Howard Creations, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 179 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

HOWARD CREATIONS, INC. 179
Howard Creations , Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO
Factory, Production , Specialists and Assembly Work-
ers Union, Local 294; and Workers of America and
Canada International Union , Local No. 11 and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO. Cases 29-CA-3551, 29-CA-3551-2, and 29-
CB-1632
June 28, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On February 20, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer
filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed a brief in,support of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered, the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions 1 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order,2 except as modified
herein.
We disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's
conclusion that Respondent Employer (hereafter, the
Employer) violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by re-
fusing to recognize and bargain with the Amalgamat-
ed Clothing Workers of America upon receiving the
Amalgamated's demand for recognition and offer to
establish its majority status. The Administrative Law
Judge apparently premised his conclusion on the fact
that the Employer's refusal to recognize the Amalga-
i In his Conclusions of Law, the Administrative Law Judge held that
Respondent Unions violated Sec. 8 (b)(2) by, inter alga, "including in a collec-
tive bargaining agreement with a union which did not represent an uncoerced
majority of its employees a union security clause requiring bargaining unit
employees to become or remain members of said unions as a condition of
continued employment." Since the wording of this conclusion is somewhat
confusing, it is corrected to read as follows - "By negotiating an agreement
with the Respondent Employer when Respondent Unions did not represent
a majority of the Employer 's employees and by including in such agreement
a union-security clause requiring bargaining unit employees to become or
remain members of said unions as a condition of continued employment,
. the Respondent Unions herein violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act."
2 Respondent Employer contends that it was denied due process of law by
reason of the fact that the first day of the hearing was held in the absence
of its attorney , who was unavoidably absent. We find no meat in this conten-
tion, as the record establishes that the hearing was begun de novo on the
second day when the Employer's attorney appeared
mated was in bad faith, inasmuch as the refusal was
based on the Employer's existing bargaining agree-
ment with an unlawfully assisted union, Respondent
Workers of America and Canada International
Union, Local No. 11.
The defect in the Administrative Law Judge's con-
clusion as to the 8(a)(5) violation is that it rests on an
inquiry into the Employer's subjective reasons for re-
fusing to extend recognition on the basis of authoriza-
tion cards. This inquiry, which was once called for by
the Board's Joy Silk 3 doctrine, is one which, as the
Supreme Court noted in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Co., Inc.,4 the Board has virtually abandoned. An
employer's good-faith doubt of a union's claim to
majority status is "largely irrelevant" to the determi-
nation of whether an employer has violated Section
8(a)(5) by refusing to extend recognition on the basis
of a showing of a card majority.' Further, since the
crucial issue in cases such as this is whether a bargain-
ing order should be granted as a remedy for an
employer's unfair labor practices, we have concluded
that, for the reasons stated in our decision in Steel
Fab, Inc., 212 NLRB No. 25, it is unnecessary to
determine whether Section 8(a)(5) has been violated.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the 8(a)(5) allegation of
the complaint .6
Insofar as the issue of the appropriate remedy for
the Employer's violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(3) is concerned, we agree with the Administrative
Law Judge that a bargaining order is necessary here
to remedy those unfair labor practices. It is utterly
improbable that a fair election could be held where,
as here, the Employer has threatened the entire em-
ployee complement with a plant shutdown if the
Amalgamated was selected as their representative,'
and where it has coupled that threat with unswerving
efforts to destroy the employees' support for the
Amalgamated by promising benefits if they would
abandon it, by creating the impression of surveil-
lance of organizing efforts in behalf of the Amalga-
mated, and by continuing efforts to foist another
union on the employees. This course of conduct
would, over time, convey to the employees the belief
that further support of the Amalgamated would be a
futility. Under such circumstances, the authorization
cards executed on behalf of the Amalgamated are the
more reliable indicator of the employees' desire for
representation.
3Joy Silk Mills, Inc, 85 NLRB 1263.
4 395 U.S. 575, 594 (1969).
5 Id
6 Member Jenkins , for reasons expressed in his dissent in Steel Fab, would
find the 8 (a)(5) violation and base the bargaining order on that section as well
as on Sec. 8(a)(1)
7 World Carpets of New York, Inc, 188 NLRB 122; V & H Industries, Inc.,
177 NLRB 929, enfd. 433 F.2d 9 (C A. 2, 1970)
212 NLRB No. 26
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Respondent, Howard Creations, Inc.,
Queens, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, and Respondents Factory, Production,
Specialists, and Assembly Workers Union, Local 294,
and Workers of America and Canada International
Union, Local No. 11, and the officers, agents, and
representatives of each, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, as modified below:
Delete paragraph 1, 1,(h) of the Administrative Law
Judge's recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FINDINGS OF FACT
WALTER H. MALONEY, JR, Administrative Law Judge. This
case came on for hearing in Brooklyn, New York, before
me upon a consolidated complaint, amended at the hear-
ing, which was issued by the Regional Director of Region
29 of the Board.' The complaint alleged that the Respon-
dent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of
the Act by permitting Local 11 and Local 294 to conduct
union business on company premises; by assisting these
Unions in collecting designation cards and checkoff au-
thorizations; by directing employees to sign authorization
cards; by recognizing the Respondent Unions as bargain-
ing agents and entering into a contract with them contain-
ing union -security provisions although said Unions did not
represent an uncoerced majority of employees in the bar-
gaining unit ; by withholding union dues from employees
and paying them to the Respondent Unions although free-
ly signed checkoff authorizations had not been executed by
employees; by threatening employees with reprisal, includ-
ing discharge and plant closure, for supporting the Amal-
gamated ; by promising benefits to employees to wean
away support from the Amalgamated; by creating an im-
pression of surveillance of union activities; and by refusing
to recognize and bargain with the Amalgamated as the
i The principal formal papers docketed herein are as follows charge filed
by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO (herein called
Amalgamated or Union ), against Respondent Howard Creations , Inc (here-
in called Respondent or Employer ), on September 13, 1973, and an amended
charge filed on October 19 , 1973; charge filed by Amalgamated against
Factory, Production , Specialists and Assembly Workers Union, Local 294
(herein called Local 294) and Workers of America and Canada Internation-
al Union, Local No I I (herein called Local 11) on October 19, 1973, order
consolidating cases, complaint, and notice of hearing issued on October 31.
