Angwell Curtain Co., Inc.

ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 675 , 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of M.'B. Rosenbum and W . J. Ballew, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. 3 By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing 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 •' 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.] AN GWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. Case No. 35-Ci1-118. May 18, 1951 Decision and Order On February 2, 1951, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged and was engaging 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 Board 1 has reviewed 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, the Respondent's brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modi- fications hereinafter set forth : 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Stella Thomas in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. As detailed in the Intermediate Report, the record shows that Thomas was regarded as an efficient and wholly satisfactory employee; she has received several merit increases, and was utilized to train new and inexperienced workers in her department. After her layoff in July, she was called back on August 15, but was discharged 3 days later, on August 18, the day the Union filed its petition for representa- tion. Thomas had become active in the Union after August 15. At the time Thomas' employment was terminated she was advised that 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. 94 NLRB No. 83. 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD i she was being laid off because of lack of work. When she inquired of Factory Manager Hoover whether her layoff was "final ," she was told, "it is according to the outcome of this thing that has started." Ac- cording to Thomas' testimony, which the Trial Examiner credited, she returned to the plant a week later, and talked to both Hoover and General Manager Blocker. She again inquired as to whether her lay- off was permanent, and was again told "wait until this thing is over." In this same conversation Blocker asked Thomas who started the Union. Under all the circumstances, it seems plain that the several allusions to "this thing" made in connection with the discharge of Thomas were references to the union activity which had culminated in the filing of a petition for representation. The statements made by Hoover and Blocker not only demonstrate knowledge by the Respondent that Thomas had joined in this activity, but further show that her union activity was controlling in the Respondent's decision to terminate her employment.2 The latter conclusion is further reinforced by the tenu- ousness of the Respondent's asserted defense that Thomas was dis- charged for surliness-a reason wholly different from that which was given to her at the time of her layoff 3-and the general antiunion ani- mus displayed in the conduct which the Trial Examiner found, as do we, constituted independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1). 2. However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (3), and 8 (a) (1) by refusing to reemploy Marcel Sutherlin. Sutherlin, as the record shows, was one of the least efficient employees in the plant, and during her 17 months' employment, the Respondent had spoken to her on two occasions about her poor production. Sutherlin, together with other employees, was laid off in July during a period of retrenchment. Although she was never recalled, the record indicates that the job she had occupied was not filled until about a year later. Apart from having signed a union card, there is no evidence that Sutherlin was in any way active in the- Union. It is true that on one occasion when Sutherlin returned to the plant several months after her layoff to inquire about returning to work, Blocker asked her if she had signed a union card, and she stated she had. This incident renders the failure subsequently to recall Suther- 2 In view of these statements which demonstrate that the Respondent was in fact aware of Thomas' union activities , it becomes unnecessary to rely upon the Trial Examiner's several grounds for inferring, from other factors , the existence of such knowledge ' As the Trial Examiner points out , the check incident which provoked the alleged- surliness on the part of Thomas occurred some 6 weeks prior to her discharge . To accept the Respondent's defense we would have to assume either that Thomas remained peeved about the incident during this whole period , or that she first adopted that attitude almost 6 weeks after the incident which provoked it ; and we would have to ignore the fact that the Respondent at no time referred to her attitude when it discharged her, or thereafter when she returned to the plant. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 677 lin highly suspect. However, in the absence of any further evidence which indicates a discriminatory motivation as to Sutherlin, and in view of the evidence which supports the Respondent's defense that Sutherlin was inefficient, we are unable to conclude from that one incident that the failure to recall this employee was motivated by her adherence to the Union. We find that the complaint as to Sutherlin is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Order Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Angwell Curtain Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in the American Federation of Labor or in any other labor organization of its employees by discrim- inatorily discharging any of its employees, 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 affiliation, activities, and sympathies, and threatening economic reprisals against its employees because of their union membership, affiliation, and activity. (c) 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 the American Federation of Labor or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all of 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 undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Stella Thomas immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other tights and privileges and make her whole in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in the Section entitled "The remedy." (b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment record, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD necessary to analyze the amount of back pay and the right of reinstate- ment under the terms recommended in this Order. (c) Post at its plant at Greencastle, Indiana, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Ninth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or his representati' e, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main- tained 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. (d) Notify the Regional-Director for the Ninth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated with respect to Marcel Sutherlin. 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the AMERICAN FEDERA- TION or L.1BOR or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ- ment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or threaten them with dis- charge, reprisal, or economic loss because of their union affilia- tions, activities, or sympathies. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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 agree- * In 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 " ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 679' luent requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. AVE WILL OFFER to Stella Thomas immediate and full reinstate= ment to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and snake her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a re- sult of discrimination against her. All our employees are free to become, remain or refrain from be- coming members of the above-named union or any other labor organi- zation. We will not discriminate against' any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC., Employer. By ------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report Mr Seymour Goldstein, for the General Counsel. Ross, McCord, Ice & liillei, by 1117% George P. Ryan, of Indianapolis, Ind, for the Respondent. Mr. Hugh Gormley, of Indianapolis, Ind, for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Boaid' by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a complaint dated August 11, 1950, against Angwell Curtain Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, with copies of the first amended charge attached, together with notice of hearing, were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance that: (1) The Respondent discharged Stella Thomas and terminated the em- ployment of Macel Sutherlin about August 18 and September 28, 1949, respec- tively, because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union and for the purpose of discouraging membership therein, (2) about August 10, 1949, and thereafter, questioned its employees in regard to their union membership, threatened to discharge and to refuse to reemploy temporarily laid-off employees I The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing is herein called the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board. 