T.I.L. Sportswear Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 176 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting :
I dissent from the dismissal of the petition. Petitioner has made
the necessary showing of interest among the offset pressmen to warrant
an election to determine whether they wish to sever themselves from
the existing unit. This is .a necessary first step to the establishment of
the lithographic process unit the Petitioner seeks to represent. The
Petitioner also has the necessary showing of interest in that litho-
graphic process unit which is appropriate to justify the election
therein. Petitioner is not seeking to add the presently unrepresented
lithographic process employees to an existing unit. It seeks to com-
bine certain unrepresented employees with employees now represented
by another union, the combined group constituting an appropriate
unit. To justify severance, of the offset pressmen, Petitioner must of
course demonstrate a showing of interest. It has done so. To justify
an election in the appropriate lithographic unit, it must also demon-
strate a 30 percent showing of interest in that unit. It has done so.
There is simply no justifiable reason for not holding this election.'
6 See dissenting opinion of Members Fanning and Kimball in Aerojet General Corpora-
tion , 129 NLRB 1492.
T.I.L. Sportswear Corporation and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America (AFL-CIO). Case No. 06-CA-931 (for-
merly 15-CA-1576). April 21, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 9, 1960, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and, desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also recom -
mended dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleged that Respond-
ent had failed or refused to hire Roxie Lee Bagwell in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1). Thereafter , the Respondent and the Charg-.
ing Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The
1 At the bearing, the Charging Party moved to strike Respondent 's answer to the com,
plaint and for summary judgment on the pleadings because of Respondent 's failure to
serve a copy of the answer upon it, as prescribed by Section 102.21 of the Board 's Rules
and Regulations . The Respondent had filed a timely answer and had served it upon the
General Counsel The motion was denied by the Trial Examiner and a request to the
Board for special permission to file an interim appeal from the Trial Examiner 's ruling
was also denied by the Board . The Charging Party asserts in its exceptions that the
131 NLRB No. 28.
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION 177
rulings are hereby affirmed. -The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations 2 of the Trial Examiner. The Board also expressly reserves
the right to modify or supplement the backpay and reinstatement pro-
visions of the Order if a change of conditions in the future makes such
action necessary in order to remedy fully the discrimination practiced
by the Respondent.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, T.I.L. Sports-
wear Corporation, Aberdeen, Mississippi, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of its em-
ployees, by refusing to hire any applicant for employment or by dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of their employment.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing applicants for employment or employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
Board 's failure to enforce its own rules will result in an effective denial of its rights.
It therefore asks the Board to grant the relief initially requested . As the General
Counsel was timely served , and as the Respondent 's inadvertent failure to serve a copy on
the Charging Party was not prejudicial to the presentation of its case, we hereby affirm
the Trial Examiner 's ruling. See Breckenridge Gasoline Company , 127 NLRB 14G2.
Similarly , we find no merit in Respondent 's objection to the Trial Examiner 's denial
of its request that the alleged discriminatees be excluded from the hearing except when
testifying . Persons named in the complaint as discriminatees are more than mere wit-
nesses and are entitled to remain in attendance throughout the entire hearing. See
Jaques Power Saw Company, 85 NLRB 440, 443.
2 The Charging Party's request that the Board broaden the Trial Examiner's recom-
mended order so as to require the Respondent to bargain with it as representative of
Respondent's employees , is denied . No violation of Section 8(a)(5) was alleged in the
complaint , nor was the claim of the Charging Party to be the majority representative of
Respondent's employees litigated at the hearing Moreover , we do not believe that the
violations of Sections 8(a) (3) and ( 1) which were alleged and proved furnish any justi-
fication for remedial action other than as recommended by the Trial Examiner. Here,
there is no showing that the Respondent would have been under any obligation to recog-
nize the Union as the representative of its employees , even absent the discrimination
arising from Respondent 's failure to hire the 16 alleged discriminatees . In that respect,
this case differs from Psa8ecki Aircraft Corporation , 123 NLRB 348, 350, enfd . 280 F. 2d
575 (CA. 3), and Editorial "El Imparctal", Inc., 123 NLRB 1585, 1587, enfd. 278 F. 2d
184 (C.A. 1), on which the Charging Party relies.
s Bermuda Knitwear Corporation , 120 NLRB 332.
599198-62-vol. 131-13
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer the individuals named in the appendix 4 attached to the
Intermediate Report, employment at the same or substantially equiva-
lent positions at which they would have been employed had they not
been discriminated against, without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges they might have acquired, and make whole all of
said individuals, as well as Mary Jordan, for any loss of pay suffered,
in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report en-
titled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National
Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, production line diagrams, and all other records
necessary to effectuate the hire and packpay provisions of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Aberdeen, Mississippi, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix." Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentatives, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be , and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated against
Roxie Lee Bagwell in violation of Section 8(a) (3).
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the
consideration of the above Decision and Order.
' This notice shall be amended by substituting the words "Pursuant to a Decision and
Order" for the words "Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner ." In the
event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there
shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before the duly designated
Trial Examiner in Aberdeen , Mississippi , between June 27 and July 1, 1960, on com-
plaint of the General Counsel and answer of T.I .L. Sportswear Corporation , herein
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION - 179
called the Respondent . The issues litigated were whether Respondent , in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat.'