1973, answer of Respondent Employer filed on November 14. 1973, docu-
ments purporting to be answers on behalf of Local 294 and Local I I filed
on November 12, 1973, hearing held in Brooklyn , New York, on December
17, 18, and 19 , 1973, briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent Em-
ployer on January 28, 1974
duly designated bargaining agent of its employees. The
consolidated complaint also alleged that the Respondent
Unions violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by
entering into a contract with the Respondent Employer
containing union-security provisions although they assert-
edly did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees,
and by unlawfully accepting assistance and recognition
from the Employer; and that in the presence of the em-
ployer they threatened employees with discharge if said
employees supported the Amalgamated.2 The Respondent
Employer maintains that the Respondent Unions were
lawfully recognized, and that it could not recognize the
Amalgamated in the face of a lawful outstanding collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 11. It denies that it
violated any of the Section 7 rights of its employees. Local
lI and Local 294, respectively, filed two-line statements
generally denying all claims and charges. The Local l 1 an-
swer was filed by Robert Gordon, as secretary; a similar
Local 294 answer was filed by the same Robert Gordon, as
president. At the hearing, the General Counsel moved to
strike these answers as lacking in the particularity required
by Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
This motion was granted by me, so Local II and Local 294
are essentially in default. See Sec . 102.20, supra. Mr. Gor-
don was present in the hearing room during a portion of
the hearing and indicated that he would enter an appear-
ance on the record for the purpose of protecting his right to
file a brief. He did not enter an appearance, nor did he or
anyone else file a brief on behalf of either of the Respon-
dent Unions.3 In reviewing the facts of this case, it should
be noted that, while Respondent Employer took a vigorous
part in the hearing by cross-examining General Counsel's
witnesses and the making of timely objections to some of
General Counsel's proffers of evidence, the Respondent
Employer offered no affirmative evidence in its own be-
half, other than a pretrial statement of one of the General
Counsel's witnesses which was introduced for purposes of
impeachment. As a result, the evidence adduced by the
General Counsel stands uncontradicted, except insofar as
its weight or probative effect may be affected by matters
internal to the General Counsel's own case.
1. The unfair labor practices alleged
Respondent Howard Creations, Inc., operates a small
factory in Queens, where it employs about 30 women in the
manufacturing of ties. Most of Howard's employees are
Spanish-speaking. Its president, Martin Stender, is the oper-
ating head of the business. On April 25, 1973, Robert Gor-
don, president of Respondent Local 294 and secretary of
Local 11, in the company of Union Representative Louis
Rucci, visited the plant for the purpose of soliciting union
2 Respondent admits, and I find, that Howard Creations, Inc., is a New
York corporation which maintains its principal place of business in Queens,
New York , where it manufactures, sells, and distributes ties and related
articles of clothing During the preceding year, a representative period,
Respondent Employer sold and shipped from its Queens, New York, factory
products in excess of $ 50,000 to points and places located outside the State
of New York Accordingly, it is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act, The Amalgamated, Local 294, and Local I I are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 The transcript herein is corrected in certain respects
HOWARD CREATIONS, INC.
memberships from Howard's employees. Stender made the
company office available to them during working hours for
this purpose and left the office temporarily while they were
there, coming back from time to time while Gordon and
Rucci were in the process of interviewing employees. Sten-
der also made available to Gordon and Rucci the services
of employee Petra Diaz to serve as interpreter. In requesting
Mrs. Diaz to act in this capacity, Stender told her that "we
have a union now," gave her a list of employees, and asked
her to summon them one by one into the office to speak with
Gordon and Rucci. Stender assisted her in reading the list
and in identifying employees. Mrs. Diaz complied with
Stender's request, telling each employee in the presence of
Gordon and Rucci that the boss had informed her that the
Company now has a union and that the union men were
present to facilitate the signing of cards needed to join up.
In the course of this visit: Gordon and Rucci signed up 19
out of the 27 employees who were on the payroll at that
time. The document signed by each of the employees was
a pink card, written entirely in English. The card was an
application for membership in Local 11, designating Local
11 as the bargaining representative, and contained spaces
for the name, address, and other information pertaining to
the signatory.
In response to a subpena served by the General Counsel,
the Respondent Employer produced xeroxed copies of 19
cards entitled "Application and Check-off Authorization
Blank" for Local 11, and apparently signed by the employ-
ees in question. The original pink cards were not produced
by any of the Respondents. Several employees who ap-
peared at the hearing testified that they signed pink applica-
tion cards for Local II late in April or early in May, but'
flatly denied signing dues checkoff authorizations. The xe-
roxed copies produced at the hearing contained clearly stat-
ed dues checkoff authorizations. These witnesses testified
that the pink form they signed in April was different in style
and content than the one produced at the hearing, though
they acknowledged their signatures on the documents pro-
duced.
Mrs. Diaz testified that, a few weeks later, she received
in the mail a green card indicating union membership, not
in Local 11 for whom the membership application was
signed, but in Local 294. Her card contained the stamped
notation "shop steward." Other employees testified that
they also received similar green membership cards subse-
quent to executing application forms. The card was accom-
panied by a "Dear Member" form letter, signed by Robert
S. Gordon as secretary-treasurer of Local 11, congratulating
the recipient upon joining the Union, stating that delegates
would visit the shop to discuss problems or suggestions, and
indicating that the new member should feel free to call
Local 11 to discuss any job-related problems.
