Magee Carpet Co.

In the Matter Of MAGEE CARPET COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 4-CA-178.=Decided August 31, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER On May 11, 1950, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent also requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record and the exceptions and brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Rey- nolds, and Murdock]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications : 1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating various of its employees as to whether they were solicited by Crabtree and Newhart to join the Union 2 In excepting to this finding of the Trial Examiner the i Contrary to the Respondent's contention , we find nothing in the record or in the Inter- mediate Report reflecting bias or prejudice by the Trial Examiner in either the conduct of the hearing or in his findings , conclusions , or recommendations . Accordingly , we deny the Respondent's motion for the reopening of this case and for the designation of a new Trial Examiner. 2 The record does not show and we do not rely on the Trial Examiner 's finding that these employees were asked whether they had become members of the Union. 91 NLRB 17. 103 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent seeks to justify these interrogations on the ground that they were legitimately carried out as part of the Respondent's in- vestigations to determine whether Crabtree and Newhart had breached. the company no-solicitation rule. We find no merit to this contention for, apart from any legal question of privilege, the record conclusively demonstrates, and we find, that Crabtree and Newhart were discharged. for their union sympathies and activities and not for violation of a, company rule, and that the Respondent- did not interrogate its-em- ployees in pursuance of a bona, fide investigation.3 The interrogation of its employees by the Respondent concerning attempts to have them: join the Union was therefore unwarranted and per se violative of Section 8 (a) (1) .of the Act.4 Similarly, we find that the interroga- tion of Crabtree and Newhart by various of Respondent's officials and supervisors concerning their union views and activities, as de-. tailed in the Intermediate Report, constituted independent violations. of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Trial Examiner further properly found that statements by President Magee to Crabtree contained threats of reprisal, were in- timidating, and coercive. We accordingly, find that the following. remarks made by Magee to Crabtree constituted additional violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act: . (a) Magee's statement that he would never allow anyone who be- lieves in CIO to work in his mill; that he would shut down the mill before he would let any union, AFL, CIO, or even TWA,5 tell him how to run the mill, and that he was in a position to do so because he was his own board of directors and controlled over 90 percent of the stock; (b) Magee's ultimatum to Crabtree to change his mind before the following Monday morning about working in behalf of the, CIO under penalty of discharge for failure to comply with this condition. The Remedy The Respondent has excepted- to the-br-oad,, cease and desist order recommended by the Trial Examiner and asserts,'without abandoning its opposition to the Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) findings, . that the order should be limited to the particular violations found. It is our opinion, however,. that the unfair labor practices found herein reveal a hostile attempt by the Respondent to defeat the attempts by its It is noted in this connection that employee Coombe, produced as Respondent 's witness, testified that he was interrogated by Foreman Lunger concerning his solicitation by Crab- tree one day subsequent to Crabtree 's discharge. ' Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358. s This reference is to the Textile Workers Alliance of the Magee Carpet Company, an unaffiliated union which for several years has been recognized by the Respondent as the bargaining representative of its employees. MAGEE, CARPET COMPANY 105 employees at self-organization and a fixed attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act. We find therefore, as did the Trial Examiner, that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be anti- cipated from the Respondent's past conduct. The preventive pur- poses of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the interde- pendent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall order that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. As recommended by the Trial Examiner, we shall order the Re- spondent to offer Lewis Crabtree and Robert E. Newhart reinstate- ment with back pay from the dates of their discharges. Since the issuance of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, however, the Board has adopted a method of computing back pay different from that recommended by the Trial Examiner.6. Consistent with the new .Board policy, we shall order that the loss of pay be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the Respondent's discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum equal to that which these employees normally would have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings,' if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one par- ticular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. We shall also order the Respondent to make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due." ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. 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 this unlawful discrimination and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 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. B F. W. Woolworth Company, supra. 106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board hereby orders that Magee Carpet Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- charging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discrimi- nating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment; (b) Enforcing its rule against solicitation, or any other plant rule, in such manner as to discriminate against its employees because of their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies; (c) Interrogating its employees in any manner concerning their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or threatening them with discharge or other economic reprisal because of their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies; (d) Threatening employees that it will close its plant, or taking other economic reprisals against its employees if they join Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, or if a majority of its employees select a new labor organization to represent them in collective bargaining; (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile. Workers Union of Amer- ica, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or 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 con- dition 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 Lewis Crabtree and Robert E: Newhart immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges; (b) Make whole Lewis Crabtree and Robert E. Newhart in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina- tion against them ; (c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other