Nina Dye Works Co., Inc.

824 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NINA DYE WORKS Co., INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No.. 4-C4-269. -July 31, 1951 Decision and Order On April 4, 1951, Trial Examiner Henry J. Kent issued his Inter= mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in 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. 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, Murdock, and Styles]. The Board 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 Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case," and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the corrections 7 2.. additions, and modifications set forth below. ' 1. The Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint herein on the - ground that, at the time the charges were filed, the Congress of In- dustrial Organizations,. herein called the C. I. 0., with which the Union is affiliated, was not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g),, and (h) of the Act.' We agree with the Trial Examiner's denial of this motion. That section requires only that the labor organiza- tions involved shall be in compliance with the filing provisions before a complaint issues. On June 29, 1950, when the complaint herein was issued, the C. I. O. was in full compliance with these filing pro- visions, and the issuance of the complaint was therefore proper.3 2. For the reasons set forth in Cathey Lumber Company,' we af- firm the Trial Examiner's refusal to dismiss the portion of the complaint based upon amended charges alleging violations which occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the amended charges but less than 6 months before the filing of,the original charge. 'The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby. denied as the record and the exceptions and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 We hereby find that Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and not, as the Trial Examiner inadvertently found, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. s Dent & Russell, Ltd., 95 NLRB 252; Southern Fruit Distributors, 80 NLRB 1283; H. & H. Manufacturing Company, Inc., 87 NLRB 1373. 4 86 NLRB 157. 95 NLRB No. 86. I NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 825 3. We agree with the Trial Examiner's. finding that employees Miller and Ruby were discharged because they -were known advocates of the Union. Employee Tate testified that Foreman Royce, who discharged Miller and Ruby, upon being informed by Tate that Miller and Ruby had expressed themselves in favor of the Union, stated that "I will see that they do not last long." Royce, while denying that he made this statement, admitted that he was told by Tate, on the day he discharged Ruby and Miller, that these two employees were in favor of the Union. We adopt the Trial Examiner's findings crediting Tate rather than Royce. While Tate may have imperfectly recollected or even exaggerated his role in circulating the antiunion petition, the record clearly establishes that he did circulate it to some of the employees, and his imperfect recollection or his exaggeration in respect to that incident do not invalidate his clear testimony in respect to Royce's statement about Ruby and Miller. The Respondent claims that Ruby and Miller were discharged 'for .unsatisfactory work. Employee Fauth credibly testified, however, that he asked Royce, about 3 weeks before the discharges, how Miller and Ruby were progressing in their work, and was told by Royce that they were doing well. Both Miller and Ruby credibly testified that when he discharged them, Royce informed them that he was doing so on orders from the "big boy" and that he was sorry to see them go as they had been good workers. Royce testified that he had discharged Miller because he was slow and not on the job when he should have been. Royce admitted, however, that he had never repri- manded Miller for being slow or for failing to be on the job. Under all the circumstances, we find that Miller was discharged because of Royce's determination to get rid of him as a union advocate, in viola- ' tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Royce testified that he discharged Ruby because` of the unusual number of "tangles" and "wrap-ups" 5 in Ruby's dye box, which Royce attributed to an excessive amount of horseplay by Ruby and to absences from his work station. Other witnesses of the Respondent testified similarly as to tangles and wrap-ups in Ruby's dye box. If this testimony were to be credited, it would appear that the quality of Ruby's work had been so bad that he would hardly have been re- tained until the June 15 incident. However, Ruby not only was not discharged before his union sympathies became known to Royce, but Royce admitted that he had reprimanded him only once or twice in the 3 months Ruby worked at the plant. Other employees credibly testified that Ruby was a satisfactory worker. We find that Ruby E According to the Respondent's witnesses , "tangles" of materials in the dye boxes are frequent occurrences which cannot be prevented , and which are readily corrected. An unattended tangle develops into a "wrap -up" which is costly to fix. 826 DECISIONS .OFNATIONAL• LABOR. - RELATIONS BOARD was not a generally unsatisfactory, w, claimed by the Re- spondent. Rovee further testified that the immediate cause for Ruby's dis.. charge was a bad wrap-up which developed in Ruby's box on the day of his -discharge. It is established by the record that a wrap-up did occur in Ruby's box on the day of-his discharge, but it is not estab- lished that it occurred prior to his discharge or that it was due. to culpable negligence on Ruby's part. Thus, the Trial Examiner finds,. .,and we agree, that immediately preceding his discharge, Ruby was in the dye kitchen to get dye, a -routine part of his job. Immediately .on his return. from the dye kitchen, Ruby was discharged. It is -possible that the wrap-up in Ruby's box developed during his absence ;in, the dye kitchen or even after his discharge. Moreover, there is .no. showing that wrap-ups had formerly been considered cause for discharge. In view of Ruby's work record, of the Respondent's fail- ure to establish Ruby's responsibility for the extent of the wrap-up on the day of his discharge, and of its failure to show that a wrap-up • had previously been considered cause for discharge, we find that Ruby, in accordance with Royce's expressed intention, was discharged for his union advocacy, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 4. tie agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent .permitted and encouraged circulation of the antiunion petition for the purpose of finding out the employees' sentiments about the Union, -and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.. While it is true that the petition -was originally a spontaneous expression of anti- union sentiment by the employees, and that the Respondent permitted 1 -union organizing on the plant premises, the Respondent made the petition a vehicle for illegal interrogation of its employees when Rhodes, president of the. Respondent, encouraged Tate to circulate the petition in order- to ascertain the union sentiments of the enr- ployees. Accepting, as we do the Trial Examiner's credibility findings as to Tate and Rhodes, we find Rhodes- did so encourage Tate. We also agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that by Foreman -Darrah's threatening employees Good and -Blauser with discharge if they did not sign the antiunion petition, by Rhodes' and Fire's threatening that the Respondent would move or close the plant should the Union get in, and by Rhodes' and Fire's interrogating employees -Fauth and Blauser about matters of union. concern, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the . Re= spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act when Fire.repri- manded Bosserman for inducing a fellow employee to join the Union while the latter was intoxicated. We find that this incident, as set NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 827 forth in the Intermediate Report, does not amount to an interrogation .of Bosserman about' union activities, and does not otherwise violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Order Upon the entire record in this 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, Nina Dye Works Co:, Inc., of York, Pennsylvania, and its officers,. agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees by discharging employees or in any other way discriminating in any man- ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or con- dition of employment. