Dee Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 19, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 1041 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 1041 Dee Knitting Mills, Inc ., Dippy Knits, Inc. and Three D Knitting Mills, Inc . and International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO.Cases 29- CA-3563, 29-CA-3627, and 29-CA-3637 November 19, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On April 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Mel- vin J. Welles issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the Charg- ing Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order except as modified below. We find merit in the General Counsel's and the Charging Party's exception to the Administrative Law Judge's finding and conclusion that employee Barbara Laufman was not in the appropriate bar- gaining unit; her card, on behalf of I.L.G.W.U., AFL-CIO, was not to be counted; she had sought employment with Respondent solely to organize and her employment was really only temporary; and she intended to leave her job when her organizing job was completed. Barbara Laufman worked for Dee Knitting Mills from about June 25, 1973, until September 20, 1973, when she was discharged for union activity, along with some 18 other employees. During that period, she cleaned and examined sweaters and worked at the cutter's table, on sewing machines, and at the packing table. She was paid $2 an hour. At the same time that Laufman was working full time for the Company, she continued her activities as a paid union organizer, a job she held for about 2 years. Starting in early August, she began organizing Dee employees for the Union. ' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings The Administrative Law Judge notes, and we agree, that an employee does not lose his status be- cause he is also paid to organize. See Sears Roebuck & Co., 170 NLRB 533, 535, footnote 3 (1968). The real question, as the cited case shows, is whether the employment itself was solely to organize, so that the employment is really only temporary, whether the employer knows it or not. Although the Administra- tive Law Judge conceded that there was no direct evidence on the point, he felt constrained to infer that she sought the job only to organize. Laufman worked for the Employer for 3 months, longer than some employees found to be properly included in the unit. Nothing was said when she was hired, or at any other time, that her employment was of fixed duration. She had exactly the same duties as the unit employee, worked the same hours, and earned the same rate of pay. There is no evidence to show that Laufman took the job solely to organize, nor is there any evidence to show that she was not a bona fide full-time employee. Therefore, we find that the Administrative Law Judge erred when he drew the inference that her employment was only tempo- rary and that her authorization card should not be counted. Accordingly, we find that Laufman's au- thorization card should be counted and she should be included in the bargaining unit. We also find merit in the General Counsel's excep- tions to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to find that Respondent's actions regarding employee Ella Santiago violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In July 1973, after Local 231, Industrial Trade Union, AFL-CIO, had distributed leaflets, either Vincent or Charles DiBartolo stated he had heard rumors that Santiago was "putting the Union into the girls' heads." Charles DiBartolo stated he was going to be a "bitch" if the Union came in, and that he was going to get more employees if the shop was unionized so that the incumbent employees would be laid off more often. During this discussion, DiBartolo granted San- tiago a wage increase. We find DiBartolo's conduct constituted a threat of layoff, created an impression of surveillance of Santiago's union activities, and that the grant of a wage increase to her at that same time was a benefit designed to induce her to refrain from protected activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The raise given to Santiago, a pro- union employee, was made in the context of other antiunion unfair labor practices, including a threat of loss of work if the Union represented the employees. In such circumstances, the raise was clearly designed to induce Santiago to support the Employer's antiun- ion position and to refrain from further protected union activity. Since the Administrative Law Judge failed to provide an appropriate remedy therefor, we 214 NLRB No. 138 1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shall modify his recommended Order to include this violation of the Act. Further , we find merit in the General Counsel's exception that the Administrative Law Judge failed to find that employee Doris Tramont was discharged along with the other employees who were wearing the I .L.G.W.U . buttons. The record shows that Di- Bartolo ordered everyone wearing a union button to get out (of the shop). However , employee Tramont, who was wearing a button , was not in the shop at the time, having gone out to her car to get something. The employees who had been wearing buttons left the shop and went out to the parking lot. They met Tramont returning to the shop , who, when told what had occurred, remained outside . As the employees stood outside the shop , Lipsenthal , secretary- treasur- er and director of Dippy, who has been involved in the personnel and labor relations of Dee , along with DiBartolo , came out and told the employees to get off the property and into the street , and that they belonged in the gutter . The Administrative Law Judge would not include Tramont among the em- ployees discriminatorily discharged as she was tem- porarily out of the shop , even though he finds it is clear that she would have been discharged along with the others had she been present . He found she was not in fact discharged , but merely stayed out when she heard from other employees what had occurred. We find , contrary to the Administrative Law Judge , that Tramont was discriminatorily discharged for engaging in concerted protected activities. The record facts show that the Respondent announced that all employees wearing I .L.G.W.U. buttons were discharged ; that Tramont was indisputably wearing such a button ; that she had momentarily stepped out of the shop when the order of discharge was given; that she was then advised of the mass discharge by the other employees ; that she concluded that she was also discharged ; and that she, along with the other discriminatees , was ordered off the property and into the street . In these circumstances , it would strain cre- dulity to conclude that Tramont was not in fact dis- charged for engaging in protected concerted activi- ties. Tramont plainly maintained her support of the Union in the face of Respondent ' s unlawful action. To require her to reenter the plant after she learned of this action , to determine whether Respondent would repeat it with respect to her individually and with no evidence to indicate Respondent's sweeping order and abusive language did not apply to her, as by its terms it clearly did, seems to us an exercise in form and futility. For the reasons stated by the majority in Steel- Fab, Inc., 212 NLRB 193 (1974), we do not adopt the Administrative Law Judge 's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, but rather we find in accord with Steel-Fab that the Respondent's viola- tions of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act alone con- stitute the basis for the remedial order.' We shall modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommend- ed Order and notice accordingly. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Dee Knitting Mills, Inc., Dippy Knits, Inc., and Three D Knitting Mills, Inc., Farmingdale, New York, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b): "(b) Promising employees benefits and granting wage increases to dissuade them from union repre- sentation." 