MAGEE CARPET COMPANY 107 records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order; (d) Post at its plant in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it 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 by any other material; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NoTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to aDecision 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 WILL NOT discourage membership in TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner with regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT apply or enforce our rule against solicitation, or any other plant rule, in.a manner so as to discriminate against our employees 'because .of their union. affiliation, activities, or sympathies. WE WILL No-r interrogate our employees in any manner con- cerning their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or threaten them with discharge or other economic reprisal because of their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT threaten employees that we will close our plant or take other economic reprisals against our employees if they join TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, or if a majority of our employees select a new labor organization to represent them in collective bargaining. 9In the event this Order is enforced by a Decree of the 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." 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,' CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose. of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a, condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below 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 them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination : Lewis Crabtree Robert E. Newhart All our employees are free to become or remain members of the afore-mentioned union, or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employees because of member- ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. THE MAGEE CARPET COMPANY, Employer. By ----------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER John H. Garver, Esq., for the General Counsel. Frank F. Truscott, Esq., 929 Land Title Building, Philadelphia, Pa., and John F. Dumont, Esq., Stanton Building, Little Falls, N. J., for the Respondent. • Charles Sobol, 203 East Northampton Street, and Alban P. Lamer and Samuel J. Fiore, Esq., 3 South Washington Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for the Union. • Joseph M. McNerney, Esq., 331 Pine Street, Williamsport, Pa., and H. E. Bailey, Esq., First National Bank Building, Bloomsburg, Pa., for the Intervenor. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge filed on February 3, 1949, by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called CIO or the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, called herein respectively the General Counsel MAGEE CARPET COMPANY 109 and the Board, by the Acting Regional Director of the Fourth Region (Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania),. on August 30, 1949, ` issued a complaint against the Magee Carpet Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Re- spondent 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 Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the Act. Copies of the complaint, the amended charge upon which it was based, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the Respondent .ind the union. With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance: (1) That since on.or about January 24, 1949, to the date of the complaint the Respondent, by certain named officers, agents, and employees in violation of :Section S (a) (1) of the Act, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by: (a) threatening and warning its employees to refrain from assisting, supporting, becoming members of or remaining members of the Union; (b) interrogating its employees concerning their affiliations with and interests in the Union; and (2) that in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, the Respondent dlischarged Lewis Crabtree on or about January 30, 1949, and Robert E. Newbart on or about February 1, 1949, and has since refused and failed to reinstate them, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in the Union. In its answer the Respondent n dmitted certain allegations of, the.complaint but: denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, on No- vember 29, 30, and December 1, T949; and from January 31 to February 3, 1950, inclusive, before W. Gerard Ryan, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. During the hearing, as a matter of dis- cretion, I granted the motion of the Textile Workers Alliance of The Magee Carpet Company to intervene as a party but limited participation to such matters as may affect the rights of the Intervenor.' All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues . At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, after argument by the Respondent in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint, I denied the motion. At the conclusion of the testimony, the parties were af- forded opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law. The General Counsel and the Respondent argued orally on the record. The Respondent moved for dismissal of the complaint for failure of proof. That motion is now denied. The General Counsel 'did not file a brief. A brief has been received from the Respondent.2 . 1 At the hearing the General Counsel introduced testimony concerning the conduct of the elections whereby officials of the Textile Workers Association were elected . At -that point, as a matter of discretion , I granted the motion made by counsel for the association to intervene. Intervention was limited solely to the protection of'the rights of the Intervenor with respect to the situation involving the conduct of such elections . Thereafter, towards the close of the hearing , I granted the motion by the General Counsel that such questions and testimony be stricken . Later, when the Intervenor by an offer of proof sought to introduce evidence regarding the steps taken by the Intervenor under its grievance pro- cedure purportedly on behalf of the dischargees, I rejected the offer of proof, stating that in my opinion the present state of the record did not require any, participation by the Intervenor. 2 The time for filing Respondent 's brief was duly, extended until March 20, 1950. 110 c DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 3 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation and at all times material herein has continuously engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of carpets, rugs, and yarns, at its plant in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, where it maintains its principal office and place of business. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, uses raw materials, consisting principally of wool, cotton, and jute, valued at in excess of $10,000,000 annually, of which it causes and has continuously caused in excess of 75 percent annually to be purchased, delivered, and transported in interstate commerce from and through States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to its Bloomsburg plant, and has manufactured, sold, and distributed finished products valued at in excess of $18,000,000, of which it causes and has. continuously caused in excess of 75 percent annually to be supplied, delivered, and transported in interstate com- merce to and through States of the United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from its Bloomsburg plant. The Respondent admits and I find that at all times material herein it has been and still is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction In the Respondent's entire plant approximately 1,700 employees are employed, exclusive of office help. In January 1949, approximately 118 weavers were employed. For several years the Respondent has had a contract with Textile Workers Alliance of The Magee Carpet Company to which approximately 1,400 employees belong. The record refers to that association at times as Alliance and at times as TWA. The supervisory personnel consisted of Harry L. Magee, president ; James Law, vice president, and general manager ; John Lyle, superintendent ; Harold (Speb) Lunger, foreman on first shift and also foreman of the entire Axminister weave department; James Lowell, foreman on the second shift. In addition, there were approximately 15 subforemen (including Margita and Basil Cotner) who are loom fixers, assigned throughout the weave department on the basis of 1 loom fixer for every 8 or 9 looms. While there had been some talk about the Union for a few months prior to the events herein there is no evidence in the record as to any other union activities with respect to Respondent's plant except the activities of Lewis Crabtree and Robert E. Newhart who were summarily discharged for soliciting memberships for the Union. 2 In making the findings herein, I have considered and weighed the entire evidence. It would needlessly burden this Report to set up all the testimony on disputed points. Such testimony or other evidence as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited. MAGEE CARPET COMPANY 111 B. The discriminatory discharges of Lewis Crabtree and Robert E. Newhart 1. Lewis Crabtree Lewis Crabtree was continuously employed by the Respondent as a weaver in the Axminister rug department from early 1941 until the date of his discharge on January 30, 1949; excepting the period of his military service from June 1942 until January 1946. His foreman was Harold F. Lunger and John Lyle was superintendent. Crabtree worked on the first day shift from 7 a. M. to 3p.m. During the week preceding his discharge, he had in his possession application cards for membership in the Union, which he distributed on Tuesday, Wednes- day, Thursday, and Friday of that week to fellow employees in the mill. To some, he gave cards who came to him at his loom ; during the smoking period from 12 noon to 12: 15 p. in. he "talked union" and gave out cards to those who asked for them ; he talked to his fellow employees and gave cards to whomever he was talking to at the moment. As Crabtree stated, "if my loom was broken down, I would go around while I was looking for the fixer or waiting for my loom to be repaired and the fellows would sign the cards." On Friday, January 28, 1949, about 10•:30 or 11 a. in. Basil Cotner, subfore- man and loom fixer (concededly a supervisor), reported to Foreman Lunger that Crabtree was soliciting and leaving his loom during working hours and that he also had some cards in his hand. Lunger specifically testified that Cotner did not tell him that Crabtree was soliciting for the CIO, but Lunger "imagined" it was for the CIO, for there had been talk of CIO for several months. After lunch, Lunger went upstairs to Superintendent Lyle and told him that Cotner had reported that Crabtree was soliciting during working hours and leaving his loom. 'Lyle testified that he asked Lunger for what union Crabtree was soliciting and Lunger replied that Cotner told him it was for the CIO. Lyle then asked Lunger if be had seen it and when Lunger admitted he had not seen it, Lyle instructed Lunger to return downstairs and keep his eyes open. Although Lunger did keep his eyes open for the rest of the afternoon he saw nothing and nothing happened, except that he did see Crabtree speak to employee Robert E. Newhart at the time the shift changed at 3 p. in. when Crabtree was leaving work and Newbart was coming in to begin work on the second day shift, 3 to 11 p. in. The record does not disclose what Newhart and Crabtree said to each other. During that same afternoon, Harry L. Magee, president of the Respondent, telephoned to Lyle to inquire if Crabtree worked for him and what shift he was on. Lyle replied that Crabtree worked on the day shift and Magee then requested Lyle to bring Crabtree to Magee's office so that Magee could talk to him. At 6 p. in. that same day, Crabtree was interrupted while eating his supper by a telephone call from Lyle who said that Magee would like to see Crabtree at Magee's home immediately. Crabtree protested he was still in his working clothes and wanted time to clean up and change." Lyle replied that was not necessary as he too was in his working clothes. But Crabtree observed to Lyle that Lyle's working clothes constituted a suit of clothing, a shirt and tie, while Crabtree was dirty and would like time to change his clothes. So it was agreed that Lyle would call by in his automobile within 20 or 30 minutes. Within Crabtree had never before been to Magee's home. 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that time, Lyle came for Crabtree and they drove in Lyle's automobile to Magee's office across from his home.' Upon arrival at Magee's office, Magee was not there so Lyle left Crabtree in the office and went out to locate Magee. Lyle found Magee at supper with his family and Magee informed him that he would be there in a minute. When Magee joined Lyle, Lyle inquired "What's this all about?". Magee-said "I heard this fellow was doing some soliciting during working hours and he has been breaking our company rules. I want to ask him. I want to give him a chance to say he did or didn't." Lyle then pointed out to Magee that the personnel man was out of town and suggested that Magee should wait but Magee replied that he would not. Then Lyle said, "What about our General Manager, he ought to be here, then?" Magee replied, "No, he is at a hospital board meeting; we couldn't touch him tonight. I think we will be all right for what I have to say to him." Thereupon Magee and Lyle entered the office and Lyle introduced Crab- tree to Magee. Crabtree was told to be seated behind the desk. Magee took up a position in the corner of the room, looked at Crabtree, and said, If what I am about to say is not true, I will apologize, however, if it is, I am going to lay my cards on the table. I understand that this afternoon on the plant you went down aisle offering the workers an opportunity to sign up for the CIO. Crabtree replied, "That's right, sir." Magee continued : Well, since that's the case, I will tell you this : I will never allow anyone to work in my mill who believes in CIO ; but before I would let any union, A1'L, CIO, or even TWA tell me how to run my plant, I'd shut it down. If you and. the rest of the men in my mill who have signed cards continue on with what you are doing, I'll shut the mill down. And I am in a position to do so. Magee continued to state that he was his own board of directors, controlled over 90 percent of the stock and could do it and asked Crabtree what would the town of Bloomsburg be without The Magee Carpet Company. Magee then told Crab- tree that he would give him until 7 or 7: 15 o'clock Monday morning