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because of their union membership or activities; and (3) the Respondent prom- ised to recall laid-off employees if they would inform the Respondent con- cerning their union membership and activities. By the foregoing acts and conduct the Respondent thereby engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. The Respondent, on August 23, 1950, duly filed its answer wherein it admits certain allegations of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Greencastle, Indiana, on Septem- her 12, 13, 14, and 15, 1950, before the under signed duly designated Trial Exam- iner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by its regional director. All participated in the hearing and were afforded an opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the conclusion of the case the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof as to matters of form, which motion was granted by the undersigned At the same time counsel for the Respondent inoved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof, which motion was taken under advisement For the reasons appearing in this Report the motion is now denied. The parties waived oral argument before the undersigned. The parties were also advised of their right to file briefs and thereafter the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent filed briefs with the undersigned. After the hearing was closed counsel for the Respondent, on September 20, 1950, filed an application with the undersigned for an order to take the deposi- tion of Thomas N. Shetrone, of Greencastle, Indiana. On September 21, 1950, the undersigned duly entered an order denying the application because the application failed to show the relevancy or materiality of the testimony sought to be adduced by the Respondent. The application and a copy of the order are received in evidence as part of the formal pleadings and marked as Trial Exam- iner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF 1HE RESPONDENT The Respondent is an Illinois corporation and maintains its office and plant in Greencastle, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of draperies and curtains. In the course of its operations the Respondent annually purchases supplies, raw materials, and equipment in excess of $350,000, of which approximately 90 percent is shipped to the Respondent's plant from places outside the State of Indiana. The Respondent annually sells and distributes finished products valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 95 percent is shipped to customers outside the State of Indiana. The Respondent stipulated that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and the under- signed so finds. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting to mem- bership employees of the Respondent. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 681 Iii. THE UNGAIP LABOR PRACTICES A Background of Respondent's operations John Al Brambach, president of the Company, stated that the Company first commenced operations in 1923 at its plant located in Chicago, Illinois. The Company continued to so operate until sometime in 1947 when it decided to leave Chicago because of excessive rent and the unavailability of good workers. Brambach said that after investigation and study of conditions lie concluded that Greencastle was a satistactory site' and commencing about July 1947, the Company initiated a training program for new and inexperienced employees. Thereafter, the Company moved its equipment to that city where it commenced operations about November 1, 1947. However, the Company continued to main- tain an office and showroom in Chicago. The Company has had no collective bargaining agreements covering its employees with any labor organization. B. The layoff in July 1949 Brambach stated that in July 1949' there was a recession in business which necessitated a layoff of a number of employees. William Benjamin Hoover, factory manager, who was responsible for manufacturing operations, including the hiring and discharging of employees under his supervision, decided some- time prior to July 15 that a layoff was necessary and as lie was leaving for his vacation he left instructions with Herbert H. Blocker,' general manager, as to the departments to be closed down and the employees to be laid off. In selecting the persons to be laid off, Hoover said that efficiency was the controlling factor although consideration was given to the seniority, conduct, and attitude of the particular employee. Accordingly, between July 18 and August 5, the Company laid off 18 of its 65 or 70 employees all of whom, except 5, were recalled after a period of about 2 or 3 weeks. C. Union organizational activities Among the employ ees laid off were Stella Thomas, Macel Sutherlin, Esther Davis, Rachel Surber, Grace Castle, and Helen Partin About August 10, Thomas, Davis, Surber, and Partin met at the State unemployment compensation office in Greencastle while signing up for their unemployment compensation. In the course of their conversation, Davis stated that it was rumored at the plant "that we were the ones getting the blame for starting the Union," so they "decided to see what we could do about it." They then went to the home of Thomas Shetrone whom they believed to be a union organizer' and discussed the possibility of organizing the employees at the plant. Shetrone suggested that a meeting of the employees be held-for that purpose but this suggestion was rejected and the group left. About August 14, Thomas obtained the name and address of Hugh Gormley, regional director for the Union at Indianapolis, and gave this information to Davis The following day Davis and Surber met with Gormley at his office in Indianapolis and informed him % Greencastle is a small community having a population of about 6,000. It is about 170 miles fiom Chicago 3 All subsequent dates refer to 1949 unless otherwise stated ' Blocker exercised supervision over employees in the office and shipping department. Normally Blocker had no authority over employees working under Hoover and any contacts with these employees were made through Hoover. 3 Shetrone was not an organizer . He was a member of the A . F L, but did no organizing work for it •682 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that a majority of the employees desired to become members of the Union, and requested Gormley to set up an organization for them. Gormley suggested that a meeting be held but when Davis and Surber stated they were afraid to do so, Gormley gave them union application cards and instructed Davis and Surber to contact the employees at their homes for the purpose of signing the cards and that he would come to Greencastle within a few days to assist them. Davis and Surber returned to Greencastle and, together with Thomas, Partin, Castle, and Betty Cooper solicited the employees to become members of the Union and as a result of their activity in this respect, covering only several days, a large number of employees signed cards. These cards were turned over to Gormley. Upon receiving the cards, Gormley, on August 18, filed a petition for certifica- tion' with the Board Thereafter, on September 7, the Company and the Union entered into an agreement for a consent election to be conducted by the Board in a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees at the plant in order to determine whether a majority of the above employees desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, an election was conducted on September 22 and of the 71 eligible employees in the unit, 42 voted against the Union, 21 in favor of the Union, and 8 voted chal- lenged ballots. On September 30 the representative of the Board duly certified the results of the election. D. The discharge of Stella Thomas Thomas was first employed by the Company in October 1947 and worked con- tinuously, except as stated below, until August 18, 1949. Thomas, according to Hoover, was the oldest or the second oldest employee in the department. In the course of her employment Thomas received three merit increases of 5 cents per hour and at the time of her discharge she operated a sewing machine in the panel department hemming curtains and drapes. In addition to her usual duties Thomas made special samples for display purposes and instructed new and inexperienced employees in her department. Thomas worked under the general supervision of Hoover and at times under Esther Alspaugh' In July Thomas knew that the Company was temporarily laying off employees, so on the 29th of that month she asked Alspaugh who would be laid off the following week and Alspaugh stated that it would be Thomas and Hazel Knauer. In reply to her question as to'how long she would be off, Alspaugh said, "about a week." Thomas was thereupon laid off. When Thomas was not recalled at the ,end of 1 week she went to the plant and told Hoo'. er and Blocker that if she was not recalled soon she was going to sign up for unemployment compensation. Blocker told Thomas to "go ahead and maybe something would show„ up." 'Thomas then asked why Knauer had been recalled on August 8, and Hoover or Blocker said it was because she carried other employees to work in her car. On August 12, the Company notified Thomas to report for work on August 15. Thomas returned on this date and resumed the same duties she had performed prior to her layoff. However, on August 18, Hoover called Thomas to his office and advised her he had to lay her off because of lack of of ders and gave Thomas a check for her pay to that date. Thomas then asked Hoover if her layoff was "final" and he told her "it is according to the outcome of this thing that has started" which Thomas understood to be`the Union. 6 Case No 35-RC-278. 7 Alspaugh was employed as a utility girl She distributed and checked the work of other girls and was the only salaried employee engaged in production work. Brambach admitted Alspaugh operated "in a capacity similar to a supervisor." ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 683 Shortly thereafter Thomas informed Gormley of her discharge and Gormley suggested that she go to the plant and make further inquiry concerning her layoff Accordingly, Thomas went to the plant the week following her dis- charge and talked to Hoover and Blocker. Thomas asked Hoover why she had been laid off when the production and quality of her work was equal to that of other employees and Hoover replied, "Now, Stella, you know why." Thomas declared that Russell Kosh, mechanic at the plant, had told her that she had been accused of starting the Union, which Thomas stated was not true. Whereupon Blocker asked Thomas "why I didn't come and talk to him about it," and Thomas explained that Kosh had told her not to do so "because he didn't want to get in bad for telling me." Blocker then asked Thomas who started the Union and she said she would tell him when the election was over. Thomas asked Blocker if he had any complaints about her work and he replied there were no complaints in that respect. Thomas further inquired if she was permanently laid off and Hoover said, "wait until this thing is over." 'The conversation thereupon concluded. Thomas did not return to the plant until September 22, when she went there and voted, a challenged ballot, in the election. Following the announcement of the results of the election, Thomas met Hoover outside the plant and told him she would like to see Brambach in order to inform him that she was not responsible for initiating the Union and to tell him how the Union started at the plant. Hoover then went into the plant and upon returning told Thomas that "Brambach didn't want to see me ; that he didn't care who started the Union, but for me to come back the next day and talk to him." Blocker also came out of the plant and informed Thomas that Brambach did not want to -see her However, Blocker said, "Stella, walk down the street and tell me who it was," but Gormley told Thomas to go to the car, which she did. According to Gormley, Thomas told Blocker she was accused of starting the Union but the person who did so was still "inside" the plant, to which Blocker replied, "Let's you and I walk down the street and you tell me who started it and I will see that you get your job back" At that time Gormley told Thomas, "don't tell him anything," and led her away from Blocker. Davis and Partin who were present during the conversation between Thomas and Blocker testified substantially the same as Gormley. The following morning Thomas, Davis, Surber, Sutherlin, Partin, Castle, and Dessie Dickson went to the plant and talked to Blocker in regard to their returning to work. Davis stated that Blocker declared he had not expected the employees to come in as a group, but individually. Nevertheless he talked briefly to each of the employees concerning her job. When Davis inquired about her job, Blocker asked if she had the nerve to return to work after what she had done to him and "This here thing we had here yesterday." Blocker accused Davis of helping to bring about the election as well as assisting therein by using her car to visit the employees. Davis admitted using her car for such purposes. Blocker then stated that there were still 21 employees in the plant who voted for the Union, who, if ever identified, "would be weeded out," because Brambach would not work under a union but would close the plant and move back to Chicago. Blocker concluded by stating that neither Davis nor anyone who had anything to do with the Union would be reemployed by the Company. Partin related that when she requested that she be reemployed Blocker said she had nerve to ask for her job after "this thing yesterday." Partin then told Blocker that he did not know how she voted in the election and he replied that this was true but he was "pretty sure" how she had voted. 684 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Castle, who had quit hei job shortly before the meeting, testified that Blocker told the group that the "worst wasn't over" because there were still 21 employees in the plant who had voted for the Union Blocker, according to Castle, told Davis she had nerve to ask for her job after "this thing that happened'here yesterday." Thomas told Blocker that in her opinion she had been unjustly treated by the Company but Blocker replied that she had been laid off because of lack of work. Thomas then pointed out that her department had been working overtime daily and on Saturdays but Blocker offered no answer or explanation to this statement. When Thomas inquired if she should be given a separation notice Blocker said this was not necessary and concluded his conversation with Thomas by returning her scissors and telling her "you may need them to go some place else Later that morning the same-group, except for Sutherlin and Dickson, met with Brambach at his office. Davis stated that Brambach informed the group that they had no business at the plant since they were no longer employees of the Company. Brambach further declared that there were still 21 employees in the plant who had toted for the Union and "they would be weeded out as fast as they were found out." Thomas testified that Brambach said that he was not too happy over the re- sults of the election since 21 employees who favored the Union were still in the plant and that he would not operate in a community where he could not get along. In the course of the discussion Thomas told Brambach that she had heard rumors to the effect that her financial condition was such that she did not have to work. Brambach told her that he had investigated the people in Greencastle and he knew the individuals who needed work at the plant as well as those who did not. Thomas was not recalled to work and did not thereafter return to the plant seeking reemployment. Mildred Staggs, an employee in the ruffling department, stated that sometime in August, she, Thomas. and Sarah Stanley were seated in Castle's car, after working hours. which was parked in front of the plant. While in the car Castle asked Staggs to join the Union and when Staggs said she would become a mem- ber, Castle drove to her home where she signed a card. Staggs continued to work at the plant and sometime subsequent to her signing the card, whether be- fore or after the election she could not recall, Blocker called her to his office and asked her if Castle or Thomas "had said anything to me about the Union." Staggs told Blocker that neither Castle nor Thomas had talked to her in this regard because she did not want to cause any trouble for them. The Company contends that at the time of Thomas' discharge it had no knowl- edge of her union membership or activity, nor of any union organizational activity whatever at the plant, and that Thomas was discharged because of her hostile attitude toward the Company. Brambach testified that he first learned of any organizational activity at the plant on August 19 On that day he called the plant from New York City, as was his custom when away from Greencastle, and during his conversation with Blocker he was informed that the Company had just received a letter from the Board notifying the Company that a petition for certification had been filed by the Union. Brambach upon hearing this news stated he " was amazed at the thing," since the Company had maintained good public relations and had done everything for its employees. When Brambach told Blocker that lie was surprised that the latter had had no previous knowledge of such activity, Blocker replied that he too was "flabbergasted" upon receipt of the letter from the Board. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. ,685 Concerning the hostile attitude of Thomas, the Company asserts that she was discharged under the following circumstances: In 1948 the Company initiated a policy whereby the employees were granted paid vacations during the week of July 4. This policy continued in 1949, but Brambach, in order to discourage absenteeism, decided to grant vacations only to those employees who worked 10 months of the year preceding the vacation period. However, the employees were not notified of the above change in vacation policy. Several weeks prior to the 1949 vacation period, Hoover pre- pared a list of eligible employees in his department, including Thomas, and forwarded the same to the Company's office in Chicago. Following company practice the Chicago office prepared checks for the employees and sent them to the plant for distribution Hoover, apparently the week after July 4, dis- tributed checks to each of the employees that lie had recommended as eligible for vacation, except Thomas. Shortly thereafter, Hoover was advised by another employee that Thomas was in the washroom crying and "having a fit." When Thomas came out of the washroom and returned to her work Hoover inquired as to what was the matter and Thomas stated she did not think it fair that she had not received her vacation check and asked him why she had not received one. Hoover told Thomas he had submitted a list of eligible employees to the Chicago office which made out the checks, but that lie would look into the matter and advise her later. Blocker also talked to Thomas about her not receiving a check and told her that lie would call the Chicago office, which he did. Blocker then informed Hoover of his call to Chicago and in turn Hoover advised Thomas that she did not receive her check "because she had missed too much work." Upon receiving this information Thomas stated, "I don't think it's very fair Thomas never received her vacation check but, as stated above, she continued to work at the plant until her layoff on July 29, which extended to August 15. Hoover stated that when Thomas returned to the plant on the latter date it was his custom to go through his department inspecting the work of the employees and extending a morning greeting to them. When Hoover