136), failed and refused to hire the 16 applicants named in the complaint because
of their membership and activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union . On or before August ' 18, 1960 , counsel
for Respondent and for the General Counsel submitted briefs, which I have duly con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is a Mississippi corporation with its principal place of business in Aber-
deen, Mississippi, where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling
men's and boys' trousers. In the course and conduct of its business operations during
the calendar year 1959, a representative period: Respondent caused to be shipped to
customers located outside the State of Mississippi merchandise valued in excess of
$50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. ,
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and issues
On or about February 2, 1959, Respondent commenced operating the Aberdeen,
Mississippi, plant here in issue, which it had purchased from Saxon Trouser Manu-
facturing Company. Saxon had operated the plant between 1954 and October 1958.
It had recognized and dealt with the Union. At least 85 percent of its employees were
union members.
T. I. Longenecker, who owned the controlling interest in Respondent corporation
as well as in the Amory Garment Company, in Amory, Mississippi, about 16 miles
from Aberdeen, and in the Monroe Trouser Manufacturing Company in Smithville,
Mississippi, does not operate under a union contract. In purchasing the Saxon plant
and machinery, Respondent did not obligate itself to hire any of Saxon's employees
and the General Counsel does not contend that Respondent was a successor to Saxon
and, as such, had a legal obligation to hire Saxon's former employees. He alleges
only that Respondent had a legal obligation not to discriminate against the 16 named
in the complaint because of their union membership and activities and that Respond-
ent did discriminate against them for that reason.
B. Respondent's failure to hire complainants, while advertising for experienced
operators and applying for learners' certificates
Respondent commenced interviewing applicants for employment on or about Janu-
ary 21, 1959, and all of the 16 complainants, pursuant to referrals from the local
public employment service office , filed applications on or about that date .' Each was
experienced in one or more operations at the plant when it had been run by Saxon
and the qualifications of none have been challenged . Among the numerous applica-
tions filed , approximately 173 were from former Saxon employees . Of these, 132
were working for Respondent at the time of the hearing and 41, including 15 of the
claimants , were not hired .2
I Whenever a complainant, relying wholly upon her memory, testified to a date different
from that shown on her application, I have accepted the date on the application as the
more reliable evidence The application of Geneva Jordan, which Respondent stated at
the hearing it could not locate, appears in Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 (1-801) as num-
ber 309 ( see footnote 10, infra).
L These findings with respect to the number of former Saxon employee applicants and
the number hired are based upon the testimony of Respondent's manager, Boyd Young.
I assume that the 173 to which he referred were those working when the Saxon plant
closed down , for I find, upon examining the applications introduced in evidence, that
more than 173, who worked at Saxon at one time or another, applied.
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By about mid-February 1959, Respondent had 190 production workers on its pay-
roll and this number had increased to 244 by mid-March, to 278 by mid-April, and
to 281 by mid-May. In the meantime, on February 14, 1959, Respondent applied to
the Wage and Hour and Public Contracts Division of the Department of Labor for
permission to hire 100 learners to whom it might pay less than the $1 an hour mini-
mum wage, representing that an adequate supply of experienced workers was not
available to it. And, on March 5, 1959, Respondent advertised in the local news-
paper both in Aberdeen, where its plant is located, and in the town of Amory, 16
miles away, where Respondent's president, Tommy I. Longenecker, had his head-
quarters, for 150 experienced operators for "immediate" plant expansion.
All of the complainants renewed their applications during this period but were told
that their services were not needed. One of them, Mary Jordan, who had returned to
the plant every Monday for 10 or 12 weeks, was hired on April 22, after having told
Manager Young, on last renewing her application, that if it was because of the Union
that she had not been hired, "You can forget about that, because I need the work and
I need the work here in town because of my children." Young replied, "As I told
you before, I go down the line and hire as I need them and as they are experi-
enced." None of the others had been offered employment by the date of the hearing,
about 18 months after the plant opened. On May 22, 1959, the Union filed a charge
with the Board on behalf of the 16, alleging that Respondent had discriminated
against them because of their union membership and activities. A copy of this
charge was received by Manager Young, whose responsibility it was to select the
employees to be hired. He was accordingly put on notice at that time that the com-
plainants were still seeking employment.
In July 1959, Respondent again advertised for experienced workers, this time over
the local radio. Two of the complainants, Verbie Grant and Roxie Lee Bagwell,
who reapplied in response to that advertisement, were told by Manager Young that he
did not need them.
Respondent's first application for a certificate to employ learners was not granted.
On September 9, 1959, Respondent filed a second application, representing to the
Department of Labor that it then had 274 factory production workers on its payroll;
that within 15 days of the date of the application, it had placed an order for experi-
enced workers with the local public employment service office, as a result of which
15 experienced workers had been referred and 6 hired; that an adequate supply of
experienced workers was not available; and that it desired permission to hire 51
learners immediately.
In a letter dated October 26, 1959, from the Department of Labor, Respondent
was reminded that "under the regulations learners may not be hired at rates below
the statutory minimum when qualified experienced workers are available for employ-
ment within the area from which you normally draw your labor supply"; was ad-
vised that the Department had received information that a number of former Saxon
employees, listing seven of those named in the complaint, had been refused employ-
ment at Respondent's plant; and was requested to advise the Department of the
results of Respondent's efforts to secure the services of the seven listed persons as
well as any other experienced workers who might be available.
Respondent's president, Longenecker, replied, by letter dated November 20, 1959
(written for him by Respondent's counsel, Wright), that it was planning to put on a
new line which would require from 50 to 60 persons and that if the 7 persons listed
were refused employment-which Respondent's records did not indicate-it must
have been for reasons other than their lack of experience; but that, in any event,
even if those persons were hired, there would still be the necessity for a learner's
certificate to obtain the number necessary to complete the line. In the letter Re-
spondent assured the Department of Labor that the seven listed persons would "be
contacted as to their suitability for employment, and if they meet other require-
ments of the plant, they will be employed as experienced workers, and will not be
employed on a learner's permit." Respondent, however, did not get in touch with
these 7 or any of the remaining 15 complainants.