to change his (Crabtree's) mind; that if Crabtree decided to give up working for CIO he could continue working but if not, he-would be fired. Magee told Crabtree that he wanted to set him straight and that Magee would never allow him or any other bastard in the mill who had signed a union card to work in the mill and that Crabtree would tell that to that bastard at the Hotel Magee.' According to Crabtree, Magee then said that before he would let him work in his mill, feeling the way Crabtree did at that time, he would rather shoot him.' Magee informed Crabtree that the CIO was the next thing to communism ; that he could not understand why any of his workers would be interested in having a CIO union when be, down through the years, had been giving them everything that he pos- Magee's residence is several blocks distant from the mill . In addition to an office in the mill , Magee has an office in one part of his garage across the street from his home. ° Walter Ellis, international representative of the Union, was then staying at the Hotel Magee. ' Lyle, who was present at the conversation, testified that Magee said, "Before I'd allow anybody to come here and undermine my organization , I'd shoot the works first, because these men have already said what they wanted , and I am going to stand by the men." Lyle said that Magee had reference to the organization representing the men in the plant known as the Textile Workers Alliance. MAGEEI CARPET COMPANY 113 sibly could; that he did not see where they would benefit any-that with the setup that they at the present time, they were only paying the maximum of $3 per year for dues and with the CIO they would be compelled to pay $4 per month. Crabtree took issue with Magee on the amount of dues, stating the CIO clues were $2 per months Then Magee turned and said to Lyle, who had not until then participated in the conversation, "Take him home. My instructions to you are that if between 7 and 7: 15 Monday morning, he feels the same then as he does now, take the bastards through payroll and get him out of the mill. He will never work in The Magee Carpet Mill again as long as he lives.10 Upon terminations of the conversation, Lyle drove Crabtree home. During the ride, Lyle remarked to Crabtree that it was a shame that a fellow with Crabtree's intelligence, with a wife and a child, and who was also buying a home should become involved in something like this and that he,could not understand it. - Lyle continued that he could not see where having an outside union would benefit them in any way to which Crabtree replied that it was a debatable ques- tion and that he felt he could show Lyle proof that wages and working conditions could be improved. In parting, Lyle said, "Well, Lewis, I am sorry this had to happen, but, think of the offer and come back to work Monday morning and behave yourself." " On the second day following the above events, Sunday, January 30, Homan, the personnel director of the Respondent telephoned to Lyle about noontime that there was an advisory board meeting at Magee's office and they wanted Lyle to be present at 4: 30 o'clock that afternoon. Lyle arrived at the meeting at approximately 6 p. in. Those present constituting the advisory board or com- mittee were Magee, president ; James Law, vice president ; Frank Groat, designist ; Norman Hoffman, plant engineer ; Ralph Homan, personnel director ; and Leonam d Bason, assistant personnel director.12 8 Lyle testified that this talk regarding the dues was as follows : Magee : Your dues are $3 a year, and you are going to pay $4 per month. Crabtree : $2. Magee : $4. Crabtree : $2. 9 Magee denied he used profanity (luring the conversation with Crabtree or that he threat- ened to shoot Crabtree. I find it unnecessary to make any finding whether he used pro- fanity or not , since it is immaterial in view of the entire record . I do find , however, that Magee did not threaten to shoot Crabtree. I believe Lyle's version that Magee said he "would shoot the works " to be the correct one and that Crabtree misunderstood what actually had been said on that point. 10 Lyle testified that Magee said to Lyle : "John, I am going to give you an order. You are going to take this man, if he hasn 't changed his mind on soliciting by 7 o 'clock on Monday morning, you are to take his button off him and you are to give him a discharge slip. He will be no longer an employee of The Magee Carpet Company ." Lyle testified further that Magee concluded the meeting by saying "(that is all I have to say to you, and good night, Lewis, I'm sorry ; and you have until 7 o'clock on Monday morning to change your mind whether you are going to solicit any more or not." 11 Lyle testified that during the ride home he inquired from Crabtree what it was that "brought it all on" and further reminded Crabtree that he had until 7 o'clock Monday morning to decide "whether you are going to solicit any more." Then Lyle chided Crab- tree for not discussing this with Crabtree's wife saying "That's the trouble with you fellows-you don't have enough confidence in the intelligence of your wives , and you don't give them a chance to help you out " adding "maybe that situation lots of times would not be what they are." 11 Lyle was not a member of the advisory committee . The only other meeting of the committee he had ever attended was one several years before which pertained to the purchase of machinery. 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lyle testified as to the events of the meeting: We were talking basketball, and I sat there quite a while, and finally we got to discussing the discharge of Lewis Crabtree, whether he should or should not be discharged right away, because he definitely broke a mill policy, and owing to the fact that Mr. Magee, our President, had given hvm until seven o'clock Monday morning to change his mind as to whether he was going to continue soliciting any more or not, which took quite a while to decide that. And finally the Advisory Board decided that they'd take it out of Mr. Magee's hands and act accordingly to what we term our "Mill Policy", pertaining to people leaving their work during working hours, leaving their machinery, or whatever the line of duty is. Then they decided, then, that they should give Lewis his discharge slip, and that's it." (Em- phasis supplied.) After the decision to discharge Crabtree without further delay had been arrived at, Law then inquired from Lyle what had been his procedure in giving discharge slips and Lyle replied that he would have Lunger, the foreman, deliver it to Crabtree since the foreman always gives discharge slips, if any had to be given, or notice for bad work or reprimands. At this point in the record, Lyle testified in answer to a question by General Counsel inquiring what is meant by the term "company policy" that when a man gets out of his line of duty, it is then a question whether he has obeyed company policy ; and that "company policy" also includes such matters as bad work, leaving machinery, absenteeism, going from one department to another without permission, or going home when ill, instead of reporting to the dispensary first. Lyle further testified concerning the established regular procedure to be followed in cases where employees are discharged. Lyle stated that an employee gets several notices, warning him that if his type of work continues it will warrant a reprimand, which he gives to almost every man