U-Wanna-Wash Frocks, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 19, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS , INC. 31 U-Wanna-Wash Frocks, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO . Case 4- CA-6041 April 19, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING , KENNEDY , AND PENELLO On December 11, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Arnold Ordman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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 brief and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that U-Wanna -Wash Frocks, Inc., Newville, Pennsylvania , its officers , agents , successors , and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARNOLD ORDMAN , Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to a charge filed June 13, 1972, complaint issued against Respondent ' on August 25, 1972. The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by threatening its em- ployees with plant closure and loss of employment and by promising a wage increase to certain of its employees, all in order to discourage union activities . The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated Secion 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging employee Steven Miller because of his union activity and sympathy. Re- spondent, admitting many of the subsidiary allegations of the complaint , denied that it engaged in unfair labor prac- ' Occasionally referred to in the record as U-Wan -A Wash Frocks, inc No issue was raised as to this discrepancy and the identity of Respondent is clear. 2 The complaint initially alleged the discriminatory discharge of a second employee , Steven Fry. However, allegations relating to Steven Fry were withdrawn in advance of the hearing herein. tices . Hearing was conducted before me on the controverted issues in Carlisle , Pennsylvania , on October 18 and 30, 1972. Thereafter, General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs. Upon the entire record , upon my observation of the wit- nesses , and upon consideration of the briefs , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its princi- pal place of business in Newville , Pennsylvania . Also in- volved here is a plant which Respondent operates in Shippensburg , Pennsylvania . Respondent manufactures and sells garments and during the past calendar year ship- ped and received , respectively , goods valued in excess of $50,000 to and from States other than Pennsylvania. Re- spondent admits, and I find , that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The pleadings further establish , and I find , that the Union , the Charging Party herein , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Jurisdiction is properly asserted herein.; 3 Certain procedural problems arose at the beginning of the hearing on October 18 Before any witnesses were called , Respondent 's counsel renewed a request , previously made to the Board 's Regional Director and rejected, that the hearing be continued because of the absence of Mortimer Halbreich, Respondent's general manager , who, counsel reported, was unable to be present because he was suffering from angina pectoris . General Counsel and the Charging Party opposed the continuance on the grounds , inter aha, that the principal agent of Respondent charged with having committed the alleg- ed unfair labor practice was not Mortimer Halbreich but Otto Halbreich, Respondent's board chairman ; and that Mortimer Halbreich had worked 2 days the previous week notwithstanding his angina pectoris condition. Respondent's counsel acknowledged that Mortimer Halbreich had been at work but stated that on the second day he had done so contrary to his doctor's orders. After some further colloquy on the record, Respondent's counsel made an alternative motion to proceed with direct testimony by General Counsel's witnesses subject to Respondent 's right for a later recess so that Respondent's counsel could consult with Mortimer Halbreich prior to his cross-examination of witnesses . In view of this development , the Ad- ministrative Law Judge permitted General Counsel to call his first witness. That witness was Steven Miller , alleged in the complaint to have been dis- criminatorily discharged . In the course of his direct testimony Miller made reference to certain conduct and statements by Mortimer Halbreich . On this basis and in the light of all the circumstances I decided that a continuance before Respondent's cross-examination of Miller would better insure the litigational rights of all concerned , and directed , over the objection of counsel for General Counsel and the Charging Party, that the hearing be recessed until October 30 On October 30 the hearing resumed . Respondent 's counsel announced at the outset that, although Mortimer Halbreich's illness still precluded his attendance at the hearing , counsel had conferred with Mortimer Halbreich and was prepared to proceed . Respondent 's counsel stated further that he had been told that Otto Halbreich had entered a hospital for a cataract operation . Respondent made no request for a further continuance. Upon completion of General Counsel 's case, Respondent presented no witnesses but sought to introduce into evidence two affidavits given by Mortimer Halbreich to a National Labor Relations Board agent . After some further colloquy among counsel and me, this offer was withdrawn and a stipulation was entered into as to certain testimony Mortimer Halbreich could give if he were present at the hearing . Upon inclusion of this stipulation into the record, all parties rested and the hearing was closed. 