C. Respondent's explanations for its failure to hire the complainants
Respondent filed a general denial to the complaint and refused to reveal, during
the development of the General Counsel's case, what its defense would be, except
to the extent that its position was disclosed by its president and owner, Tommy I.
Longenecker, who was called as a witness by the General Counsel under Rule 43(b).
Since there are some inconsistencies in the testimony of Respondent's representatives,
an analysis of its defense will be facilitated by setting forth the relevant testimony
of each of its four representatives.
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION 181
President Longenecker testified that when he put Boyd Young, his head mechanic
at the, Amory Garment Company plant, in charge of the Aberdeen plant, he told
Young to try to find and hire as many experienced people as he could but also to
try to hire the ones he thought were efficient, capable, and dependable. Except for
a few employees Longenecker sent over from the Amory plant, all those hired at
Aberdeen were selected by Young.
In explanation of the advertisements for 150 experienced sewing machine op-
erators appearing in the March 5, 1959, editions of the Aberdeen and Amory news-
papers, Longenecker stated that he had personally placed the advertisements be-
cause he had been informed that Respondent needed experienced employees. He
testified, "We are always looking for them"; that Respondent is presently hiring
experienced employees "if we can find them"; and that although Young does the
actual hiring, "I am sure that naturally if he could find some he would hire them
. if they are qualified."
Longenecker also took responsibility for the advertisements over the radio in
July 1959. He testified that he had been informed, perhaps by Mr. Roby, his Amory
manager and "right ; arm,'.' who visits the Aberdeen plant, and keeps Longenecker
informed as to what is going on there , that more experienced employees were
needed . He added , "I know we were trying to get some production lines going and
we were not successful so we shut them down." 3
Longenecker acknowledged authorizing the filing of applications for certificates
to employ learners which were filed on February 14 and September 9, 1959. He
testified that although he did not confer with Young on every occasion before taking
action to obtain more employees , he knew that Respondent needed them because
"We always need them."
Longenecker further testified that he knew that the Saxon plant had been organ-
ized and he assumed that all Saxon employees were members of the Union. He
stated that during the first- few days i after ^ Respondent started taking applications,
when he stayed at the plant for a few days, "a lot" of the applicants would approach
him, tell him that they had belonged to the Union at Saxon, and ask him not to hold
that against them; that some told him they "had to belong to the Union but . .
didn't fool with it"; and that he would tell them not to menion the Union, that he
was not holding it against them. Longenecker testified that he did not personally
interview any of the applicants for employment but "told them to apply to the
Mississippi Employment Office and then we would take their applications in the nor-
mal way and if they qualified they would be hired."
According to Longenecker, he told Young, "We want to get this plant started and
as far as I am personally concerned , don't mention the Union . . . because I don't
even want to hear the word. . . . We are going to get the plant started and as far
as I'm concerned everybody that worked at Saxon belonged to the Union, and that's
it, but we don't need to talk about it." 4
Implicit in Longenecker's testimony was a contention that the complainants were
not hired because they were not qualified. Accordingly, Respondent's counsel
started questioning the very next witness, the complainant Verbie Grant, about her
production while employed by Saxon. I sustained an objection to this question
when Respondent was unwilling to allege that Grant's production had something
to do with her not being hired by Respondent. And Respondent did not, in the
presentation of its own case, assert or seek to show that any of the complainants
were not fully qualified to perform the operations in which their applications showed
they were experienced.
Manager Young, whose responsibility it was to select the persons employed by
Respondent, did not testify specifically as to his reason for not hiring the com-
plainants but indicated, from his testimony as to the manner in which he selected
employees and the number of applications received, that the complainants were not
selected because there was an insufficient number of jobs for all qualified applicants.
Thus, he testified that in choosing employees for a sewing line, he took the applica-
tions home with him, sorted them, and solely on the basis of the statements made
on the applications-which he assumed were true-selected employees to fill posi-
tions listed on a sewing-line diagram which he had prepared. He then gave the
applications which he selected to General Floorlady Barksdale with instructions that
8 Respondent started on February 2 with two production lines. A third one was added
2 or 3 weeks later and a fourth line was started in the early part of March and dis-
continued about September 1. The dates of any further production lines which Respond-
ent may have tried to start are not shown by the record.
' Young, on the other hand, denied that Longenecker ever mentioned the Union to him.
He stated , moreover , that he had never mentioned it to Longenecker.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she send the applicants cards or otherwise notify them to report for work. These
applications were kept in a folder for that particular sewing line, separate from the
other applications. Young testified that when two or more applicants appeared from
their applications to be equally well qualified, he usually selected the younger; and
that he never discussed with Respondent's General Floorlady Barksdale, nor with
its Foreladies Crowley, Rydings, or Bowen-all of whom had worked in similar
capacities for Saxon-whom he was going to hire; that insofar as he could recall,
he never asked Barksdale any question about an applicant. In this manner, accord-
ing to Young, he set up 4 sewing lines, each requiring between 43 and 45 employees.
The fourth line, which was set up in March, was discontinued in August or Septem-
ber 1959. He testified that once he had set up a sewing line, he did not again refer
to the applications in hiring replacements on the sewing line but, instead, hired an
applicant who happened to come to the plant at the time he needed a replacement,
using a utility operator to fill in until someone was hired.