before discharge and that in 95 percent of the cases Lyle looks at the work personally to see whether or not discharge is warranted. Lyle has been superintendent for 20 years and there has been an advisory committee for the past 5 or 10 years and, to his memory, there has been only one case where an employee was discharged by the order of anyone superior to Lyle and that happened in 1945 while Lyle was ill in the hospital when the personnel director issued a discharge slip to an employee for striking another employee. Following the decision to discharge Crabtree, a discharge slip was typed out and because it was Sunday, the date inserted was for Saturday, January 29. Lunger was summoned to Magee's office and directed to deliver the discharge notice to Crabtree." Lunger tried unsuccessfully to reach Crabtree by telephone and then drove with Lyle to Crabtree's home, where, at 10 o'clock, that Sunday evening, Lunger handed to Crabtree the discharge slip with the reason thereon stated to be : Union activities for a nonrecognized union during his working hours In his testimony, Magee admitted that he told Lyle to bring Crabtree to his office and that after they arrived at approximately 6: 45 p. in. the first question he asked Crabtree- was "was he soliciting for the CIO on company time when "Lyle told Lunger that there had been a meeting of the advisory group with President Magee and it had been'decided to discharge Lewis Crabtree for soliciting membership in the CIO during working hours. MAGEE, CARPET COMPANY 115 he knew it was against the mill policy?" When Crabtree promptly answered that he did, Magee questioned him : Now, maybe you don't know what I am trying to inquire of you. I asked you whether you were soliciting, knowing that it was a company rule that you were breaking and that you were soliciting for the CIO? Crabtree replied that he was well aware of the original question and answered in the affirmative. Magee was then asked on direct examination by his counsel : Q. Did you say to Mr. Crabtree that during the course of this conversation that you had with him-again referring to Friday, January 28, 1949,-that you would never allow anyone to work in your mill who believes in CIO? Magee replied : A. I think that the answer to that question might be given that possibly it's been misinterpreted up to the present time. I told Lewis. Crabtree at the time that I was against the CIO and I was against any other outside union because of the fact that we had the Textile Workers Alliance of The Magee Carpet Company, which is an independent union ; and that while I wasn't particularly gunning for the CIO itself, I was against any union, be it CIO, or AFL., and I don't believe that f particularly stressed that I disliked the CIO or the AFL-although it is actually a fact that I do, and I make no bones about it. But I brought out the fact that it didn't make much difference to me whether Lewis Crabtree or any other employee was soliciting at the mill, regardless of whether it was for a union activity or any charity, that it was against the mill policy and the mill rule, and that it was for that reason he was being given an opportunity to reconsider as to whether or not he was interested in bringing in another bargaining agent which I thought he was attempting to do at the time and from the informa- tion that I had been given. Magee, it should be noted, denied that Lyle attended the meeting Sunday evening of the advisory board or committee. Magee testified "I did not mention Mr. Lyle's name because he was not there. Mr. Lyle was in an outer office at the time and was not brought in." Magee in his testimony stated that the matter of Lewis Crabtree was discussed at length at the meeting. In this respect he stated : We discussed it at length, and from all angles and what was best for not only the company, for the breaking of its rules, but also as to whether or not it was advisable to permit a condition to continue which at that time we all concluded was more or less of an incident incited by Crabtree ; and as a result of that conclusion Crabtree's dismissal was authorized. And Mr. Homan was further authorized to carry it out and see that it was executed. On cross-examination, Magee denied that he used any profanity that Friday night during his conversation with Crabtree. Magee was then asked what was the incident to which he had referred as being incited by Crabtree, which the advisory committee considered warranting his discharge . Magee replied: A. If I tell, you will throw, it out of the testimony. It was propaganda by the CIO. Q. Is that the incident? 917372-31=vol. 91-9 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. That's the incident. No further light as to what such incident may have been appears in the record. 2. Robert E. Newhart Newhart was employed as a weaver from March 25, 1946, until his discharge on February 1, 1949, on the second day shift, 3 p. in. to 11 p. in., in the Respondent's Axminister weave department. His foreman was James Lowell and John Lyle was the superintendent. On Tuesday, January 25, 1949, Newhart first obtained union cards from the Union at noontime and took them into the mill at the beginning of his shift at 3 p. in. On both days, January 25 and 26, he passed out a total of 15 cards. Although he distributed the cards, he did not "sign up" any members in the mill. He passed out the cards upon entering the mill at 3 p. in. in the register hall" before going into the mill, in the toilet during smoking time, and also any time during working hours that he talked to fellow employees at his loom, or at their looms, while he was seeking a loom fixer. Newhart testified that while these activities were during "working hours" he did not consider it "company time" since he was not paid for the time his loom was not in operation, e. g., when he was hunting for a loom fixer, or smoking period, or going to the toilet. Neither did he consider it on company time if it did not cause loss of production. He did not pass out any cards on 'Friday, January 28, or Monday, January 31" .On January 25, he spoke to several weavers about joining the Union, includ- ing Stetler, Swisher, File, Ferase, Miller, Shuman, Mericle, Boone, and Bardo. On some occasions, Newhart's loom was in operation, on other occasions, the loom was not operating, and employees in the vicinity would group around and talk. There was a distance of 4 feet between looms and each operator would step about 2 feet from the front of his loom. On January 25, he had, trouble with the beam dropper on his loom, i. e., the weights on the warp were dropping so Newhart shut his machine off and found Margita, the loom fixer, fixing Bardo's machine. After Margita said he would be there in a few minutes to fix Newhart's machine, Newhart spoke to Bardo about the Union. He also spoke to Boone on the same day but did not recall whether it was on the way over to Bardo's loom to speak to Margita, or on the way back to his own loom. Newhart also spoke to Fritz for 3 or 4 minutes, while Fritz' loom was in operation. After Fritz said he had not seen the loom fixer, Newhart approached him about the Union. Also on January 25, in addition to weavers, Newhart also asked some of the floor help -to join the Union, including Keefer and Young. On January 26, Newhart who was operating a 12 quarter loom making 9 by 12 rugs had what is known as a "set-off." Usually regular chain hangers take out the old set from the loom and put in a new set. It takes 2 or 3 hours before the loom is operating again on the new set. If no chain hangers are available, some- times the weavers pair up and put the set in themselves ; or a weaver may get a man from upstairs to help put the new set in. Newhart with the help of the man from upstairs put in the new set for which Newhart was paid on a time basis.16 To put in a set it was necessary for Newhart to leave his loom, go up- stairs on an elevator, get a full truckload of frames, and return to the loom. 14 The register hall is the entrance to the mill where formerly all employees would regis- ter at the time clocks , on entering or leaving the mill . Although now each department had individual time clocks, it is still referred to as the register ball. 