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning union activities; threatening its employees with discharge or with economic. reprisal unless they cease their union activities or participate in antiunion 'activities ; encouraging the circulation of an antiunion petition, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile' Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any '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 membership in a labor organization as a con- dition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which we find will effec- tuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges. (b) Make whole Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller 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 rec- ords necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under this Order. 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Post at its plant in York, Pennsylvania:, copies of_the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 6 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, shall, after being duly, signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) con- secutive 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 . writ- ing, 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, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in the hire and tenure of employment of Woodrow Bosserman, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 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 interrogate our employees as to union activities in our plant, threaten our employees with discharge or other. eco- nomic reprisals because of their union activities or failure to par- ticipate in antiunion activities, or encourage the circulation of antiunion petitions. WE WILL NOT discourage membership - in TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. 1. 0., or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in.the exercise of their right to self-organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organi- zation, 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 such activities, except to the extent that 6 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." NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 829 such right may be affected by an' agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author- ized in Section 8 (a) (3,) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered, as a result of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be- coming or remaining, members of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF.AMER- ICA, C. I. 0.; or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be affected by an agreement'in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in any such labor organization. NINA DYE WORKS Co., INC., Employer. Dated ------------------- By -------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) 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 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges duly filed and served by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called , respectively, the General Coun- sel' and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region ( Pbila- delphia, Pennsylvania ), issued a complaint dated June 29, 1950 , against Nina Dye Works Co., Inc., of York , Pennsylvania, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent has 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 Labor Management Relations Act, 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and the complaint together with a notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleges in substance that: ( 1) Respondent discharged Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller Qn or about June 15, 1949, and thereafter refused to reinstate them ; ( 2) the Respondent discriminatorily curtailed the hours of employment of Woodrow Bosserman because of his union activities ; and (3 ) the Respondent interrogated employees regarding union activities, threatened to close the plant if the Union organized it, threatened employees with discharge if they joined or assisted the Union, or refused to engage in concerted activities in opposition to the Union, kept and sought to keep under surveillance the union and other concerted 1 This term includes counsel appearing on behalf of the General Counsel. 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activities of its employees, and initiated, sponsored, and assisted the circulation of an antiunion petition in the plant. The Respondent duly filed its answer admitting the allegations of the com- plaint regarding its business operations , but denying the commission of the unfair labor practices alleged. The Regional Director, pursuant to a.ruling of the undersigned Trial Examiner, furnished Respondent with a bill of particulars before the hearing opened con- cerning the allegations of interference , restraint, and coercion in response to a motion filed with the Regional Director by Respondent for further particulars. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26, 1950, at York , Pennsylvania, before the undersigned Trial Examiner , duly designated to conduct the hearing by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by representatives . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded to all parties. - At•the opening of the hearing the undersigned denied a motion by Respondent to dismiss the complaint on the ground of laches because the complaint was not issued until over 1 year after the original charge in the matter was filed. There is no limitation in the Act providing that a complaint must -issue within a certain period following the filing of a charge. . The parties were afforded an opportunity to present oral argument before the undersigned but waived it. They were then granted 15 days to file briefs. Briefs from both parties have been duly received. On or about August 10, 1950, counsel for Respondent filed a motion , supported by his affidavit , with the undersigned asking that the record be corrected or amended to cure 10 alleged errors contained therein. A copy of the . motion was duly served upon the General Counsel and the Union . No objections have been interposed to the proposed corrections. For convenience the • undersigned has inserted Respondent 's motion and the supporting documents marked Trial Examiner 's Exhibit A in the exhibit file of the case. The first six of the corrections requested merely involve misspellings or similar alleged errors in respect to names appearing in the transcript . It is ordered that the transcript be corrected pursuant to the request made by Respondent in respect to these six items. The additional four corrections or amendments in substance request that the .record be amended to show that General Counsel's Exhibits 4A to 4G, Respond- ent's Exhibit 5, Respondent's Exhibit 6, and Respondent's Exhibit 23 have been -duly received in evidence. All of the said exhibits are included in the reporter 's exhibit file except Re- spondent's Exhibit 5. This exhibit was a pretrial statement signed by witness Paul Runkle. Runkle duly identified it and was questioned by Respondent dur- ang cross-examination regarding some of the matters contained in the said statement but it was not offered in evidence after , it had been identified and apparently it was not handed to the reporter because it is not included amodg the exhibits in the file. Respondent's motion insofar as it pertains to Respond- ent's Exhibit 5 is hereby denied. Respondent's Exhibit 6 was merely marked for identification, but no witness was called who was able to authenticate or identify it and thereafter it was not formally offered in evidence. In these circumstances it cannot presently be admitted in evidence. - - Respondent's Exhibits 4A to 4G inclusive are copies of letters passed out by The Respondent to its employees during an organizational campaign by the Union. NINA DYE WORKS Co., INC. 831 I accept the explanation of Respondent's counsel set forth in his affidavit that he handed these documents to the General Counsel with an agreement that the latter would offer them in evidence but by inadvertance the General Counsel failed to do so. Since matters contained in the exhibits have been gone into to some 'extent by each counsel during the interrogation of various witnesses and materially concern some of the issues raised, they should be received in evidence. Accordingly, I hereby