2. Delete paragraph 1(j) and reletter the following paragraph accordingly. 3. Substitute the following as paragraph 2(e): "(e) Upon request, recognize and bargain with In- ternational Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of its employees in a unit of all production, maintenance, and shipping employees, including knitters at its Farmingdale, New York, plant, but ex- cluding office clerical employees, sales employees, guards, professionals, and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, respecting rates of pay, wag- es, hours, or other terms and conditions of employ- ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement." 4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I join Member Penello in the modifications of the Administrative Law Judge's findings, Order, and no- tice as set forth in the final paragraph of the opinion herein. I do not agree, however, with the other modifica- tions which my colleagues have made, and, except as indicated in the above paragraph, would adopt all of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge, for the reasons given by him. 2 For the reasons set forth in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Steel-Fab, Inc, supra, Member Jenkins would find a violation of Sec 8(a)(5), as did the Administrative Law Judge DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten employees with reprisals if a union comes in. WE WILL NOT promise benefits nor grant wage increases to our employees to discourage sup- port of a union. WE WILL NOT question employees about their union membership or activities. WE WILL NOT assault our employees or threat- en them with violence because of their union ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees on strike by threats, violence, or in any other man- ner. WE WILL NOT suggest to our employees that the Company will supply a union for them. WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to sign au- thorization cards for Local 550, International Union of Maintenance and Production Employ- ees. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 550 as the repre- sentative of our employees unless and until that union has been certified as such by the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for their membership in or activities on behalf of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the representative of our employees in the following bargaining unit: All production, maintenance, and shipping employees, including knitters, but excluding office clerical employees, sales employees, guards, professionals, and supervisors. WE WILL pay the employees discharged on September 20, 1973, for the losses they suffered as a result of the discharge. WE WILL, upon their application, reinstate to their old or equivalent jobs all employees who went on strike on September 20, 1973, and who have not already been reinstated to such jobs. WE WILL pay all strikers for any wage losses they suffered because of our refusal, if any, to reinstate them. 1043 WE WILL not in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to join or assist any union, or otherwise engage in union activities. DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC., DIPPY KNITS, INC., THREE D KNITTING MILLS, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN J. WELLES, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, between January 21 and February 1, 1974, based on charges and amended charges, filed September 24, November 13, November 19, and November 29, 1973, and a complaint issued November 30, 1973, and amended at the hearing, alleging that Re- spondents violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the Act. The General Counsel, the Charging Party,' and Re- spondents have filed briefs which have been carefully con- sidered. Upon the entire record in the case, including my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES The three companies, Dee, Dippy, and Three D, are New York corporations and are all located at 1650 New Highway, Farmingdale, New York. Dee manufactures sweaters and related products, Dippy distributes the prod- ucts, and Three D fabricates knitgoods and related prod- ucts at this location. It is conceded, and I find, that the three companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, on the basis of their annual purchases of more than $50,000 worth of products from points outside the State of New York. The General Counsel contends, and Respondents deny, that Dee, Dippy, and Three D constitute a single enterprise. Although resolution of this question is not too significant to the issues in this case,2 I have no difficulty resolving it and finding that the three companies do constitute a single employer for all purposes. I base this conclusion on the 1 Mr De Benedictis , representative for Local 550, entered an appearance, but did not participate at the hearing, and withdrew after the first day of hearing 2 It bears slightly on whether the knitters , who are on the Three D payroll, should be included in the unit , which otherwise contains only employees on Dee's payroll In this connection, since the General Counsel would exclude the knitters from the unit , and Respondents include them , a favorable reso- lution of the "single enterpnse" question to either would militate against its unit position . It bears also on the name or names toward which any order herein would be directed, and possibly on liability for alleged 8(aXI) con- duct by Tramuta and Salvatore DiBartolo 1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stipulated facts that the three companies share a common location, that the ultimate product is produced by employ- ees of both Dee and Three D, that Dippy sells the products manufactured by employees of Dee and Three D, that Vin- cent DiBartolo is president of all three companies, his brother Calogero "Charles" DiBartolo is secretary -treasur- er of Dee , and secretary of the other two companies, and another brother , Salvatore DiBartolo , is vice president of Three D, that Vincent and Charles DiBartolo are directors of all three companies , and Salvatore DiBartolo is a direc- tor of Three D. Further supporting this conclusion is the obvious fact , as the story of the events in this case will show , that Robert Lipsenthal , secretary-treasurer and a di- rector of Dippy, and a stockholder in Dippy, has been fully involved in the personnel and labor relations problems of Dee, although having no "official" connection therewith.' it. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, and its Local 107, hereafter referred to as the Union, or the Charging Party, or Local 107, Local 550, International Union of Maintenance and Production Workers, Local 231, Industrial Trade Union, AFL-CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background; Issues; Credibility The events in this case center on and revolve about the critical date of September 20, 1973.4 On that date, the ILG- WU allegedly demanded recognition for the Company's production and maintenance employees, and Respondent allegedly refused the request, and discharged some 19 em- ployees in response to that demand, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (3) of the Act, respectively. Some 2 to 3 months before this critical date, at a time when two other unions, the Teamsters and Local 231, were seeking to organize, Respondent allegedly coerced its employees by threats and promises of benefits to dissuade them from having a union, by interrogating them about their union membership and sympathies, and by suggesting that the employees permit the Company to sponsor a labor organization. The General Counsel also alleges as violative of the Act conduct by Respondent on and after September 20, consisting of an alleged assault by automobile on a picketing employee, threats of physical violence to strikers and to union offi- cials in the presence of strikers, and harassment of the strikers in various ways, including threats and interroga- tions. Finally, the General Counsel alleges that Respon- dent