Alson Knitting, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1991

301 N.L.R.B. 758 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

758
301 NLRB No. 112
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings.
The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s
credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully ex-
amined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
Additionally, we correct the following typographical errors in the judge’s
decision: (1) in sec. II,C, the word ‘‘postdated’’ in the last line of the third
paragraph should read ‘‘predated’’; and (2) in the remedy section the word
‘‘will’’ in the last sentence of the second paragraph should read ‘‘will not.’’
These errors do not affect the validity of the judge’s conclusions.
2 In light of the evidence that a large number of Respondent’s employees
are Spanish-speaking, the judge’s recommended Order is modified to provide
that the Respondent post the attached notice in both English and Spanish.
The notice has been further modified to conform to the judge’s rec-
ommended Order.
Alson Knitting, Inc. and Local 169, Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–
CIO, CLC. Cases 29–CA–14316, 29–CA–14412,
and 29–CA–14423
February 19, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On August 31, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
James F. Morton issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Alson
Knitting, Inc., Brooklyn, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
‘‘(d) Post at its facility in Brooklyn, New York, cop-
ies in English and Spanish of the attached notice
marked ‘‘Appendix.’’5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized represent-
ative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees as to
their support for Local 169, Amalgamated Clothing
and Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO, CLC.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully poll employees to deter-
mine the extent of their support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT take union literature from our em-
ployees or position any supervisor alongside union or-
ganizers while they are distributing union literature.
WE WILL NOT make any statement to create the im-
pression among employees that we have kept their
union activities under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT lay off any employee in order to dis-
courage support for, or membership in, the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Abraham Soto, Monserrat Rivera,
Felicia Suazo, Leopoldo Soto, Maximo Salas, and Er-
nest Garrett immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them and also
Thelma Rodriguez, who has been reinstated, whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
their discharge, with interest, less any net interim earn-
ings.
WE WILL remove all references to their unlawful
layoffs from our disciplinary records and notify them
in writing that this has been done and that evidence of
their unlawful layoffs will not be used as a basis for
any future disciplinary action against them.
ALSON KNITTING, INC.
April M. Wexler and Ann Goldwater, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
William Wallen, Esq. (Horowitz & Pollack, P.C.), of South
Orange, New Jersey, for Alson Knitting, Inc.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES F. MORTON, Administrative Law Judge. The con-
solidated complaint alleges that Alson Knitting, Inc. (Re-
759ALSON KNITTING, INC.
1 Two of General Counsel’s witnesses related that the cutter told them that
Hymie (i.e., Respondent’s president) would retaliate if the Union came in. The
complaint does not allege the threats as violative of the Act.
spondent) has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act). In particular, Respondent is alleged to have
violated Section 8(a)(1) by having (a) unlawfully interrogated
and polled its employees as to their support for Local 169,
Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL–
CIO, CLC (the Union); (b) created among them the impres-
sion that their union activities were being kept under surveil-
lance; and (c) obstructed the distribution to employees of
union literature. The complaint, as amended at the hearing,
further alleges that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) by having laid off seven employees, and by having
failed to offer reinstatement to six of them in order to dis-
courage its employees from supporting the Union. Respond-
ent, by its answer, denied having committed any of these al-
leged unfair labor practices.
The hearing was held in Brooklyn, New York, on March
19, 20, and 22, 1990. On the entire record, including my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due
consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and
by Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION—LABOR ORGANIZATION
The pleadings, as amended at the hearing, establish that
Respondent operates a nonretail business which meets the
Board’s nonretail standard for asserting jurisdiction. The
pleadings also establish that the Union is a labor organization
as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent manufactures knitted garments and related
items at its plant in Brooklyn. Its approximately 70 produc-
tion and maintenance employees there are unrepresented for
purposes of collective bargaining.
In March 1989 (all dates hereafter are for 1989 unless stat-
ed otherwise), the Union made its first contact with Respond-
ent’s employees. In late June, it began an organizational
drive among them and on August 4, it filed a petition in
Case 29–RC–7409 for an election among these employees.
B. Alleged Unlawful Interrogation
Four of the alleged discriminatees testified that, in August,
Leslie Gubitz, an officer of Respondent and the father of its
president, instructed each of them to report to an office.