Young testified that over 800 persons filed applications for jobs and, in support
of this testimony, Respondent introduced Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 (1-801) con-
taining such applications, dated between January and December 1959.5 Young
sought to leave the impression, and Respondent has argued in its brief, that this
large number of applications proves that many experienced applicants, in addition
to the' complainants, wefe not hired simply because there were not enough jobs to
go around. An examination of the applications, however, does not support this
contention. It shows that a substantial majority of the applicants have had no pre-
vious garment plant experience whatsoever, much less experience at making men's
and boys' trousers, the garments produced by Respondent. Moreover, except for
notations appearing on 15 of the applications 6 indicating that the applicants were
hired, the record does not.show their identity, or bow many of these persons were
employed, or offered employment.? Respondent's contention also is inconsistent
with President Longenecker's testimony that Respondent was always in need of
experienced qualified employees, and that Respondent had tried to set up more
sewing lines but had closed them down because it was unsuccessful in filling them.
Young further testified that he knew-nothing about the newspaper advertisements
of March 5 for 150 experienced sewing machine operators until he read his paper;
that he did not know about Respondent's appeals for more employees over the radio
in July until applicants informed him of them; and that upon neither occasion did
he talk to Longenecker about these advertisements. Young at first testified that he
had never heard, prior to the hearing, about Respondent's applications for certifi-
cates to employ learners, then conceded that an investigator from the Wage and
Hour Division of the Department of Labor had come to the plant 3 or 4 months
before the hearing and talked to him about the last learner's certificate application
and a complaint which had been filed in connection with it. According to Young,
however, he never mentioned this visit to Longenecker and Longenecker never in-
formed him that learner's certificates had been applied for. Young was not a frank
witness and I cannot accept his testimony that there was an almost complete lack
of communication between himself and higher management about matters of ob-
vious importance to the operation of the plant.
General Floorlady Barksdale, who worked in Respondent's office taking applica-
tions between January 21 and February 2, corroborated Manager Young's testimony
that it was he who made the decision as to which of the applicants were to be hired
and that she merely mailed them notices to report for work after receiving a sewing
line diagram and the applications selected by Young to fill the positions on those
diagrams She at first testified that she did not recall whether Young ever asked her
any questions about the applicants; she then recalled that before the plant started
operating and during the period when Young was selecting applicants, he would
come into the office and ask her about some of the applicants or their work; but she
later qualified this testimony by stating that it was only after Young had selected
the applicants to be hired that he might ask her such questions as how many had
9 He testified that, in addition, 256 persons, some new applicants and some who had
already applied, came to the plant seeking work after his supply of application forms
had been exhausted and he had them write their names and addresses in a book,
Respondent's Exhibit No 2
E These are applications numbers 78, 79, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 294 , 296, 516,
517, 659, and 660 (see footnote 10, infra).
' The applications of those persons selected by Young for the sewing lines were initially
separated from the other but, with Respondent's consent, were commingled with the
others by the General Counsel's agents who investigated the case.
T.LL. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION , 183
worked for Saxon, or the age of an applicant who failed to show this information
on his application.
Barksdale impressed me as a reluctant witness , torn by her personal kindly feelings
toward the employees she had known and worked with at Saxon and her loyalty to
Respondent. Before the plant opened, she apparently assumed that the experienced
Saxon employees would be employed. Thus, she told Evelyn Bowen that it would
not be long before they were all back at work; she told Mabel Favela that she
would see that Favela got the job on which she last worked at Saxon; she told
Emma Roebuck to put on her application all the operations in which she had
experience, but that she would be hired for facing front pockets; and she asked
Hugh Bowen if he was ready to go back to work and told him she did not think it
would be long before all were back. Later, however, she made it plain that she had
nothing to do with the hiring and that Young was solely responsible. When Verbie
Grant asked her if it were true that no one who was for the Union would be hired,
she replied, "Well, honey, . I don't know, but if you can get a job anywhere
else, . you get it, because I haven't got anything to do with the hiring.... I
hope there won't any of you think hard of me for Mr. Young not hiring you, because
I haven't got anything to do with it."
At the hearing Barksdale, like Young, sought to leave the impression that the
complainants were not hired because there were not enough jobs for everyone. Thus,
she at first testified that Respondent has always had a surplus of applications from
experienced operators but later conceded that she did not mean they were ex-
perienced. She testified in particular that Respondent had a surplus of applications
for the jobs of outseaming and stitching down white flies but later admitted that
she had not checked the applications to ascertain that fact and indeed, had no occa-
sion to look at applications-other than those selected by Young to be hired-after
the plant started operating. I do not find in Barksdale's testimony support for
Young's purported reason for not hiring the complainants.
Respondent's secretary-treasurer, Hosea P. Flanagan, whose headquarters are in
Amory, testified that he filed the two applications for certificates to employ learners
because Respondent was looking to the future-planning production 6 to 12 months
ahead of time and anticipating from the needs of customers that additional production
lines would be required. The last application, he asserted, was filed because one
large customer, Sears Roebuck, had estimated that three additional lines would be
required to fill its needs in 6 to 12 months from the date of the application. Never-
theless, when the Wage and Hour Division in January or February 1960 started
investigating a complaint arising out of the application, Flanagan informed the
Division that Respondent was no longer interested in the certificate at that time. He
testified that the contracts, on the basis of which the first application was filed, did
not materialize but gave no explanation for failing to press the second application.