unlawfully assisted Local 550, by soliciting authoriza- tion cards for it, in August, September, and October, and 3 Hereafter, except where reference to a particular one of the three com- panies is necessary, I will refer to all three as Respondent, or the Company, or the Employer 4 All dates are in 1973 unless otherwise specified by recognizing it in late October or early November.' Also at issue, with respect to the refusal-to-bargain alle- gation, are various unit and majority questions, involving unit inclusions or exclusions, whether particular authoriza- tion cards were properly authenticated, and whether par- ticular employees were "eligible" for purposes of counting their cards or being part of the unit's complement. For the most part, the testimony concerning the various events in this case is in sharp and direct conflict. For exam- ple, the testimony by Lipsenthal concerning a meeting or meetings called by the "bosses" (Vincent and Charles Di- Bartolo) in late June or early July is quite different from that of 11 General Counsel witnesses concerning those meetings.6 Neither Charles nor Vincent DiBartolo testified at all in this proceeding. The testimony of the two union officials, Banyai and Ruggiero, and the four employees on the committee, Maurice, Fitzpatrick, Benvenuto, and Tar- sky, concerning a meeting with the DiBartolos,7 Robert Lipsenthal, and Salvatore Tarmuta on September 20 also is in conflict in some significant respects, although in some other respects, Respondent witnesses Lipsenthal and Tra- muta confirm testimony of various General Counsel wit- nesses. With respect to the critical events of September 20 im- mediately after the Union and Company met, some 18 em- ployees testified for the General Counsel,' and Lipsenthal, Reina, Tramuta, and employee Ann Marie Cooper for the Respondent. Although the differences are not as sharp,9 for Lipsenthal concededly was not present during the first few minutes, Tramuta stayed behind in the office, and Cooper, by her own testimony, did not hear anything, there were nonetheless some "denials" by Respondent's witnesses of matters testified to by General Counsel's witnesses. As to other incidents and statements allegedly violative of the Act, there were also conflicts in the testimony, in some incidents involving only a single witness on each side of the conflict, such as statements by Tramuta to Benvenuto and to Nolan, and by Reina to Laufman, Benvenuto, and No- lan. There is no conflict, however, with respect to the 8(a)(2) allegations involving Local 550, for the facts were admitted, by way of stipulations and Reina's testimony, and the only real question arising is whether Reina was a supervisor. As to that, about a dozen General Counsel wit- nesses testified, describing what Reina did and what they were told. Much of this testimony was not contradicted by Reina himself, or Lipsenthal, although there are some dif- ferences in tone and degree. As to the remaining issues in the case, and the "facts" The solicitation of signatures on Local 550 authorization cards was ac- complished by Charles Reina Whether a violation is entailed thereby de- pends on whether or not Reina was a supervisor, an issue to be resolved herein . Reina's status is also involved with regard to some of the alleged 8(a)(l) violations mentioned above 6 These employees are Gloria Maurice, Ethel Fitzpatrick, May Lou Pas- tore , Betty Benvenuto , Freda Tarsky, Mary Dono, Ella Santiago, Paula Limery, Philomena Lantza, Dona Tramont, and Barbara Laufman When "DiBartolos" is used, it refers to Vincent and Charles, not to the other brother, Salvatore 8 All but Pastore of the II listed above, and Angela Rosa, Fanny Spezia, Elvira Romano, Providence Nolan, Antoinette Jackson, Adeline Bonanza, Gilda Lombardo, and Ceceila Barbour 9The principal actors for the Company were Charles and Vincent Di- Bartolo, who, as indicated earlier, did not testify at all DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. relative to them, there is no conflict-the evidence being either uncontradicted or stipulated. These issues include the unit and eligibility questions and the validity of some of the authorization cards proffered by the General Coun- sel. As noted previously, the two principal actors for Re- spondent, Charles and Vincent DiBartolo, were not even called to testify. Furthermore, one of Respondent's wit- nesses, employee Ann Marie Cooper, must be totally dis- credited. Not only did her testimony at the hearing differ materially from a sworn statement she had earlier given to the General Counsel, but after first testifying that she worked only until 4:30 p.m., with her "daughter" Elizabeth Ann working from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m., she was forced to admit that her daughter never worked for the Company, but she had regularly worked overtime at straight time rates by arrangement with company officials. Taking the September 20 events as an example, to the extent that Rei- na or Tramuta "denied" that the DiBartolos told all em- ployees with buttons on that they were fired, it is signifi- cant that Tramuta admitted that he had stayed behind in the office during the time of the alleged firings , and that Reina was very vague in his testimony concerning this inci- dent. In addition, Reina testified that he signed up many employees for Local 550 while they were at work, but the stipulated evidence shows that about 14 of the signers were not even employed by the Company at the time. Finally, Lipsenthal, with respect to this incident , although he testi- fied on direct examination that no one told any employees they were "fired," conceded on cross-examination that he could have remained behind in the office for as much as 5 minutes, and that the women already had their coats on and "were already on their way out," when he did come into the shop from the office. As the testimony of the Gen- eral Counsel's witnesses was to the effect that the DiBarto- los came out of the office and almost immediately told the employees wearing ILGWU buttons to get out, that they were fired, this 5-minute gap alone necessarily means that Lipsenthal's earlier testimony cannot be regarded as a de- nial with knowledge of the facts. It is also significant in this respect that Lipsenthal testified that one of the DiBartolos said "You are not fired, you are welcome to come back to the shop. Nobody fired you." Unless someone had led the employees to believe they had been fired (by saying so, according to the testimony of the employees concerned) there would scarcely be reason to tell them subsequently that they had not been fired. In sum , for the reasons indicated, and also because of my impression of the witnesses, I credit the General Counsel's witnesses for the most part with respect to any conflicts in the testimony. Having given some bits and pieces of the events in order to explain these credibility resolutions , I proceed to tell the facts, based on the cred- ited testimony, the uncontradicted testimony, and the stip- ulations. The facts related are based on an amalgam of the testimony, for there were minor differences and discrepan- cies in the testimony of the General Counsel' s witnesses.10 10 For example, Gloria Maurice testified that there was no request to bargain made by Banyai at the September 20 meeting, but all the other witnesses, including Respondent's witnesses Tramuta and Lipsenthal, were B. The Facts 1045 1. Events prior to September 20 Late in June, organizers from Local 231 passed out liter- ature in front of Respondent's plant, and either late in June or early in July Teamsters organizers similarly passed out literature at the plant. In response to these organizing at- tempts, officials of the Company conducted meetings of the employees." Among other things, the DiBartolos and Lipsenthal (the latter perhaps not present at one of the meetings) told the employees not to sign union cards, that if the employees wanted a union they should speak to the DiBartolos in their office and "we can work