On June 25, 1973, Stender, on behalf of Howard Crea-
tions, Inc., signed a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 11. Gordon signed the contract on behalf of Local 11.
At this time, there were 26 employees in the bargaining unit,
including 18 who had signed cards on April 25. The agree-
ment conferred upon Local 11 exclusive recognition and
contained, inter alia, standard union-security and checkoff
provisions. Checkoffs were, by contract, scheduled to begin
the first week in July 1973; such deductions have been made
181
and paid over to Local 11 at least since August 1, 1973. The
agreement, which was 3 years in duration, called for a 4-
percent increase on July 1, 1973, and 2-percent increases on
July 1 of 1974 and 1975, respectively. Actual wage rates for
job classifications were not contained in the agreement. The
percentage increases were based upon the highest weekly
pay received by an employee in calendar year 1972, so that
wage variations as to individual employees in the same clas-
sification were thereby accommodated.4
On September 5, 1973, Murray M. Gassman, National
Representative of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers,
went to the site of the Respondent's factory in Woodside,
Queens, in the company of his wife, Marie Gassman, and
Benito Rivera, a Spanish-speaking member of the Union
whom it employs from time to time to assist in organizing
Spanish-speaking employees. On September 5 and on the
following day, Gassman, Mrs. Gassman, Rivera, and Flor-
ence Quinones, an employee of the Respondent, contracted
most of the Howard work force. Employees were ap-
proached as they left the plant. They were interviewed on
the street, in a restaurant, in a small real estate office around
the corner, or, in a couple of instances, at their homes.
Employees were asked to sign Amalgamated designation
cards. These cards were printed in English and also con-
tained union designation language written in Spanish and
stamped on the back. Employees who could not understand
English were asked to affix their signatures to the Spanish
version on the reverse side of the card. During these 2 days,
Gassman and his associates obtained signed designation
cards from 27 employees in an agreed-upon unit of 33. The
authenticity of these cards is not challenged, nor is the
meaning and effect of the designation language.
On September 7, Gassman sent a telegram to Stender,
claiming to be the majority representative of the
Respondent's production and shipping employees. The tele-
gram demanded recognition and asked Stender to advise
Gassman of an early date on which to commence negotia-
tions leading to a contract. The telegram also offered to
establish the authenticity of the claim of majority through
a card check conducted by a neutral third party. On Sep-
tember 8, Gassman followed up the telegram with a regis-
tered letter addressed to the Respondent containing
essentially the same matter found in the telegram. On Sep-
tember 11, Gassman and his wife visited the Respondent's
plant and spoke with Stender. He told Stender that he had
a majority of the cards signed by the employees, requested
recognition, and suggested that they work something out.
Stender admitted receiving the September 7 telegram and
replied, "I got my union here. Why should I deal with you?"
He suggested that Gassman call Local 11 and gave him the
phone number of Local 11. Gassman asked Stender if he
had a contract with Local 11, to which Stender replied,
"That's my business." Stender also told Gassman "I'll never
4 The contract also contains this very peculiar provision.
In the event that the National Labor Relations, Board or any other
administrative or judicial body determines at any time, and for any
reason, that this contract does not constitute a bar to filing of a represen-
tation petition or decertification petition covering employees under this
contract, the Union may at its discretion terminate this contract or any
portion thereof by sending written notice to the Employer irrespective
of any other provision of this Agreement.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sign a contract with the Amalgamated. I won't deal with the
Amalgamated I'd rather close the place." When Gassman
asked him why he felt this way, Stender replied that, with
his present union, he did not have to give raises or benefits
for at least a year. Stender went on to complain that he was
previously in business, that the Amalgamated got a judg-
ment against him, but that it could not collect because he
had-gone into both personal and corporate bankruptcy.5
Stender asked to see the designation cards. Gassman
agreed, provided that the cards would be submitted to an
impartial person for verification and provided further that
Stender would agree in advance to recognize the Amalga-
mated if the cards established majority status. Stender be-
came angry, repeated that he would never deal with the
Amalgamated, and ended the conversation.
At or about this same period of time, Stender gave em-
ployee Florence Quinones a number of designation cards
for Local II and asked her to circulate them among the
employees. Quinones attempted to do so, saying to various
employees that Mr. Stender wanted them to sign, but she
met with resistance on the part of some employees who did
not want to sign. At or about this time , Stender said to Diaz
and employee Mercedes Cordova that if they stayed with
Local I I and did not join the Amalgamated, he would grant
them Blue Cross benefits in a year's time. On September 17,
Louis Rucci 6 visited the plant and spoke with the assem-
bled employees in the presence of Stender. He asked em-
ployee Ramonita Olivero to translate his remarks into
Spanish. He counseled the employees to have patience with
Mr. Stender and to bear with him, stating that in a year they
would have improved benefits, including Blue Cross and
Blue Shield, but that they would have to give Stender a
chance to make some money. A number of employees com-
plained about waiting a year to receive benefits, contending
that they were presently paying union dues and should also
be getting union benefits immediately. They complained
about not receiving work breaks in the morning and in the
afternoon, and abcut the fact that there was no coffee ma-
chine in the plant. The union representative promised to see
to it that they got work breaks. When various unnamed
employees began to complain aloud that they did not want
to belong to his union but preferred the other union (the
Amalgamated) Rucci replied that any who did not want to
join his union could punch out and leave. Stender was pre-
sent when this remark was made. A while later, Stender
spoke to the employees. He told them that he was going to
institute a piecework system, so that those who worked
harder could make more money. He also told employees
that if the Amalgamated came into the shop, he would lock
the doors.