thus greeted Thomas she would not look at him but "would look down at her machine and she wouldn't speak" to him. This attitude continued for 3 or 4 days when "it began to affect" Hoover because he knew that Thomas was angry about some- thing Hoover, on August 18, asked Knauer what was the matter with Thomas and she replied that Thomas was angry because she did not receive her vaca- tion check. Knauer, according to Hoover, further related that Thomas had stated "she was going to get even if it was the last thing she did"; that she had had the general manager of a store fired and that "she was going to fight and . cause all the trouble she could " As a consequence of this conversation Hoover, without even talking to Thomas, "figured" that Thomas would cause trouble not only to the Company but perhaps to himself and therefore he did not want "that type of attitude," so Hoover told Blocker that he was immediately discharging Thomas and to make out her check. The same day Hoover in- structed Thomas to report to his office after work, which she did. Hoover thereupon informed Thomas that lie was discharging her because of her general attitude towards the company, towards her fellow workers, and towards me " Thomas, after receiving her check, asked Hoover if there were any complaints concerning her work and lie answered, "Your work is fine It's your attitude " Hoover denied that he told Thomas that the finality of her discharge depended upon the outcome of "this thing" as related by Thomas. Similarly, Hoover 8 Thomas was on authorized leave of absence on two occasions, from September 18 to October 19, 1948, and February 26- to April 18, 1949, for the purpose of having an opera- tion performed and to visit relatives in California 686 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD denied that Thomas talked to him the week following her discharge or that he ever, informed Thomas in answer to her question as to the reason for her dis- charge, "you know why " Hoover stated that after the results of the election were known Thomas told him that she would like to talk to Brambach but he could not recall what she said on that occasion. However, Hoover did go into the plant and while he did not see Brambach, he later told Thomas that Bram- bach was busy and could not come out. Knauer was employed by the Company in its panel department for almost 3 years and worked near Thomas. Knauer stated that Thomas, accompanied by three other employees and Gormley, came to her home one evening, she could not recall the date, and solicited her to join the Union. Although Knauer signed a union card as requested she immediately decided that she wanted it back but she did not ask for the return of the card at that time or any other time. Knauer also testified that she had heard rumors at the plant accusing her of starting the Union, which she stated were not true. Knauer further stated that when the vacation checks were distributed and Thomas did not receive one she became very angry and said she intended to cause trouble for the Company. Thomas, according to Knauer, declared that at her prior place of employment, Montgomery Ward, she had "misbehaved and- carried stories and everything, until she got the manager, or assistant manager fired." Knauer said that Thomas was "very unpleasant" at work and was ,.moody" and "pouty" towards Hoover She said that when Hoover asked what was wrong with Thomas, Knauer told him she was "peeved" because she (lid not get her check Knauer in response to the direct question as to whether she related her conversation with Thomas to Hoover, replied, "Well, I think I told him how moody she had been and the temper she had been in." Knauer could not recall the date on which Hoover talked to her, whether it was before, or after Thomas' layoff of July 29, except that the conversation took place sometime subsequent to the distribution of the vacation checks. Admittedly, Thomas made the above remarks only on one occasion and when asked how long Thomas maintained her angry disposition, Knauer stated, "I wouldn't know how long to say." Leoda Miles, a former employee of the Company, stated that during July she worked near Thomas and when she failed to receive her vacation check Thomas became angry and said she intended to make it "miserable" for the Company. Miles said that thereafter Thomas was not very pleasant and she had little to say to her. There is nothing in the testimony of Miles to indicate that she talked to Hoover concerning the attitude of Thomas or that she informed any of Company's supervisory staff of the remarks attributed to Thomas. Blocker testified that Hoover informed him that Thomas was being discharged because of her unsatisfactory attitude. Since Thomas worked under Hoover, Blocher had nothing to do with her discharge, other than make out her final check. Blocker denied that he talked to Thomas concerning her discharge be- tween the date thereof, August 18, and the date of the election, September 22. On the later date Blocker stated that after the ballots had been counted he went outside the plant when Thomas came to him and said, in substance, that she wanted to tell him who had started the Union at the plant Blocker said when Thomas made this remark to him there was some agitation and tension among the employees and that he was afraid something might happen, so he related : I told Stella Thomas that-what I was trying to do, I wanted to get her away from there. I said, "Listen, let's take a little walk," their whole group. I mean she was with two or three others and I wanted them to take a little walk away from the others because I thought there might be a little tension. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC . 687 What I said to her, she made no move to go, and I said, "Listen, I am not interested in this thing at all and I wish you would please forget about it. We will drop the whole matter," words to that effect. Blocker then left Thomas to return to the plant and met Gormley just as he was leaving the building. Blocker after a brief conversation with Gormley went into the plant where he told Brambach of his meeting with Gormley but made no mention of having talked to Thomas. The following day Thomas and a group of employees came to the plant and talked to Blocker about their jobs In the course of this meeting Thomas said she would like to inform Blocker of the facts relating to the election but he re- plied that "was water under the bridge." The individuals then asked Blocker why they had been dismissed and if they would be reemployed but Blocker told him he could not talk to them as a group and suggested the matter be discussed with him individually sometime later. Blacker arose from his chair to conclude the discussion and as the group was leaving he gave Thomas her scissors. Blocker denied making the statements as related by Davis, Partin, Castle, and Thomas. Blocker admitted that sometime after the discharge of Thomas, in the generat period of the election, he called Staggs to his office and after informing Staggs that Thomas had ignored him on several occasions, asked.her, "if this couldn't have been because of the Union activity that was going around the plant," and she replied that "she did not know." Blocker could not recall making any inquiry of Staggs in regard to Castle Brambach stated that at the meeting on September 23, Thomas or 2 or 3 others wanted to tell him who was responsible for starting the Union but he told them he was not interested in this information One of the group then asked Brambach how he knew the way they voted and he answered that lie did not know, nor care, how they had voted in the election Surber inquired why she had been discharged and Brambach told her she had gall to ask that question since she had been going around town degrading the Company. In addition Brambach said she had been "waltzing around" the plant "like the Queen of- Sheba'; and if Hoover had not discharged her, he would have done so. Brambach denied making any remarks concerning the 21 employees who voted for the Union, or that he would not operate under union organization. Anna Cancilla stated that after the election she heard Thomas, Davis, and Surber tell Blocker they wanted to talk to him, but lie said he was busy and could. not talk to them. Thelma Eastham testified that Thomas told Blocker she could tell him "where all this started," but she could not hear Blocker's reply to, Thomas. The parties stipulated that Edna Schunkweiller and Anna Foxworthy, if called as witnesses, would testify substantially the same as Eastham. Thomas, testifying in rebuttal, admitted that she felt badly when she failed to receive her vacation check and did go into the washroom and cry. Thomas also declared that she was angry at the time and told Knauer that she would get even with the Company, but this was the only occasion she made such a remark. E. The discharge of Macel Sutherlin Sutherlin commenced her employment with the Company in March 1948 and worked continuously until July 18, 1949. During this period she operated a sewing machine in the tailoring department. Sutherlin admitted that she "worked slow" but that she was never cautioned or criticized by Hoover or Alspaugh because of her slowness and that she received one wage increase of cents per hour. On July 18, Alspaugh informed Sutherlin that Blocker had. 