Texas Miller Products, Inc.

In the Matter of TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. and UNITED HATTERS CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Case No. 16-CA-62.-Decided May 16,19419 DECISION AND ORDER On December 28, 1948, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in vi'o'lation of Se6tion;8 .(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached ' hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief." The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the brief, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the position of the Respondent. The Board 2 has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner except as they are inconsistent herewith. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the record establishes a clear campaign by the Respondent to prevent self- organization among its employees. Thus, on Monday morning, March 8, 1948, imme- diately after learning of the union meeting scheduled for the follow- ing Wednesday, Parrill, Respondent's vice president and its adminis- trative officer at Corsicana, posted a notice on the plant bulletin board I The Respondent also filed a motion with the Board to set aside the Intermediate Report and remand the case for rehearing on the ground that the Trial Examiner was not duly qualified. For reasons stated in Matter of The Russell Mfg. Co., 1-no., at al., 82 N. L. R. B. 1081, the motion is denied. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this pro- ceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]. 83 N. L. R. B., No. 93. 616 TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 617 advising the employees that the Respondent would not condone union activities, and threatening to close the plant if they continued. He again voiced this company policy in three separate speeches to groups of employees during that afternoon. We find, as did the Trial Ex- aminer, that by this conduct, as well as by the other unlawful conduct of management representatives set forth in the Intermediate Report, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, we do not rely upon the fact that the Respondent permitted representatives of the local Chamber of Commerce to ad- dress the employees on the afternoon of March 10. 2. We are satisfied, as was the Trial Examiner, that the nine em- ployees named in the complaint were all discriminatorily discharged within the meaning of the Act. On March 5, 1948, before learning of any organizational activities, Parrill had made a speech openly com- plimenting the employees upon the progress of their work generally. Yet only 4 days later, after the Respondent learned of such activity and took immediate steps to combat it, seven employees were sum- marily discharged without warning, some of them in mid-shift, osten- sibly for incompetence.3 Among them were several who had openly expressed pro-union sympathies in the plant. The only change in circumstances occurring between March 5 and 9 was the advent of union activity. That this organizational activity was the motivating factor in the Respondent's sudden release of these employees is fur- ther evidenced by President Seigle's conversation with one of them, Laura McBroom, on March 9. When she told Seigle that she thought she and others had been discharged because of the notice and in order "to get*rid of the Union," as Parrill had threatened the day before, but that still other employees were working who wanted the Union, Seigle did not deny the accusation as to the motive for the discharges. Instead, he merely asked for the names of these other pro-union em- ployees. She gave him the names of Jewel Burns and Clara Allred; both were discharged the next morning on the same pretext of incom- petence 4 It thus appears clear, from the sequence of events between Parrill's remarks praising the employees on March 5 to the discharge of Jewel Burns and Clara Allred on March 10, that in selecting the first seven employees for discharge the Respondent sought to choose those who were thought likely to lend support to the proposed organizational campaign. Whether or not the Respondent succeeded at first in reach- 3 Two, Jackson and Floyd Allred, were even told by their immediate supervisors at the time that these supervisors did not know the reason for their release. A Although he denied having questioned McBroom, Seigle admitted that he invited her to sit in his automobile with him, that she spoke of the Union, and that she referred to a number of union adherents whose names he could not remember . Like the Trial Examiner, we credit McBroom's version of the conversation. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing only pro-union employees is immaterial, for its intention to do so is well evidenced by the alacrity with which it utilized the informa- tion drawn from McBroom. The quick discharge of the last two employees confirmed the Respondent's motive, carried out the threats expressed by Parrill 2 days before, and impressed upon all the em- ployees his fixed determination to prevent organization of the plant at all costs. We find, therefore, that the true reason for all nine dis- charges was to discourage self-organization among the employees, and that by such conduct the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. We also find that President Seigle's interrogation of Laura McBroom constituted an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Texas Miller Products, Inc., Corsicana, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its em- ployees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities; (c) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings of its employees; (d) Threatening to close its plant in the event its employes form or join a union; (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Lula Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, and Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 619 substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; 5 (b) Make whole Lulu Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, Clara Allred, Henry Jackson, Floyd Allred, Aline McCulloch, Jewel Burns, and Laura McBroom for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he or she normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of the discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of rein- statement, less his or her net earnings s during that period ; (c) Post at its plant in Corsicana, Texas, copies of the notice at- tached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, after being signed by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered with any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken. to comply herewith. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE wn.r. NOT discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or con- 6 In accordance with the Board' s consistent interpretation of the term, the expression "former or substantially equivalent positions" is intended to mean "former positions wherever possible, but if such positions are no longer in existence, then to substantially equivalent positions." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, Ban Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N. L. R. B 82.7. 6 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where, which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination and the consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere. Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work-relief projects shall be considered as earnings Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be inserted before the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dition' of employment against, any employee because of member- ship in or activity on behalf of UNITED HATTERS' CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as'to their union activities. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings of our ,employees. WE WILL NOT THREATEN to close our plant in the event our em- ployees join or; forma labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ- ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above- named union of any other labor organization, to' bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organ- ization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL OFFER to Lula Holditch, Cora Praytor, Hurma Holland, and Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make the employees named below whole for any loss of pay above-named union or any other labor organization. Lula Holditch Henry E. Jackson Cora Praytor Jewel Burns Hurma Holland Aline McCulloch Clara Allred Floyd E. Allred Laura J. McBroom All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC., Employer. By --------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated -------------------- This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. INTERMEDIATE REPORT 621 Mr. James R. Webster, for the General Counsel. Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for the Respondent. Messrs. Mullinax, Wells & Ball, Dallas, Texas, by Mr. L. N. D. Wells, Jr., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers Inter- national Union, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, called respectively the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director of the Sixteenth Region, (Fort Worth, Texas), issued his complaint dated September 14, 1948, against Texas Miller Products, Inc., Corsicana, Texas, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended June 23, 1947, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and charges were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hear- ing,' alleges in substance : ( 1) that the Respondent, for the purpose of discourag- ing union membership and activities on behalf of the Union, discriminatorily dis- charged the following employees on dates indicated: ' Lulu Holditch March 9 Aline McCulloch " 11 Hurma L. Holland " " Cora Praytor Laura J. McBroom " " Floyd E. Allred Henry E. Jackson Clara Allred March 10 Jewel Burns " It (2) that through certain named officers and agents, the Respondent interrogated Its employees concerning their union affiliations, warned them to refrain from assisting the Union, and kept under surveillance the union meeting place ; and (3) by these acts interfered -with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, relating to jurisdictional matters, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Affirmatively, the answer alleges that the discharges were for cause, were made "in connection with a plan for factory reorganization" and "because of the apparent disruption of discipline among the employees." Pursuant to notice duly served, a hearing was held October 26 to 29, inclusive, at Corsicana, Texas, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During ' A motion by the Respondent was granted , without objection , to strike one paragraph from the complaint , relating to the alleged conduct of one superintendent. At the close of the hearing a joint motion was granted to conform the pleadings to the proof in minor matters, such as a spelling of names, dates, etc 2 Unless otherwise specified , all dates noted in this Intermediate Report are in 1948. 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the hearing ruling was reserved upon a motion, made by counsel for the Respond- ent, to strike from the record a document introduced into evidence by General Counsel. The motion is now denied.' Oral argument before the Trial Examiner was waived by all parties. A reasonable period for the filing of briefs was set and thereafter extended to December 13, by the Chief Trial Examiner. -Briefs have been received from all parties. - Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses the Trial Examiner makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Texas Miller Products, Inc., is a Texas corporation, with its principal office and plant located in Corsicana, Texas, where it is engaged in the manufacture Iof men's and boys' straw, felt, and cloth hats. During the year preceding the hearing the Respondent purchased raw materials amounting to more than $100,000 In value, of which more than 75 percent was shipped to the Corsicana plant from points outside the State of Texas. During the same period, the Respondent shipped more than 75 percent of its finished products, valued at more than $100,000, to points outside the State of Texas. The Respondent concedes that its operations affect commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union is a labor organization 'admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Setting and the issues ` The Respondent corporation is one of several controlled by I. A. Miller and David Miller, of New York City, where the parent company, Miller Brothers Hat Company is located. The Corsicana corporation was formed late in 1945; manu- facturing operations were not begun until the summer of 1946. The president is Alex Seigle, who is also head of Texas Miller Hat Corporation of Dallas, Texas, a selling organization. Seigle spends most of his -time with the sales organiza- tion, while the chief administrative and supervisory duties at Corsicana are performed by Benjamin Parrill, who is also vice president of the corporation. According to Parrill's testimony, at the time the Corsicana corporation was being formed David Miller and Max Zaritsky, the latter then president of the Union, informally agreed that the Union would make no effort to organize employees of the new plant during the training period. In return for delay in organization, Parrill said, Miller agreed that when the Corsicana "plant was running" management would "definitely cooperate" with the Union. Accord- 8 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 2, a copy of a union letter which was posted upon the Respondent's bulletin board. The exhibit was offered early in the hearing, and was received in evidence upon assurance of General Counsel that its materiality would be established through other witnesses. The Trial Examiner considers that its relevance was thereafter fully established. * Unless otherwise indicated, the findings in this section are based upon credible testi- mony mainly undisputed. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 623 ing to Parrill, the parent company and the Union have collective bargaining con- tracts at several of its factories "in the east." Whatever the personal wishes, desires, or informal agreement of Miller and Zaritsky, there is no evidence that the Union or any other labor organization took steps to determine the representa- tion desires of the employees themselves at the Corsicana plant until February 1948. On February 23 Field Representative Latane Lambert of the Union came to Corsicana and visited with a number of the Respondent's employees, including two of the girls whose discharges are in issue. On March 5 Lambert mailed to a selected list of 25 employees a letter inviting them to attend a meeting at the local Labor Temple on March 10, to discuss possible organization at the Respondent's plant. The letters were sent to employees, among others, who had been mem- bers of a union of textile workers in Corsicana before being hired by the Respond- ent, and/or who were wives of members of a local machinists' union. On Friday, March 5, Parrill addressed the assembled employees, complimented them upon the quality of their work, urged higher production, and promised a number of benefits, such as an insurance plan and paid vacations, which the company was planning to inaugurate. Early Monday morning, March 8, one of the letters anoouncing the union meeting appeared on the plant bulletin board. The record does not reveal who placed it there. Upon his arrival at the plant, about 9 or 10 o'clock, Parrill ordered the letter removed. The next morning Parrill caused a notice to be posted upon the same board, stating : Yesterday, a letter was found on the bulletin board in the new building. We did not authorize the posting of this letter. It was placed there secretly and without permission. We did not, ,nor will we, sanction this. Nor do we approve of it. This type of activity and of outside interference, under any circumstances or condition, will not be condoned in this plant,-as long as it is in operation. And, as stated several times before, its continued opera- tion and/or growth immediately depends upon your 100% cooperation,,, Certain threats in the above-quoted notice are in issue, and will be discussed fully below. On the same day, March 9, Parrill made speeches to all his employees, in which he warned them, in effect, that he would "stand for" no "outside inter- ference," and that if such interference occurred the plant would be closed and converted into a warehouse. He also told the employees that there was a "good show" in town and advised them to attend it, instead of going to the union meeting. Certain statements in these speeches are in issue. Also on March 9, upon Parrill's orders, seven employees were summarily discharged. One of the seven, under circumstances narrated below, told Presi- dent Seigle, upon his inquiry, that two other girls had also been active on behalf of union organization, and the next day the two were dismissed. All nine discharges are in issue. On the night of March 10, following a dinner for supervisors, Parrill instructed a number of them to watch the entry to the local Labor Temple, where the union meeting was scheduled to be held, and report to him who attended. Several of the supervisors followed Parrill's instructions. This surveillance, admitted by Parrill, is in issue. 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The discriminatory discharges; other acts of interference, restraint and coercion 1. The notice and speeches of March 9 Parrill's notice to employees, in which he stated that "outside interference, under any circumstances or conditions , will not be condoned in this plant," had been quoted in full above. He also admitted having made speeches ( the same day ), to all employees, in which he said "we weren't going to stand for outside interference ." He did not deny having threatened, in the same speeches, closing of the plant and converting it into a warehouse if such interference continued ; the making of such threats having been attributed to him by a former supervisor, appearing as a witness for General Counsel. As a witness, Parrill explained his reference to "outside interference" as follows : What I was trying to get at, without putting it in so many words, was that I didn't want in our plant, the Texas Miller, a battle going on between the anti-Union group which is here in Corsicana and the United Hatters which we had known for so many years going on in our plant . We definitely had none of the feelings in regard to it ; I am sure, there was a lot of anti-union talk going on at the time and there was a lot of upset about the letter being posted in the building and that is exactly what I meant. Our plant was being disrupted by two forces. We had no interest in either one of the forces. Our understanding there-we had already agreed that we would cooperate with the-with President Zaritsky and the United Hatters and we did not want a lot of upset coming from the previous union problems that has come in Corsicana. As a witness Parrill also said : I think one thing that upset it was the mailing of the letters . . . I put a notice on the bulletin board stating that I didn't want any outside interference in the plant and by that I primarily meant anybody in Corsi- cana as well as any one come into the plant and posting a notice on there to stir it up. (sic) An employer is privileged, of course, to take all reasonable precautions to maintain order and discipline in his plant . In this case, however, there is no evidence that disorder among the employees either occurred after or was threatened by the appearance upon the bulletin board of the union letter. Parrill cited no specific instance of actual interference with production until after the sudden discharge of a group of employees on Tuesday noon. When pressed for a factual basis for his claim that there was an anti -union element in the plant , Parrill finally said that he knew of none , and admitted that he only "assumed" there was some anti -union "feeling" because the president of the local Chamber of Commerce and the Corsicana Improvement Association told him that these organizations were opposed to the Union. Thus Parrill's own testimony casts discredit upon and invalidates the reasons he offered at the hearing for posting the notice and making the speeches. Fur- thermore, he admitted that he made no explanation of what he meant by "outside interference" in his speeches. Under these circumstances, it is reasonably inferred and found that Parrill actually meant and intended the employees to understand , by his reference to TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, IN C. 625 "outside interference," their activity looking toward the organization of a union and their attendance at the proposed union meeting. This was the chief subject raised in the union letter, to which both his notice and speeches were addressed. The conclusion is buttressed by the fact that Parrill permitted, on Wednesday, March 10, the Chamber of Commerce head to address all employees at the plant and urge them to "go to a movie or play dominoes" instead of attending the union meeting that night. The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that Parrill's notice and speeches to employees, on March 9, constituted interference, restraint, and coer- cion, in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, insofar as the notice: (1) stated that "outside interference" would not be condoned; and (2) in effect threatened closing of the plant if such activity continued ; and insofar as the speeches warned employees : (1) that Parrill would "stand for" no "outside interference"; and (2) that if it continued the plant would be closed and converted into a warehouse. Also, on March 9, Foreman Keating told employee Mary Hanna, who had been away ill but who that noon returned to the plant, that he could not put her to work then because something had just happened which had "floored" him. He added that a union was being organized ; and declared that if it was organized at the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, the