Olivero phoned Gassman and reported to him that Sten-
der was threatening employees, so Gassman came to the
plant the same day and spoke to Stender in his office. He
asked Stender why he was threatening employees and said,
5 For 14 years, Stender operated a factory in Manhattan under contract
with the Amalgamated The business was named Saunders Modern Formal
Wear, Inc After the business closed, the Amalgamated obtained a $10.000
judgment against this corporation for deficiencies owed to the Welfare Fund
The judgment was never collected because of a discharge in bankruptcy
6 The representative who came to the plant was also identified as being one
of the two men who appeared on April 25 to solicit cards for Local I I
"What are you looking for-trouble? You need production.
If you are going to threaten the people you are not going to
get production." He also informed Stender that he had filed
charges with the Board. Stender then said to Gassman, "I
told the people and I'm telling you now. I'll close the place
up before I'll have the Amalgamated in here. You might as
well know it"
On or about September 21, Stender spoke briefly to all
employees just before the lunch break, using employee Pa-
tricia Moreno to translate his remarks into Spanish. He
stated that he would put a piecework system into effect and
further stated that he would give the employees Blue Cross
and Blue Shield insurance coverage if they would stay away
from the Amalgamated. He told them that the Amalgamat-
ed was trying to put him out of business. He asked Moreno
to remind him the following Monday to call the Blue Cross
office, but she did not do so. A few days thereafter, one of
the Local I I representatives who had solicited cards in April
came to the shop accompanied by a female interpreter. He
held a brief meeting in the shop and told the assembled
employees that a computer error had caused the union to
send them green membership cards by mistake. He asked
the employees to return the green cards that had been
mailed to them and said that the union would send them
other cards instead. Moreno inquired angrily how could the
computer make a mistake. There is no evidence that any
employee returned her membership card.
On or about October 1, Local 11 agents again visited the
plant. They spoke privately with Stender in his office.
Thereafter, Stender spoke to all the employees just before
the lunch break, again using Patricia Moreno as interpreter.
He said in the course of his remarks that he knew that
employees were going to Gassman's meetings and would
like them to stop attending.
Employee Mary Holly testified without contradiction
that she started to work for Howard Creations in June as a
hand-sewer She did not sign an authorization card, either
for union membership or checkoff of dues. However, the
Respondent made dues deductions from her salary on two
different occasions, until she complained. No repayment
has been made of these deductions. During parts of Novem-
ber, she had been in layoff status, and came to the plant on
November 30 to pick up her check. When she asked a fore-
man for some work, he stated that there was none available,
so, on the suggestion of employee Quinones, she asked Sten-
der to let her work that afternoon. Slender began to talk
with her about the Amalgamated. He complained that the
employees were still meeting with the Amalgamated. He
also stated that he was not basically opposed to the union
and would give the employees Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
but stated that he did not want to pay union welfare pay-
ments because they were too costly.
2. Analysis and discussion
The pivotal question in this case is whether the 19 union
authorization cards obtained on April 25, 1973, by Gordon
and Rucci on behalf of Respondent Local 11 constitute
valid, uncoerced , and untainted designations of Local 11 by
the employees who signed them . The production of xeroxed
copies of these cards at the hearing by the Respondent's
HOWARD CREATIONS, INC.
president in response to the General Counsel's subpena
evidences the fact that Stender relied upon them on June 25
when he executed the outstanding collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 11. At that time, some 18 of the 19
employees who signed the April 25 cards were still in his
employ. Section 8(a)(2) of the Act prohibits an employer
from dominating or interfering with the formation or ad-
ministration of any labor organization, and from contribut-
ing financial or other support to it. One of the classic
violations of this section is assistance given to a union by
an employer in the solicitation of the union membership
applications or designation cards upon which a labor orga-
nization predicates its claim to be the majority representa-
tive of the employer's work force. Park Inn Hotel, Inc., 139
NLRB 669; Prospect Gardens of Norwalk, Inc., 177 NLRB
136; Senco, Inc., 177 NLRB 882; Crown Discount Depart-
ment Stores, Inc., 172 NLRB 934; Columbus Janitorial Ser-
vice, Division of Servisco, 191 NLRB 902; N.L.R.B. v.
Midtown Service Co., Inc., 425 F.2d 665 (C.A. 2, 1970);
N.L.R.B. v. A & S Electronics Die Corp., 423 F.2d 218 (C.A.