order that the transcript be amended to show that General Counsel's Exhibits 4A to 4G inclusive have been received in evidence In respect to the last contention raised by Respondent's counsel pertaining to Respondent's Exhibit. No. 23, the record shows,,as contended by Respondent, that the exhibit was admitted in evidence. The fact that the reporter inad- vertantly failed to note the matter in his index is immaterial. Upon the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the under- signed makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Nina Dye Works Co., Inc., a corporation organized under the law of the State of New Jersey, maintains its principal office and plant at York, Pennsylvania. It is engaged in the dyeing and finishing of synthetic fabrics such as rayon yard goods generally supplied by its customers: In connection with the processes it performs on customers' goods, it annually purchases for use raw materials consisting principally of dyes. and other chemi- cal products of an approximate value of $50,000, about 50 percent of which is purchased outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and shipped to its York, Pennsylvania, plant. It annually receives goods for processing valued at over $100,000. After com- pleting the dyeing and finishing processes on these materials about 90 percent of such materials is shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Sequence of material events 1. Labor relations and general factual background - Insofar as the record shows, no substantial efforts had been made to organize Respondent's employees until May 1949. According to the credited testimony of Edmund Ryan, an international representative of the charging Union, who maintains an office for the Union at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Ryan went to York, Pennsylvania, on or about May 3, 1949, to discuss the prospect of organiz- ing textile workers in the York area with C. I. O. representatives of other C. I. O. unions which maintain offices at York, Pennsylvania.' On about May 9, 1949, during his visit to York, Ryan passed 'out a newspaper published by the Union for its members to the Respondent's employees on both 2 There is some unconvincing .testimony -in the record that the Union herein passed out circulars near Respondent 's plant at York in June 1948, announcing a meeting for Respond- ent's employees on July 3, 1948, but the record fails to show that the meeting was attended by any of the employees. Ryan produced a circular announcing such a meeting, but said be could only presume that it had been issued by another union representative working earlier in the area because he had no direct knowledge regarding the matter. 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-, LABOR,,RELATIONS BOARD the day and night shift at the plant entrance when the shifts were changing about 7 o'clock on the evening of that day . Subsequently later issues of the same paper were passed out each week by -other paid organizers of the Union at the same place during the next 3 or 4 weeks. Shortly before June 15, 1949 , the Union issued a press release that it was start- ing a ,drive to organize textile workers in the York , Pennsylvania, area. There- after, on the morning of June 15, the York." Gazette and Daily," a daily morning paper ( with a substantial general circulation in the area ), printed a story under the following bold type headline : "OPEN UNION DRIVE AT NINA DYE SHOP." Among other things, the story stated in substance that Respondent 's minimum wages were lower than those paid in organized plants, that generally organized dye shop workers receive overtime for, all working . time over 8• hours in any 1 day, whereas Respondent only pays overtime for hourly time in excess of 40 hours a week, that Respondent 's employees earn a, satisfactory take-home pay only because they work 60 hours a week or longer, and that organized textile workers receive about the same take-home pay for a standard 40-hour workweek. Some unidentified person brought a copy of this issue of the "Gazette" to the dressing room at the plant just before the shifts were changing at 7 o'clock on the morning of that day, namely on June 15, 1949, it was placed upon a table in the dressing room and many employees on each of the shifts read the story con- taining the assertions made by the Union. Thereafter, considerable discussion relating to organization was engaged in among the employees on this same day. . The record shows that employees Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller, who worked in the dye house department ; engaged in several conversations on the same day, regarding the proposed union drive with Arthur Tate , a fellow employee in the saipe department. Ruby and Miller were each outspoken in announcing that they were in favor of the Union's plan to organize the plant. On the other hand, Tate asserted that he was opposed to all union organizations because of an un- satisfactory experience with another union at another plant. Tate credibly testified and Earl Royce, the foreman of the three employees above named , admits that Tate informed Royce during the same day that Ruby and Miller had each favored the Union's plan to organize the plant. Shortly before quitting time on this same day, the Respondent discharged Ruby and Miller for alleged reasons more particularly discussed below in the next -subdivision of this Report, About a week later, a group of four night shift employees in the dye room decided to voice objections to the proposed organization of the plant by the Union. They delegated Carl Miller, a member of the group, to draft a document setting up the reasons for their opposition. On or about June 27, 1949 , Miller drafted a letter ( more commonly called the antiunion petition in the record ) to present to the local newspapers. A copy of the so-called antiunion petition in evidence, states, in substance , that the sub- scribers thereto disagree with th^ assertions made by the Union to the effect that Respondent's employees are overworked and underpaid , that they volun- tarily chose to work overtime to increase their take-home pay, and that the signers prefer to deal individually with Respondent's management . rather than through the Union., It was circulated throughout the plant on June 28 , during working hours , by rank-and-file employees with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. About 100 of approximately 160 rank-and-file employees work- ing k- ing in the plant signed it. . Thereafter, the sponsoring group sent it to the "York Dispatch," an evening newspaper with a general circulation in the York area. It was printed in the so-called letter column in the "Dispatch" on the afternoon of July 1, 1949. NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 833 Subsequently, the Union presumably handed in another story to the "Gazette and Daily" regarding the current organizing campaign at Respondent plant, because on August 3, 1949, Respondent handed out copies of a letter to all of the employees accusing the Union of having made false or erroneous statements to the press concerning the circulation of the so-called antiunion petition. The Respondent's letter among other things stated : "As you know we allowed you [the employees] to circulate [your letter] in order to give you an oppor- tunity to express your own opinion of the Union and its charges, and further asserted that Respondent had refrained from replying earlier to the Union's charges, because we did not want to interfere•in any way with your right to join a union or to refrain from joining a union." Meanwhile, on July 11, 1949, the Union filed its original charge in the case alleging in substance that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller on June 15, 1949, and that on or about -June 27, 1949, Respondent aided and abetted in the circulation of an antiunion petition on company time and property. Thereafter, the Union distributed a number of handbills at the plant entrance on various dates during the next few months voicing further arguments and claims regarding benefits the Union could presumably gain for the employees if selected to represent them as collective bargaining representative. Respondent, thereupon, by means of letters generally addressed to all em- ployees of the Company and placed. near the time clock at the plant, attempted to meet and answer the claims advanced by the Union. Insofar as the record shows, the first formal organizational meeting of the Union was held at the Valley Inn at York, Pennsylvania, on September 15, 1949. Respondent's president, Arthur Rhodes, accepted an invitation from one of the representatives of the Union to attend it e 2. The discharges of Ruby and Miller on June 15, 1949 Ralph Ruby was hired by Respondent as a dye box operator on or about April 1, 1949. Charles Miller was hired on May 18, 1949, as a floorboy in the same department Ruby worked in.' . Each of them continued to work regularly on their respective jobs until both were summarily discharged by Earl Royce, their departmental foreman, just before quitting time on the night of June 15. Ruby and Miller each credibly testified without, -contradiction that they had never been punished or otherwise disciplined for any delinquencies during their respective terms of employment. In addition, each of them also testified that they had never been reprimanded or criticized during the entire time they were working. Royce, their foreman, testified that :h6, reprimanded each of them on two or three occasions for alleged delinquencies, but he did not assert that he ever threatened to discipline or discharge them because of any claimed delinquencies. 