plant would be closed and pad- locked on Thursday 6 Keating's threat that the plant would be closed constituted restraint and coercion within the meaning of the Act: 2 The surveillance of March 10 As a witness Parrill admitted, and the Trial Examiner finds, that on March 10 he instructed members of his supervisory force to spy upon and report the names of employees who might attend the union meeting scheduled for that same evening. The testimony of a former supervisor, Albert Blackford, is undisputed and the Trial Examiner finds, that Parrill's instructions in this matter were carried out. Such surveillance has repeatedly been found by the Board and the Courts to be prohibited by the Act. It is therefore concluded and found that by such sur- veillance the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act e 3. The discharges of March 9 and 10 a. Events and evidence bearing upon General Counsel's contentions Shortly after Parrill had posted the notice described above, on March 9, six employees were summarily discharged. Another employee, Laura McBroom, 5 The findings as to Keating's remarks are based upon the credible testimony of Hanna. Keating admitted the occasion but denied making the statements attributed to him. In view of the fact that, in substance , his remarks were of the same nature as those made in writing and orally by his superior, Parrill, on the same day, Keating's denial is not accepted as true. Parrill claimed that he issued these instructions upon telephonic orders from Miller. Miller , according to Parrill , wanted the information to pass on to Zaritsky , then head of the Union . In its brief, the Respondent contends that "the circumstances justified the action taken." Even if Parrill's wholly unsupported testimony on this point be accepted as true, the rights guaranteed by the Act to all employees were not subject to any restrictive agreement, formal or Informal , that Miller and Zaritsky, may have entered into. 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD who happened to be absent from the plant by permission at the time the other six were dismissed, was discharged as soon as she returned to the plant later the same day. Two more employees, whose names were revealed to President Seigle by McBroom, as active in the Union, were promptly discharged the fol- lowing morning, March 10. Lola Holditch, Aline McCulloch, and Hurma Holland, were discharged by Bar- ney Mozley, superintendent of the felt hat department, in which they worked. All three were called from the line of employees formed at noon on their way to lunch, given their pay checks, and told they were fired. When they demanded to know' why, Mozley told each of them that their work was unsatisfactory. When they insisted that there must be some other reason, the superintendent told them to go to the office and see Parrill. Before going to Parrill's office the em- ployees queried their forelady, Inez Gray. Gray told them that she knew noth- ing about their dismissals, that it was as much of a surprise to her as to them, and that she was sure it could not be on account of their work because they were three of the best hands she had. They proceeded then to Parrill's office, where they were merely told to come back in 2 or 3 days and he would give each a private interview. Holditch and Holland had been active union members and had participated in a strike at a local textile plant before being hired by the Respondent. The fact that Holditch had left the textile plant on strike was recorded on her em- ployment application with the Respondent. Holland had discussed with Fore- lady Gray her participation in the textile strike. Both Holditch and Holland had assisted union representative Lambert in drawing up the list of employees to be invited to the March 10 meeting. Holland had told several employees in the plant of Lambert's visit to her home and openly expressed her belief that organization would be beneficial to the workers. McCulloch was the wife of a union man ; she had received one of the union letters, had openly made arrange- ments to transport in her car several of the other girls to the union meeting, and Just before the beginning of working hours at the plant on March 9 had given a union pamphlet to another employee. Parrill's testimony makes it apparent that by March 9 he knew of the mailing of the union letter.' As a witness he admitted having made inquiry of "various people" about the posting of the union letter, and of having "told some of the boys" to watch the union meeting on March 10. It is reasonably inferred that the strike at the textile plant and the identity of its participants had been com- mon knowledge at the time of its occurrence;. the Respondent itself established the fact that some of its records bore notation of certain previous strikers, and Parrill as a witness said that he did not "want" any "upset" such as had come from previous "union problems" in Corsicana. In view of these facts, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that management was aware, before their dis- charges, of the union sympathies of Holditch, Holland, and McCulloch, and be- lieved them to be assisting in arousing organizational interest at the plant. Cora Praytor and Laura McBroom. Praytor and McBroom, who are mother and daughter, were discharged on March 9 by Thomas Keating, assistant super- intendent or foreman in the straw hat department. Praytor was discharged at noon, as were others in the group. McBroom had been excused that morning to do an errand, and was not discharged until her return to the plant that afternoon. '' As quoted above, in explaining why he posted the notice-which occurred before the discharges, Parrill said, "I think one thing that upset it [the plant ] was the mailing of the letter." TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 627 Keating told Prator that he had "office orders" to let her and her daughter go ; that they could not work "relationships" any more. McBroom was told that she was being dismissed because she was "unhappy." When she said that this was not much of an excuse, Keating added that her work was unsatisfactory. McBroom went to Parrill's office in protest. President Seigle, in the office at the time, asked her to talk with him outside the plant, in his car, and there inquired why she was so upset. When she replied that it was because she had been fired, and believed it was because of the union notice, Seigle asked her what she knew about the union activities. McBroom told him that if she and others had been fired "to get rid of the Union," they had chosen the wrong ones, because others who had wanted the Union still remained. Seigle asked for additional names, and finally McBroom cited Jewel Burns and Clara Allred.' (As described more fully below, Burns and Allred were promptly discharged the next morning.) McBroom was not a union member, but her mother, father, and husband were or had been. Praytor had been a union member at the textile mill. About 2 weeks before the discharges both Praytor and McBroom openly expressed their sentiment in favor of union organization to Foreman Vada Westbrook.' Both received the union letter above described. As in the cases of Holditch, Holland, and McCulloch, the Trial Examiner con- cludes and finds that management knew, at the time of their discharges, of the union sympathies of Praytor and McBroom. Henry Jackson. Jackson was also discharged at noon, March 9. He was dismissed