2, 1970), cert. denied 400 U.S. 882. Short of personally
asking each of his employees to sign a Local 11 designation
card, it is hard to imagine how the Respondent Employer's
president could have given Local I I additional assistance in
achieving majority status. He permitted union agents to
come into the plant, use the company office, and speak to
employees on company time. He provided them with a list
of employees and an interpreter, and told the interpreter to
ask each employee who was called into the office for an
interview to join. While he was not personally present in the
office throughout the string of interviews, coming back and
forth from the plant to the office as the occasion warranted,
his temporary and occasional absences detracted nothing
from the quality or quantity of the assistance rendered. As
a result of obtaining Local I 1 designation cards, Local 294
(whose president is also the secretary of Local 11) sent to
Howard's employees Local 294 membership cards. Accord-
ingly, I find and conclude that, by assisting Local 11 and
Local 294 in obtaining union designation cards, the Re-
spondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
Both Gassman and a number of employee witnesses testi-
fied without contradiction that they had never seen a copy
of the Local 11-Howard Creations contract. Stender refused
to tell Gassman in September whether or not he had such
a contract. The contract in question was not produced by
the Respondent Employer until the conclusion of the hear-
ing in this case, when Stender did so in response to a sub-
pena served upon him by the General Counsel. At this
time, the General Counsel promptly moved to amend the
complaint to specify the date of execution of a contract
already alleged in paragraph eleven to be illegal, and to add
a subparagraph directed against the inclusion in the illegal
contract of a union security provision. It is axiomatic that
an employer may sign, a valid collective bargaining agree-
ment only with a bargaining agent who represents an un-
coerced majority of his employees. Such majority status
may not be the product of tainted designation cards. More-
over, there is an additional element of illegal discrimination
and coercion present if an employer includes in an agree-
ment with an assisted bargaining agent a provision requiring
membership in the assisted union as a condition of contin-
183
ued employment. When, on June 25, Stender signed a 3-
year contract with Local 11, he was dealing with a bargain-
ing agent whose majority status was the direct product of
Stender's own extensive and unlawful assistance. "Once
majority status is tainted, to uphold a contract negotiated
with it thereafter would be to reward the employer for its
misconduct." N.L.R.B. v. Midtown Service Co., supra, 425
F.2d 665 at 669? By recognizing Local 11 under such cir-
cumstances and by executing a contract with it, the Respon-
dent Employer violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. By
agreeing to require membership of all employees in Local
11 as a prerequisite of continued employment, or, in the case
of new hires, as a requirement of employment after 30 days,
Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the Act. By honoring the checkoff provisions of the con-
tract, the Respondent Employer further violated Section
8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. By executing such an agree-
ment under these circumstances, and by accepting the
employer's recognition and assistance, the defaulting Re-
spondent Unions violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
When, in September, Stender asked employee Quinones to
circulate additional designation cards among employees to
solicit their memberships in Local 11, Respondent Employ-
er also violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
On September 7, 1973, and thereafter, when Gassman
made two written demands and one oral demand for recog-
nition on behalf of the Amalgamated, the Charging Party
had in its possession 27 union designation cards in a stipu-
lated unit of 33 employees. No challenge has been leveled
at the validity of the cards as clear and unambiguous desig-
nations of a bargaining agent, nor has any challenge been
made to the authenticity of the cards. Stender's reply to
Gassman on September 11 is basically the Respondent
Employer's position before me: Howard Creations, Inc.,
should not be required to recognize the Amalgamated be-
cause it is already a party to an outstanding collective-
bargaining agreement with Local 11. The answer to this
contention is quite clear. As noted above, both the agree-
ment and the recognition of Local 11 upon which the
agreement is predicated are vitiated by the Employer's own
illegal acts . The Employer cannot use a contract with an
illegally assisted union as an excuse for ignoring a demand
for recognition , as the contract itself is invalid in its entire-
ty. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO [Bernhard Altmann Texas Corp.], v. N.L.R.B., 366
U.S. 731 (1961). Accordingly, the Amalgamated was, on
September 7 and thereafter, the duly designated bargaining
agent for the production and shipping employees of the
Respondent. When, on September 11 and thereafter, the
Respondent rejected its demand for recognition, it violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. I so find and conclude.
The Respondent Employer was not content with merely
refusing the Amalgamated. Stender told Gassman that he
would never deal with the Amalgamated and that he would
close his doors before doing so. As detailed above, Stender
also made this same statement to a gathering of his employ-
7 Where a pattern of company assistance to a union has been established,
such a pattern in and of itself is sufficient to invalidate all cards upon which
majority status is based. N L R.B. v James Thompson and Company, 208 F.2d
743 (C A. 2, 1953), N L.R B v Jan Power, Inc, 421 F 2d 1058 (C.A 9, 1970).
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees at the plant. Such statements are flagrant violations of
Section 8(a)(1), and I so find. At a meeting of all employees
which took place in September, Louis Rucci, an agent of
both Respondent Unions, stated to employees in the pres-
ence of Stender that any employees who did not want to join
his union could punch their timecards and leave the plant.
Such a statement on the part of Rucci constitutes a violation
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I so find and conclude.
Stender reiterated the same statement that was made by
Rucci and in so doing violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Stender also promised employees Petra Diaz and Mercedes
Cordova that if employees would stick with Local 11 and
reject the Amalgamated, he would see to it that they started
to receive Blue Cross benefits in a year. Such a promise of
benefits to influence the selection or adherence to a bargain-
ing agent and the rejection of another constitutes a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and amounts to illegal assis-
tance in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. At another
assembly of employees, Stender said that he knew that they
were attending Gassman's meetings. He requested them not
to do so. In making this announcement, Stender created an
impression among employees that their union activities
were subject to his surveillance and, in so doing, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On November 30, Stender had a
conversation with employee Mary Holly when Holly came
back from layoff and asked for work. The version recited in
the record indicates that Stender spoke of raises and of
health insurance, and that he indicated that he did not want
to make union welfare payments to the Amalgamated be-
cause they were too costly. However, the record testimony
does not disclose any clear threat of promise on his part in
this conversation with Holly. Accordingly, I will dismiss so
much of section 19 of the amended complaint as alleges
that, on or about November 30, the Respondent made an
illegal promise of benefits to dissuade employees from sup-
porting the Amalgamated.