There, according to their respective accounts, each was asked
by a woman who worked as a cutter to sign a sheet of paper;
two of them testified that the cutter was known to them as
Maria.
The accounts of these four alleged discriminatees varied as
to what the cutter gave as the reason for their being asked
to sign the paper during their separate interviews with her.
In essence, their testimony reflected that they were being
asked by her to indicate whether they supported the Union.
Leslie Gubitz denied that he instructed any employee to at-
tend any such interview. He also testified, as did Respond-
ent’s president, that Respondent does not employ a cutter
named Maria.
I credit the detailed, vivid accounts given by General
Counsel’s witnesses. The rote denials by Respondent’s wit-
nesses did little to offset them. Nor did Respondent offer its
payroll records as to cutters in its employ. Those records, of
course, may not be definitive as formal names thereon may
be different than those used by employees—e.g.,—Respond-
ent’s president, Chaim Gubitz, is known as ‘‘Hymie’’; the
supervisor of the operators is Kourosh Shadvous but he is
known by the name, Rubin. In any event, I find that the ac-
counts given by General Counsel’s witnesses are more per-
suasive than those of Respondent’s witnesses.
The credited evidence discloses that an officer of Re-
spondent directed employees in August to go to an office
where they were interrogated by a nonsupervisory employee
as to their support for the Union. No reason is given to jus-
tify the interrogations. No assurances were offered to the em-
ployees against reprisals. The questioning itself included
threats.1 The Board had occasion to consider a factually anal-
ogous situation and it found the interrogation there by a non-
supervisory employee to be unlawful. See Delta Hosiery, 259
NLRB 1005, 1006–1008 (1982). On the rationale of that de-
cision, I find that the interrogation of Respondent’s employ-
ees in August, as described above, coercive of employee
rights set out in Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges a further
incident of unlawful interrogation. In support thereof, two of
the alleged discriminatees testified that in August, a tall, dark
Spanish-speaking man spoke to employees in one of Re-
spondent’s offices at the Brooklyn facility. One of these wit-
nesses related that this man told them that Hymie Gubitz,
Respondent’s president, sent him because Hymie does not
know which employees signed cards for the Union. The sec-
ond alleged discriminatee testified that Hymie’s father, Les-
lie, sent him to speak to this man who informed him that
Hymie does not want any employee to sign a union card, to
which the employee responded that he was given a union
card to sign but did not sign it.
Chaim (Hymie) Gubitz testified respecting the foregoing.
He related that a tall, dark individual came to the plant, iden-
tified himself as an investigator from the New York State
Labor Department, and said that he wanted to speak to em-
ployees about their immigration papers. Gubitz gave a con-
fused account as to other individuals who had come to the
plant to conduct investigations. Gubitz was then asked by
Respondent’s counsel if Respondent instructed employees to
go to an office to be questioned about their support for the
Union and he replied in the negative.
I credit the accounts of General Counsel’s witnesses over
Gubitz’ denials. For substantially the same reasons set out
above as to the questioning by the woman employed as a
cutter, I find that the unnamed individual acted as Respond-
ent’s agent and that Respondent thereby coercively ques-
tioned employees as to their support for the Union.
C. The Poll
Respondent engaged a friend of its president to conduct a
poll of its employees as to whether they would like to be
represented by the Union. Each employee was given a ballot,
760 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 The transcript reads ‘‘least’’ for ‘‘list.’’
dated August 3 and written in English only, except for one
phrase which was also written in Spanish and which advised
the employees that they did not have to answer. The remain-
der of the ballot recited in English that the Union has been
making a strong campaign and that Respondent wanted to
project its business costs, that they should indicate whether
they planned to join the Union, and that there will be no ac-
tion taken as a result of how they vote.
Seventy employees marked ballots; 64 marked the ‘‘No’’
box; and 6 marked the ‘‘Yes’’ box.
General Counsel’s witnesses related that the polling took
place long after August 3. The petition, by the Union in Case
29–RC–7409 referred to above, was filed on August 4. I
credit the accounts of the General Counsel’s witnesses as
several testified that they were not discharged until well after
August 3 and that they had not participated in any polling
while in Respondent’s employ. In other words, the August 3
date on the ballots was purposely placed there to suggest that
the polling postdated the Union’s filing its petition for an
election.
In Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062 (1967),
the Board held that polling employees as to their support of
a union is unlawful unless its purpose is to determine the
truth of a union’s claim that it represented a majority of unit
employees. There is no evidence that that was Respondent’s
purpose. Accordingly, I find that the polling interfered with
employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act. Struksnes also
would find polling unlawful where an employer has sepa-
rately committed coercive acts. In view of the other coercive
conduct found in this case, the polling is unlawful on that
basis also.
D. Alleged Impression of Surveillance
Alleged discriminatee Maximo Salas testified for the Gen-
eral Counsel that, in August, Chaim Gubitz told him that he
had a list2 of those who signed union cards, that he would
compare the signature on Salas’ card to determine if it was
genuine and that, if it was, Salas would have problems with
him later on.
Gubitz denied making any such statements to Salas.
I credit Salas’ account. Salas could reasonably infer from
Gubitz’ statement that Respondent has engaged in surveil-
lance of the union activities of its employees. The Board has
found that similar statements constituted interference with
employee Section 7 rights. See South Shore Hospital, 229
NLRB 363 (1977). See also Springs, Inc., 280 NLRB 284 fn.
2 (1986). I thus find that Gubitz’ statement was coercive of
these rights.
E. Alleged Interference with Union’s Distribution
of Material
Alejandro Fuentes, an organizer employed by the Union,
testified as follows. On October 13, he was standing on the
sidewalk outside Respondent’s premises, waiting for employ-
ees to exit at the end of their shift. He was there to distribute
union literature to them. Leslie Gubitz approached him and
they talked briefly. About five or six employees came out.
Fuentes handed leaflets to them. Gubitz became angry and
took the leaflets out the employees’ hand. Gubitz then went
into the plant. No employees came out for the next 4 or 5
minutes. When they did come out, employees were reluctant
to take the leaflets from him. Gubitz stood about 10 feet
from Fuentes while the rest of the employees left the plant.
Other evidence indicates that Fuentes was not on Respond-
ent’s property then. He was standing on a public sidewalk
adjacent to the plant.
Leslie Gubitz’ account as to this incident is as follows. At
about closing time, he saw a man outside the plant and asked
who he was looking for. The man told him he worked for
the Union, and was there to see the workers. While they
were talking, two employees passed by. The man gave them
leaflets. Gubitz asked the man for a leaflet but the man re-
fused to give him one. One of the employees, however,
handed him the leaflet that she had just received. Gubitz
went inside the plant in order to read the leaflet. When he
saw that the leaflet was in Spanish, however, he came out-
side, gave it to the union organizer, and went home. At that
point, there were only two or three employees still inside the
plant.
On cross-examination, Gubitz stated that virtually all the
employees had left the plant when he first talked with the
union organizer that day. That testimony appears to be incon-
sistent with Gubitz’ other testimony that, when he first ap-
proached the union organizer, the organizer told him, in re-
sponse to Gubitz’ question, that he was there to see the em-
ployees; in context, that he was there in order to give leaflets
to the employees as they came out of the plant at the end
of the shift.
During his cross-examination, Gubitz stated that, when he
was given the leaflet outside the plant, he saw then that it
was written in Spanish and that he then went back to the
plant to find someone to translate it for him. That testimony
appears to controvert the account he gave during his direct
examination, related above.
I find that Fuentes’ account is more probably true than
Leslie Gubitz’ and thus credit it.
The credited testimony establishes that Respondent, with
no lawful basis to do so, physically impeded the Union as
to its right of access to employees, a right protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. Cf. Lechmere, Inc., 295 NLRB 92 (1989).
F. The Alleged Discriminatory Layoffs
As noted above, the Union first made contact with Re-
spondent’s employees in March, began its organizational
drive in June, and filed its petition for an election on August
4.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Re-
spondent unlawfully laid off seven employees between Au-
gust 1 and September 1. The testimony as to these seven is
set out below for each.