203 NLRB No. 9 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES but was keeping the plant open because of the employees. Again, he stated that if the Union came in he would close the plant. He further explained that he would have to go out of business because the advent of the Union would cost him $250,000 a year. At Shippensburg, Otto Halbreich also made the reference to the fact that he had been told five or six girls were getting union cards signed and collecting them and that he could "throw the girls the hell out of here tomorrow but I won't." Otto Halbreich then informed the girls that they had a big raise coming up in 2 or 3 months which should make them happy and closed his remarks with the statement that the girls should go back to work and forget about all this fool- ishness. In addition to the foregoing speeches Otto Halbreich later that same morning met with the employees in the cutting room and piece goods department at the Newville plant. Among those present were Mortimer Halbreich, Respondent's general manager, and Steven Miller who worked as a spreader. In response to a suggestion that the employees utilize this occasion to let the Halbreichs know what they wanted, employee Nagley, also a spreader, ven- tured the comment that the spreaders would be satisfied with a dime raise . Otto Halbreich asked if that would be satisfactory to everyone. There was a pause. Then Steven Miller said he would not be satisfied. Mortimer Halbreich told Miller to be quiet and to let the employees who had been in the plant longer speak up. Mortimer Halbreich added that inasmuch as Miller was a part-time employee, Miller should be happy that he had a job at all. Otto Hal- breich then made reference, as he had at Shippensburg, to a big increase coming up for everybody, an increase to $2.20 an hour.5 Miller interjected that the minimum wage increase would only be to $1.80 the current year, and $2 the follow- ing year. Mortimer again admonished Miller to be quiet, to let the other fellows talk and to be happy that, as a part-time worker, he had a job at all. At that point Miller left the meeting. Mortimer Halbreich's version of his interchange with Miller on this occasion did not differ substantially. The parties stipulated (fn. 3, supra) that Mortimer Halbreich, if present, would testify that Miller in the course of the meet- ing asked where the cutters and spreaders would come in after the government raises the minimum; that Mortimer Halbreich told Miller that he was not right in speaking for employees who had been there for 20 years since Miller was only a temporary employee; and that Miller's tone of voice was not right in speaking to his employer (Otto Halbreich) who was almost 80 years old. Minimum wage aside, Respondent in its answer to the complaint admits that "Respondent through Otto Hal- breich, on June 9, 1972, granted the cutting and spreading employees wage increases." According to Miller these in- creases amounted to 10-cent increase for spreaders and a 25-cent increase for cutters. As the foregoing recitation demonstrates, there is virtual- ly no dispute as to the relevant facts. The complaint alleges, s Both here and at Shippensburg , Otto Halbreich's comments relating to a big raise or big increase obviously had reference to the Federal legislative increase which would result from congressional action raising the minimum wage. A. The Violations of Section 8(a)(1) The evidentiary basis for the allegations of threats of plant closure , discharge , and loss of employment derive from testimony as to speeches made by Otto Halbreich, Respondent's board chairman , to employees at Respondent's Newville and Shippensburg plants on the morning of June 9, 1972. Testimony as to Otto Halbreich 's speeches at the New- ville plant was given by Newville employees Steven Miller, Rebecca Blessing , and Mary Stum . Employees Dorothy Robinson and Victoria Mozingo, who worked at the Ship- pensburg plant, testified as to Otto Halbreich's speech there. The findings as to these speeches are based on their testimo- ny which is consistent in all material respects and which I credit.4 Early on the morning of June 9 , shortly after working hours began , Otto Halbreich came to the Newville plant- his visits to the Newville plant were infrequent-and ad- dressed the employees who had been assembled to hear him. Otto Halbreich began his remarks with a reference to the organizational campaign which had been going on in the plant and stated that he had come to talk about the Union. He pointed out that the plant had operated for many years without a union and could continue to operate without a union . He added that the employees were free to sign union cards if they wished , but asked the employees not to do so, stressing that he was the boss, not the union, that he was the general and the employees were his soldiers . Otto Halbreich continued with the theme that he was quite wealthy but that if the Union came in the employees would have to pay the Union $5.50 dues per month and he would have to make payments of $5,000 and that he would go "broke ." He stated in this connection that he would close the plant if the Union got in. Otto Holbreich also made reference in this speech to the fact that he had kept the employees on in good times and bad and that he was keeping the employees in the cutting room at work although their work was not needed. He closed his remarks at Newville with a plea to the employees to stick with him and beat the Union. That same morning Otto Halbreich spoke to the assem- bled employees at the neighboring plant in Shippensburg where he was also an infrequent visitor . His speech at the Shippensburg plant followed the same general tenor as that at the Newville plant . At the outset he explained that he had come to the Shippensburg plant because union cards were being circulated and signed , that the employees were being brainwashed, and that they did not have to sign union cards. Otto