A troublesome question arises concerning the signing of
checkoff authorization cards. The Local 11 contract with
the Respondent provides for remission of dues by the Em-
ployer to the Union upon receipt of checkoff authorizations,
such deductions to be made from the employees' pay during
the first week of each month. Checkoffs were scheduled to
begin during the first week in July. It is unclear if they were
made by the Employer in July, but there is no doubt that
this procedure began to operate in August. The basis for the
checkoffs was the Local I i membership designation and
checkoff authorization cards submitted at the hearing by
the Employer pursuant to subpena. Dues were deducted
from the pay of Petra Diaz and Patricia Moreno, among
others. These employees speak English well and were, in
fact, used by Stender as interpreters. Both testified emphati-
cally that they did not sign checkoff authorizations. When
cross-examined on the basis of the xeroxed copies of cards
admitted into evidence and bearing their respective signa-
tures, both witnesses insisted that the cards in evidence on
which their signatures admittedly appeared contained print-
ed language that did not in fact appear on the pink union
membership cards which they signed in the company office
in April. Both insisted that the cards which they signed were
exclusively for membership and contained no language au-
thorizing deduction of dues. Both insisted that the cards
which they signed were partially different in style than the
cards submitted at the hearing by the Employer. As the
documents in evidence were not the originals, it is impossi-
ble on the state of this record to determine whether or not
some specie of fraud in the factum was practiced in obtain-
ing dues deduction cards. If another agency should investi-
gate facets of this case relating to possible violations of
Federal laws not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board, it
may wish to pursue this question further after obtaining the
original pink cards signed by employees. Such originals are
not in evidence here, despite the fact that the General Coun-
sel was diligent in having subpoenas issued against both
Employer and Union Respondents to this case to compel
their production. On the basis of this record, I cannot say,
as to Moreno and Diaz, that dues were deducted by the
Respondent Employer and remitted to the Respondent
Unions in the absence of executed checkoff authorizations.
However, by honoring dues checkoff authorizations execu-
ted pursuant to a contract with a minority union, the Re-
spondent Employer herein violated Section 8(a)(2) and (3)
of the Act, even if no fraud or forgery attended the signing
of the cards. Lunardi-Central Distributing Company, Inc,
161 NLRB 1443; Prospect Gardens of Norwalk, supra.
Employee Mary Holly testified without contradiction
that the Respondent Employer deducted union dues from
her pay although she did not sign a checkoff authorization.
There is no checkoff authorization in the record relating to
her. Employee Sayde Castro testified without contradiction
that she did not sign a checkoff authorization, that $12 was
deducted from her pay as union dues, but that the amount
was refunded when she complained to Stender. There is a
checkoff authorization card in the record for Ana Bolena
Castro, living at the same address as Sayde Castro, but there
is no card for Sayde Castro Such deductions constitute
clear violations of Section 8(a)(2) and (3) of the Act, and
strongly suggest the possibility of a violation of Section 302
of the Act.
Respondent's principal defense is that, in amending sec-
tion 11 of the complaint, the General Counsel struck from
the complaint certain language contained in the original
version of section 11, which language alleged that at no time
did Local l 1 represent an uncoerced majority of employees
in the bargaining unit. The revised section I I is directed at
the illegality of the same contract, specifies the date of its
execution , and alleges as an additional violation the execu-
tion of a contract with a minority union containing a union-
security clause. The question of the lack of uncoerced ma-
jority status on the part of Local I 1 had been fully litigated
at this point. There is no suggestion-indeed there is a
denial-that the General Counsel had abandoned this con-
tention as a part of his theory of the case. The conclusionary
language remaining in the complaint clearly outlines the
legal contention that these acts on the part of all Respon-
dents violate provisions of the Act directed at illegal assis-
tance by an employer to a labor organization. The absence
of freely designated majority status on the part of a union
is an essential element of this argument. As noted above, it
is fully supported by the evidence herein. The issue re-
mains in this case under the revised as well as under the
original version of section I I of the complaint. Niceties of
pleading, including specialized terms of art, may have
HOWARD CREATIONS, INC. 185
place in the common law, but so long as there is notice and
an opportunity to defend, and so long as a matter has been
fully litigated, the formal requirements of the Administra-
tive Procedure Act and of the National Labor Relations
Act are met. I conclude that these procedural requirements
have been met in this instance. N.LR.B. v. Pecheur Loz-
enge Co., 209 F.2d 393 at 402 (C.A. 2, 1953).
Upon the above-recited findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in this case considered as a whole, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Howard Creations, Inc., is now, and at all
times material herein has been, an'employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, the Factory, Production, Specialists , and Assembly
Workers Union, Local 294, and the Workers of America
and Canada International Union, Local No. 11, are, re-
spectively, labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production and shipping employees employed by
the Respondent Employer at its Woodside, Queens, New
York, factory, excluding office clerical employees, sales em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since September 7, 1973, the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, has been the exclusive
representative of all employees in the unit found appropri-
ate in Conclusion of Law 3 for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By permitting representatives of Local 11 and Local
294 to solicit union membership cards on company premises
during company time; by otherwise assisting Local 11 and
Local 294 in obtaining union designation cards from its
employees; by executing a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local l l when Local l l did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the employees in the unit covered by the agree-
ment; by incorporating in said agreement a umon-security
clause requiring employees to become or remain members
of an illegally assisted union as a condition of continued
employment; by causing membership cards in Local II to
be solicited by its employees; by deducting dues from the
pay of employees and remitting them to an illegally assisted
union pursuant to an agreement with a union which does
not represent an uncoerced majority of its employees; by
deducting union dues from the pay of employees when they
had not executed checkoff authorizations; by stating to em-
ployees that if they did not like an illegally assisted union,
they could quit, and by ratifying such statements when
made by union agents; and by promising benefits including
medical and hospital benefits to employees to retain their
support for Local 11, the Respondent Employer herein vio-
lated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
6. By including a union-security clause in a contract exe-
cuted with a union which does not represent an uncoerced
majority of its employees; by deducting union dues from the
pay of employees and remitting said dues money to a union
pursuant to a contract with a union which does not repre-
sent an uncoerced majority of its employees; and by deduct-
ing union dues from the pay of employees when said
employees have not executed checkoff authorizations, the
Respondent Employer herein has violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
7.'By refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively in
good faith with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the duly designated collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees in the bargaining
unit found appropriate in Conclusion of Law 3 herein, the
Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
8. By the acts and conduct set forth in Conclusions of
Law 5, 6, and 7 herein; by creating in the minds of employ-
ees the impression that their union activities were under
surveillance; by promising benefits including medical and
hospital insurance to employees if they would refrain from
supporting the Amalgamated; by threatening employees
with discharge if they supported the Amalgamated; by
threatening to close the plant if employees selected the Am-
algamated as their bargaining agent; and by stating that it
would never deal with the Amalgamated, the Employer
herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
9. By including in a collective-bargaining agreement with
a union which did not represent an uncoerced majority of
its employees a union-security clause requiring bargaining
unit employees to become or remain members of said
unions as a condition of continued employment; and by
accepting the remission of dues deducted from the pay of
bargaining unit employees by the Employer pursuant to the
provisions of an illegal contract, the Respondent Unions
herein violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
10. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclu-
sion of Law 9; by accepting assistance and recognition from
an employer when it did not represent an uncoerced majori-
ty of its employees; by executing a contract with the Re-
spondent Employer when it did not represent the uncoerced
majority of its employees; and by threatening employees in
the presence of the Respondent Employer with discharge if
they did not become or remain members of their union or
unions, the Respondent Unions herein violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
11. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close,
intimate , and adverse affect on the free flow of commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents herein have engaged