8 The above findings are based upon the credited testimony given by various witnesses called by the parties which has not been convincingly contradicted. * A dye box is a large tank several feet long in which dyeing processes are carried on. The operator stretches fabrics to be dyed over a reel mounted on a rotating shaft running lengthwise through the center of the box, and he also loads water, dyestuffs, and' other chemicals into the bottom of the tank in quantities and kind ordered for each dyeing operation by the plant superintendent. There are approximately 10 dye box operators in the department on each of the 2 shifts and about the same number of floorboys. The latter assist the box operators in loading and unloading the dye boxes at the beginning and end of each dyeing operation and, in addition, the floorboys truck fabrics into the department for dyeing and truck out said fabrics after' they have been dyed. 834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record shows that Ruby signed a designation card. for the charging union early in June 1949, and that Miller signed a similar card while employed at the plant.' According to their testimony, Ruby and Miller each admitted that they had never informed, any fellow employee that they had joined the Union and also admitted that they had never solicited any fellow employee to join it. They did, however, assert (and, as found below, the record amply supports these assertions) that they, were voluble in voicing their opinions in the plant to fellow employees that the employees needed union representation in order to obtain better working conditions. ' -As noted above in the precedii* introductory section of this Report, the Union issued a press release-which was printed in'the York "Gazette" on the morning of June 15, 1949, that it was starting a' drive to organize Respondent's plant.. As might be expected, this announcement generated considerable curiosity and discussion on this day concerning the proposed union campaign among the employees. Shortly after work. commenced at 7 o'clock on this morning Ruby and Miller engaged in a conversation regarding the proposed campaign with Arthur Tate, a dye box operator working on the dye box next to Ruby's. According to the credited and uncontradicted testimony of the three said named employees, all of whom were called as witnesses by the General Counsel, Ruby asserted to the other two men that he was in favor. of the Union's plan to organize. the plant, because he believed it. might result in the employees obtaining a shorter. workweek.. The testimony of the three employees was also in agreement that Miller at the time voiced approval of the- position taken by Ruby, and that Tate then stated that he was opposed to all union organization, because. of an earlier unsatisfactory experience involving another union at a different plant e Tate further credibly testified and Earl Royce (the foreman of the dye room' and supervisor of these three employees) admitted that Tate informed Royce that Ruby and Miller were protagonists of the Union and had so expressed themselves in, a conversation with Tate.' In addition, Tate' further' testified that. after he had given this information' to Royce, the latter remarked:. "Well, 'I-will see that they do not last long.", Royce denied that he made any threat to- discharge Ruby and Miller at the time, but asserts that he merely listened to Tate's . recital regarding the purported conversation between Ruby, Miller,, and Tate without making any comment or reply to Tate. The fact that Royce summarily discharged Ruby and Miller. just before quitting time on this same day, as set forth below, in conjunction with a consideration all of the other evidence leads me to conclude and find that Tate's above version of the con- versation between Royce and Tate on this -day is the more reliable and it is found that. on this occasion Royce threatened to discharge Ruby and Miller. - According to Ruby's.credited and, uncontradicted testimony, he' left his dye box about a half hour before the day 'shift ended at 7 o'clock on that evening to go to the dye kitchen for additional dye. When he returned to the machine a few minutes later Royce was standing nearby and the following colloquy took place, according to Ruby : The boss said that your work is unsatisfactory and I [Ruby] said to' [Royce], Why? I can't see why. I can't do any more than the machine s Miller's card, in evidence, bears the date of May 12, 1949. The record shows that he was not employed until May 18, but since he credibly asserted, in the opinion of the undersigned, that he signed it during the time he was employed, I find that it was signed on some date later than May 12, 1949, and before he was discharged. . e Tate's disapproval toward the charging union was later evidenced by the fact that 'he was one of the circulators of the so-called antiunion petition circulated throughout the plant on or about June 27, 1949. ' - - NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 835: can do. He [Royce] said , the boss said your work is unsatisfactory and. you should go to the dressing room to get [into your street clothes] and [ then' come to the office for your pay]. According to Miller, he was also summarily terminated 'just .a few minutes before 7 o 'clock on this same evening . Miller asserts that he was helping to unload one of the dye boxes in the department when Royce called him away from the job and told Miller : [I am] sorry Miller , but I have to lay you off tonight. You get all your stuff in the dressing room that belongs to you. The big boy told me to lay you off . . . [After getting your belongings you can get your - check at the plant office]. Both , employees , after changing • into their street clothes , met with Royce at the plant office where the latter handed each of them final pay checks. Just as they were walking . out of the plant, according to the testimony of Ruby and' Miller , Royce remarked to each of then in substance that he was sorry to see- them go, because each of them had been satisfactory employees, but that he (Royce ) was unable to keep them on the job because he was only a minor boss.' Royce, called as witness for the Respondent , admits that he summarily dis- charged each of the men about 6: 30 o'clock on .the night of June 15, but denies. that he told them he was acting under orders from someone higher up and said, in substance , that at the time he observed a tangle in Ruby's dye box and immediately decided to discharge Ruby, because Ruby's work had always been unsatisfactory,8 and that after discharging Ruby he noted that Miller was "bunched" up with several other employees engaged in a general conversation,. whereupon he then decided to summarily discharge Miller. The record shows that no strict rule regarding conversation among employees had ever been: established or enforced at the plant. At most, according to Royce, when he saw a group of employees "hunched" up in a lengthy discussion , he would. walkup to them and tell them to "break it up." The above testimony given by Ruby and Miller was corroborated in part by testimony given by employee Virgil Fauth . Fauth testified that he was a cousin : of Ruby's, that he was instrumental in aiding Miller to get his job at the plant ; that about 3 weeks before Ruby and Miller were discharged, Fauth asked Royce how Ruby and Miller were making out on the job, and that on this occasion , Royce in substance told Fauth that each of then were good employees . and if all of his men were as satisfactory he would be satisfied with his force . Royce admits that Fauth had made such an inquiry concerning. Miller, but asserts he , Royce, merely told Fauth that Miller had only been on the job for a few days and seemed to be satisfactory ' and denied that Fauth had made any inquiry of Royce regarding Ruby. From my observation and consideration of Fauth's entire testimony I concluded that he was a reliable and trustworthy witness. On the - other hand I was doubtful concerning much of the testimony given by Royce and reached the conclusion that Fauth 's version was the . more reliable . Accordingly I credit Fauth's above testimony. 