I have carefully weighed the testimony of Respondent's president, Longenecker,
against that of its other management representatives and accept his testimony that
Respondent was constantly in need of qualified experienced employees and had to
shut down some production lines because it was unable to obtain a sufficient number
of such employees. To accept the argument made in Respondent's brief, and
implied in the testimony of Young and Barksdale, that many more qualified ex-
perienced applicants were seeking work than it could employ, would mean that
President Longenecker acted irresponsibly in applying on February 14 for a cer-
tificate to employ 100 learners, in advertising on March 5 that 150 experienced
sewing machine operators were needed for "immediate" plant expansion, in again
advertising in July over the radio for more such experienced workers and in filing
the second application for a learner's certificate on September 9, and that he did not
know what he was talking about when he testified that Respondent was always in
need of experienced operators. Longenecker impressed me as a capable and ener-
getic businessman and I cannot ascribe any such irresponsibility to him.
Accepting as a general proposition, as I do, Longenecker's assertion that Re-
spondent was always in need of experienced workers, I have searched the record for
an explanation--other than that urged by the General Counsel-,for Respondent's
failure to hire each of the complainants. Initially, I must assume, as did Young,
that each of the complainants was qualified to perform whatever operations his
application showed he was experienced in.
I credit Young's explanation that as a rule whenever two or more persons appeared
from their applications to be equally well qualified for a position, he gave preference
in employment to the younger applicant. This practice might account for some of
the complainants not being the first to be hired, but except for Roxie Lee Bagwell
who was 55 when she applied-substantially older than any of the other com-
plainants-any age differential could not have accounted for Respondent 's failure
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to offer them employment within at least a few months after it started operations.
And even as to Bagwell, whose only experience was at bartacking, her age could
hardly have accounted for her not being hired except for the fact that 2 or 3 months
after the plant opened, Respondent eliminated belt loops on its trousers, except on
one line, and thereafter used only two instead of the usual five bartackers on each
line. On the basis of these facts, I find no basis for finding that Bagwell in the
normal course of hiring would have been employed by the date of the hearing.8
The record also shows that Respondent is performing its sewing operations under
a line system rather than under a bundle system, which was used by Saxon at the
time it closed down Under the line system, a bundle is delivered to the head of the
sewing line and each pair of trousers in the bundle goes down the line, with each
girl performing her operation. Under the bundle system a bundle is delivered to
each operator for the sewing of her particular part, and a bundle boy moves the
bundle from one machine to the next. Under the line system, a fewer number of
bundle boys is required than is required under the bundle system. Only one of the
complainants, Hugh H. Bowen, had worked as a bundle boy at Saxon, but he had also
worked as a zipper operator at Saxon and the need for zipper operators was not shown
to have undergone any change under the line system-a system, incidentally, under
which Bowen had worked prior to being employed by Saxon. There is nothing in
the record to suggest, therefore, that Bowen, in the normal course of events, would
not have been employed by Respondent either as a bundle boy or as a zipper operator.
No other change in the nature or number of operations under the line system was
shown to have affected in any way the need for operators having the experiences of
the complainants. Barksdale conceded that "substantially it takes the same operations
to make a pair of pants, regardless of how you do it."
D. The union activities of complainants and Respondent's knowledge thereof
Among the 16 complainants are 9 of the 14 persons holding an elective union
office when the Saxon plant closed .9 Of the remaining five such officers , who are not
named in the complaint, three apparently did not apply-for I do not find their
names on any of the applications-and no discrimination against the two who did
apply is alleged 10 Indeed, it affirmatively appears that one of the two, Myrtle
Plunkett (the Union's sergeant-at-arms and the daughter of complainant Roxie Lee
Bagwell), was employed by Respondent.
8One person, Jessie Mae Markham, whose application (No 98, see footnote 10, infra)
dated March 11, 1959 , bears the notation "Hired 3-12-59," shows her sole experience to
be at bartacking Though younger than Bagwell, she is substantially older than three of
the complainants-Mary Jordan, Mabel Favela, and Maxine Covin-e.ich of whom listed
bartacking as one of the several operations on which they were experienced
"These nine are : Johnnie Carter, who was elected vice president and became presi-
dent in April 1958, upon the resignation of David Lee Walters, the elected president,
Mae Gosa, financial secretary; Mary Banks, recording secretary, who with Baiksdale's
permission had taken time off to attend a union officers' training school in August 1958;
Trilby Nadeen Cosa and Dollie Rackley, trustees; and Louise Hickman chairman, and
Maxine Covin, Geneva Jordan, and Emma Roebuck, members of the executive board
18 The identity of those who did apply is disclosed by an examination of the more than
800 applications for employment, dated between January and December 1959 (with a few
undated), which Respondent introduced in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No 3 (1-801).
These applications are bound in six volumes, are not arranged by date, alphabetically,
or in any other order which I have been able to ascertain, and they include those of per-
sons hired as well as those not hired To facilitate an analysis of them, I have given
each a penciled number in the lower righthand corner. The applications in the volume
beginning with the application of Ellen Ruth Winders are numbered 1 through 174,
those in the volume beginning with the application of Lavada Scott are numbered 175
through 286 ; those in the volume beginning with the application of Olen H Roberts, Jr ,
are numbered 287 through 442, those in the volume beginning with the application of
Connie Johns are numbered 443 through 585 ; those in the volume beginning with the
application of Clara F Thompson are numbered 586 through 695; and those in the
volume beginning with the application of Rebie Flynn are numbered (196 through 818
To correct an inadvertent failure, initially, to number the application following number
228, I have numbered it 228(a) Included in these bound volumes between applications
numbered 94 and 95, 676 and 677, 677 and 678, are sheets headed "II," "IV Line,"
"4-th Line," "3rd," "5th line " and "3rd," and some without headings. listing the titles
of various sewing operations, with one or more names tinder most operations but with
none under others Obviously, these sheets were inadvertently included among the appli-
cations and I have not numbered them
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION 185
Also among the 16 complainants are Mary Jordan , one of the first two union
members to carry a picket sign during a strike at the Saxon plant in March 1957
or 1958; Verbie Grant, a union member who, shortly after being hired by Saxon,
sought out Barksdale to inquire as to where she could get a union card and who
attended union meetings but who did not otherwise appear to be active in the
Union; Evelyn Bowen and her husband, Hugh Bowen, both of whom were union
members and walked the picket line during the strike; Mabel Favela, who helped
to organize the Saxon employees, served as a line steward, processing grievances
with management, and walked the picket line; Roxie Lee Bagwell, a union member
and its sergeant-at-arms in 1956; and Katie Scott, who served as the Union's
insurance secretary and walked the picket line."