by Foreman Johnnie Young, of the felt hat department, who said that his checks had been sent out from the office, but that he did not know why, since Jackson was one of his best workers. Jackson then went to Mozley, superintendent of the department, who said that he did not know the reason, but that it was not because of his work. That afternoon Jackson interviewed Parrill, who also said he did not know why he was discharged.10 Jackson had been a union member and had participated in the strike at the local textile mill before being employed by the Respondent. He had received one of the union letters above described. As in the cases previously noted, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that management believed, at the time of Jackson's discharge, that he was sympathetic with organization of the Union. Floyd Allred. Allred, then working in the shipping department, was also discharged at noon, March 9. He was given his dismissal check by Emil Klein, who was head of the shipping department with headquarters in New York. Klein merely told Allred that he had been told to give him the check, but other- wise knew nothing about it. Later that afternoon, upon his further inquiry, Parrill told Allred that "somebody" had told him his work was unsatisfactory. Allred then went out to see Joe Pete Marsh, in charge of shipping locally. Marsh told him that his work had been satisfactory." Allred had been a union member at the textile plant. He was among others who received the union letter. As in the cases of other employees dismissed at the same time on March 9, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that manage- 8 Seigle admitted the incident , but said that he could not remember the names given him by McBroom , of "women that were stirring up things in the plant." Westbrook, conceded by the Respondent to be a member of its supervisory staff , admitted that this conversation had taken place. 10 Jackson's version of his dismissal interviews with Young, Mozley, and Parrill, upon which the findings rest, is undisputed. "Floyd Allred's testimony concerning his interviews , above described, was uncontra- dicted. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment believed Allred to be sympathetic toward organization of the Respondent's plant. Clara Allred and Jewell Burns. Allred and Burns were both discharged at about 10 o'clock the next morning, March 10; Allred by Mozley, and Burns by Keating. Mozley told Allred that her work had not been satisfactory since she had begun work there, in 1946. When she asked why Forelady Gray had never said anything about this, Mozley replied that "word had just come in from New York." Keating told Burns that although he "hated" to do it, he had to let her go, but assured her that it was not because of her work" As found above, Seigle had been informed, by McBroom during the afternoon before, of the,union interest of both Clara Allred and Burns. b. Events and evidence bearing upon the Respondent's contentions In general, Parrill claimed that these nine discharges, were ordered because of the poor quality-of hats being produced at the Corsicana plant. It is plain from his testimony, however, as well as that of other management officials, that poor quality was not only natural in a new hat factory, where local labor was not trained in this trade, but that poor quality has been since the plant's opening in 1946, and was at the time of the hearing, a matter of continuing concern to responsible officials. As President Seigle stated : ". . . the hats in Corsicana are very poor. Naturally, we are in training and you can't-make hats in a year or two years or three years...." Even at the time of the hearing, Seigle said, hats made at the Corsicana plant were still being sold "as seconds to the lower priced stores . . . so we can produce more here,and do more training." According, to Foreman Keating's testimony, it takes 5 years to develop skilled employees,in-his department. He said that he had heard'complaints by company officials from, 2 months after ,the plant opened in 1946 until the hearing, about every operation required to make a hat. He also said that although there was a large- turnover of labor due to many employees being unfitted to learn the skilled trade, it iwas the general .policy in his'department to transfer trainees, rather than,lay•them off. And Mozley, head of the felt department; tesified that he knew. of no,,discharges in his department during the preceding year because of inferior, work., Thus it is reasonable to infer from the Respondent' s witnesses, and it is.found, that special; circumstances, and not poor quality in general, were the,cause,of the discharges. , Nor was any credible evidence offered by the Respondent that the discharges were made in carrying out,a "plan for factory reorganization," as claimed in its, answer. If Parrill's testimony is to be believed, he and Bernstein, the cor- poration-secretary, had given orders.over an indeterminate period before March 9 for various, discharges, but. the superintendents and foremen all disobeyed these orders until Tuesday morning, March 9. Also, according to, his unsup- ported testimony, he, wasp told over the telephone on Friday, March,5, by David Miller, to, `close the, place t;down, to reorganize the place, and to start it from scratch." Parrill admitted, that, he failed to carry out Miller's orders. In a situation where, if Parrill is to be believed, foremen and superintendents dis- regarded,his- orders, as vice president, while he disobeyed orders of the owner of the business, the Trial Examiner Is able to detect none of the indicia of a "reorganization plan,' in the generally accepted meaning of the term. When pressed for his recollection as:,to the discharges, which he claimed -had been 32 The testimonyI of Clara 'Allred, and Burns as to their final interviews ', upon which the findings are based , was undenied by the respective supervisors. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC . 629 planned before March 9, Parrill finally admitted that on Monday, March 8, he had no idea of who was to be discharged, and that he had no conversation about firing anybody, on March 9, until after the union notice had been discovered. Thus the claim of a "reorganization plan" is clearly invalidated by the testimony of Parrill himself. Turning to the testimony given by Parrill and various supervisors as to reasons why specific discharges were effected on March 9 and 10, one is confronted by much confusion and inconsistency. As to the discharges in the felt hat department, Mozley testified concerning Holditch, Holland, McCulloch, Clara Allred, and Jackson. Concerning Holditch, hired in October 1946, Mozley said that he had been "planning on discharging her even from the time we was in the old building," which was in 1947, because she was a "very contentious person," with a "very bad temperament." He then said that sometime in January 1948, she called him a liar and he "made up his mind" to discharge her. He changed his mind, he said, because he heard from other employees that her husband had died. He then admitted that her husband did not die until February, some time after the incident which he claimed to be the cause of his decision. Mozley also claimed that her work "quality wasn't what I would call good." Holditch's. testimony, however,- is uncontradicted that just before her discharge, Sol Bernstein, the Respondent's secretary and Mozley's superior in charge of making felt hats, had inspected her work and had declared, "It's fine, and I think you are doing just fine." On cross-examination, Mozley admitted that he had "refrained from talk- ing" to her, "from the fall of '47 up to the time she was discharged." The in- consistency and contradictions in Mozley's testimony deprives it of credibility. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Holditch was not discharged for the reasons advanced by Mozley. Concerning Holland, hired in September 1947, Mozley said that he actually determined on Tuesday, March 9, to discharge her, although he had "decided" some time before then to do so, because she had "constantly had machine trouble." Mozley claimed that Bernstein told him to "replace" her. Bernstein was not a witness, and in view of Mozley's contradictory and inconsistent testimony in general, and in particular as to Holditch, noted above, the Trial Examiner can- not accept as trustworthy his unsupported testimony as to Bernstein's instruc- tions. Discredit upon his claim that "machine trouble" was the reason for her discharge is reflected in his admissions: (1) that he never questioned the validity of her complaints about the machine being out of order ; and (2) that she had re- ceived three separate increases in pay during the 6 months of her employment. Further doubt upon the accuracy of Mozley's testimony is cast by the fact that on direct examination he said he discussed Holland's discharge with Parrill, but on cross-examination denied that he had. On direct examination he said that Parrill insisted • that she be discharged ; on cross-examination he denied this claim. The Trial Examiner can place no reliance upon Mozley's vacillating testimony, and finds no merit in the reasons advanced by him for Holland's discharge. Concerning McCulloch and Clara Allred, who were hired in April 1947, and November 1946, respectively, and had worked as trimmers throughout their em- ployment, Mozley claimed that sometime before March 9 Bernstein had told him "several times" to replace these two girls and a third, who worked with them on the same operation, because of their poor work. According to Mozley, he "hated to let these people off," but was finally ordered on Tuesday, March 9, by Parrill to carry out Bernstein's instructions. McCulloch,, however, was the 844340--50-vol. 83-41 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD only one of this group to be discharged that day. No reasonable explanation was offered by him as to why he delayed discharge of Allred until March, 10., , He admitted that both McCulloch and Allred were "doing all. right" and; that he wanted to keep them both. He also testified that both McCulloch ;and Allred were better workers than the third girl on the operation, who was not discharged, then or later. .Thus Mozley's own testimony reveals the impotency, of the,reasons claimed by the Respondent to have brought about the discharge of McCulloch and Allred. To urge that better quality work is to be obtained from a unit of three girls by discharging the two who are already doing good work, and by retaining the new and inexperienced individual, is to urge the absurd and ridiculous. It is found that McCulloch and Clara Allred were not discharged for the reasons claimed by the Respondent. Concerning Jackson, hired soon after the,plant opened, in 1946, Mozley claimed that he ordered the discharge, because "sometime around the first of the year in January" Foreman Young had told him "he had had some words with Jackson at different times." Later in his testimony Mozley added that "shortly" before the discharge Young had complained about "something" regarding Jackson's work but he did not "remember exactly." Young was not called as a witness. Jack- son's testimony is unrefuted that when Young gave him his check the foreman said that he did not know of any reason why one of his best workers -should be discharged. As found above, Mozley's unsupported testimony is unreliable. In this case, his testimony is not only without support but so vague as to be per- suasive only of the fact that there is no merit in his claims as to why Jackson was dismissed. Praytor and McBroona. Superintendent Marchand and Foreman Keating advanced various conflicting reasons why Praytor and McBroom, previously identified as mother and daughter, were fired. Unsatisfactory work by McBroom was urged as one reason. According to Keating, although McBroom had done satisfactory work since the opening of the department in 1946, "all of a sudden" her "quality wasn't there at all," and during a visit to the plant in February I. A. Miller told him to fire her. Miller himself was not a witness. Having observed Keating's demeanor as a witness and noting the unreliability of his testimony generally, the Trial Examiner is unable to accept the, foreman' s state- ment as true that Miller had advised him to fire McBroom. Had the owner of the business actually given such instruction to a foreman, it is reasonable to believe that the foreman would have obeyed, without delay and without question. Furthermore, Keating's claim of the "sudden" failure of McBroom's "quality" is made impotent by his further testimony, supported by that of Marchand, that both of them protested vigorously against Parrill's orders to discharge the two employees, given on March 9, because they did not want to "lose" either of them, since each had showed promise of doing good, work. Marchand admitted that McBroom's "operation" required particular "aptitude and skill," and that she possessed such aptitude, while Keating admitted that while he was away from the plant for a period of 2 weeks, he had left McBroom with the responsibility of "keeping the work moving." The Trial Examiner must reject as incredible the contention that McBroom was -discharged because of poor quality work. Equally incredible is the reason advanced for dismissing Praytor, an alleged company policy against employing "relations." Both mother and daughter were among the employees hired in 1946; their relationship had long been a matter of knowledge 'to management., Praytor's testimony is undisputed that similar "relationships" were retained at the time she was discharged, and Keating admitted as a witness that a mother and son were still employed in his depart- TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 631 ment. Whatever the rule or policy, or whatever its merit, if invoked it was called into play discriminatorily. Under the circumstances, however, the Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that "relationship" to her daughter was not the real reason for Praytor's discharge's Jewel Burns. As to the discharge of Burns, also one of the Respondent's oldest employees in point of service and training, Keating and Marchand ad- vanced mutually inconsistent reasons. According to Keating, at that time they were changing, from hand to machine, the method of performing the operation Burns was on, and he did not believe Burns could properly handle the machine. Marchand, however, claimed that Burns was let go on Wednesday because, after the discharge of Praytor and McBroom, who worked in the "trimming line" ahead of her, there was not enough work for Burns to do. The Trial Examiner cannot accept, as credible, Keating's unsupported claim that Burns could not operate a machine properly. Even if her inability had been a fact, however, her sudden discharge was in violation of what he claimed to be his own policy in the depart- ment, of transferring employees instead of discharging them. Equally in- credible is the claim of lack of work as a reason for her discharge. The Respon- dent does not contend, nor was any evidence offered to show, that the operations performed by Praytor and McBroom were being permanently abandoned. What- ever the degree of drop in production in the trimming line, caused by their dis- charge, it was clearly intended to be no more than temporary. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the reasons urged by the Respondent for Burns' dismissal are wholly without merit. Floyd E. Allred. Parrill testified that it was his decision to discharge this employee, and that he determined upon it because Klein, sometime before March 9, had told him that "Allred was a young fellow, he didn't much care, he wasn't too much interested, he didn't work too much . . ." Klein was not called as a witness, and Allred's testimony is uncontradicted that when giving him his dis- charge check Klein told him he knew nothing about it. Parrill's testimony generally was so contradictory, garrulous, and evasive as to make it impossible for the Trial Examiner to find, on the basis of his unsupported claim, either: (1) that Klein in fact told him Allred was unsatisfactory, or (2) that Allred actually did poor work." The lack of reason in Parrill's claim is made apparent by the following quotation from his testimony, on cross-examination : Q. Knowing of his poor work, you offered him reemployment about three weeks later? A. Yes, definitely so. 'a Equally fallacious and lacking in merit is the claim that Praytor was discharged because, according to Marchand , "I believe I agreed with Mr. Parrill that Mrs. Praytor would never be happy after the discharge of her daughter ." It is, undisputed that when Keating discharged Praytor at noon on March 9, giving her as an ecuse the "relationship" policy, Praytor urged that she be retained and her daughter be let go , if necessary, because her own husband was a disabled veteran. I* The following additional examples of inconsistency within Parrill 's testimony are cited. On cross-examination : Q. Is it not true that you made the discharges to quell the friction? A. No, it is definitely not true. Those discharges were decided, the changes were decided on the week prior. Parrill was then confronted with a previously made affidavit , in which he had stated, in part: In an effort to restore the plant to normalcy . . . I then decided to discharge these employees .. . He admitted that the statement made in the affidavit was true,-although in direct contradiction of his testimony. On numerous occasions it was necessary for counsel to 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Trial Examiner finds no merit in the reason offered by Parrill for his dis- charge of Allred. c. Conclusions as to the discharges It has been found, in the section next above, that there is no merit to any of the several reasons advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of the nine employees on March 9 and 10. The Trial Examiner therefore concludes and finds that the real motive for the Respondent's action, in discharging these employees, was the same as that which prompted Parrill to engage in other illegal conduct the same days,-the desire to discourage self-organization of the employees, in general, and mem- bership in the Union in particular. Discriminatory discharges, effected for this illegal purpose, interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to employees by Section 7 of the Act. d. Reemployment of certain discharged employees On March 13 Seigle was orally notified by a union representative that charges would be filed with the Board against the company because of the March 9-10 discharges. On March 24 a charge was filed, naming the nine employees whose discharges have been described above. The respondent received a copy of the charge on March 25 or 26. On March 18 and 19 Holditch and Holland, respectively, wrote to the Respond- ent, asking for written statements as to why they had been dismissed. On March 25 Parrill sent them letters, each reading as follows : We are in receipt of your letter requesting the reason for your discharge. We wish to restate that the cause of this was a production problem and a re-working'of our production set up. We should be very happy to discuss this with you further if you care to call upon us. There is no evidence that either Holditch or Holland returned to the plant for further oral discussion. The Respondent has not offered reinstatement to Holditch, Holland, or Praytor.^ On October 27, 1948, during the hearing, Jackson was offered, and declined, an unconditional offer of reemployment by the Respondent. On March 29 Parrill sent identical letters to Floyd Allred, Burns, and McCulloch, in which he said, in part : At the present time we have a position open that we feel you may be quali- fied to fill. request more definite answer than the following, given by Parrill in reply to a question as to whether or not there was an anti-union element in the plant : I don't know. I don't know. I know there was a great deal of dissention one way and the other. That was what I sensed ; I surmised it was ; there was a good indication of it. Again, as to dissention and discussion , Parrill said : Well, I must have been in the factory and noticed it and maybe it was reported that. . . . 13 The- Respondent claimed , at the hearing, that 'It' had offered unconditional reinstate- ment to these three employees, during settlement negotiations before the hearing. Proof adduced, however, establishes that no offer was made directly to the employees concerned, and that only a condittonal offer was made to the Union. As counsel for the Respondent stated : "the Union was to do certain things." The proposed settlement-was not approved by the Regional Director and never passed negotiation stages. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 633 , McCulloch returned to work on March 30, at the same pay, but in another department. At the hearing she stated that there was "not too much difference" in the two jobs. It is found that McCulloch was reinstated to a substantially equivalent position on March 30. Clara Allred was reemployed on March 31, by Mozley, but at another job. Although she was reinstated at the same hourly wage, instead of continuing at the skilled work in her former department, she was assigned to making boxes, which she described as being harder and more disagreeable. Furthermore, although the evidence on the point is not conclusive, it appears that since her discharge from the trimming department, other girls there have received an increase in pay. It is found that Clara Allred has not been reinstated to a sub- stantially equivalent position. Upon reporting to the plant in response to the above-described letter, Floyd Allred was offered a job in the box making department, instead of returning to his former job in the shipping department. On or about April 1, Allred in- formed Parrill that he had decided not to take the position in the box depart- ment, but would continue at Junior College, where he would have a future. It appears that Allred's wages would have been the same, had he accepted the proffered job.'' Before his discharge Allred had worked in the shipping de- partment, packing hats and loading packages upon trucks. Although not free of doubt, there is no convincing evidence