things out ourselves, between ourselves," that the employees would get a raise in July (said at the June 25 meeting) and would be given a Christmas party and a bonus at Christmas, that the employees would no longer be treated nicely if a union came in-they would not be able to buy company sweaters cheaply, that if the employees went union , they would put a lock on the door and the employees would be out on the street, that "We have got connections, we are going to find out who the people are that signed for this Union and we are going to get rid of them," and "Look, make up your mind if you want a Union or you want to work in here, you can't have both." On several occasions employees had union literature tak- en from their hands and "ripped" as they came into the plant. In addition, in July, employee Mary Dorio was told by the DiBartolos that if the employees wanted a union, "he would bring his own union in, we should go talk to him." Ella Santiago was called into the office, also in July, where the DiBartolos accused her of "putting the union into the girls' heads," and Vincent told her that he was going to get more employees if the shop was unionized so that the employees would be laid off more often. At that time , he also gave Santiago a raise . Paula Limery, in early July, was asked by Vincent DiBartolo if she had belonged to a union before. When she said she had, DiBartolo said that unions were a bunch of racketeers, that they were good only for big companies, but not for small companies. Early in September, Vincent DiBartolo asked newly hired employee Romano if she belonged to the Union. 2. The Union's organizational drive Early in August, the ILGWU began organizing Respondent's employees,12 and that Union had some 24 signatures on cards by September 20. During that period, the Union conducted four meetings of Respondent's em- ployees, on August 14 and 27 and September 12 and 19. At the last of these meetings, Local 107 Manager Ed Banyai to the contrary Laritza testified that she saw Banyat and Ruggiero come out of the office back into the shop, but it is plain from the testimony of the other witnesses , including Banyai , himself , and Tramuta and Lipsenthal, that Banyai and Ruggiero went out the front door It is hardly surprising, with so many witnesses testifying, that there were such discrepancies, in- deed, the reverse would be surprising 11 There is some conflict as to the number of meetings conducted I find there were at least two 12 Employee Barbara Laufman, who was also a paid union organizer, signed the first authorization card on July 21 1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and its agent , Mary Ruggiero , spoke to the employees and secured the last few of the 24 signatures . It was agreed at the September 19 meeting that Banyai , Ruggiero, and a committee of employees , with Gloria Maurice, Ethel Fitzpatrick , Betty Benvenuto , and Freda Tarsky being se- lected as the committee , would come to the plant the next morning, in order to request Respondent to recognize the Union as the employees collective -bargaining representa- tive . Large ILGWU buttons were distributed , and the em- ployees were asked by Banyai to put them on after the committee met with management officials. 3. The events of September 20 Shortly before 8 a.m. on September 20, Banyai and Rug- giero met the committee members in the plant parking lot. The six of them went into the employee entrance. Many of the employees at work put ILGWU buttons on at that time.13 Banyai knocked at the office door, and the six were admitted. The DiBartolos, Lipsenthal, and Tramuta were in the office at the time. Banyai gave his business card to one of the DiBartolos. He said that Local 107 "represented the majority of the workers of Dee Knitting Mills, that we would be willing to prove this through a neutral third par- ty, and that we would like to make an appointment at a mutually convenient time and sit down and negotiate an agreement." 14 Charles DiBartolo responded that he had no time to meet, and told them to "get out." One of the com- pany officials said "What do you mean barging in here without an appointment?" Banyai answered that he had knocked, and when "someone said `come in' and that is why I walked in." One of the DiBartolos said "These peo- ple don't belong here, they are all fired"; one said that he is "going to close the shop as of this moment." Lipsenthal then said "You get out of the shop, we want you out of here right away and go out the front way and the workers should go out the back way." Lipsenthal then pointed at Freda Tarsky and said "You talk with a forked tongue, you told me you don't like unions. Get out, you are fired." Banyai remonstrated with the company officials, telling them to take it easy, that they were violating Federal labor laws. He told the committee to go back into the shop and go to work. Banyai and Ruggiero then went out the front door.ls The four committee members then went back through the shop. At that time, with some employees putting on their ILGWU buttons then, approximately 17 employees, including the 4 committee members, were wearing buttons. Shortly thereafter, the DiBartolos came out into the work area, with Lipsenthal following a little later (see above). 13 Some apparently put them on as the committee reappeared in the plant, and someone, not clearly identified (one employee testified it was Freda Tarsky) said "Button up," or words to that effect I need not resolve some minor discrepancies in the testimony of the various General Counsel wit- nesses in this respect , as they are immaterial to resolving the issues herein 14 Lipsenthal put Banyai's words as "something to the effect" of "We have a majority and we want to unionize the shop " Tramuta testified that Banyai said "I'm here to represent the girls " There is thus no question but that recognition was sought at the September 20 meeting The quoted lan- gua¢e in the text is from Banyai's testimony ye The quoted remarks are from Banyai's testimony Ruggiero and the committee members confirmed the substance of that testimony The DiBartolos ordered everyone wearing a union button to get out.16 As employee Gloria Maurice put it, they said "Everybody out, everybody with green buttons on get out." Charles DiBartolo said "I will put a lock on the door be- fore a Union will get in here." When Lipsenthal came on the scene, he repeated to Tarsky what he had said in the office, that she spoke "with a forked tongue," and told her that "if I wasn't a woman, he would know what to do with me." When Ella Santiago got up to leave, Charles DeBarto- lo said to her that she could go back to her machine, but when Santiago said "I am one of them, I have the button on," DiBartolo told her to get out also. Employee Lantza did not actually have her ILGWU button on when the employees were told that those with buttons were fired, but was about to put her button on. She too was told to get out. Employee Tramont, who was wear- ing a button, was not in the shop at the time, having gone out to her car to get something. The employees who had been wearing buttons, including Lantza, left the shop and went out to the parking lot. They met Tramont returning to the shop, who, when told what had occurred, remained outside. Lipsenthal then emerged from the plant. He told the employees to get off the Company's property, into the street, and that they be- longed in the gutter. He spoke with Banyai, who by that time had come around to the parking lot, asking him to "come over here." Banyai refused, and Lipsenthal then said "Well, I will have someone take care of you." About an hour later, Local 107 sent Respondent a telegram, which read as follows: To employers, confirming our visit today, repeat de- mand for recognition as collective bargaining agent for Dee Knitting Mills, Inc. production and mainte- nance workers. We are prepared to prove our majority status. This is a continuous demand. The afternoon of the same day, employee Pastore, who had been at the dentist during the events of the morning, returned to the shop, where she was met by employees Jackson, Laufman, Nolan, and Benvenuto. Tramuta spoke to the group, asking them what the Union was going to do for them, and told them that if the Union did come in "they are going to go down the drain." 