Halbreich again invoked the military analogy, iden- tifying himself this time as your "little Colonel ." As at New- ville, he reiterated that he had kept the plant open in good times and bad , adding that he had enough money to retire It should be noted here that , upon Respondent 's motion , all these wit- nesses were sequestered except for Steven Miller who was the first witness and was permitted to remain pursuant to the policy of the Agency not to sequester individuals alleged to have been the victims of unlawful discrimina- tion. U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS , INC. 33 the answer admits, and the evidence establishes that Otto Halbreich told the employees he would close the plants if the Union came in. A threat to close a plant because of impending organization is a patent interference with organi- zational rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent seeks exoneration of Otto Halbreich's state- ments in this regard on the ground that they were intended not as a threat but as the prediction of an inevitable eco- nomic consequence if Respondent should have to pay union wages in an extremely competitive industry. The contention is ingenious but, in total context, spurious. An employer may close his plant even if the liquidation is avowedly moti- vated by vindictiveness toward the union. Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co., 380 U.S. 263, 274 (1965), but as the Supreme Court also noted in that same decision, " [n]othing we have said in this decision would justify an employer's interfering with employee organiza- tional activities by threatening to close his plant, as distin- guished from announcing a decision to close already reached by the board of directors or other management authority empowered to make such a decision." Id., at fn. 20. Here, as in Fotomat Corporation, 199 NLRB No. 116 (1972), it is apparent that the threat to close the plant arose directly from the current organizational campaign and was not based on economic prediction and demonstrated inabil- ity to meet known and specific union demands. See also N.L.R.B. v. Erie Marine, Division of Litton Industries, 463 F.2d 104 (C A. 3, 1972). Respondent also denies that Otto Halbreich threatened to discharge employees for engaging in union activities or that he threatened the cutters at the Newville plant with loss of employment. The relevant evidence in this respect is also undisputed. Otto Halbreich made reference in his speeches to the fact that he had kept the employees in good times and bad and that, notwithstanding his financial readiness for retirement, he was keeping the plants open because of his concern for the employees. In Newville, Otto Halbreich stressed that he was keeping the cutters on the job even though their work was not needed. In Shippensburg he in- formed the employees that he had been told five or six girls had been circulating union cards and stated further that he could "throw the girls the hell out of there tomorrow but I won't." Otto Halbreich also pressed his desire that the em- ployees not sign union cards although he did state they were free to do so. Naked syntactical analysis would not support a finding that the foregoing statements were threats in the literal sense . Otto Halbreich did not in haec verba, threaten to discharge the girls who were distributing union cards or state that he was going to get rid of the cutters; indeed, he verbally suggested the contrary. But as Judge Learned Hand long ago observed, " [w]ords are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition. . .. " N.L R.B. v. Federbush Co., Inc., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (C.A. 2, 1941). In the context of speeches delivered by a top management official, who visited the plants only infrequently, to employees assembled during working hours to hear those speeches, in the further context of an antagonism toward unionization so strong as to bring forth statements that unionization would result in plant closure, the real thrust and intended meaning of Otto Halbreich's remarks were only slightly veiled: active union supporters could or would be discharged and the services of the cutters could or would be dispensed with. On all the evidence, therefore, I find that Otto Halbreich, to discourage union support and activity among the em- ployees, not only threatened plant closure, but also threat- ened to discharge union supporters and to terminate the employment of cutters. I find that by these threats, consid- ered separately or together, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The promise and/or grant of a raise in the course of a known organizational campaign is a familiar technique to defeat union organization. See N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964), and authorities there cited. Here Respondent initiated discussions on June 9, 1972, concern- ing a wage increase and on that day admittedly granted a wage increase to cutters and spreaders against a known and current organizational effort by its employees. Respondent, in its answer to the complaint, denies that the increase was given to discourage support for the Union. On the other hand, the record is devoid of any other explanation for Respondent's action, a particularly significant omission in the light of Respondent's contemporaneous protestations that it was confronted with a tight competitive situation and that it did not need the services of its cutters at all. Under all the circumstances I find that the promise and grant of the wage increase on June 9, 1972, constitute a further viola- tion of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. B. The Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and( (1) The only issue remaining for resolution has to do with the legality of the