8 As previously found above Ruby had left his box to go to the , dye kitchen for supplies, a practice permitted in the plant . It is entirely probable that a tangle developed in Ruby's box during his absence, but insofar as the record shows he was the first operator to be fired for this reason. Respondent called several operators in Ruby's department to support Royce's general assertion that Ruby 's work was unsatisfactory . These witnesses , by way of general conclu- sionary testimony, testified that tangles occurred more frequently in Ruby's box than in those of other operators . It is noted that substantially all of these witnesses were long- time employees with much more experience on the job than Ruby who had only been working for about 10 weeks ; one of them , Edward Garman , admitted during cross. examination that tangles frequently occurred in his box , and further admitted that only 9 or 10 pieces of cloth were dyed at one time in his box, whereas Ruby's box carried a load of about 30 pieces. - ' - 961974-52- vol. 95-54 836 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record further shows that a few days after June 15, 1949, the Respondent made a report to the'Pennsylvania State Bureau of Employment and Unemploy- ment Insurance stating that Ruby's current unemployment was due to "lack of work." This statement made so soon after Ruby was terminated tends to refute the defense later raised by the Respondent at the hearing (insofar as Ruby is con- cerned) that Ruby was discharged for cause for the record shows that no reduc- tion in force occurred at or about this time. A realistic consideration of all the evidence in the record in conjunction with my opportunity to observe the de- meanor of the witnesses, in connection with all of the circumstances surrounding the discharges, convinces me that the versions given by Ruby and Miller regarding their.respeetive discharges are more reliable than Royce's version. I find their 'versions'to be substantially true. 3. The antiunion letter As noted above in the preceding section of this Report, the York "Gazette and Daily" on the morning of June 15, 1949, printed a story to the effect that the Union was starting a drive to organize the Respondent's plant, which story also included reasons asserted by. the Union to support the latter's claim that the em- ployees needed an organization to represent them. As might be expected, the printed announcement occasioned much discussion pro and con among the employees. A group of employees on the night shift consisting of Bosserman, Carl Miller, Oppelt, and Garman were opposed to the Union at this time, and for several days after the story appeared they spent considerable time outside the plant before they „went into work discussing steps they might. take to combat the Union. During: ',phis -,period, a local barber, when cutting Miller's hair and in the course of a mutual conversation, related to Miller that one of the Union 's representatives active in the drive told the barber that the Union was meeting with difficulties in getting the employees interested in organization because they were a bunch of dumb-farmers. When Miller reported this purported remark to the group opposing the Union, .it riled, the antiunion faction and they decided to answer the Union 's statement which had been printed in the York "Gazette and Daily." Miller, who had some experience ' as a newspaper reporter, was delegated to write up an article for .Publication. On or about June 26, 1949, Miller wrote up a penciled draft of a proposed reply while working on his job as dye box operator.. Later on the same night, he spent about 30 minutes in preparing a revised pen and ink draft at a desk in the dye room. Miller testified that, insofar as he observed, Gallagher, the night foreman, did not see Miller working at the desk. He further testified that his presence there was not calculated to attract the foreman's attention, because on other nights he spent periods of 20 minutes or more at the same desk writing out a list of items desired by the employees for their midnight lunches, which re- quests he thereafter telephoned -in to a neighboring lunchroom to be filled. After Miller completed the draft, Garman, another dye room employee on the night shift, circulated it in the dye room and Woodrow Bosserman, a finishing room employee, circulated it among the employees in that department. Garman and Bosserman each testified that, insofar as they knew, the respective .foreman in neither of the departments was aware of these activities .9 ° It is noted that several months later Bosserman became an active protagonist of the ,Anion. . NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 837 On the following morning, according to Royce, the day shift foreman in. the dye. room, Garman handed Royce a "sheaf" of papers a few minutes before 7 o'clock on that morning and requested Royce to hand it to one of the men on the day shift who would know what to do with them,'after reading them. Royce as- serts that he merely put the papers in his pocket without noting the contents and handed them to employee Arthur Tate about one-half hour later stating to Tate, at the.time, that Garman had requested Royce to hand the papers to one of the day workers who would know what to do with, them after • the latter read the contents10 Tate testified that a few days after Ruby and Miller had been discharged Royce approached him in the plant about 7 o'clock one morning and said to Tate : Here is a "petition." I'd like to have you take it around the plant .. . Read it and sign it. Tate further testified that he then proceeded to solicit the employees to sign it, that some of them did so but others were unwilling to sign it unless they were assured the Respondent had no objection. Tate said he then went to'Arthur Rhodes (Respondent's president) and informed Rhodes that some of the em- ployees cbjected to signing the petition unless they were sure it had Rhodes' approval, and that he, Tate, then suggested to Rhodes that if the body of the petition could be written on Respondent's letterhead 'more of the employees might sign it, but that Rhodes refused to grant permission to use the letter- head for this purpose,'stating, at the time, that he, Rhodes, had no objection to Tate circulating it because Rhodes would' like to learn how the employees felt about the Union. Rhodes denied that he ever discussed .-the petition with, Tate and further denied having any knowledge regarding the circulation of the petition in the plant until several days later when a copy of it was printed in the York "Dis- patch," an evening newspaper published in York, Pennsylvania. On the other hand, Sam Fire (Respondent's treasurer) admitted that he was aware that the petition was being circulated in the plant on the same day that Tate started .to circulate it. Fire said that he had been informed by one of the employees that employees on the night shift had written a letter contradicting some of the claims asserted by the Union and knew that it was being circulated in the plant on or about June 28, 1949, but asserts he never read it until a copy of it was printed in the York "Dispatch" on July 1, 1949. Fire further testified that as soon as he learned it was being circulated, he called Respondent's counsel on the telephone and was advised by the latter to take no action regarding it, where- upon he immediately discussed the matter with Rhodes and requested that Rhodes also disregard it. In view of Fire's above testimony which I credit, I am constrained to dis- credit Rhodes' testimony that be, Rhodes, was without knowledge regarding the petition or its circulation until he later read the copy printed in the news- paper. Because I have previously found Tate to be a credible witness, I also credit his testimony regarding the 'petition incident and find that Rhodes not only permitted Tate to circulate it on company time and property but that Rhodes also encouraged Tate to circulate it in order that Respondent might ascertain the views of the employees concerning the Union. 