1. Abraham Soto
He testified as follows. He was employed by Respondent
for about 8 years, principally as a presser. On March 3, he
signed a union authorization card. His union activities also
consisted of his speaking to coworkers about joining the
Union and distributing authorization cards. On the day imme-
diately preceding the last day he worked for Respondent, he
talked with another employee about signing an authorization
card. They were standing on the sidewalk alongside Re-
spondent’s building. Kourosh Shadvous who was known to
employees as Rubin and who was Soto’s foreman, was look-
761ALSON KNITTING, INC.
ing down at them from an open window on the third floor.
On the following day, as he returned from lunch, Soto was
told by Shadvous that he was laid off for lack of work. Soto
protested that there was plenty of work. Shadvous replied
that Hymie (Chaim Gubitz) had instructed him to lay Soto
off. Other pressers with less seniority than Soto were not laid
off.
Chaim Gubitz testified that he caught Soto in the process
of stealing a sweater and discharged him immediately.
Gubitz related that Soto had been discharged by Respondent
previously when he was employed under a different name.
On September 22, Gubitz, on the advice of his attorney,
sent Soto a mailgram recalling him to work.
Soto testified that he reported to Respondent’s facility on
receipt of the mailgram and, while he was talking with
Shadvous, Chaim Gubitz came by and told him repeatedly to
get out of there, using expletives for emphasis. Shadvous did
not refer to that discussion during his testimony.
I credit Soto’s account. It seems unlikely that Gubitz, if
he had really caught Soto in the act of stealing, would have
readily acceded to advice that Soto be recalled to work.
Moreover, Soto’s testimony, as to what transpired when he
reported after being recalled, is virtually uncontroverted.
2. Monserrat Rivera
She began working for Respondent in 1985 operating a
crochet machine and transferred to a merrow machine in
1987, a job she held until she was discharged on August 11,
1989.
On August 1, she signed a union authorization card. She
was one of the employees referred to a female cutter by Les-
lie Gubitz for questioning, as related above; that interview
took place on a Friday. Rivera credibly testified that she in-
formed that individual then that she, Rivera, supported the
Union. On the following Monday, she reported for work. Her
account as to what took place then follows.
Her timecard was not in the rack. Her supervisor (Rubin)
Shadvous told her that he had no work for her because work
is slow. She responded that there was work for her machine.
He then said that he was sorry but he was just following
Hymie’s order.
She later received two letters from Respondent recalling
her to work. She ignored the first because she believed she
would be treated badly. She did report for work pursuant to
the second letter. She reported to Rubin who told her he
knew nothing about her being recalled and that he had no
work for her. Rubin asked her why she wanted to work for
Respondent when she had not been treated well. He told her
that she could return the following Monday. She did not re-
turn on that Monday or since, because of those comments by
Shadvous.
Rivera also testified that she never had any problem with
her work and had never received any warnings from Re-
spondent.
Chaim Gubitz testified that Rivera had been discharged
because she talked to too many employees too often while
away from her machine during working time and that
Shadvous had twice told her of Rivera’s excessive talking.
Rubin testified that he told Gubitz of Rivera leaving her ma-
chine to talk to coworkers. However, Shadvous did not tes-
tify as to any discussion he had with Rivera on her reporting
back to work after receiving a recall letter from Respondent.
I credit Rivera’s vivid account.
3. Felicia Suazo
She worked for Respondent for 4 years as a sewing ma-
chine operator until her lay off on August 15. She had signed
a union authorization card on August 1 and was one of the
employees who was unlawfully interrogated by the female
cutter, referring to the incident recounted above. Suazo, dur-
ing that interview, told the female cutter that she, Suazo, had
done nothing wrong in signing a union card.
Suazo testified that, on August 15, Rubin Shadvous came
to her while she was working and told her that she was laid
off for lack of work. She protested, to no avail, that she had
in fact too much work to do.
She later received a recall letter. She testified that, when
she reported, Shadvous told her that she should look for
work elsewhere and to come back if she did not find a job.
She received a second recall letter. When she again reported
for work, according to her testimony, Shadvous told her that
he had no work for her and wanted to know why she wanted
to work for Respondent when, with her skills, she could find
work elsewhere.
Shadvous testified that Suazo’s employment ended when
she asked for a 50-cent-an-hour raise, at which point he re-
ferred her to Chaim Gubitz. He also testified that he never
spoke with her about the recall letters she received.