's The mill operates on a 5-day week , Monday through Friday. 16 When the loom is operating, the weaver is paid on piece-work basis depending on the number of picks recorded. MAG'EE+ CARPET COMPANY 117 Five or six trips by truck are necessary. During such time, the weaver may eat lunch if lunch time comes, or go for if drink, or to the toilet for a smoke.14 On January 26, there was, some part of the old set left on the loom and New- hart called his foreman whose duty it was to judge whether or not the set should be called off.18 During the time he was putting in the set on January 26, Newhart talked to fellow weavers about joining the Union but could not recall their names. After a new set is put in a loom, the weaver runs half a rug and then must stop the loom and have the loom fixer adjust the weight on the loom. After running half a rug, Newhart accordingly stopped his loom after the new set was put in and went to find Margita, the loom fixer, to check the. operation before operating the loom further. On his way to find Margita, Newhart asked William Haney at his loom, and Fred Fritz at his loom, where Margita was. When each replied that he did not know, Newhart spoke to each of them about the Union. On Friday evening, January 28, at the end of the second shift, (11 p. m.) Foreman Lowell reported to Lyle that Newhart is doing some soliciting, too. Lyle asked Lowell if he had seen it and when Lowell replied that he had not seen it, Lyle told him "Then you are not sure; it's only a rumor, unless you see it. I don't want rumors, this is too important." Then Lowell told Lyle the names of those whom he said had been approached by Newhart. Lyle testified that is where he got the information of whom to see in regard to those solicited by Newhart on the second shift. On Saturday morning, Lyle called Lunger and said lie had a rumor handed to him that Newhart had been doing some soliciting and inquired if Lunger had heard anythirig. Langer replied that tie had not. . On Monday, 5anuary 31, Lyle told the personnel man for the Respondent that Crabtree had stated he was not the only one soliciting and then Lyle told the personnel man that if there is somebody else such would have to be treated just the same as Crabtree was treated, because "what you do to one you have to do to another." Then Lyle again talked to Lunger and said "Look, we are going to have to look into this thing a little bit." About 4: 15 p. in. Tuesday, February 1, Lunger came to Newhart who was operating his loom and said "Bob, shut off your loom and take your hat and your coat and your tool box and your dinner box and come over to the class loom, Mr. Lyle would like to see you and talk to you." Newliart asked Lunger about his picks, and Lunger told him to mark them down and Lunger would get them later. In the class room were Lyle, Homan, Bason, and Lunger. Lyle said : Bob, I understand that you were going through the mill soliciting mem- bership for the CIO on company time, is that right? Newhart said, "No, sir," that he did not solicit membership for the Union on company time, but told Lyle that he did have blue cards in his possession. Lyle asked, "When did you pass those cards out?" Newhart answered that he passed them out in the register office, before going to work, in the toilet during smoking time, in the register office after work, and any time at his loom that somebody happened to ask for one or when someone stopped at his loom and he talked to thrin and remarked about it. Newhart denied that it was true that he had signed them up during working hours. At that point Homan, Bason, and Lunger left the room. Then Lyle continued, "Didn't you know that you were doing wrong 17 The weavers eat their lunch in front of their looms which continue in operation. 18 Foreman Lowell did not testify. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in doing this thing?" and when Newhart replied that he did not think he was doing any wrong , Lyle said ,. "You didn't think you were doing wrong soliciting members on company time ?" Newhart answered "I didn't do it on company time." Lyle said , "You were soliciting," to which Newhart answered that if you call it that, then that is what he was doing . Lyle again inquired if Newhart did not know that was wrong and Newhart replied : "No , sir. I saw other people soliciting in the mill for baseball tickets and pools and I was soliciting for the union and wasn't hurting anything." To which Lyle answered , "That's entirely against our mill policy." Lyle then received negative replies from Newhart as to whether he had been working with Crabtree or had talked things over with Newhart's wife. Then Lyle said that it is a good thing for men to talk things .over with their wives , because "they are a disinterested person, and they can -help us an awful lot in these things," and further stated that it was a shame a young fellow like Newhart , with a family, "getting mixed up in a thing like this." Lyle asked Newhart what made him get started in this thing and asked, "Was the union down to see you?" When Newhart replied in the affirmative, Lyle wanted to know how many there were and Newhart told him "a couple." Lyle pursued his inquiry by asking "How often ?" Newhart replied about eight or nine times . Then Lyle opined, "They more or less hounded you until you brought the cards in the mill ?" Newhart answered "Yes, you can call it that." At this point, Bason, Lunger, and Homan returned to the room and Homan, addressing Lyle, announced , "Well, John, three of them still tell the same story." It was then announced to Newhart that since he had done the same as Crabtree, he would have to be discharged . Then Newhart showed them his record book which he had kept from his first day in the mill in which he had noted the hours worked, the dates , the number of the loom he was operating , the rugs, the picks, the pattern numbers, etc., and Newhart stated to them that if he had been soliciting membership on company time as they claimed, his records would show a loss of both rugs and money for the end of the week. Homan looked through the book, passed it to Lyle who glanced through it and then Homan said "Well Bob, I am sorry , but we will have to give you the slip anyway. If we find that we are wrong later, we will take you back and you will be paid for the time that you lost." Newhart was thereupon given a discharge slip dated February 1, 1949, which recorded the reason for his discharge "Union activities for a non-recognized union during his working hours." 