Union's proposal provided, because
this would have violated the contract inasmuch as there
were approximately 140 company employees on layoff at
the time.
Relevant to the issue herein are the two private conversa-
tions referred to earlier. On January 21 or 28.2 Mrs. Over-
street's husband went to the home of recording secretary
Dorothy Dowdy. a neighbor, to ascertain whether a union
meeting would be held that night. D)owdy was not certain
at the time, but that evening she came to the home of the
Overstreets to give the answer. Before leaving, but outside
the presence of Mr. Overstreet, Mrs. Overstreet raised the
subject of' her recent discharge. According to Overstreet,
I)owdy at this time told her, "If ou just hadn't pulled out
from the Union, they would have done something for you;
you could have got something done for you." Denying the
foregoing, Dowdy testified that to her knowledge she did
not tell Overstreet that the Union would have done some-
thing for her if she had not pulled out of the Union. Rather.
she said, she told Overstreet that she did not know what the
Union could do to help, but that Overstreet could get in
tlie testified also that "it was brought out that her husband was a union
member."
he quoted testimony is that of O ange.
6 Whereas Overstreet testified the incident occurred on January 21. I)Dowdy
said it occurred on January 28. The exact date. however. does not affect the
materiality of this evidence.
750
CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
touch with Orange or Wayne Dernoncourt, vice president
of the south region. Overstreet impressed me as a credible
witness, and I do not believe her testimony to have been
fabricated. I credit it as aforestated.
Overstreet encountered Dowdy again on about May I in
a local supermarket. After some casual conversation Over-
street remarked that she was still "vacationing" and that
she did not have a job. According to Overstreet, Dowdy
responded. "Well, the Union will recognize a non-union
member but they won't fight for them or spend any money
on them." Dowdy testified that she did not recall saying this
to Overstreet, but said that she asked Overstreet if she had
done anything to get the Union to help her, and that Over-
street replied that she had not but that she was thinking
about it. For the reasons previously stated, I credit the tes-
timony of Overstreet.
Solely due to the fact that the Union would not sign and
accept the Company's proposal, Overstreet has not since
been reinstated to her job.
B. Conclusion.s
From the undisputed facts in this case it is clear that
Virginia Overstreet was deprived reinstatement to her job
with the Company solely because the Union failed and re-
fused to sign the Company's offer of February 1. The as-
serted reason given by the Respondent Union for its rejec-
tion of this offer was that to do so would have violated a
provision in the contract requiring the discharge of an em-
ployee who failed to provide the Company with a doctor's
certificate within 3 days of illness. Upon the entire record. I
am convinced that Respondent's rejection of the Company
was motivated for reasons other than its alleged concern
with the contract. In the first place, the provision in the
contract giving the employer the right to terminate employ-
ees for not complying with sick-leave provisions was the
type of provisions that would inure to the benefit of the
Company, hardly to the employees or the Union. If the
Company was willing to waive this provision to enable
Overstreet to have her job back, it is indeed difficult to
comprehend why, absent some outside reason, the Union
would not go along with it. That there was some outside
reason, I have no doubt; and the reason, I am convinced,
related to the fact that Overstreet was no longer a member
of the Union. Thus, the claim of Respondent that it was so
concerned over the enforcement of the contract provisions
in my view is so patently questionable as to in itself warrant
the inference that its refusal to agree to the Company's offer
was based on arbitrary considerations or Overstreet's lack
of union membership. But this case need not rest on an
inference alone, for in the two previously related conversa-
tions which Overstreet had with recording secretary
Dowdy, Dowdy's expressions clearly indicated that Re-
spondent would have taken another course had Overstreet
not abandoned her membership in the Union. Further di-
rect evidence that Respondent was unlawfully motivated in
the handling of Overstreet's case is the fact that Union Pres-
ident Orange brought up the subject of Overstreet's non-
membership at the very time the union committee was
about to vote on the acceptance or rejection of the ('ompa-
ny's proposal. If as the Union contends, Overstreet's non-
membership was not a actor in its consideration of the
Company's offer, it is indeed strange that Orange would
bring up the matter in the first place.
In sum, not only do I find Respondent's conduct to have
been improperly motivated and thus to have iolated Sec-
tion 8(b)( I }(A) of the Act.7 but I find Respondent's actions
in this case to have been arbitrars, invidious, and in bad
faith. By thus having violated its duli of lair representation
toward the Charging Party. Respondent interfered with, re-
strained. and coerced her in the exercise of her Section 7
rights.!
I1. 1HI iF 1Lt( I ()1- itt: I NI-AIR ABOR PRA( Il( S (isN
( OMMI!R( I
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III.
above. occurring in connection with the operations of the
Company described in section 1. above, have a close. inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
v. HiL RtSI ' '
Having fbund that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(b)l)(A) of the Act I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The
Union's misconduct caused Virginia Overstreet to be de-
nied reinstatement to her former job with the Company. I
therefore shall recommend that the Union request the ('om-
pany in writing, to reinstate her to her former job or. if this
position no longer exists to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion. Further, that it sign the company proposal of Febru-
ary 1, 1978, should the Company require that this be done
as a condition to Overstreet's reinstatement. I shall also rec-
ommend that Respondent make Virginia Overstreet whole
for any loss of payment she may have suffered by reason of
the Union's conduct by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to that which she would have earned from Februars
8, 1978, until such time as she is reinstated by the ('ompany
or obtains substantially equivalent employment elsewhere.
Backpay and interest thereon is to be computed in the man-
ner and in accordance with the formula described in F I'.
fl'oolwHorth Compny v, 90 NLRB 289 (19501. and Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 19771.?
Since Respondent's conduct is of such nature as to strike
at the verb heart of rights intended to be protected hb the
Act, I shall recommend the issuance of a broad cease-and-
desist order requiring Respondent to cease and desist from
in ans other manner infringing on employees' rights guar-
anteed b Section 7 of the Act.
- ten,d SeeJSlorkl,r, 4neru'a,.L .fa,1 $fir3. 4L. (] ( ( (A eno ,-II
Co(pper ('rporatnin. R l Mines Diision). 225 Nl.RB 812 976)
lcitl I n.on A 28,. Iternaiomnal Brthe'rh.- f [i,, arll B 1orker.
.4 F (10 if',,r/ .le, e, ('orporaion), 218 NI RB 396 11
9 7
51 I l,, t'i ai
v Sipe,. 386 S 171 (l1967
'See. gencralb. [lwm Plumhin & Hating ( . 138 N I RB I ( 1962)
751
D)E'CISIONS OF NAI()NAL ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI)
CON(CISIIONS OF L.AW
I. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct described in section III.
above. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(h( I )(A) of
the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
752