The identity of the Union's officers at the Saxon plant was well publicized. Pic-
tures of the officers, during at least 1 year, were publicized in a newspaper, and
in 1958 Saxon's management representatives were invited to an installation party
for the newly elected union officers. Saxon's General Floorlady Ira Barksdale, who
held a similar position with Respondent, attended the party. Floorlady Morrie
Rydings (employed in the same capacity by Saxon and Respondent) also attended
that or another installation party. A list of all the candidates for union office,
showing the number of votes received by each and who was elected, was posted
in 1958 on the plant bulletin board, where General Floorlady Barksdale as well as
Floorladies Morrie Rydings and Flora Lee Crowley, who also held the same positions
with Respondent, had an opportunity to observe them. Employee Rackley in fact
saw Barksdale and Rydings look at the list. Respondent, moreover, employed as
one of its floorladies Laura Bowen, who had been a sewing machine operator at
Saxon.
Furthermore, the union activities at Saxon were so open and widespread that
Saxon personnel, later employed by Respondent, could hardly have failed to be
aware of those activities and the identity of those participating therein. Thus, Mary
Banks, in addition to being the Union's recording secretary, served as vice presi-
dent of the Central Labor Council, with which the Saxon Local was affiliated; par-
ticipated in a 2-hour sitdown demonstration at Saxon in 1957; served as a line
steward, presenting employee grievances to the Saxon management; helped to
prepare and serve meals to pickets during the strike as well as walking the picket
line every day; and prepared and posted the 1958 list of union officers on the
bulletin boards at Saxon. Dolly Rackley, in addition to serving as a trustee and on
the Union's executive board, was a line steward throughout the period when the
Union was recognized at Saxon and in that capacity, presented a number of griev-
ances, through Floorlady Rydings (also employed by Respondent) to higher manage-
ment; she also handled insurance matters for the Union and served on the picket line.
Mae Gosa, in addition to being the Union's financial secretary for several years, had
been a line steward during the first year the Union was established; and on Sep-
tember 14, 1959, was employed by the Union on a temporary basis. Johnnie Carter,
in addition to serving as the Union's president, met with the line stewards at times
when they had grievancee.'io present, and walked the picket lines during the strike.
Louise Hickman, in,ad 1ition to serving as chairman of the Union's executive board,
was a line stir -y^;atd during 1958 and "griped" to Barksdale when unable to settle
grievances sa....o.c,ctorilt with management; she had also sought Barksdale's per-
mission in arranging t&vherself and another employee, as me,nbers of the decorating
committee, to get off from work early on the day of installation of officers in 1958.
Maxine Covin, in addition to being a member of the Union's executive board, was
a steward in the cutting room in 1958 and a delegate to the Union's State con-
vention at Jackson, Mississippi, in April 1958; she also walked the picket line.
Geneva Jordan, in addition to being a member of the Union's executive board in
1958, was its chairman in 1957 and was shop steward in 1956. taking up grievances
for the utility girls. Emma Roebuck, in addition to being a member of the Union's
executive board in 1958, was its vice president in 1955 and 1956 and a line steward
in 1958; and in connection with the latter position, she had a dispute with Barks-
dale over one grievance.
I find, in view of the manner in which the election of the Union's officers was
publicized, the picketing of Saxon's plant in 1957 or 1958 in which only a minority
of Saxon 's employees participated , the open and widespread union activities of the
"According to the undisputed testimony of Christine Stanford. whom I credit, a few
of the Saxon employees worked during the strike but most of them just stayed at home.
When Stanford reported for work for Respondent on March 12. 1959. about 50 percent
of the Saxon employees who had belonged to the Union were then working in the plant
but they were not active in the Union.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
complainants , the employment by Respondent of former Saxon personnel as its own
supervisory personnel , and the smallness of the town of Aberdeen (population
6,444), in which the plant was located, and of Amory (population 6,450), 16 miles
away, where Young and Longenecker lived, that Respondent was in a position to
know and did know the identity of the Union's officers and other employees at Saxon
who were most active in the Union.
E. Conclusions with respect to Respondent's motivation in
failing to hire the complainants
Respondent followed a policy of not discussing the Union with any of the appli-
cants. President Longenecker told those applicants who inquired about whether
their union activities had anything to do with their not being hired that he did not
want to hear anything about the Union, and he instructed Young not to discuss it.12
Young followed these instructions.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent nevertheless revealed its anti-
union motivation in failing to hire the complainants . He cites, among other things,
the circumstances under which Christine Stanford and Mildred Cole obtained em-
ployment with Respondent. Christine Stanford had helped organize the employees
at Saxon, had been a member of the Union's executive board in 1957 to 1958, and
had walked the picket lines. Her sister, Mildred Cole, although a union member
and a participant in the strike, does not appear to have been particularly active in
the Union. Cole applied for a job with Respondent on January 21 and Stanford on
January 23. Both reported back to the plant each week thereafter.