Chaim Gubitz testified that Suazo knocked on his office
door, came in, and yelled to him in Spanish that she did a
lot of work for ‘‘little pay.’’ He testified that he told her to
return to work because he did not like her yelling and that
she then left his office. Gubitz was then asked why he sent
Suazo a recall letter after she had been fired; Gubitz an-
swered that he was following the instruction of his attorney.
Gubitz’ account seems strained and improbable. Further
Suazo did not impress me as assertive as Gubitz’ account
made her out to be. I credit Suazo’s testimony.
4. Leopoldo Soto
Soto began working for Respondent in 1985. He cleaned
machines and delivered material to the operators. On June
21, he signed a union authorization card. Several days after
he was interrogated by the female cutter referred to above,
he was told by Chaim Gubitz, according to Soto’s testimony,
that he was laid off for lack of work. He asked why he was
being laid off while new employees were being hired and,
he related, Gubitz simply replied that Soto was no longer
needed. Soto related too that his helper was not laid off.
Soto received a letter recalling him to work. When he re-
ported, he was assigned to work in the basement moving
boxes that weighed about 100 pounds each. He testified that
this job was much more onerous than the job he held before
his layoff, which did not involve any heavy lifting. Soto pro-
tested to Gubitz who told him that he was free to leave any
time he wanted to. He left.
Chaim Gubitz testified that Soto left after cursing at him
when he told Soto to put his bag in his locker. Gubitz further
testified that Soto reported back to work after he sent Soto
a letter asking him to return and that Soto quit when as-
signed to work in the basement on a job not more arduous
than the one he held previously.
Rubin Shadvous, Soto’s supervisor, testified that he did
not know why Soto had been fired.
762 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I credit Soto’s testimony. It seems highly unlikely to me,
if Soto cursed at Gubitz and was discharged for it, that his
own supervisor would be ignorant of such an incident. Soto’s
account is more persuasive.
5. Maximo Salas
Salas worked for Respondent, for about 9 months, as a
packer. In June, he signed a union authorization card. In Au-
gust, he was among the employees questioned about the
Union by the woman cutter; he refused her request to sign
the paper that she said Chaim Gubitz wanted the employees
to sign. About 8 days afterwards, Chaim Gubitz told him on
a Friday that he would check the signature on a union card
to see if it was really Salas’. Salas protested then that he had
signed nothing.
Salas testified that, on the following Monday, he was laid
off and told it was for lack of work.
In September, Salas received a recall letter. He related
that, when he reported for work, Rubin Shadvous told him
that he knew nothing about the letter and suggested he come
back to talk to Gubitz. Salas left and did not come back. He
testified that he did not return because ‘‘they were tricking’’
him.
Rubin Shadvous testified that Salas quit to go back to
school. Chaim Gubitz essentially gave the same explanation
as to Salas’ leaving Respondent’s employ. Rubin Shadvous
did not controvert Salas’ testimony as to what transpired
when Salas reported for work pursuant to the recall letter.
I credit Salas’ testimony.
6. Thelma Rodriguez
Rodriguez began working for Respondent on February 21
as a sewing machine operator. She signed a union authoriza-
tion card on July 27. Just prior to her voting at the polling
described above, Leslie Gubitz said to her, ‘‘No union, no
Union.’’ She replied, ‘‘Yes. Yes.’’ She testified that, on Sep-
tember 1, she was told by Rubin Shadvous that she was laid
off for lack of work when, in fact, there was work for her.
On September 19, her lawyer told her to go back to Re-
spondent and, when she did so, she was put back to work.
Later, she received a recall letter from Respondent but she
was already back to work.
Gubitz testified that Rodriguez had left her machine too
many times to go to the bathroom. The inference, I suppose,
is that was the reason the Respondent had for letting her go.
Rubin Shadvous, her supervisor, testified that he did not re-
member why Rodriguez left Respondent’s employ.
I credit Rodriguez’ testimony.
7. Ernest Garrett
Rodriguez testified that Garrett is a woman who also used
the name Melinda Mendez. Garrett did not testify.
Rodriguez testified that she was present, in August, when
Rubin Shadvous told Garrett that she had to leave because
he was not going to give her more work. Garrett did the
same type work as Rodriguez did. Rodriguez further testified
that Garrett protested that there was plenty of work for her
to do but that Shadvous replied that Garrett can get work in
another factory.