in unfair labor practices, I will recommend that they be
required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and
policies of the Act. The General Counsel has requested,
inter alia, a so-called Gissel 8 remedy, by terms of which the
Respondent Employer would be obligated to recognize and
bargain collectively with the Amalgamated on the basis of
majority status established through signatures of employees
8 N.L R.B v Gissel Packing Company, 395 U S 575 (1969).
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
obtained on individual designation cards. Such orders have
been issued from time to time by the Board , despite the
existence of a contract with , or claim of recognition by, an
assisted union . Greystone Knitwear Corporation, 136 NLRB
573. The test of whether such an order should be issued is
whether the employer' s unlawful actions in resisting the
unionization of his plant have been so flagrant and so perva-
sive that the likelihood of a fair and free election is im-
paired . Byrne Dairy Inc. v . N.L.R.B., 431 F.2d 1363 (C.A. 2,
1970); N L. R.B. v. International Metal Specialties, Inc., 433
F.2d 870 (C.A. 2, 1970); N.L R.B. v. Marcellus Vault &
Sales, Inc., 431 F.2d 933 (C.A. 2, 1970); M P.C. Restaurant
Corporation v. N.L.R B., 481 F.2d 75 (C.A. 2, 1973); N.L.R.
B. v. Scoler 's Inc., 466 F.2d 1289 (C.A. 2, 1972); N.L.R B
v. Hendel Manufacturing Company, Inc, 483 F.2d 353 (C.A.
2, 1973). In the instant case , the Employer has engaged in
extensive assistance to a rival union, has promised employ-
ees benefits if they would support a union of his choice
rather than another union which employees might choose,
has stated positively and on more than one occasion that he
would never deal with the Charging Party, and has told
employees that he would close the doors of the plant if the
Charging Party were to become their bargaining agent. Such
actions on his part clearly preclude the holding of a fair and
free election by making such an election an act of futility
in the minds of unit employees . As the employees have
freely designated the Amalgamated as their bargaining
agent by an overwhelming majority through the signing of
authorization cards, despite the importunings of the Em-
ployer, and have vociferiously and, publicly voiced to the
Employer and to the rival unions their hostility to represen-
tation by these unions , or either of them , I will recommend
that the Employer be required to bargain with the Amalga-
mated as the collective -bargaining representative of his em-
ployees. I will also recommend that the Employer be
required to cease recognizing Local 11 or Local 294 , to cease
giving effect to the outstanding contract with Local 11, and
to cease checking off dues for Local 11; and that the Re-
spondents be required jointly and severally to refund dues
which have heretofore been checked off or otherwise paid
to Local 11, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum.
Amalgamated Local Union No. 355 [Russell Motors, Inc.], v.
N.L.R.B. 481 F.2d 996 (C.A. 2, 1973).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record considered as a
whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the
following recommended:
ORDERS
1. Respondent Howard Creations, Inc., and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Recognizing or bargaining with Factory, Production,
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
Specialists and Assembly Workers Union, Local 294, and
Workers of America and Canada International Union, Lo-
cal No 11, or either of them, as the collective-bargaining
representative of its production and shipping employees,
unless and until said labor organizations, or either of them,
is certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of said employees pursuant to Section 9(c) of the
Act.
(b) Giving effect to a certain collective-bargaining agree-
ment between said Respondent Employer and the said Lo-
cal 11, dated June 25, 1973, or any extension or
modification thereof; provided that nothing herein shall
authorize or require the withdrawal or elimination of any
wage increase or other benefits conferred pursuant to said
contract.
(c) Withholding from the pay of any of its employees
union dues or other union fees or assessments which have
been deducted on account of any obligation of membership
in Local 11, and paying to Local ii any dues, fees, or
assessments which have been deducted from the pay of its
employees.
(d) By any means or in any manner contributing to the
financial or other support of Local II or Local 294.
(e) Creating in the minds of employees an impression of
surveillance of their union activities; promising benefits to
employees to influence their selection or rejection of a col-
lective-bargaining representative, threatening employees
with discharge for engaging in union activities; or threaten-
ing to close the plant if employees should select the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(f) By any means or in any manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the selection of Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, as their bargaining representative.
(g) Giving effect to any membership application or dues
checkoff authorization on behalf of Local II or Local 294
executed by any of its employees on or after April 25, 1973.
(h) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of its pro-
duction and shipping employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold from Local I I and Local 294,
or either of them, recognition as the collective-bargaining
representative of its production and shipping employees.
(b) Jointly and severally with Local I I and Local 294
reimburse each employee or former employee from whose
wages it has deducted and withheld union dues, fees, or
assessments for Local I 1 or Local 294 the amount of money
which has been deducted and withheld from said employ-
ees, together with interest thereon computed at 6 percent per
annum.