On one occasion, in February, when Stanford called Young about a job and he
told her there was no job open for her, she asked him whether it was because she had
belonged to the Union at Saxon that he had not called her. He replied, "Not
exactly." Thereafter, she and her sister, Mildred Cole, each wrote a letter to Presi-
dent Longenecker in Amory, telling him, in substance, that she needed work, that
she had been in the Union at Saxon but that if he would hire her, she would have
nothing to do with the Union at Respondent's plant.13 Several weeks thereafter, on
March 11, each received a card, postmarked from Amory, notifying her to report
for work on the following day. Each started working on March 12 on the fourth
sewing line.
Longenecker testified that he "could have" received the letters from Stanford and
Cole but did not remember receiving them. He explained that he "usually" just
tears up personal letters addressed to him at the Amory plant, without reading them.
The letters in question were duly posted, had return addresses on the envelopes, and
were never returned to the senders. I find that they were received by Longenecker.
Moreover, the fact that the cards notifying Stanford and Cole to report for work
were postmarked from Amory, rather than from Aberdeen where they would nor-
mally be mailed, indicates that these two employees were hired in response to the
letters they sent to Longenecker at Amory. The treatment accorded Stanford and
Cole is comparable to that received by the complainalrt.Mary Jordan, mentioned
supra, who was hired on April 22 shortly after assuring Youtrg,; hat if it was because
of the Union that she had not been hired, he could just forget 3t because she
needed work, and in Aberdeen, because of her children.
The undenied and credited testimony of several of the ohs.. complainants casts
further light upon Respondent's motivations and its determination not to hire the
complainants who failed to renounce the Union. Thus, when Dolly Rackley on
February 20, 1959, asked Young whether it was because of the Union that she had
not been called, he merely dropped his eyes and did not answer. When complainant
Verbie Grant, with many years of experience in several sewing operations, went with
her sister, Esther Green, in early March 1959 to seek work, Young told Green to
go to the employment office, take a test, get a referral card, and he would put her
to work. Green followed instructions and was put to work at one of the operations
which Grant had performed at Saxon. She had never worked for Saxon; in fact,
she had only a few weeks of sewing experience, and that about 20 years earlier.
Grant returned to the plant or called Young many times thereafter. In April 1960,
when she asked him over the telephone whether he needed a good experienced hand,
he replied that he did and asked what she could do. She listed six operations in
which she was experienced. Young then asked her name, and when she told him,
he said that he did not need her. Mae Gosa, another complainant, had a similar
a In making the latter finding, I credit Lonzenecker's testimony rather than Young's
denial that Longenecker ever mentioned the Union to him.
15 Cole wrote her letter first and showed it to her sister, who thought it was a good
idea and wrote a similar one herself.
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION - - 187
-experience . On April 25 , 1959 , she called Young and asked whether he needed
experienced operators . He- asked who she was , and when she told hun , he stated
that he did not need anyone.14
While I do not consider any of the foregoing incidents as conclusive in establishing
an antiunion motivation , they are not without some significance . I have considered
these incidents in the light of Longenecker 's testimony that he instructed Young
to hire as many experienced people as he could , his testimony that he told appli-
cants "if they qualified they would be hired ," his testimony that Respondent was
always in need of experienced people and was still hiring them if it could find then
and they were qualified , his testimony that Respondent , in March 1959 , had adver-
tised in the local newspapers , and in July over the radio , for experienced operators
and had twice applied for certificates to employ learners because unable to obtain,
a sufficient number of experienced employees , and his testimony that Respondent
had tried to get some more production lines going but was forced to shut them down
because unsuccessful in obtaining enough experienced operators ; the fact the com-
plainants were all experienced operators , with some able to perform almost any
operation in the plant , 15 and that each repeatedly sought work at Respondent's
plant ; 16 the fact that , except for the complainant Roxie Lee Bagwell, treated supra,
the record contains no credible evidence which might reasonably explain why,
despite the need for experienced operators , the complainants were not hired; 17 the
fact that Respondent knew the Saxon plant had been organized by the Union; and
the fact that among the 41 former Saxon employee applicants not hired were prac-
tically all of the Union 's most recently elected officers and other complainants who
were active in the Union . On the basis of all these facts and the entire record, I
am convinced and find that Respondent by delaying the hire of the complainant Mary
Jordan (who renounced the Union ) until April 22, 1959 , and by failing to hire the
complainants Emma Roebuck , Dolly Rackley , Johnnie Carter , Louise Hickman,
Geneva Jordan , Mae Gosa , Katie Scott , Evelyn Bowen , Hugh H. Bowen, Verbie
Grant, Mabel Favela , Trilby Nadeen Gosa , Mary Banks , and Maxine Covin, dis-
criminated against them because of their union membership and activities , thereby
violating Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
The fact that a few of the complainants did not hold a union office and may not
have been any more active in the Union than some of the 132 former Saxon em-
14 Apparently in a further attempt to establish an antiunion motivation , the General
Counsel questioned Longenecker about a speech he made to employees at his Amory
Garment Company plant on May 18, 1958 , just prior to a representation election at that
plant and sought to have Longenecker identify a paper ( marked for identification as
General Counsel's Exhibit No. 20 ) as a copy of the speech . Longenecker testified that
the paper contained "some of the things" he said but he could not swear that the paper
was a copy of his speech . The General Counsel later sought to prove the content of
Longenecker 's speech by introducing , through Union Counsel Goldberg , purported- copies
of reports by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region on objections to elections
held at Longenecker 's Amory and Monroe plants . Goldberg testified that he first saw
copies of these reports when they were served upon the Union in Its New York office In
the latter part of 1958 and that he found the copies offered in evidence as General
Counsel's Exhibits Nos 33(a) and 33(b) in the Columbus , Mississippi , office of the Union
during the course of the hearing To each of these reports-one Involving the Amory
Garment Company (Case No 15-RC-1753 ) and the other involving Monroe Trouser
Manufacturing Co, Inc. (Case No . 15-RC-1752 )-is attached a purported copy of a
speech by Longenecker to employees of those plants . I rejected these exhibits as in-
sufficient to establish that the purported speeches were in fact those made by Longenecker.