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD given her the names of employees to be laid off and that she was one of them. Alspaugh asked Sutherlin if she had a telephone and when Sutherlin stated she did not, Alspaugh said she would drop her a card to advise her when to return to work About 4 weeks later, Sutherlin went to the plant and talked to Blanche Wilson, who worked in the office, in regard to checks which she had not received. After obtaining the checks Sutherlin remarked that she had-been laid off perlna- nentlyy, but Wilson said this was not true that, although she might have to wait awhile, she would be cal led back to work. About the middle of August, Davis and Surber visited Sutherlin at her home and requested her to sign a union card, which she did Sutherlin did not engage in any union activity except as stated below On September 22, Sutherlin went to the plant in Davis' car and voted, a chal- lenged ballot, in the election As started above, the next day Sutherlin and a group of employees met with Blocker. Sutherlin could not remember the general conversation at the meet- ing but she asked Blocker why she had not been called back to work and he replied that she would be recalled when there was more work in the tailoring department. Davis statV that Sutherlin asked Blocker the reasons for her layoff and Blocker told her she "would be getting a card within a few days to come back to work." On September 28, Sutherlin met with Blocker at his office and told him she had not received the letter as be had promised, and Blocker assured her that it would be sent to her. Sutherlin inquired whether she had been laid off perma- nently and Blocker stated the Company would send her a letter. Blocker then asked Sutherlin if she had signed a card and when she stated she had, Blocker said he had no objections to her doing so Blocker further asked Sutherlin how she would feel towards the Company if she was recalled to work, and she replied she "didn't know," whereupon Blocker arose from his chair and termi- nated the conversation. Sutherlin was never recalled, nor did she make any further application for reemployment. The Company contends that Sutherlin was permanently laid oft ° on July 18 because of inefficiency and at the time the Company had no knowledge of her union membership or activities. Brambach declared that when the plant commenced operations in November 1947, he was compelled to hire new and inexperienced workers and in order to train these individuals he brought 12 experienced employees, who had worked in the Chicago plant, to Greencastle The basic qualifications for production employees, Brambach stated, was "physical capacity" to perform the work and "some degiee of intelligence." Brambach further related that the training period at the plant "might last anywhere from six months to three years," and at the end of 6 months the average employee would be "passable" in her work and after 2 or 3 years "very efficient." In 194S the employees were averaging but 4 bundles 10 per clay as compared to the previous Chicago average of 8 bundles per day. In 1949 the average at Greencastle increased to 5 bundles per day which Brambach said was still below the Chicago level as well as the produc- tion in similar plants located elsewhere' Accordingly, Brambach in the early part of 1949 discussed the problem with his supervisors and he decided inade- 9 According to Hoover , an employee may be terminated either by discharge or perma- nent layoff It does not furnish the employee with a separation notice containing the reasons for this action. 10 A bundle is a production unit consisting of 24 pairs of curtains or drapes. 11 Brambach was referring to plants located in the New England States which he admitted were organized and paying a considerably higher wage rate than the Company. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC . 689 I quate attention had been given to the selection of employees, so the Company, in view of the enormous labor market in Greencastle, instituted a policy of "more selective" hiring and the weeding out of inefficient employees. As a result of this policy Brambach said that as of the date of the hearing, production at the plant had increased about 10 percent. When it became necessary to curtail operations in July, Hoover testified that ,he instructed Blocker that Sutherlin was the first employee to be laid off in the tailoring department because she was the "slowest" person employed therein. In selecting Sutherlin for layoff, Hoover was following the policy announced by Brambacb, as he expressed it, "if we got rid of some of the others that weren't quite so good, that we could get better employees in." Accordingly, on July 18, Sutherlin was permanently laid off In support of the Company's contention that Sutherlin was an inefficient employee, Hoover testified that when she receiN ed an automatic wage increase of 5 cents per -hour, at some undisclosed date, he told Sutherlin she "hadn't done as well as" he had expected and that she would have to "work faster" to secure future increases Again, at some undisclosed date, Hoover talked to Sutherlin about being slow in her work and she told him she was nervous and ` couldn't do any better " Hoo er then suggested that, she transfer to the panel department but she declined because she was nervous and could not do that type of work. Alspaugh stated that on one occasion she told Sutherlin her production was low and asked her to try to do better. While the Company maintained no official records showing the production of its employees, Hoover stated that he prepared records, apparently at irregular intervals, indicating the volume of work performed by the employees Hoover produced three of his records at the hearing, all undated, but which he said covered periods in the latter part of 1948 and early 1949. These records reflect the production of Sutherlin and four or five other employees performing similar operations over separate intervals of 4 and 3 weeks, respectively, and, although not too convincing,' they show that Sutherlin's production was lower than that of the other employees. Blocker denied that at the meeting of September 23 he told Sutherlin she would be called back to work. He fui ther testified that he had no recollection of Sutherlin talking to him on September 28, or at any time subsequent to the above meeting Wilson testified that after the July layoff she was holding a number of checks for the employees but she could not recall whether or not Sutherlin came to the office to get her check Wilson further stated that if Sutherlin did come to the office for that purpose she may have talked to her but she could not remember the topic of their conversation. F. Other acts of interterence, restraint, and coercion Castle, who was laid off July 22 and was recalled August 17, stated that several days after her return to work Blocker called her to his office and asked her what she was trying to do to him Castle said she (lid not know what he was talking about and Blocker then accused her of "trying to dump the Union into his lap " When Castle replied she did not know anything about organizational activities Blocker stated "there were two men in town that was talking around" that Castle and her sister, Partin, were "trying to start the Union." As Castle was leaving, 12 Apart from the fact that these records were unofficial and undated, they cover only 7 weeks' employment out of Sutherlin's service with the Conipany which extended from March 1, 1948, to July 18, 1949 953 541-5 _'-vol 94--4 S 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Blocker told her to keep her "nose clean and stay out of trouble." Blocker ad- mitted that, with Hoover's permission, he talked to Castle about her production but denied making any of the statements attributed to him by Castle. Ellen Carey, an employee in the manufacturing department, stated that some- time prior to the election she signed a union card at the request of Partin and Gormley. Subsequent to her signing the card and before the election, Carey had occasion to go to the plant office during her luncheon hour for the purpose of making a telephone call. After completing the call, Blocker talked with her and in the course of the conversation he asked Carey if she "knew anything about the Union," and she answered, "well, if I did I wasn't going to say either way." Carey did not inform Blocker that she had signed a union card, nor did Blocker inquire as to whether she was a member of the Union Blocker did not deny the occurrence of this incident. Gormley testified that he was present when the ballots were counted and after the results were announced a few of the girls "seemed to rejoice" upon the Union being defeated, whereupon Brambach declared that they should not be "too joyful" because there were still 21 employees who had voted for the Union and "we have got to get them out of here." Castle said that after the count Wilson and Cancilla shouted at the results thereof, but Brambach told them not to be too happy as 21 had voted for the Union and "the worst wasn't over." Brambach stated that after the polls had been closed the ballots were counted by the Board agent in the presence of Cooper and Castle, union observers, Wilson and William Seely, company observers, Gormley, and himself. During the count- ing of the ballots when the tally showed 35 votes against the Union, Brambach said he heard a shout outside the plant. Brambach was "amazed" at this action, since "we were counting these things alone," and he explained to those present, "that's a shout of joy; I wish I was as happy as they are." 13 Brambach denied that he uttered the remarks as related by Gormley and Castle. Wilson stated she did not hear Brambach make the statements asserted by Gormley, although she was present at the time they were alleged to have been made. Wilson was not questioned concerning the testimony of Castle bearing upon the remarks she testified were made by Brambach on this occasion. Cancilla denied that she was even present during the counting of the ballots and Brambach and Wilson corroborated her testimony in'this respect. Conclusions 1. The discharge of Thomas As set forth above, Thomas, David, Surber, and Partin first discussed the formation of a union on August 10, and at that time Posh stated there were rumors at the plant to the effect that these individuals were starting the union. After Gormley outlined organizational procedure, this group, with Castle and Cooper, conducted a campaign among the employees between August 15 and 17, which resulted in a number of employees signing union cards. The following day the Union filed its petition for certification with the Board. Admittedly, these individuals did not engage in any organizing activities at the plant. Brambach, Hoover, and Mocker denied they had any knowledge of union activities among the employees until August 19, when the Company was noti- fied by the Board that a petition had been filed by the Union. "Hoover testified that Supervisor Robert Eppleheimer and Alspaugh were in the shipping room located near the polling place where they could hear the ballots being counted. They too kept a count and when the Union was defeated, prior to the completion of the count, Hoover, Eppleheimer , and Alspaugh went outside and announced that the Union had been defeated , which announcement was greeted with cheers and shouts. 