discharge of Steven Miller. Miller was admit- tedly discharged on June 12, 1972, and returned to Respondent's employ on August 15, 1972. The complaint alleges that the discharge was because of Miller's union activity and sympathy. Respondent denies that the dis- charge was for these reasons and asserts that the discharge was for "causes unrelated to any union-related activities." The relevant evidence on this issue derives almost exclu- sively from the testimony of Miller who was extensively cross-examined by Respondent.' Based on my observation of Miller and the evidence of record, I find Miller to be a credible witness and credit his testimony. Miller, a college student, was during the period under consideration here one of several spreaders in Respondent's employ at the Newville plant. His employment with Re- spondent began in 1970 when he worked during the summer months, and he worked for Respondent again during the summer months of 1971. He resumed work in February 1972 and worked until his discharge on June 12, 1972. In May 1972 Miller was given a 10-cent hourly increase pur- suant to Respondent's policy of granting 10-cent increases to spreaders every 3 months until they reached a $2.20 cent maximum. During the entire course of his employment, 6 Relevant here also is the stipulation, already detailed, as to what Mortim- er Halbreich, if present at the hearing, would testify concerning his conversa- tion with Miller late in the morning of June 9 at the meeting between Otto Halbreich and the employees relating to raises Nothing in that stipulation is materially inconsistent with-indeed, it corroborates in relevant part- Miller's testimony 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD management never criticized Miller's work and the possibil- ity of discharge was never mentioned. Miller became active in the organizational campaign prior to the events related herein. He attended union meet- ings and actively solicited his fellow employees to join the Union.? Miller made no secret of his support for the Union. On at least two occasions Miller made his union sympathies known to Saverio Amertrano, an admitted supervisor in Respondent's employ who acted as plant manager in Mor- timer Halbreich's absence. In the first conversation with Amertrano, which occurred before the Otto Halbreich speeches of June 9, Miller took sharp issue with Amertrano who was opposed to the Union and stated that it would not be good for the employees. At the meeting of June 9 relating to the raises, Miller's outspoken opposition to Respondent's wage proposal evoked two stern admonitions from Mortim- er Halbreich, already noted, that Miller "be quiet" and that Miller ought to be happy that, as a part- time worker, he had a job at all. When Miller left the meeting, he walked back to the piece goods department where he again talked to Amertrano. In response to an inquiry as to what was going on at the meeting, Miller told Amertrano that the employees "were selling themselves out for a dime, and that they shouldn't even be talking to Otto [Halbreich), that they should leave the ILG talk for them." Amertrano again sought to persuade Miller that the ILG was no good and that the Union "wasn't the answer to things." The foregoing events took place on Friday, June 9. The next workday was Monday, June 12. Miller reported to work at 7 AM., the starting hour. About 9 AM Mortimer Halbreich approached Miller at the latter's worktable and told him that Otto Halbreich "is very disappointed in you and as of now you no longer have a job here; go up to the office and get your check." Miller went to the office, ob- tained his check, and left the plant. Except for Mortimer Halbreich 's statement, no explanation was given Miller to explain or justify his discharge. The foregoing pattern of events affords cogent support for a finding that Miller's discharge was discriminatorily motivated. To be sure, direct evidence of discriminatory motive is not present in this record. But, as Chief Judge Parker long ago noted in the much cited case of Hartsell Mills Company v. N. L.R.B., 1 I 1 F.2d 291,293 (C.A. 4, 1941), "direct evidence of a purpose to violate the statute is rarely obtainable. Where, however, the total circumstances afford the basis for a conclusion of discriminatory discharge, such a finding has warrant ." Hartsell, supra; Shattuck Denn Min- ing Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9, 1966). Here the total circumstances proved virtually compel the inference that Miller was discharged because of his out- spoken adherence to the Union and Respondent's demon- strated antipathy to the unionization effort among his employees. Miller's work had never been subject to criticism and no mention of any shortcoming in that regard was made at the time of his discharge. In its brief to the Administrative Law Judge, filed after the close of the hearing and addressed only to the legality of the discharge of Miller, Respondent 7 Miller', wife , currently employed by Respondent , was, according to Mill- er, also active in the Union now contends that the real reason for the discharge was "Mr. Miller's disrespectful conduct toward Mr. Otto Hal- breich ." (Br., p. 1) The reference , of course , is to Mortimer Halbreich 's stipulated testimony that Miller , at the June 9 wage increase meeting : "was not right to talk to his employ- er, who was almost 80 years old , in that tone of voice." In that respect , to the extent here relevant at all, the record demonstrates merely that at this meeting Miller , as an em- ployee and a union adherent , was registering his opposition to Respondent 's proposed action with respect to a wage increase , an opposition which Otto Halbreich invited when he asked the assembled employees whether the proposed 10-cent increase would be satisfactory to everyone . In these circumstances Miller's comments lay in the area of protect- ed activity. Hugh H Wilson Company, 171 NLRB 1040, 1046 (1968), enfd . 