These exhibits , General Counsel 's Exhibits Nos 20, 33 ( a), and 33 ( b), though rejected,
are Incorrectly marked by the reporter as received and are included among other General
Counsel exhibits which were received In evidence
u Evelyn Bowen and Geneva Jordan , for instance , were utility operators at Saxon, fill-
Ing in on their respective lines for almost any operator who might be absent ; and as
Mary Banks told Young upon one occasion in February 1959 when she, Maxine Covin,
Louise Hickman , and Mae Gosa returned to the plant seeking work , among the four of
them, they could do just about anything in the plant.
Is Some of the complainants , after meeting with no success in their repeated attempts
to obtain work at Respondent 's plant, obtained out-of-town jobs . Respondent , however,
has not asserted that it failed to offer any of them jobs because they were unavailable.
171n making this finding , of course , I necessarily credit Longenecker 's testimony with
respect to the plant 's needs, rather than the statements made by Young or Barksdale to
the complainants that their services were not needed.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees hired by Respondent does not preclude a finding that Respondent was dis-
-criminatorily motivated in denying employment to them as well as to the other
complainants , for it is apparent that Respondent , in staffing its plant , was deliberately
avoiding the employment of a sufficient number of active union members to result
in an obligation on Respondent's part to recognize the Union as the employees'
bargaining representative.18 In finding that Respondent was discriminatorily moti-
vated in failing to hire the complainants, I necessarily do not credit all of Young's
testimony as to the manner in which he selected employees in setting up a sewing
.line. And although, as he testified, it may have been his practice not to refer to
the applications on file when hiring replacements, I am convinced and find that if
he failed to refer to them, he was motivated at least in part by a desire to avoid hiring
the active union members whose applications he knew were on file.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the Trial Examiner, among other things,
will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
My recommended order (not published) will require Respondent to offer employ-
ment to each of the 14 complainants whom, I have found, it discriminatorily failed
to hire, displacing, if necessary, any employee hired at or subsequent to the time of
the discrimination to perform work for which the discriminatee, on the basis of his
application, is qualified; and will further require Respondent to make whole each of
the discriminatees, including Mary Jordan, for any loss of pay suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him.19 If, after displacing employees in the aforesaid
manner, Respondent, for reasons unrelated to its discriminatory motivation, has no
present need for employees having the experience of any of the discriminatees,
Respondent shall place them on a preferential list and offer them jobs for which the
experience noted on their applications shows them qualified as replacements are
needed or -as new production lines are established.
The record does not show the exact date upon which Respondent sought to set
up additional production lines and then discontinued them because unable to find
a sufficient number of qualified applicants. This information, as well as the identity
of applicants who were offered employment, those who accepted, and the date and
position at which each started working, are within the peculiar knowledge of
Respondent and can be ascertained at the compliance stage of this case. And, in
determining the dates when Respondent, but for its discriminatory motivation,
would have set up or completed additional production lines, it will not be inappro-
priate to inquire whether Longenecker at his other trouser manufacturing plants
in Amory and Smithville, Mississippi, added more production lines to produce what
Longenecker had planned to have produced at his Aberdeen plant.
I also recommend that the Board expressly reserve the right to modify the backpay
and hiring provisions of its order if made necessary by a change of conditions in the
future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary
in order to define or clarify their application to a specific set of circumstances not
now apparent 20
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO , is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By delaying the hire of Mary Jordan until April 22, 1959, and failing to hire
the 14 persons listed in the appendix to this Intermediate Report because of their
union membership and activities. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The evidence does not establish that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by failing to hire Roxie Lee Bagwell.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.
18 Cf Piasecki Aircraft Corp v NLRB , 280 F 2d 575 (C A 1) enfg 123 NLRB 248
10Lost earnings shall he competed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in
F. W Woolworth Co . 90 NLRB 289
20 Bermuda Knitwear Corporation , 120 NLRB 332.
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO 189
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a recommended order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees , or any applicants for
employment , in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or in
any other labor organization , by refusing to hire any applicant for employment
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees or applicants for employment in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to join or assist the aforesaid Union , or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL offer to the individuals named below employment at the same or
substantially equivalent positions at which they would have been employed had
they not been discriminated against , without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges they might have acquired, in the manner set forth in the
section of the Trial Examiner 's Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy":
Emma Roebuck Evelyn Bowen
Dolly Rackley Hugh H. Bowen
Johnnie Carter Verbie Grant
Louise Hickman Mabel Favela
Geneva Jordan Trilby Nadeen Gosa
Mae Gosa Mary Banks
Katie Scott Maxine Covin
WE WILL make whole the above -named persons and Mary Jordan for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner
recommended by the Trial Examiner.
Our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
T.I.L. SPORTSWEAR CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must ndt be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO and Central
Veneer, Incorporated . Case No. 25-CB-396. April 21, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 20, 1960, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices but
recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port together with supporting briefs.
,131 NLRB No. 29.