3. The Respondent 's defense In its answer, the Respondent denied that Crabtree and Newhart were dis- criminatorily discharged and averred the discharges were for cause. The Respondent introduced evidence and I find that Crabtree and Newhart had solicited union membership during working hours and on company time, at least on the occasions when they spoke to other weavers whose looms were in operation 19 Other solicitations by them occurred in the mill during their free time, such as entering or leaving the mill, during smoking periods, etc., which of course was clearly permissible. The Respondent in its brief concedes that " There is no proof that such talk was responsible for any loss of production on the part of those to whom Crabtree and Newhart talked. Neither is there any proof that the production of Crabtree and Newhart suffered. The inference to be drawn from Newhart's testimony is there was none. There wa3 only a slight difference in the number of "picks" recorded for Crabtree for the weeks ending January 23 and January 30 which could have :resulted from minor breakdowns wherein the loom was shut down for less than 30 ;minutes . In any event I find the evidence insufficient upon which to make any finding that .there was loss of production on Crabtree 's part because of soliciting on company time. MAGEE ' CARPET COMPANY 119 any rule which prohibits solicitation during nonworking hours, although per- formed on company property is illegal. The Respondent bases its case sub- stantially on the defense that the discharges were for cause in that both Crab- tree and Newhart violated a "no-solicitation" rule during working hours' on company time. Conclusions The entire evidence proves conclusively bias and animosity towards the Union on the part of the Respondent. In the week preceding their discharges, Crab- tree solicited memberships in the plant^ on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday ; and Newhart solicited on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Friday, Janu- ary 28, Subforeman Cotner asked Foreman Lunger if he knew that Crabtree was leaving his loom and soliciting for the CIO. When, a short while later, Lunger reported to Superintendent Lyle, one of Lyle's first questions was "What union?" Lyle, upon hearing that it was CIO, instructed Lunger to return to his depart- ment and keep his eyes open. When Foreman Lowell reported that Newhart was soliciting but that he had not seen him do it, Lyle said to him, "You are not sure, it's only a rumor, unless you see it. I don't want any rumors, this is too important." No evidence was introduced to show the context of the rule against solicitation. Lyle testified that the Company always had a no-solicitation rule and that it had been posted in the mill. It is not denied that there was some kind of rule against solicitation. But it is also clear from the record that the rule did not prohibit talking among the weavers even while their looms were operating. Baseball pools and lotteries were conducted during working hours, participated in by supervisors. When President Magee heard that Crabtree had been soliciting for the CIO, he telephoned to Lyle to bring Crabtree to his home immediately. The matter was of such urgency that Crabtree was interrupted at his supper, hardly given time to change his clothes and was brought to Magee's presence by Lyle, after 6 p. in., on January 28. Magee questioned Crabtree as to whether he was soliciting for the CIO on company time. Magee told Crabtree that he would never allow anyone to work in his mill who believes in CIO and he would shut down the plant before he would let any union, AFL, CIO, "or even TWA" tell him how to run the plant." Magee continued in this vein by telling Crabtree he was in a position to do just that, because he was his own board of directors and controlled over 90 percent of the stock. He delivered an ultimatum to Crabtree, giving him until 7 a. in. Monday, January 31, to change his mind on soliciting under penalty of discharge. He ordered Lyle.who was present to discharge Crabtree if Crabtree did not change his mind about soliciting by that deadline. It is clear from Magee's testimony that the change of mind meant that Crabtree was to change his mind about soliciting-not soliciting on company time for CIO or any other purpose-but soliciting anywhere for the CIO, because Magee testified that Crabtree had until Monday to reconsider bringing into the mill another bargain- ing agent. Magee made no attempt to hide his animosity towards the Union. In his testimony, he admitted it. He blandly stated without further expla- nation that Crabtree was discharged because of an "Incident" and that incident was "propaganda by the CIO." Having given Crabtree from Friday night until Monday morning to change his mind about soliciting for the CIO, and bringing another bargaining agent into his mill, Magee apparently was fearful that he had given too muchtime to Crabtree 20 Magee denied these statements but his denial is not credited. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because on Sunday Magee called a meeting of the advisory board, which is com- posed of the Respondent's top management officials. The advisory board after discussion with Magee decided that Crabtree should be summarily discharged and his notice personally delivered to him that Sunday night. Magee further testified that he was fully aware of all the developments leading up to Newhart's discharge. The record shows that the rule against solicitation, whatever its limit or extent may have been was never enforced until Crabtree and Newhart began to solicit for the Union 2' Nor is there any evidence to show that before that time any employee was disciplined, let alone discharged, for its breach. It appears from the record that whatever purported prohibitions there were including the item in the instruction sheet given to weavers "Be at your loom at starting time-stay until quitting time" were not generally applied. Foreman Lunger testified there always was a "no-solicitation" rule hut the company is a nice place in which to work ; there are lots of rules and regulations but "they don't cut your throat" if you disobey them; that there were lots of baseball pools and lotteries sold during working hours in which Lunger himself participated; that everyone was allowed to talk to others and stated further that he has "talked plenty" to committeemen of the Textile Workers Alliance about grievances and problems in his department. When Lunger reported to Lyle that Crabtree was leaving his loom, Lyle imme- diately inquired whether his loom had broken down "because we give them a lot of liberties when the looms are broke down and so on." Another significant fact pointing unmistakably to discriminatory motive on the part of the Respondent is that unusual and drastic action culminating in discharge was substituted for the regular established procedure otherwise followed in cases of discharge. Under ordinary procedure an employee receives several notices warning him that if the fault persists it will warrant a reprimand which Lyle stated he gives to every man before discharge and in 95 percent of the cases, Lyle personally investigates to see whether such discharge is warranted. In only one instance was an employee ever discharged by one superior to Lyle, and that was when Lyle was absent through illness. Lyle indeed must have had his own misgivings about Magee's unprecedented action because he suggested to Magee that the gen- eral manager and personnel director should be present when Lyle learned what Magee had in mind immediately prior to questioning Crabtree. Here, as in the Jaques Power Saw Company case 22 "the conclusion is inescapa-, ble that the respondent's sudden and initial invocation of its long dormant rule against solicitation stemmed not from any desire to maintain discipline or prop- erly to enforce a reasonable plant rule-but to cripple the union The Respondent in its brief maintains that Magee's statements to Crabtree were protected as free speech under Section 8 (c) of the Act. In N. L. R. B. v. Electric City Dyeing Co.,23 the Court said: It is quite true that as the law stands at present, an employer may express an opinion upon union organization as well as upon any other subject in the world. But he cannot coerce, intimidate or give promise of benefit as part of his opposition to a union program. 