17 That afternoon, the employees began picketing the plant with signs saying that they were on strike for unfair labor practices. This picketing continued through the end of the year, and into January 1974. 4. Events after September 20 On September 21, a meeting was held at the union of- fices, with Banyai, Ruggiero, and the employee committee there on behalf of the Union, and the DiBartolos, Lipsen- 16 The testimony indicates a good deal of shouting and confusion oc- curred Although many of the employees had Lipsenthal, as well as the DiBartolos, telling employees with buttons on that they were fired, I find, in accordance with Lipsenthal's own testimony, that he came out somewhat later, and, although it is possible he may have repeated the admonition already given by the DiBartolos, I make no finding to that effect 17 This last quote was as Tramuta testified DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. thal, and a bookkeeper, Ellen Walker, there for the Com- pany. The main topic discussed was the alleged unfair la- bor practice of discharging the employees , with Banyai ex- plaining what he considered an appropriate remedy-rein- statement, 2 days' backpay, and the posting of a notice. There was also discussion concerning the Company's fi- nancial position , with the company officials indicating it was a poor company . Banyai indicated that he understood the problems of small new companies, and they could be handled , but insisted that nothing else could be discussed until the unfair labor practices were taken care of. At one point during the meeting Charles DiBartolo said that if he did not get his way, he would close the doors , that he would rather close the shop than sign anything. Also on September 21, about noon , a station wagon driv- en by Salvatore DiBartolo drove into the driveway of the plant and struck employee Rosetta Lyons, who was knocked unconscious . DiBartolo parked his car and went into the shop . Lyons filed a complaint against DiBartolo and sued him for damages . The criminal case against Di- Bartolo resulted in his being told the case would be dis- missed in 6 months if "I have kept out of trouble." It was stipulated that Respondent sent a letter to all the alleged discriminatees (apparently on September 21) asking them to come back to work, and that the letter was re- ceived or should have been received by the employees on September 22. The General Counsel stated that this was "a valid offer of reinstatement," but contended that the em- ployees who continued to picket and strike were protesting the unfair labor practices, and that the strike continued as an unfair labor practice strike. On September 26, another meeting was held, with Ban- yai, Ruggiero, and attorney Al Koffler for the Union and attorney James Weber for the Company. The meeting was again concerned primarily with a resolution of the unfair labor practice charges, with Banyai again explaining that these must be taken care of before any other matters were discussed. 5. The assistance to and recognition of Local 550 During September and October, Charles Reina, accord- ing to his own testimony, received Local 550 authorization cards from that union's secretary-treasurer, Sam DeBened- ictis, signed one himself , and distributed approximately 31 of them to "employees." He received back all the cards, with signatures thereon. Late in October or early in No- vember, DeBenedictis met with the DiBartolos, with Rei- na, who testified about this incident, present, and Vincent DiBartolo told DeBenedictis that he would recognize Local 550. There was no contract signed, as DeBenedictis said "he couldn't talk about contract or anything else until the unfair labor practice is taken care of " C. Discussion and Conclusions Preliminarily, there remain to be resolved the status of Charles Reina, the composition of the appropriate unit, and whether the Union had a majority in that unit 1. Reina's status 1047 The General Counsel contends, and Respondent denies, that Charles Reina was at all material times a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(l1) of the Act. The evi- dence shows that apart from the two "bosses," Charles and Vincent DiBartolo , Reina , who began working in July, was the only person who directed the 40 -odd female employees on Dee's payroll.is When he started, he was introduced as the "new foreman" by the DiBartolos , as Reina himself, and many other witnesses , testified . Employees were told "Any questions you have you ask Charley," or "He is the boss, talk to him," or "He is the boss, he tells you what to do " Reina testified that he has recommended raises for employees , and the raises were granted in each case. Reina told employees on a number of occasions that he could hire and fire . He also assigns employees to their work sta- tions, moving them when necessary , distributes their work, and generally oversees the production work of this group of employees . He is consulted by the DiBartolos as to how the work is progressing and what is going on in the shop, and is responsible to see that workers are used most effec- tively, for the completion of the work each day, and for the quality of the work. He determines the capability of work- ers to perform at particular tasks and assigns them accord- ingly. He is called by employees (along with the DiBarto- los) when they are not coming in to work and is authorized to let employees off early. The record is replete with in- stances of Reina keeping order and checking on employ- ees' time in the washroom , at lunch time , and at coffee- breaks, and he has reprimanded employees on many occa- sions for breaches in these respects . Reina receives a weekly salary and does not punch a timeclock, in both respects differing from all the employees whom he directs. All the above facts clearly establish that Reina, contrary to his own conclusory statement that he is a "working fore- man," is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.19 2. The appropriate unit The unit, by stipulation of the parties, includes all pro- duction and maintenance and shipping employees of the Company, excluding office clerical employees , sales em- ployees, guards, professionals, and supervisors. The catego- ry of "knitters" is in dispute, with the General Counsel claiming that they should be excluded from the unit, the Respondent that they should be included, and the Union taking no position on that question. The remaining dis- putes concern whether particular employees should be in the unit, for purposes of counting their organization cards or for measuring the Union's majority status by including is Tramuta , an admitted supervisor , was on Three D's payroll and direct- ed only the knitters Lipsenthal , although an admitted agent of Respondent, and one of the bosses , had no official connection with the Dee employees, and apparently played no direct role in the day-by-day working operations of that segment of the work force 19 The fact that he has no authority to hire or fire employees , that on a single occasion he was paid for overtime work , and that safety was not "his responsibility" do not militate against the conclusion that he was a supervi- sor, for Section 2(l1) is written in the disjunctive 1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them in the total complement of the unit. These latter questions are, in other words, tantamount to "eligibility to vote" determinations 20 It was stipulated that 24 named employees are properly included in the unit. Respondent would exclude, and the General Counsel and Union include, nine employees hired between September 4 and 17 .21 Respondent's position is that some or all of these employees were recent hires and were "planted" by the Union, and hence were not bona fide employees. Respondent