414 F.2d 1345, 1351-54 (C.A. 3, 1969). The more plausible conclusion , by far , is that Respondent's resentment against Miller arose not from Miller's "tone of voice" but from his opposition to Respondent 's wage pro- posal, an opposition registered by an employee known both to Respondent 's work force and its management and super- visory staff as a vigorous union adherent. The timing of the discharge is also significant . Friday, June 9 , was a high point in Respondent 's antiunion cam- paign . Otto Halbreich made early morning speeches to the assembled employees at both Newville and Shippensburg and later that morning initiated and implemented a wage increase for the cutters and spreaders . Miller registered his opposition to Respondent's efforts at the wage increase meeting and immediately thereafter demonstrated to Amer- trano his continued adherence to the Union . The following Monday morning , Miller was discharged with the simple comment that "Mr. [Otto] Halbreich is very disappointed in you and as of now you no longer have a job here ; go up to the office and get your check." On all the evidence of record , including the lack of short- comings in Miller's work performance, his known union activity , Respondent 's demonstrated hostility to that union activity , the precipitate nature of Miller's discharge follow- ing his opposition to Respondent 's wage proposal of June 9, and the absence of any plausible explanation of that sudden discharge , I find that Respondent discharged Steven Miller because of his union affiliation and sympathies and because he engaged in protected activity in that regard. I conclude , and find , that Respondent thereby violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 8 REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and, because of the s Only brief reference need be made to the plethora of cases cited by Respondent in its brief to the Administrative Law Judge . Essentially they establish the familiar and accepted principles that the burden of proof to establish unlawful discrimination or interference with statutorily guaranteed employee rights rests upon General Counsel and that even known union activity does not shield an employee from discharge for insubordination or other culpable misconduct These propositions are, of course , valid Howev- er, unlike the situations in the cited cases, Miller did nothing here to deprive himself of the "protective shield of Section 7 " See , e.g., Boaz Spinning Co v N LR B, 395 F.2d 512,515 (C A 5, 1968), cited by Respondent in its brief U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS, INC. 35 character and scope of such unfair labor practices, from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed em- ployees in Section 7 of the Act.9 Affirmative relief is also appropriate here . Accordingly, I shall direct that Respondent make Steven Miller whole for earnings which he lost between June 12, 1972, the date of his discharge, to August 15, 1972, when he returned to Respondent 's employ, less his net earnings during that peri- od. The amount due shall be determined in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). To facilitate and achieve these ends, the remedial order will include customary recordkeeping and notice-posting provisions. However, nothing contained in the Order set forth hereunder shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any economic benefit it has heretofore conferred upon its employees. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I shall issue the following recommended: 10 be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to see that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 Brad's Machine Products, Inc., 191 NLRB 274. 10 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 the Order herein shall , as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 11 In the event 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. APPENDIX ORDER Respondent , U-Wanna-Wash Frocks , Inc., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening its employees with plant closure, dis- charge , or other loss of employment benefits to discourage union or organizing activities. (b) Promising or granting wage increases to discourage union or organizing activities. (c) Discharging , or otherwise , discriminating against, any employee for supporting International Ladies ' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion. (d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights given them under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Steven Miller for earnings lost as a result of his discharge to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy." (b) Preserve and , upon request, make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying , all payroll records and other financial or personnel records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c)Post at its plant in Newville and Shippensburg, Penn- sylvania , copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."11 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant or to dis- charge or layoff employees because they are active in, or support International Ladies' Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interfere in any other manner with the rights of our employees to engage in organizational activity or collective bargaining , or with their right to refrain fom such activity. WE WILL pay Steven Miller for the earnings he lost because we discharged him. U-WANNA-WASH FROCKS, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct- ed to the Board's Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 215-597-7608.