21 Foreman Lunger testified, "Because we don't allow soliciting during working hours . . . never have allowed it. . . There is notices down there to that effect. The mill may be pretty loose on the thing, as far as that goes, but there are notices down there to that effect, that they are not supposed to leave their looms, and during working hours." 22 85 NLRB 440,, where the Board held the Respondent debased its existing rule against solicitation, valid'in itself, to effectuate its unlawful objectives. 23 178 F. 2d 080 (C.. A. 3), decided January 11, 1950. MAGEE! CARPET COMPANY 121 Magee's statements to Crabtree clearly contained threats of reprisal, were intimi- dating, and coercive. It is not contended here and there is no evidence that the Respondent's rule against solicitation during working hours was initially adopted for a discrimina- tory purpose. I am convinced and find that this rule forbidding solicitation was discriminatorily enforced by the Respondent against the above-named employees for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union. The Respondent's defense is accordingly rejected" I further find that the real reason for the discharges of Crabtree and Newhart was their union activity and not for any violation of the no-solicitation rule. In X. L. R. B. v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Conapany'25 where, as here, the ground of the discharges seems not greatly serious, the court stated, "When then the employer discharged them, he did so at the peril of a finding by the Board that since the cause assigned was not one for which dis- charges were ordinarily made, or even threatened, the employer's antipathy to union membership, interest, or activity had tipped the balance in the scales of causation and had become the causa causans, the real cause of the discharge." Such discriminatory discharges herein I find were violative of the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. C. Interference, restraint , and coercion The evidence is uncontradicted that the Respondent interrogated its employees concerning union activities. Employees throughout the plant were interviewed and asked if they had been solicited to join the Union, if so, when and by whom and whether the employee had become a member. The number of such employees is indeterminate. When Newhart was in the classroom, Langer, Bason, and Homan went out to the weaving department and returned with the information that three employees still tell the same stories that Newhart had solicited them for membership in the Union. Lyle interrogated Newhart and Crabtree closely, as has been detailed, supra. Such interrogation by the Respondent was an in- vasion of the employees' rights under Section 7 of the Act.20 I accordingly find that the Respondent in questioning its employees concerning their union membership, activities, or sympathies violated the provisions of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON 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 tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 24 See, for example, the following cases involving various aspects of discrimination in the enforcement of a valid no-solicitation rule : N. L. R. B . v. Continental Pipe Line Com- pany, 161 F . 2d 302 , 303 ; N. L. R. B. v. American Furnace Co., 158 F. 2d 376, 379; N. L. R. B. v. Gallup. American Coal Co., 131 F. 2d 665, 667; Victor Manufacturing and Gasket Company v. N. L. R. B., 174 F. 2d 867 ; N. L. R. B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F. 2d 811; N. L. R. B. v. Fisher Governor Compa ny, 163 F. 2d 913; Hershey Metal Prod- ucts Company, 76 NLRB 695 , 696; Citizen-News Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 1413. s 161 F. 2d 798, 801. 20 See Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358 and cases cited. 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take affirmative action designed to effectuate, the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Lewis Crabtree in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union by discharging Crabtree and refusing him reinstatement to a weaver job on or about January 30, 1949, I shall accordingly recommend that the Respondent offer to Lewis Crabtree immediate and full reinstatement to his- former job as a weaver or a substantially equivalent position," without preju- dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges ; and that the Respondent also make the said Lewis Crabtree whole for any loss of.earnings suffered by him by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to, him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as. wages as a weaver from the date of the discrimination against him, January 30,. 1949, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period.'. Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Robert E. Newhart in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging member- ship in the Union by discharging Newhart and refusing him reinstatement to a. weaver job on or about February 1, 1949, I shall accordingly recommend that the Respondent offer to Robert E. Newhart immediate and full reinstatement to his former job as a weaver or a substantially equivalent position,' without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges ; and that the Re- spondent also make the said Robert E. Newhart whole for any loss of earnings suffered by him by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages as a weaver from the date of the discrimination against him,. February 1, 1949, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during that period 30 I believe that the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent poten- tially relate to other unfair labor practices prescribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's past con- duct. The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless my recom- mendations are coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effec- tive the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies of the Act I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,. I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. "See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 NLRB 837. Also, Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 NLRB 1525. 29 Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497-498. 29 See footnote 27, supra. 20 See footnote 28, supra. MAGEE' CARPET COMPANY 123 2. 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 practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure. of employment of Lewis Crabtree and Robert E. Newhart, and thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]