Garrett had signed a union authorization card on August
8.
Shadvous testified that he did not tell Garrett that he had
no more work for her.
Respondent took the position at the hearing that Garrett
was laid off and that it disputed the reason proferred by the
General Counsel therefor. However, Respondent offered no
evidence as to its reason for laying her off.
I credit Rodriguez’ account as to Garrett’s layoff.
G. Analysis as to the Layoffs
The credited evidence establishes that all seven of the al-
leged discriminatees were union supporters, that Respondent
had good reason to know that several actively supported the
Union, that Respondent had engaged in independent acts co-
ercive of employee Section 7 rights, that these seven employ-
ees were laid off for reasons that appear clearly pretextual
and that their layoffs were in close proximity in time to the
Union’s filing of an election petition. I am satisfied that the
General Counsel has made out a prima facie case that these
layoffs were designed to discourage employees from sup-
porting the Union.
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), the burden
thus shifts to Respondent to establish that, absent the union
activities of these employees, their layoffs would still have
been effected. Respondent cannot begin to meet that burden
as it offered no credible evidence thereon.
I thus find that Respondent laid off these seven employees
in order to discourage its employees from joining or sup-
porting the Union.
I further find that the nominal letters of recall that Re-
spondent sent the discriminatees were charades, as is evident
from the events that transpired when the discriminatees, on
receiving the letters, reported to the plant.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by having inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act by having:
(a) Coercively interrogated its employees as to their sup-
port for the Union.
(b) Polled them, without lawful basis, to determine the ex-
tent of their support for the Union.
(c) Taken union literature from employees and by having
a supervisor stand by union organizers while they distribute
union literature.
(d) Created the impression among them that it kept their
union activities under surveillance.
(e) Engaged in the conduct described in the next para-
graph.
4. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by having laid off
the following named employees in order to discourage them
and its other employees from joining or supporting the
Union:
763ALSON KNITTING, INC.
3 Respondent shall, in offering reinstatement, expressly state in writing to
each of them that it acknowledges that its previous letter was not valid, that
it now makes a genuine offer and that it guarantees that they will be reinstated
immediately on their reporting back.
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
5 If this 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 Rela-
tions Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
Abraham Soto
Monserrat Rivera
Felicia Suazo
Leopoldo Soto
Maximo Salas
Thelma Rodriguez
Ernest Garrett
5. The unfair labor practices described above affect inter-
state commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent, having unlawfully laid off the seven employ-
ees named above, shall offer all but Thelma Rodriguez im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs,3 or if
such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges and to make all seven employees whole for any loss
of earnings that they may have suffered by reason of Re-
spondent’s unlawful conduct against them by paying to each
a sum of money equal to that which each normally would
have earned from the date of their unlawful layoff to the date
of a bona fide offer of reinstatement, less interim earnings
during such period. Backpay shall be computed on a quar-
terly basis as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed in accord-
ance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987). Moreover, consistent with the Board’s decision in
Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982), I shall recommend
that Respondent be required to remove from its records any
references to the unlawful layoffs and provide each with
written notice of such action, and to inform each that Re-
spondent’s unlawful conduct will be used as a basis for fu-
ture disciplinary action.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Alson Knitting, Inc., Brooklyn, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees as to their sup-
port for Local 169, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers Union, AFL–CIO, CLC (the Union).
(b) Polling them, without lawful basis, to determine the
extent of their support for the Union.
(c) Taking union literature from employees and having a
supervisor stand alongside union organizers while they dis-
tribute union literature.
(d) Creating the impression among them that it kept their
union activities under surveillance.
(e) Laying off employees in order to discourage support
for the Union.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Abraham Soto, Monserrat Rivera, Felicia
Suazo, Leopoldo Soto, Maximo Salas, and Ernest Garrett im-
mediate reinstatement to their former jobs in the manner de-
scribed in the remedy section of this decision and make them
and Thelma Rodriguez whole for any loss of earnings in the
manner also set forth in the remedy section.
(b) Remove from its employment records all references to
the unlawful layoffs of the above-named employees, and no-
tify them in writing that this has been done, and that evi-
dence of their unlawful layoffs will not be used as a basis
for any future disciplinary action against them.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Brooklyn, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’5 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.