would exclude, the General Counsel and Union include, Barbara Laufman, with Re- spondent contending that her position as a paid union or- ganizer made her also not a bona fide employee. Respon- dent would also exclude, the General Counsel and the Union include, Donna Baiera and Marie Foth, Respon- dent basing its position on the ground that they were not regular full-time employees as of the critical date of Sep- tember 20, and the parties take the same position with re- spect to Loretta Paraino, with Respondent contending she should be excluded because she was off the payroll by Sep- tember 20. The General Counsel and the Union would ex- clude, Respondent include, employees Marie Reina and Frank Valenti. As to the former, the General Counsel and the Union contend she quit prior to the September 20 crit- ical date; as to the latter, they contend he was not a regular employee. The General Counsel argues that because the knitters are on the Three D payroll, rather than Dee's, have different hours (7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. for the day shift rather than 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., as is the case for the other employees), have separate supervision and washroom and locker facili- ties, work in a separate area, perform different work, and receive higher rates of pay, they should be excluded from the unit. As I have found that the three companies consti- tute a single employer, the first factor does not apply. The differing rates of pay for the knitters as opposed to the other employees is attributable to their greater skills, but there is no showing that they are so highly skilled as to be considered craftsmen, nor have I been able to find any Board cases finding the category of knitters to be crafts- men. Some of the factors relied on by the General Counsel are solely attributable to the fact that the knitters are men, the other employees women (which may also account in part for the pay differentials), and that is no basis at all separating them. As to the "separate area," since it consists of the knitters working at the far end of one large room, it is scarcely "separate" in any meaningful sense . In short, starting with the presumption that all employees of the em- ployer are part of a production and maintenance unit, there have not been sufficient grounds shown here for ex- cluding the knitters, and I include them. Barbara Laufman, although she worked full time for the Company starting about June 25, 1973, was admittedly a paid organizer for the Union, and has been for about 2 years. It is true, as the Union argues, that an employee does not lose his status because he is also paid to organize. 20 Having determined that Reina is a supervisor, he is, of course, excluded from the unit 21 Rosa, Barbour, Lombardo, Bonanza, Jackson, Romano, Lyons, Spezia, and Nolan See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 170 NLRB 533, 535, footnote 3 (1968). The real question, as the cited case shows, is wheth- er the employment itself was sought solely to organize, so that the employment is really only temporary, whether the employer knows it or not. Although there is no direct evi- dence in this case that Laufman intended to leave when her organizing job was completed (the question was never asked), and the issue is therefore not free from doubt, I am constrained to infer that such is the case, and shall not, accordingly, count her authorization card, or, of course, include her in the complement of the unit against which the Union's showing is to be measured. As to the other nine employees who began work between September 4 and 17, there is no showing whatsoever to indicate that they were other than bona fide full-time em- ployees. The recency of their hire alone is no basis for not finding them "eligible." 22 Accordingly, I shall include the nine for purposes of the complement of the unit and for counting their authorization cards.23 Marie Reina worked for the Company 35 hours the week ending September 14, did not work the week ending Sep- tember 21, worked 7-1/2 hours the week ending September 29, 7 hours the week ending October 5, and 22-1/2, 0, 12, 15-1/2, and 14-1/4 hours in the successive weeks thereaf- ter. There is also testimony that Marie Reina indicated, on September 14, that she was quitting to be a beautician. In view of her sporadic work record after September 20, the fact that she was not working on September 20, the critical date, and taking into account her statement that she was quitting, I conclude that Mane Reina was not "eligible" and shall not include her in the unit complement. Frank Valenti was hired July 16, 1973, as a piece-work presser. He was paid during the weeks of July 20 through the week ending August 10, then not again until the weeks ending September 21 and 28, when there was another gap until the week ending October 28, with Valenti being paid in 4 successive weeks thereafter. Since, unlike Reina, he was employed on the critical date, September 20, and there is no evidence other than the stipulated figures, which also show many weeks of work thereafter, I find Valenti "eligi- ble" and count him in the unit complement. Loretta Paraino began working for Respondent late in July or early in August 1973. She does not appear on the payroll after September 7, but it was stipulated that there is nothing in Respondent's records to indicate any reason why she left work. On the other hand, Paraino told Barb- ara Laufman that she was ill, with pains in her chest and back, the day she left work, and Laufman saw her again a short time before September 20, and she was in bed ill at the time. I conclude on these admittedly minimal facts that Paraino was "eligible" and count her in the unit comple- ment. The final two "eligibility" issues concern Donna Baiera and Marie Foth. Both were high school students, hired the beginning of the summer, who worked more or less full 22 Some were referred to Respondent by the Union and had been mem- bers before That does not even bear on the question of their status with this employer I note that at least two of the knitters were hired in the week of Septem- ber 20, Alcalde on September 14 and Suarez on September 17, and I have included them in the unit DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. time from the week ending June 22 through the week end- ing August 24, and part time the weeks of September 14 and 21 after returning to school . Toward the end of Au- gust , Baiera asked whether she and Foth could take 2 weeks off in order to get ready to return to school and be able to work part time thereafter . Reina apparently checked with "the boss ," and then told Baiera that they (she and Foth) could take the 2 weeks off and then return on a part-time basis . I find that both Baiera and Foth were regular part-time employees , and as such "eligible" and to be counted in the unit complement. See Cromwell Printery Incorporated 172 NLRB 1817, 1831 ( 1968). Based on the foregoing , the complement of the unit in- cludes the 24 employees stipulated as properly in the unit, the 4 knitters ,24 the 9 employees hired between September 4 and 17 whom the Company would exclude '25 Loretta Pa- raino, Frank Valenti , Donna Baiera, and Mane Foth. The total complement of the unit on the critical date of Septem- ber 20 was therefore 41. 