10 It will be noted that Tate was the employee who previously Informed Royce that Ruby and Miller were union adherents a few hours before Royce discharged Ruby and Miller on June 15. 838 DECISIONS OF? NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR[) 4. Interference, restraint, and coercion Employees Dean Good and' Charles Blauser, called to testify by the General; Counsel, testified in substance: They refused to sign the antiunion petition- when it was circulated through the finishing department by a fellow employee, that shortly afterward, on the same day, Harry Darrah, their foreman, came up to them and remarked that each of them had better sign it if they wished to hold their jobs, whereupon Good signed it for himself and also signed Blauser's name on it at the request of Blauser.11 Darrah, who was later called as a witness of the Respondent, denies that he ever had any, conversation .with. either Good or Blauser concerning this petition. Darrah was inclined to be an evasive and argumentative witness, whereas Good and Blauser each were forthright persons who impressed me as being trustworthy and truthful wit- nesses and I concluded that the versions of the petition incident given by Good, and Blauser were more reliable than Darrah's version. Accordingly I credit their versions and find that Darrah induced Good and Blauser to sign the petition by stating that a failure to do so might result in their respective dis- charges. Employee Virgil Fauth testified in substance that sometime in the summer of -1949, after the Union had commenced to pass out handbills at the plant entrance in connection with its campaign, a group of employees in the finishing depart- xaent had been talking about the Union when Sam Fire, Respondent's treasurer,. happened to walk by, that on this occasion one of the group asked Fire what. he intended to do about the Union, whereupon Fire remarked, "if the Union, conies in, we will move out." When Fire was testifying on behalf of the- Respondent, he admitted holding a conversation with Fauth at or about this. time. According to Fire, Fauth handed Fire a handbill ridiculing the latter,. which the Union had passed out, to the employees on ,that morning, and Fire said that after giving Fire an opportunity to read the document Fauth remarked that he, Fauth, did not approve of the matter contained in it, whereupon Fire said that he became embarrassed and walked away after a further short dis- cussion with Fauth. Fire was no doubt angry at the time after reading the handbill but because he failed to categorically deny having uttered a threat to move the plant, it seems highly probable under the circumstances that he- would have done so, as Fauth asserted. From his demeanor I concluded Fauth was a reliable and trustworthy. witness. Accordingly I credit Fauth's above- testimony and find that Fire on this occasion threatened to move the plant if the Union organized it. Fauth further testified that several weeks later, or about the latter part of September 1949, Rhodes, Respondent's president, called Fauth to his..office and. after asking Fauth what the latter thought about the Union, Fauth 'replied in substance that he had not made. up his mind about it and further remarked. that some of the employees wanted the Union and others did not, whereupon Rhodes then stated, in substance, if the Union gets in the Company will move- out. Rhodes denies. that he ever held a conversation with Fauth in the office- at or about this time and further asserted that he did not question any em- ployee regarding union activities because Respondent's counsel had advised' management not to do so and specifically advised management not to utter any- threat to close the plant in conversations with employees, that Rhodes there- after had adopted a practice of writing out memo cards regarding office conversa- 11 Blauser's name appears on the copy in evidence. as one of the signers which also name* Ivan Good:as'one of the signers. It is assumed that Ivan Good and Dean Good is one and the same person and that the difference in spelling of the first name is due to a typographi- cal error. NINA DYE WORKS CO'., INC. 839 'lions with employees, and that because he has no such card indicating a con- -versation with Fauth at or about this time he is sure none was held. As found above, I previously found Rhodes was not a reliable witness for he denied -having any knowledge. regarding the circulation of the antiunion letter in the plant at the time it was being circulated, whereas Fire testified that he had discussed the matter with Rhodes on the day the petition was going through "its plant and told Rhodes that counsel advised' management to have nothing to do with it. Nonetheless, Rhodes failed to follow counsel's sound advice on -this occasion for, as found above, he encouraged employee Tate to continue circu- lating the petition' in order that Rhodes might be able to ascertain the views of the employees regarding the Union. Because I have previously found Fauth -to be a credible and trustworthy witness, I further credit Fauth's above testimony -regarding this conversation with Rhodes and find that Rhodes not only interro- gated Fauth regarding his union sympathies, but also threatened to close the 'plant if the Union organized it.12 Blauser, who testified above concerning an earlier incident, further testified that he was called to the plant office a few weeks before the hearing to give a statement to Joseph Midler, one of Respondent's counsel, regarding the matters in issue in the case. After giving the information requested, Blauser stepped outside the office into the adjacent hall to wait until the statement was typed. Rhodes, who was present in the office during the interview, stepped outside with Blauser. While they were waiting in the hall, Rhodes, according to Blauser, asked the latter why he, Blauser, was so strongly in favor of the Union during 'the early stages of the organizational campaign 13 Rhodes. denied that the Union had been mentioned by either Rhodes or Blauser while they were waiting in the hall, and further testified that the only conversation engaged in at the time consisted of an assertion made by Blauser that he, Blauser, would not sign a written statement for the Respondent, whereupon Rhodes remarked in sub- -stance that he had no feeling of animosity toward Blauser. Based upon my observation of the demeanor of each of the witnesses and also because as found above 'that I concluded full reliability could not be accorded to Rhodes' testimony, I conclude and find that Blauser'stestimony is the more reliable and find that Rhodes, on this occasion, interrogated Blauser concerning the latter's "interest in the Union.' 5. The Bosserman incident As previously found above, Bosserman was antagonistic toward the Union when it started its campaign and was one of the group that initiated and sponsored the antiunion petition. After January 1950 , Bosserman, however , became an active protagonist for the Union: He testified that during visits to some of the beer taverns in York after work he occasionally met some of his fellow employees there, that on occasions when he did so, .he solicited them to join the Union and succeeded- in getting a few of them to sign union cards. According to. Bosserman's further testimony , given during his direct examina- tion, Fire came to his working station one night in April or May 1950 in an u It is noted that this conversation purportedly happened at or about the time the Union was passing out handbills containing the usual propaganda customarily used by labor organizations during an organizational campaign. "No contention is made by the General Counsel that the interrogation in the office by Midler was improper. v According to the credited testimony of Virgil Fauth, Rhodes also asked Fauth at or about this same time whether Fauth believed that the Union could win an election among 'the employees if the Board conducted one, when Rhodes and Fauth were waiting in the hall outside the office while Fauth's statement previously made to Midler was being typed. 