11 ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY , INC . . 691 The Board and the courts have heretofore rejected such contention and held that where , as here, the activities occur among employees in a small plant, "it is a reasonable inference that information [as to union activities] came to the notice of the higher management ." N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills, Inc., 1127 F. 2d 438, 440 ( C. A. 1) ; Jackson Daily News , et al., 90 NLRB 16; Quest-Shoe Mark Brassiere Company, 80 NLRB 1149 , 1150, enforced , N. L. R. B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Company, 185 F. 2d 285 ( C. A. 2), 27 LRRM 2036. But apart from this sound principle , the testimony of Brambach negates the contention that he was totally ignorant of any union activities at the plant. Thus, when he met with the union adherents on September 23, Brambach, after telling Surber he knew she bad been going around town "degrading" the Com- pany, stated : . . . The people of Greencastle are good American stock. I had a survey made of this town before I came here . I don't need anyone to tell me about them . I know they are economic ; they are political , and they are religious. I know their backgrounds almost to a minute detail. . . . I know the power rates and everything else. . . . In view of Brambach's intimate knowledge concerning the background and lives of his employees , it is neither reasonable nor plausible to believe that he was not aware of the fact that certain of the employees were actively engaged in promoting the Union at the plant. Moreover, Knauer admitted that they had heard rumors at the plant, via the "grape-vine," accusing her of starting the Union but she paid no attention to them as she was not interested in the Union . Knauer did not fix any period in which she heard these rumors Knauer further testified that she signed a union card but could not remember the date thereon . However, it is well established that the cards were signed only between August 15 and 17, so it is obvious that she signed during that period. Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable to assume that the rumors concerning Knauer were circulated during the organizing period rather than after the Union had closed its drive for members. Again, Staggs , in the course of the union campaign, was questioned by Blocker as to whether Thomas or Castle had discussed the Union with her. Blocker admitted the interrogation of Staggs but explained that it occurred after the discharge of Thomas and in the general period of the election . Blocker's explanation is unconvincing for certainly there would be no purpose in his questioning Staggs in regard to Thomas' union activities subsequent to her discharge and it is rejected. Upon the foregoing facts , as well as those set forth below , the undersigned finds that the Company knew that the above-named individuals were actively engaged in promoting the Union at the plant on and prior to August 18. The next question to be determined is whether Thomas was discharged by reason of her union membership or activities in its behalf , or, as urged by the Company, because of the hostile attitude she exhibited toward the Company. The issue here presented is clearly one of fact and, as in issues of this character, the evidence is not without conflict. In resolving these conflicts the under- signed has considered not only the personal demeanor and conduct of the wit- nesses at the hearing, as well as the corroborative testimony , but has evaluated and weighed this evidence in the light of all the facts and circumstances as reflected in the record . After thus determining the credibility of the witness and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence , the undersigned is convinced that Thomas was unlawfully discharged by the Company. 692 f DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hoover denied that on August 18, he told Thomas her layoff depended upon "the outcome of this thing" 14 and also denied that Thomas talked to him the following week or that he ever told her, "Now, Stella, you know why" you were laid off. Hoover admitted that after the election results were announced Thomas told hnn she wished to talk to Brambach, lie could not recall her conversation, and that he informed her that Brambach was busy and could not see her. Concerning Thomas' discharge Hoover said that between August 15 and 18, she would not speak to hint and this "began to affect" him, so on the latter date he asked Knauer why Thomas was angry, and she said it was because she had not received her vacation check When Knauer informed Hoover that Thomas had stated "she would get even with the Company" and had previously caused the discharge of her supervisor at another place of employment, he forthwith decided to discharge Thomas because of her attitude When Thomas had com- pleted her work, Hoover informed her that she was being discharged because of her attitude and gave her a check covering her wages to (late Thomas conceded she was angry when she failed to receive her vacation check and went to the washroom and cried. She further said that at that time she did tell Knauer she would get even with the Company but this was the only occasion she uttered such a remark. The undersigned is not impressed with Hoover's version of the reasons for Thomas' discharge. It is undisputed that Thomas was the oldest, or second oldest, employee in point of service with the Company, and that she was a "fine" worker. She performed, in addition to usual duties, difficult tasks at the plant and instructed new employees in their work. As a result of her efficiency she received three merit pay increases. Obviously, Thomas was more than a satis- factory employee, both in competency and attitude, until August 15 15 It there- fore seems rather strange that Thomas would suddenly suffer a complete re- versal of her prior attitude toward the Company, at the same time maintaining her efficiency, to the extent that in the short space of 4 days this change was so great as to "affect" Hoover and prompt him to forthwith discharge her. The specific conduct which thus affected Hoover was Thomas' failure to speak to him, her angry disposition, and the so-called threatening remark made to a coworker. This conduct and change in attitude, according to Hoover, stemmed from the failure of Thomas to receive her vacation check. Undoubtedly, Thomas was upset and angry because of this treatment, for Hoover had recommended her xts eligible for vacation pay but Brambach, without notice to either his super- visory staff or his employees, changed the rules, at least as far as they applied to Thomas, and eliminated her because of alleged absenteeism. In so depriv- ing Thomas of her vacation check, which she had every reason to believe was coming to her, the Company did not engage in any violation of the Act, but this action certainly justified Thomas' becoming "peeved" at the Company. Further, Hoover said that Thomas was angry and ignoring him between August 15 and 18, obviously because of the missing check. Hoover overlooked the fact that he 14 Counsel for the Company argues that assuming Hoover made this statement , nevertli i- less Thomas' testimony that she understood he was referring to her union activity should be disregarded for this belief was simply her "secret inference." since she did not ask Hoover to explain his remark Under the cucunistances it is difficult to see how Thomas could have reached any conclusion other than the one she stated Moreover, both Brambach and Blocker, as clearly appears herein, frequently reteired to the Union and the election as the "thing " 15 Hoover stated that in April 1948 he hired Ruby Shinn, who was it friend of Thomas. When Shinn was discharged 3 months later for inability to learn the work, hoover said Thomas became upset and angry and resented the discharge Since Thomas continued to work, the raising of this stale incident is puiely an afterthought and without merit. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY; INC. 693, distributed the checks the week following July 4, and that Thomas continued to work until July 29, when she was laid off for economic reasons, and was later recalled on August 15. On the basis of Hoover's testimony it would have to be assumed that Thomas was angry or peeved from about July 4 to August 18, or that she first adopted this disposition between August 15 and 18, some 6 weeks after the check incident. Neither of these hypotheses is convincing Moreover, had Hoover attached any significance to Thomas' attitude at the time of the incident in early July, when there were no union activities at the plant, he could have reprimanded or discharged her, but he elected to do nothing whatsoever and permitted Thomas to continue to work. Nor does the testimony of Knauer substantiate the events related by Hoover Knauer testified that "just after we got our checks," Thomas became angry at her failure to receive one and said she would get even with the Company. Thomas also related her experience at Montgomery Ward where she had had a supervisor fired. This was .the only occasion Thomas made such remarks to Knauer After Thomas returned to work, Hoover asked Knauer " . . what is the matter with Stella" and she re- plied, "Well, she is peeved over she didn't get her vacation check." Knauer may have also told Hoover that Thomas was "moody" and "the temper she had been in." Accordingly, Knauer fully corroborated the testimony of Thomas as to the time and place of their conversation and the fact that the remarks were made but once. On the other hand, Knauer plainly contradicted the testimony of Hoover that, on August 18, she communicated Thomas' threats to him, and upon which he bottomed his decision to immediately discharge Thomas Knauer testified she simply told Hoover that Thomas was "peeved" at not receiving her check and certainly this was nothing new or startling coming at such a late date. Again, Hoover said he talked to Miles concerning Thomas' attitude prior to her discharge. Miles failed to lend any support to Hoover's testimony in this respect. Like Knauer, she said Thomas was angry at riot getting a check and declared she would make it "miserable" for the Company. However, Miles was not even questioned as to any conversation Hoover might have had with her, nor is there anything in her testimony to indicate Miles ever related Thomas' statements to Hoover. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts the 'testimony of Thomas, Knauer, and Miles and rejects that of Hoover. The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that neither Knauer nor Miles informed Hoover on August 18 that Thomas had made threatening or disparag- ing remarks against the Company by reason of her failure to receive her vaca- tion check While Thomas may have been angry because of her missing check, and thus uttered indiscreet remarks, at the time the checks were distributed in early July, the undersigned is not persuaded that she fostered this attitude during the period she continued to work, and thereafter, when recalled follow- ing her layoff. In view of the foregoing the undersigned finds that Hoover dis- charged Thomas because of her union activities, not for her attitude, and that the discharge was effectuated under the circumstances as stated by Thomas. (Con- tinental Pipe Line Company, 67 NLRB 389, 395-397; enforced N. L. R. B. v. Continental Pipe Line Company, 161 F. 2d 302, 303 (C. A. 5).) As set forth above, Thomas stated that the week following her discharge, Blocker asked her who started the Union and she said she would tell him after the election had been held. Immediately after the election, Thomas unsuccess- fully attempted to see Brambach to inform him who started the Union but Blocker talked to her and asked her "to walk down the street and tell me who it was." However, at Gormley's suggestion she left Blocker without revealing this information. Gormley, Davis, and Partin were present during the conver- 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sation between Blocker and Thomas and testified substantially the same as Thomas, except they added that Blocker said Thomas would be reemployed if she gave him the names of the individuals responsible for the Union. Blocker denied that he questioned Thomas the week following her discharge or that he talked to her between the date of her discharge and the date of the election. However, Blocker admitted that immediately after the election Thomas came to him and stated she wanted to inform him who started the Union. Blocker also admitted that he then asked Thomas to "take a little walk," but only because of the agitation and tension present and his fear that something might happen to her. When Thomas failed or refused to take the walk as suggested by Blocker, he then told Thomas he was "not interested in this thing" and to forget about the matter Cancilla said she heard Thomas, Davis, and Surber ask Blocker to talk to them but, he refused as he was busy at the time Eastham, Schunkweiller, and Foxworthy (the last two by stipulation) stated they heard Thomas offer to tell Blocker "where all this started," but they could not hear Blocker's response to Thomas. As it is undisputed that Thomas on September 22 volunteered to give Blocker information as to the instigators of the Union, this act fully supports her testimony that the week following her discharge she was interrogated by Blocker in regard to those responsible for the Union and promised to furnish him with their names after the election was held, and the undersigned so finds. Further on the basis of Blocker's own testimony, it is clear that 'when Thomas approached him for the purpose of furnishing this data he asked her to walk down the street and it was not until she declined his invitation that he lost interest in talking to her. Moreover, this refusal as well as Thomas' change of mind is consistent with the testimony of Thomas, Gormley, Davis, and Partin that Gormley advised her not to talk to Blocker and go to Davis' car. Blocker's explanation that he wanted Thomas to leave the group for her own protection is without substance and is rejected. By reason of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that on September 22, Blocker attempted to secure the names of those responsible for initiating the Union and in return promised to reemploy Thomas, as stated by Thomas, Gormley, Davis, and Partin. Blocker conceded that a group of employees met with him that day after the election to discuss their jobs but he refused to talk to them as a group and suggested that they return individually for this purpose. He further denied that he made any unlawful statements to the group. The undersigned credits the testimony of Davis, Partin, and Castle bearing upon the events at this meeting and finds that Blocker told the group that the 21 employees who voted for the Union, if identified, would be weeded out and that neither Davis nor anyone else who had anything to do with the Union would be recalled. Thomas and Davis stated that substantially the same group met with Bram- bach the morning of September 23, and, after telling the group they had no business in the plant, declared that the 21 employees who voted for the Union would be weeded out, when discovered, and that he would not operate in a community where he could not get along Brambach admitted meeting with the group but denied making the above statements. The undersigned rejects Brambach's denial and finds that he did utter the remarks as stated by Thomas and Davis. In view of the above, the undersigned is convinced that Hoover seized upon the so-called poor attitude of Thomas as a pretext for eliminating an active union protagonist from the employ of the Company. The undersigned therefore concludes and finds upon a preponderance of the evidence that the Company ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 695 discharged Thomas because of her activities on behalf of the Union, thereby discriminating with respect to her hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization, and also thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2 The discharge of Sutherlin It is clearly established in the record that Sutherlin was a slow 'worker, that she was granted one pay increase, and that she was never disciplined or reprimanded because of her slowness, although during her 17 months of em- ployment with the Company, Hoover on two occasions spoke to her in regard to her production. Similarly, Alspaugh spoke to her, on one occasion. It is equally clear that the production of all the employees was lower than the average previously maintained when the plant was located in Chicago but the record, except as stated below, fails to reveal how many employees were dis- charged or laid off following the adoption of a policy to eliminate inefficient employees. When in July it became necessary to temporarily reduce operations, Hoover selected Sutherlin as the first to be laid off in her department. Hoover said Sutherlin, unlike the other employees, was permanently laid off on July 18, and in response to a leading question he further stated that this action was tanta- mount to being discharged. However, Sutherlin was not paid off at that time and did not receive her pay until approximately 4 weeks later when she went to the plant office and obtained the same. Hoover's testimony that Sutherlin was permanently laid off is plainly contradicted by his prior testimony concern- ing the discharge of Thomas In Thomas' case, Hoover informed her she was being discharged for certain reasons and, in accordance with company policy that "lay off was pay off," immediately handed her a check covering her wages to date. It is undisputed that Sutherlin was not advised that her layoff was permanent, that she was discharged, or that she was paid off at the time of her so-called permanent layoff. On the other hand, Sutherlin said Alspaugh simply told her she was being laid off and would receive a card advising her when to return to work. This testimony was not denied by Alspaugh. In the light of this evidence the undersigned finds that Sutherlin was not discharged or per- manently laid off on July 18, but, like the other employees, was temporarily laid off and had every reason to believe that she would be recalled to work. It is true that after Sutherlin signed a union card she engaged in little, if any, activities on behalf of the Union. She did, however, openly associate with Thomas, Davis, and other prominent proponents of the Union and was present with them on September 23 when they called on Blocker to discuss their reem- ployment with him Apart from the considerations, set forth above, that the Company was aware of union activities at its plant, Brambach said that he assumed the group that met with Blocker and himself were all union adherents as "birds of a feather flock together." Blocker denied the testimony of Suther- lin and Davis that on September 23 he would reemploy Sutherlin and would send her a letter notifying her when to report for work. 