3. The Union's majority status Apart from the unit contentions dust resolved, Respon- dent does not appear to challenge the validity or authentic- ity of the General Counsel's authorization cards (24 in number) submitted at the hearing 26 However, there seemed to be some question at the hearing about the cards of Marie Foth , Loretta Paraino, and Martha Jean. As to Foth, her card was solicited by Donna Baiera , who testified that she told Foth about the Union, and about her signing a card if she wanted to, and Foth then did sign an authori- zation card, gave it to Baiera , who in turn gave it to Barb- ara Laufman . Paraino 's card was solicited by Laufman, who testified to the manner of her solicitation, and Paraino's signing the card. Martha Jean 's card was solic- ited by union business agent Ruggiero , with two other union agents , including Laufman, present at the time. With respect to all three employees, the solicitor explained the purpose of the card as being to have the Union represent the employees. All other card signers appeared as witnesses , and there is no possible basis for not counting their cards. Nor, based on the credible testimony recited above, is there any basis for refusing to accept the cards of Foth, Paraino, and Jean, even though they themselves did not testify. I find, accord- ingly, that on September 20, the day the Union requested recognition , the Union had valid authorization cards signed by 23 of the 41 employees in the unit as of that day. The Union therefore represented a majority of Respondent 's employees in a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining on and after September 20, 1973. 4. The alleged 8(a)(1) violations The facts reported above show that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by its conduct in reacting to 24 Louis Mdazzo , Phillip Lombardo , Omar Suarez , and Michael Alcalde 25 See In 21, supra 26 No mention thereof is made in Respondent 's brief 1049 organization efforts by the Teamsters and by Local 231 in July and August 1973. In summary , Respondent 's officials threatened its employees with reprisals up to and including closing the plant, as well as the removal of various benefits, if a union should come in, coerced them by ripping up union literature they were holding, unlawfully promised them benefits if they did not get a union , and told them if they wanted a union , they should speak to the bosses, who would bring a union in. During that time and up through the early part of Sep- tember , Respondent also violated Section 8 (a)(1) by unlaw- fully interrogating its employees about their union mem- bership , past and present. I do not, however, agree with the General Counsel that certain remarks by Reina , Lipsenthal , or the DiBartolos constituted creating the impression of surveillance and dis- miss that allegation of the complaint . Reina 's statement on September 20 that he knew who had caused the trouble because he had "Clark Gable ears" neither connotes nor denotes anything unlawful , nor does Vincent DiBartolo's statement in July that he heard "rumors" that employee Santiago had put the idea of a union into the women's heads. Similarly, Lipsenthal asking employees to bring him Local 231 literature so he could see it, and the DiBartolos that they were going to find out who signed for Local 231, do not support this allegation , although the latter statement could well be included as a veiled threat among the viola- tions already found. After September 20, Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1). Although I have some doubts whether Salvatore DiBartolo 's car hitting Rosetta Lyons was deliberate, the failure of DiBartolo to stop , and the fact of the hitting, evinces sufficient negligence , and is sufficiently threatening in nature to Lyons and the onlookers , so as to constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1). The repetition, shortly after the critical incidents on the morning of September 20, of the Company view , this time expressed by Supervisor Charles Reina, that the employees should have come to him if they wanted a union , also constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Also violative of the Act, on and after September 20, were Lipsenthal's veiled threat to Banyai, with the em- ployees present, that he knew people who could take care of union officials , and that he would "show" Banyai if the latter came inside the shop , Tramuta 's interrogation of four or five employees the afternoon of September 20, Reina's interference with the strikers by picking up a picket sign and bringing it into the shop (where the police later re- trieved it for the pickets), Reina 's threatened violence to Barbara Laufman , and the attempts by Reina to interfere with the picketing by turning on the sprinkler system. Fi- nally, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by DiBartolo's (one or the other) statements in the shop on September 20 that the plant doors would be locked before the Union got in, and at a conference on September 21 that he would rather close the shop than sign with the Union. 5. The alleged 8(a)(2) violations As noted above , the fact that Reina distributed Local 550 cards to some 31 persons, receiving back 31 signed cards, was admitted by Reina. Significantly, at least 14 of 1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD these cards were dated before the signers were even em- ployed by the Company. As I have found Reina to be a supervisor, these solicitations were clearly unlawful, as was the subsequent recognition of Local 550 by the Company about November 1 ? By this conduct, the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 6. The alleged 8(aX3) violations The facts set forth above show that the DiBartolos, reacting to the request for recognition by Banyai at the meeting with Banyai, Ruggiero, and the four employees on the committee the morning of September 20, told the com- mittee members to get out, that they were fired, and shortly thereafter came out into the shop and ordered all employ- ees wearing ILGWU buttons to get out, that they also were fired. On the face of it, this represents a clear violation of Section 8(a)(3). Respondent's defense, apart from the asserted factual denials with which I have already dealt, is essentially to the effect that the Union "set up" the Company, that it plan- ned and orchestrated the employees' conduct that morning in the hope and expectation that the company officials would react as they did, and that the employees would have walked out anyway, to seek recognition, if Respon- dent officials had not taken the bait. Assuming the com- plete factual accuracy of Respondent's position in this re- spect,28 that would not militate against the prima facie, the clear, violation of Section 8(a)(3) inhering in Respondent's conduct that day. The earlier reactions to Local 231 and the Teamsters' attempts to organize, the later unlawful so- licitations of Local 550 cards and the unlawful recognition accorded Local 550, and the contemporaneous statements concerning closing the plant, or locking the doors, before a union would get in, or before any contract with a union would be signed, all manifest a fixed position to keep out any union, by whatever unlawful means were necessary. Thus, the fact that Respondent's reactions were predictable stems not from any possible entrapment, but from their own conduct. I conclude, accordingly, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging the committee members and the button wearers (the for- mer are also included among the latter) on September 20.29 27 No negotiations were conducted, and no contract was signed Accord- ing to Rema, DeBenedicits told Vincent DeBartolo that "he wouldn't talk about contract or anything else until the unfair labor practice is taken care of" 28 And there are some indications to support it, e g, employees were told by Banyat at the Union meeting the evening before to put their buttons on when the committee came out of the office , the employees did not return to work despite offers of reinstatement and statements by the DiBartolos that they should come back to work, they were not "fired," and one employee, Freda Tarsky, testified that at the September 19 meeting , Banyai said that if the Company "won't negotiate, then we have to strike " 29 1 include employee Laritza among the employees discriminatorily dis- charged as she was in the shop and about to put her button on when the DiBartolos fired all button wearers I do not, however include Tramont, who was temporarily out of the shop Even though it is clear that she would have been discharged along with the others had she been present, she was not in fact discharged, but merely stayed out when she heard from other employees what had occurred 7. The alleged 8(a)(5) violations As found above, the Union represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit when it sought recogni- tion on September 20. In the light of the violations of the Act found herein, and particularly in view of the unlawful assistance to and recognition of Local 550 after recognition was denied the ILGWU, the possibility of a free election, even with the effects of the unfair labor practices dimin- ished by appropriate remedies, seems remote. Indeed, this seems to be a classic case for concluding, as I do, that the only available effective remedy is a bargaining order. See N.L.R.B. v. Gissell Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, 614 (1969); Skaggs Drug Centers, Inc, 150 NLRB 518 (1964); Soil Mechanics Corporation, 200 NLRB 544 (1972). I con- clude, accordingly, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing, on September 20, 1973, to recognize the Union. 