840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD angry mood and accused Bosserman of signing up an employee in the-Union when the said employee was drunk, whereupon, according to Bosserman, he, Bosserman, became angry and asserted to Fire that he, Bosserman, was free to engage in union activities outside of his working time, and that thereafter an angry argument ensued between Bosserman and Fire during which Fire asserted, in effect,.that Bosserman would get no more overtime -work at;the plant, and the plant would be closed if the Union came in. During cross-examination, however, Bosserman admitted in substance that both he and Fire were angry on this occasion and talked so rapidly that Bosser- man has no clear present recollection concerning the actual statements made by Fire at the time. Bosserman further admitted during cross-examination that at or about the time of this argument the workweek was cut to 5 days a week, that as a consequence thereof little overtime was available thereafter for those employees who wanted it ; and that following Bosserman's argument with Fire, be, Bosserman, never requested or was refused overtime work. A few weeks later, according to Bosserman, he purchased an automobile truck and voluntarily quit his job to engage in business for himself as a produce huckster. - - Fire, when Jitter called to testify for the Respogdent, -admitted tliati'he repri- manded Bosserman for "sneaking behind [Fires] back" to engage in union activi- ties, that he accused Bosserman of signing up an employee in the Union when the man was intoxicated, but Fire, in substance, denied that he threatened to curtail Bosserman's overtime work and asserts that he merely told Bosserman that the latter was paid for 60 hours' work a week and was expected to spend this time on his work, and that later toward the end of their discussion after he, Fire, cooled down he told Bosserman that the latter could engage in union activi- ties in the plant during working time.16 A fair inference is warranted that this last remark by Fire was due to a realization that his conduct violated the rights of employees to freely organize for Fire was an intelligent witness, but none- theless it was tantamount, at least, to an interrogation by an employer of an employee regarding the latter's union activities, because it was calculated to, draw, an employee into a conversation regarding union activities. 6. Other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion a. By Constable- Eugene !Roth Employee Wilfred Gettys testified that Eugene Roth, the chief guard at the' plant, hired Gettys to work in the finishing department at the plant in November 194916 He further testified that about •Eastertime in 1950, Roth called at Gettys' home one morning, and in the presence of the latter's wife, asked Gettys if any employee had solicited Gettys to join the Union, that after Gettys replied that Scott Taub had done so Roth requested Gettys to scout around quietly to ascertain if employee Delbert Crane was also an adherent of the Union, that Roth then requested Gettys to keep Roth informed regarding all union activities among the employees stating at the time that Gettys should forget their above conver- sation, and that after telling Gettys that the latter would receive a wage increase in a few weeks, Roth left Gettys' home. Roth in substance denied that he had authority to hire any employees, but said he was empowered to make effective recommendations concerning the i" Bosserman admitted that he openly engaged in the solicitation of fellow employees to join the . Union on company time after the argument with Fire , without objection raised by any supervisor. 16 According to Gettys,Roth 's brother is married to Gettys' sister. NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. 841 hiring only of plant guards.19 He further testified regarding the hiring of Gettys that he, Roth, merely interceded with Rhodes, Respondent's president, on behalf of Gettys after the latter had requested Roth to do so, and that several weeks later, Rhodes notified Roth to inform Gettys that a job was open on the night shift which Gettys could have if he reported for Rork on that night and filled out an application which would be handed to Gettys by the plant, guard. on duty at the time." Roth . categorically denied that he,requested Gettys ,to spy and report to Roth concerning the union activities of Delbert Crane or any other employee but asserts that Gettys voluntarily told Roth that Taub had solicited Gettys to join the Union and further credibly testified without denial that Crane had succeeded Roth as shop steward for the I. A. M. at the Farquhar plant, and that Roth therefore concluded that Crane was one of the union adherents at Respondent's plant." Roth further testified that Respondent never requested him to spy upon or report regarding the union activities among employees and asserted that had such a request been made Roth would have refused to do so because for many years he had been and still is a strong supporter of union organizations, and that 'he currently carries a withdrawal card from the I. A. M. which he obtained after leaving his employment at the Farquhar plant. Basing any conclusion upon my observation of the demeanor of each of these witnesses, and particularly upon a realistic consideration of Roth's background in union labor matters, I conclude'that Roth was a more reliable and trustworthy witness than Gettys and accept Roth's denial that he ever pried into or reported to Respondent concerning union activities among Respondent 's employees as credible and true.20 11 According to the credited and undenied testimony of Roth, he had been elected con- stable in one of the wards of the city of York in 1941, and has continued to hold this position to the present time, that for several years immediately preceding June 1947, he was a rank-and-file employee at the . A. F. Farquhar plant in York , and that during this employment he was shop steward at the Farquhar plant for the International Associa- tion of Machinists, the collective bargaining representative of the employees at. that plant. Roth further credibly testified without refutation , and his testimony In this respect is corroborated by credited testimony given by Fire , Respondent's treasurer, that there was considerable pilfering of cloth by employees at Respondent 's plant in 1947, that Roth was hired to investigate the matter, that as a result of his investigations , several employees were arrested and later convicted of stealing from the Ii,esponaent. ,and .that thereafter Roth advised the Respondent to erect a guardhouse at one plant entrance and require all employees to enter and leave by the guardhouse which contained the time clocks and cards of employees. Roth selected and recommended the hiring of the first four persons assigned to guard duty . Since that time, he has served as part-time quasi- chief of the guard force , and he fills in for any guard absent from work because of Illness and vacations. He has continued to serve as a part -time investigator in connection with running down complaints regarding pilfering , and has been responsible for the convictions of several other employees accused of stealing since 1947. In addition, he investigates the character of prospective new employees for honesty. 11 The record credibly shows that several other employees bad been put to work without a previous Interview from a plant supervisor after some rank -and-file employee had made a request on their behalf, because many jobs in the plant did. not require special skill or previous experience , hence there was nothing unusual . regarding this hiring of Gettys. 19 Gettys' wife was not called to testify at the hearing and Getty6 and Taub are still employed at the plant. 20 In arriving at this • conclusion , I have not overlooked the testimony of witnesses Glouner and Thatcher ( each of whom had been discharged long before the hearing was held) who testified that Roth was spying on a meeting of the Union allegedly called on July 3, 1948. Glouner testified that the incident happened after dark when the street lights were lit whereas Thatcher testified it happened between the hours of 2 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon of a bright fair day in the summertime. Insofar as the record shows, there is no substantial and convincing evidence that this Union ever called' or held a meeting for Respondent 's employees until September 15, 1949, several months after the organizational campaign started in May 1949. 