'Further, Blocker denied that he talked to Sutherlin on September 28, or that he ever interrogated her in regard to her signing a union card or her attitude, as stated by Sutherlin. Having found that Sutherlin was neither discharged nor permanently laid off on July 18, the question presented is whether the Company refused to reem- ploy Sutherlin because of her slow work or because of her membership and activity in the Union, in order to discourage membership therein. The second 696 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD question presented is whether Sutherlin was unlawfully discharged on September 2S. The undersigned is of the opinion both of these questions must be answered in the affirmative In determining these issues the discharge of Sutherlin cannot be viewed as an isolated incident but must be weighed and considered in the light of the totality of the Company's conduct throughout the Union's campaign to organize the plant. As established in the record the Company laid off 18 of its production employees in the latter part of July. Of thus number, 7 employees, namely, Thomas, Sutherlin, Davis, Dickson, Surber, Partin, and Castle became active in promoting the Union during the period of their layoff.16 All of the laid-off employees were recalled to work, except Sutherlin, Davis, Surber, Pai tin, and Dickson. The 2 remaining union proponents, Thomas and Castle, were recalled but Thomas was discharged 4 clays later and Castle, after working about 3 weeks, quit on September 23 because Hoover had complained about her going to the restroom and she did not like conditions at the plant Thus, on September 23, not one of the above union advocates was employed at the plant. But, as in the Thomas and Sutherlin discharges, the Company was not without excuses for its failure to recall these individuals. According to Hoover, Dickson was too slow ; Partin was not only too slow but absent too often ; Davis had "rejects"; and Surber talked too much and used vile language at work. Brambach added that Surber dressed in her "Sunday finery" and waltzed around the plant "like the Queen of Sheba," and, if Hoover had not "fired" her, he himself would have done so. Accordingly, it appears that these employees, although employed by the Company for some time, uniformly became undesirable when they became active in promoting the Union. By the sane token apparently, those who re- frained from such activities were acceptable and desirable employees For example, Hoover said that Dorothy Hutchinson and Inez Rowe, who were first hired in the tailoring depai tment on July 31, 10:0, in the short space of 6 or 7 seeks attained practically the same degree of efficiency as Sutherlin achieved after 17 months on this operation At the same time Hoover stated it required 6 months to 1 year to train the average employee in this operation while Bram- baeh said the period was 6 months to 2 or 3 years The discriminatory treat- ment afforded the foregoing individuals, viewed in the light of Thomas' unlawful discharge, the interrogation of employees in regard to the Union, and the anti- union declarations of Brambach, Hoover. and Blocker, convince the undersigned that the Company embarked upon a course of conduct designed to fi castrate union organization among the employees and to eliminate the union adherents from its employment The Company successfully achieved each goal. Under all the circumstances in the case, when viewed together with the Com- pany's demonstrated hostility to the unionization of their employees, plus the self-contradictory contention that Sutherlin was permanently laid off on July 18, and the unpersuasmve character of the assertion that she was the most inefficient employee in the plant, convinces the undersigned that Sutherlin was discharged for reasons other than those alleged by the Company, Accordingly, the under- signed credits the testimony of Sutherlin and finds that she was unlawfully discharged on September 28 The undersigned therefore concludes and finds upon a preponderance of the evidence that the Company discharged Sutherlin because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, thereby discriminating with respect to her hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization and also thereby interfering with, 16 Cooper, who was also active in the Union, was not laid off and apparently continued to work. ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 697 restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 3. Other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion Blocker did not deny that he interrogated Carey in respect to union activities at the plant sometime prior to the election. Admittedly, Blocker, as appears above (pp 684 and 691), questioned Staggs about the union activities of Thomas and Castle. He denied that about August 17 he talked to Castle and, after stating he was aware of her activities, accused her of "trying to dump the Union into his lap," or that he warned her to keep her "nose clean and stay out of trouble." Blocker said he merely talked to Castle about her production. As Castle worked tinder Hoover, and both Blocker and Hoover made it plain they ex- ercised exclusive supervision over their respective employees, it seems unusual that Blocker would discuss production problems with one of Hoover's employees, even with the latter's permission Blocker's denial and explanation is uncon- vincing and the undersigned credits the testimony of Castle concerning this incident. The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that Blocker interro- gated Staggs, Carey, and Castle in regard to union activities at the plant and thereby interfered with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed the employees in Section 7 of the Act. (Linde Atr Products Company, 86 NLRB 1330, 1335- 1336; Empn e Pencil Company, 86 NLRB 1187,1189-1190; Atlanta Bi oadeastvng Company, 90 NLRB 808; Thermout Company, 90 NLRB 614. Gormley stated that after the ballots had been counted Brambach said, "we have got to get them out of here," referring to the 21 employees who voted for the Union. Castle said Brambach remarked, "the worse wasn't over." Bram- bach denied he made the remark as stated by Gormley, and Wilson testified to the same effect. Under the' circumstances, the undersigned accepts the testi- mony of Castle, Brambach, and Wilson and finds that Brambach did not make the statement as asserted by Gormley. 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, set forth, 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the "hire and tenure of employment of Stella Thomas and Macel Sutherlin, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to each immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position's and make each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimi- nation against her by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during said '7 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD period.18 Loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the Respondent's discrimi- natory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. The quarterly periods, herein 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 each employee would normally have earned for each such quarter or portion thereof, her net earnings, if any, in any other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter.19 It will also be recommended that the Respondent, upon reasonable request, make available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to an analysis of the amounts due as back pay. The unfair labor practices found above reveal on the part of the Respondent such a fundamental antipathy to the objectives of the Act as to justify an in- ference that the commission of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated in the future, and it will be recommended, therefore, that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLusIONs OF LAW 1. The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Stella Thomas and Macel Sutherlin, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By such discrimination and 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. 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.] 18 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440. 'OF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. GEORGE W. REED and ERNEST SYDNEY CHARLTON INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING & COMMON LABORERS UNION OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 36, AFL and ERNEST SYDNEY CHARLTON. Cases Nos. 20-CA-268 and 00-CB-80. May 18, 1951 Decision and Order On January 29, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that Respondent Reed, herein referred to as the Employer, and Respondent 94 NLRB No. 109.