that he declined the new job for any reason other than that he preferred to remain in school, or that there was any substantial difference between the unskilled jobs in the shipping and the box- making departments. Under the circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that on April 1, 1948, Allred declined an offer of reinstatement to a substantially equivalent position. On or about April 1, Burns was reemployed, at another job, but one which she stated was "about the same" as that from which she had been discharged. It is found that on that date she accepted substantially equivalent employment. On or about April 15, McBroom was reemployed, although in another depart- ment than that from which she was discharged. Since she stated at the hearing that she does not wish to be reinstated to her previous job, it is found that on April 15 she received substantially equivalent employment. In summary, it is found : (1) that the following named employees accepted on the dates indicated substantially equivalent employment offered by the Re- spondent: Aline McCulloch--------------------------------- March 30, 1948 Jewel Burns-------------------------------------- April 1, 1948 Laura McBroom---------------------------------- April 15, 1948 (2) that the following named accepted, on the date indicated, reemployment by the Respondent but not reinstatement to substantially equivalent positions : Clara Allred_____________________________________ March 31,1948 (3) that the following named were offered, but declined,, on the dates indicated, reinstatement to substantially equivalent position : Henry Jackson--------------------------------- October 27, 1948 Floyd Allred-------------------------------------- April 1, 1948 "At the time of his discharge , Allred was receiving 75 cents an hour ; the standard starting wage for men in the plant. 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and (4 ) that the Respondent has not offered unconditional reinstatement to the following : Lula Holditch Hurma Holland Cora Praytor. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states, and, to the extent that they have been found to be unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged each of the nine employees named in the complaint, but that it thereafter offered sub- stantially equivalent reinstatement to certain of them, as described fully in Section III-B-3-d above, It will be recommended that the Respondent offer the following named employees : Lula Holditch Cora Praytor Hurma Holland Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make each of the nine named employees whole for any loss of pay he or she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination, by payment to each of them a sum of money equivalent to that which he or she would have earned as wages from the date of the termination to the date of the offer of rein- statement to the same or substantially equivalent position, less his or her net earnings during said period. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and up the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following : OONOLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment of : Lula Holditch "Aline McCulloch Hurma L. Holland Cora Praytor Laura J. McBroom Floyd E Allred Henry E. Jackson Clara Allred Jewel Burns thereby discouraging membership in labor organizations in general and United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union in particular, the Re- TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 635 spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor parctices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Texas Miller Products, Inc., Corsicana, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers International Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by in any manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) Interrogating employees in any manner as to their union activities, views, sympathies or membership ; (c) Spying upon meetings of its employees held for the purpose of forming labor organizations; (d) Threatening closing of its plant in the event its employees form or join a union ; (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist United Hatters Cap and Millinery Workers Interna- tional Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Lulu Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, and Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ; (b) Make whole Lula Holditch, Hurma Holland, Cora Praytor, Clara Allred, Henry Jackson, Floyd Allred, Aline McCulloch, Jewel Burns, and Laura McBroom for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him or her by payment to him or her of a sum of money equal to the amount each would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him or her to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement to a former or substantially equivalent position, less his or her net earnings during such period ; (c) Post at its plant in Corsicana, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector for the Sixteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representatives, be posted by it, and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing within ten (10 ) days from the date of the receipt of Intermediate Report and Recom- mended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may, within twenty ( 20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board , Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections ) as he relies upon together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period , file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Im- mediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the por- tions of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced . Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , recommendations , and rec- ommended order herein contained shall , as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con- clusions, and order, and objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses. Dated at Washington, D. C., this 28th day of December, 1948. C. W. WHITTEMORE, Trial Examiner. APPENDIX NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discharge any employee because of his membership in or activity on behalf of UNITED HATrERS CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL UNION, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner as to their union activities, views, sympathies, or membership. WE WILL NOT spy upon meetings of our employees held for the purpose of forming labor organizations. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC. 637 WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if our employees join or form a labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named union or any other. labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL OFFER to Lula Holditch, Cora Praytor, Hurma Holland, and Clara Allred immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them and Laura J. McBroom, Henry E. Jackson, Jewel Burns, Aline McCulloch, and Floyd E. Allred whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above- named union or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf Of UNITED HATTERS CAP AND MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, or any other labor organization. TEXAS MILLER PRODUCTS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------------ By---------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.