8. The nature of the strike As noted above, the discharged employees, as well as other employees who signed union authorization cards, be- gan picketing the plant the afternoon of September 20. Al- though the discriminatees were all, on September 22, of- fered reinstatement , there is nothing in the record to sug- gest that they were offered backpay, nor is there any evidence that Respondent was seeking to remedy its un- lawful refusal to bargain, or its various statements and con- duct found herein to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, all the employees who re- mained on strike, including the discriminatees offered rein- statement, were clearly unfair labor practice strikers, and I so find. As such, of course, they are entitled to reinstate- ment upon application. N.L.R.B., v. Safeway Steel Scaf- folds Company, 383 F.2d 273, 280-281 (C.A. 5, 1967); Blue Valley Machine & Manufacturing Co., 180 NLRB 298, 305- 306 (1969). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By unlawfully interfering with, restraining, and coerc- ing its employees, as found herein, Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By unlawfully soliciting authorization cards for Local 550, International Union of Maintenance and Production Workers, and by extending recognition to that labor orga- nization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 3. By discriminating against its employees because of their union or other concerted activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain with the Union, and after Sep- tember 20, 1973, when the Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit described above, Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The strike which began September 20, 1973, was caused by Respondent's unfair labor practices, and hence DEE KNITTING MILLS, INC. was an unfair labor practice strike. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain affirmative action necessary to remedy the unfair labor practices and to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. Included in this affirmative action will be a recommendation that Respondent make whole the discriminatorily discharged employees for losses they suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, with the payment of interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). As Respondent of- fered reinstatement to these discharged employees on Sep- tember 22, 1973, and they chose to remain on strike, the backpay due them as a result of the discrimination shall not extend beyond that time. However, as the strike was an unfair labor practice strike, I shall recommend that Re- spondent be ordered to reinstate the strikers, upon their application for reinstatement, to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, discharging, if necessary, any replacements in order to provide work for the strikers, and to make those strikers entitled to reinstatement whole for any loss of pay they may suffer by reason of Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them upon request, by payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period beginning 5 days after the date on which he applies for reinstatement and terminating on the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, such loss to be computed in the manner set forth above for computing backpay. In view of the serious nature of the unfair labor practices which Respondent has committed, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Except to this extent, and in the issuance of a bargaining order, I see nothing so unusual or egregious in this case as to require the extraordinary remedies sought by the Charg- ing Party.30 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. 30 I e, that Respondent's president be required to read the Board's notice, that the notice be mailed to each employee's home, and be published in newspapers of general circulation in the area, that Respondent pay the Union for its organizational and strike expenses , and pay the Board and the Union for the costs of investigating and prosecuting this case , and that the Union be permitted access to company bulletin boards for I year, and union organizers be permitted access to the company parking lot for solici- tation and distribution of literature ORDER31 1051 Respondents, Dee Knitting Mills, Inc., Dippy Knits, Inc., and Three D Knitting Mills, Inc., Farmingdale, New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with reprisals if they should select a union to represent them. (b) Promising employees benefits to dissuade them from union representation. (c) Coercively interrogating its employees about their union membership. (d) Assaulting its employees, or otherwise threatening them with violence, because of their union activities. (e) Suggesting to employees that the Company would supply a union for them. (f) Interfering with lawful strike activities of its employ- ees by threats, violence, and other acts and conduct. (g) Soliciting employees to sign authorization cards for Local 550, International Union of Maintenance and Pro- duction Workers. (h) Recognizing Local 550 as the representative of its employees for the purposes of collective bargaining, unless and until said labor organization has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of such employees. (i) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of membership in or activities on behalf of International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization. 0) Refusing to recognize International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All production, maintenance , and shipping employees, including knitters , but excluding office clerical em- ployees, sales employees , guards professionals , and su- pervisors. (k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guar- anteed by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Local 550, International Union of Maintenace and Production Work- ers unless and until said labor organization has been certi- fied by the National Labor Relations Board as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of such employees. (b) Make whole its discriminatorily discharged employ- ees in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Upon application, offer to its striking employees re- instatement to their former or substantially equivalent po- 31 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sitions, and make them whole for Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them upon request, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Upon request, recognize and bargain with Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em- ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and, if any un- derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (f) Post at its premises in Farmingdale, New York, cop- ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 32 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for the Region 29 of the Board, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 32 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 "