(c) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively
with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of all
employees employed in its production and shipping depart-
ments, excluding office clerical employees, sales employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
HOWARD CREATIONS, INC.
Board or its agents for examination and copying all records
necessary to analyze and compute the amount of reimburse-
ments to employees, if any, which may be due under section
1,2(b), supra, of this recommended Order.
(e) Post at its Queens, New York, plant, copies of the
notice attached hereto and marked Appendix A,10 and
signed copies of the notice attached hereto and marked
Appendix B, both of which shall appear in English and in
Spanish. Copies of Appendix A, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 29 and duly signed by a repre-
sentative of the Respondent Employer, and copies of Ap-
pendix B, to be furnished by the Respondent Unions herein,
shall be posted by the Respondent Employer immediately
upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to in-
sure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
II. Respondent Factory, Production, Specialists and As-
sembly Workers Union, Local 294, and Workers of America
and Canada International Union, Local No. 11, and each
of them, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Giving effect to a certain collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the said Local 11 and Howard Creations,
Inc., dated June 25, 1973, or any modification or extension
thereof.
(b) Acting or purporting to act as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the production and shipping employ-
ees of Howard Creations, Inc., unless and until it or they
have been certified by the Board as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of said employees pursuant to Section
9(c) of the Act.
(c) Requesting, accepting, or receiving from Howard
Creations, Inc., union dues, fees, or other assessments which
have been deducted and withheld from the pay of any of the
employees of said employer.
(d) Giving effect to any membership application or
checkoff authorization executed by any employee of How-
ard Creations, Inc., on or after April 25, 1973.
(e) By any means or in any manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees of Howard Creations,
Inc., in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Howard Crea-
tions, Inc., reimburse each employee or former employee of
Howard Creations, Inc., from whose wages union dues, fees,
or assessments for Local 11 or Local 294 have been deduct-
ed by Howard Creations, Inc., the amount of such money
which has been deducted and withheld from said employee,
together with interest thereon computed at 6 percent per
annum.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all re-
cords, including but not limited to membership applications
187
and dues checkoff authorizations, which are necessary to
analyze and compute the amount of reimbursements to em-
ployees, if any, which may be due under section II,2(a) of
this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its office in English and in Spanish copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked Appendix B, said
copies to be furnished by the Regional Director of Region
29. Said copies, after being signed by representatives of each
Respondent Union, shall be posted by each of the Respon-
dent Unions immediately upon receipt thereof and shall be
maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that such notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Copies
of said notices in English and in Spanish, which are fur-
nished by the Regional Director of Region 29, shall be
signed by a representative of each Respondent Union and
shall be forwarded for posting to Howard Creations, Inc.,
immediately upon receipt thereof from the Regional Direc-
tor.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
I further recommend that the complaint herein be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges matters not specifically found.
10 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Howard Creations, Inc., is posting this notice to comply
with the provisions of a recommended order issued by an
Administrative Law Judge. The recommended Order was
issued after a hearing in which we were found to have violat-
ed certain provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT recognize and bargain with Factory,
Production, Specialists and Assembly Workers Union,
Local 294, and Workers of America and Canada Inter-
national Union, Local No. 11, or either of them, as the
bargaining representative of our production and ship-
ping employees, unless they, or either of them, becomes
certified by the Board as a bargaining representative
after the running of a Board election.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any membership applica-
tion or dues checkoff authorization cards for Local 11
or Local 294 signed by our employees on or after April
25, 1973. We will not give effect to a contract signed
with Local 11 on June 25, 1973, or any extension or
modification of that contract. We will not withhold
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the pay of our employees any dues for Local I 1
or Local 294, and will , together with Local II and
Local 294, refund the money which has already been
deducted for union dues, fees, and assessments, with
interest at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT withdraw any wage increases or other
benefits granted under the Local 11 contract.
WE WILL NOT in any way or in any manner contribute
financial or other support to either Local I I or Local
294.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant , to discharge
employees , or to grant or withhold benefits because
employees wish to select the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, as their bargaining
representative . We will not interfere with , restrain, or
coerce our employees in any way in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL recognize , and upon request , bargain collec-
tively with the Amalgamated Clothing Workers as the
collective-bargaining representative of all employees in
our production and shipping departments, excluding
office clerical employees , sales employees , and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
Dated By
HOWARD CREATIONS, INC
(Employer)
Administrative Law Judge. The recommended Order was
issued after a hearing in which we were found to have violat-
ed certain provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT give effect to any membership applica-
tions or checkoff authorizations executed by employees
of Howard Creations, Inc., on or after April 25, 1973.
We will not give effect to any contract executed with
Howard Creations, Inc., on June 25, 1973, or any ex-
tensions or modifications of that contract. We will not
request, accept, or receive any union dues, fees, or as-
sessments from the pay of any employees of Howard.
WE WILL NOT act or purport to act as the collective-
bargaining representative of employees of Howard
Creations, Inc., unless and until we have been certified
by the Board as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive after the holding of a Board election.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce em-
ployees of Howard Creations, Inc., by any means or in
any manner in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, along with Howard, refund the money
which has already been deducted for union dues, fees,
and assessments, together with interest at 6 percent.
By(Representative) (Title) Dated
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, 16 Court Street-4th Floor, Brook-
lyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Local II and Local 294 are posting this notice to comply
with the provisions of a recommended order issued by an
Dated By
FACTORY, PRODUCTION, SPECIAL-
ISTS, AND ASSEMBLY WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL No 294
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
WORKERS OF AMERICA AND
CANADA INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL No I I
(Labor Organization)
(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, 16 Court Street-4th Floor, Brook-
lyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.