11 :842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ray Billet, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified, in substance,. that .a few weeks before he was discharged late in December 1949 (for reasons not alleged to be discriminatory), Billet had arranged for a union meeting to be held at the schoolhouse cafe in York, that. in addition to Billet, employees Rohrbaugh and Long and Union Representatives Ryan and Shuster were present there when Eugene Roth came into the cafe, looked around apparently to observe -who was present, and that shortly thereafter Roth walked out.. . . Roth admits that he visited the cafe in August 1949, accompanied by Alderman Barnhart, a duly elected alderman for thA city of York, Pennsylvania. Roth asserted that his only purpose in going to the cafe was to arrest a person for an alleged offense based on a complaint filed with Alderman Barnhart,21 that Barnhart ordered Roth to go there on this occasion because Barnhart had just been informed by the wife of the accused that the latter was presently at the cafe, but that when Roth` and Barnhart arrived there they learned that the person they were looking for was not there, and left the place. Barnhart's testi- mony regarding the incident fully corroborates Roth's above version and satis- factorily explains the reason for Roth's visit. Billet's testimony concerning the incident was apparently adduced for. the purpose of showing that Roth was spying on a union meeting to support a pos, 'sible inference that Roth had reported Billet's presence at an alleged union .meeting to the Respondent 22 Since I have previously found above, in effect, that Roth neither engaged in surveillance of union activities or reported such activities to the Respondent and because I concluded from my observation of Billet while on the witness stand that he was not a reliable and trustworthy witness but one prone to base his 'testimony upon conclusions rather than facts, Billet's testimony relating to,this incident is insufficient to support an inference that Roth reported Billet's presence at this alleged union meeting to Respondent. b. By Joseph Midler, counsel for the Respondent Paul Runkle, a witness called by the General Counsel, testified that he was. -called to the plant office one day about a month before the hearing opened for' the purpose of giving a statement to Respondent's counsel regarding Runkle's knowledge of the matters in issue. According to Runkle, Joseph Midler, one of Respondent's counsel of record, ' asked Runkle on this occasion, among other things, if the latter had signed the so-called antiunion petition, whereupon Runkle replied that he had signed it. The General Counsel, in a preliminary argument appearing in the record, con- tends that this question concerned the probing of the interest or lack of interest in the affiliation of an employee with a labor organization because it was calcu- lated to indicate the employees' adherence to or opposition toward a union, and --that consequently it was a violation of the Act. On the record made herein, I do not agree with the General Counsel's con- tention. The record indicates that on this occasion Respondent had a copy of the said. petition because it offered a copy printed on July 1, 1949, in a daily newspaper published and sold in York, Pennsylvania, and the said copy was duly admitted in evidence. This exhibit includes Paul Runkle's name together with the names ,of approximately 100 other employees as signers of the said petition. 21 Although the record is not clear, it appears that aldermen of the city of York sit as maeistrates in cases involving minor crimes. ' 22 It Is noted that none of the persons present at the cafe with Billet on this occasion gave- -any testimony concerning the incident. NINA 'DYE WORKS CO., INC. 843 In the opinion of the undersigned, Midler's purpose in asking this question was merely to save time by avoiding•a check through a'list of about 100 names and was not an attempt by Midler. to seek information regarding Runkle's interests concerning the Union. Under these' circumstances I conclude that the General Counsel's above contention is without substantial merit and accordingly will find that Midler's above conduct was not in violation of the Act. Other witnesses called by the General Counsel testified to certain other isolated incidents regarding alleged interrogations by plant supervisors or, alleged threats to close the plant. In the main, the testimony given by these witnesses was not substantially corroborated by other direct testimony and was denied in the 'testimony given by the management representatives allegedly guilty of making them. Because, at most, if sustained, the findings would be merely cumulative I deem it unnecessary to resolve the conflicts in the testimony adduced regard- ing'tliese incidents. B. Concluding findings on unfair labor practices Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and' the entire record the issues are : (1) Whether the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Ruby and Miller because of their membership and activities upon behalf of the Union ; (2) whether Respondent .curtailed Bosserman's overtime work because of the latter's union activities; and (3) whether Respondent by the above the other' acts and conduct interfered with employees' self-organizational rights. In respect to the first issue, Respondent asserts by way of defense (1) that it was without knowledge that Ruby and Miller were members of the Union before it discharged them, and (2) that each of them was lawfully discharged' for cause. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Respondent's discriminatory motivation is convincingly apparent from Foreman Royce's statement to em ployee Tate on June 15, 1949,, that Ruby and Tate would not be around long. Royce voiced this threat immediately after Tate informed Royce, on this same day, that Ruby and Miller had each told Tate that they were in favor of the Union's plan to organize the plant." Thereafter, their tenure as employees' was soon and abruptly terminated for Royce summarily discharged Ruby and Miller just before quitting time on this same night. Insofar as the record shows, Respondent's defense that Ruby and Miller were discharged for cause was raised for the first time at the hearing. The fact that Respondent stated in a report made to the Pennsylvania "Bureau of Unemploy- ment Insurance" a few days after June 15, 1949, that Ruby's current unemploy- ment was due to "lack of work".(rather than_.a discharge for cause) tends to, refute Respondent's present contention that Ruby was discharged for cause. Accordingly, a fair inference arises that the defense presently urged at the' hearing, at' least in respect to Ruby, is merely an afterthought advanced as a pretext to cover up a discriminatory discharge. According to Royce, Ruby and Miller had each been unsatisfactory employees during the entire term of their employment. If-so, why did he wait until the Union announced its plan to organize the plant and learned Ruby and Miller approved of the Union's plan before he discharged them? Moreover, as found above, Royce told employee Virgil Fauth about 3 weeks before Royce discharged 23 Significantly, the York "Gazette and Daily." a daily morning newspaper with a general circulation in York, carried a fairly lengthy story on this same morning stating that the Union was starting an intensive drive to organize Respondent's plant. There can be little doubt-that Respondent was aware within a few hours after 6 o'clock on this morning, that- the Union's campaign to organize the plant would be accelerated. 844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them when Fauth asked Royce how Ruby and'Miller were progressing that he, Royce, would be pleased if all of the men• in his department were as satisfac- tory as those two employees. . Respondent's contention that the discharges were made without knowledge that Ruby and Miller were actually members of the Union and consequently that the discharges were not discriminatory is without merit. The record clearly shows that Respondent knew each of .these employees had ;( eerily voiced approval with the Union's plan to organize the plant before it discharged them. Certainly, summary discharges of known sympathizers with a . union about to embark in a current organizational campaign are just as effective as a means to discourage union organization among employees as dis- charges of actual members.24 On the basis of all of the foregoing, and particularly in view of Foreman Royce's threat voiced to employee Tate, which was made immediately after Tate informed Royce that Ruby and Miller were sympathizers or adherents of the Union, that Ruby and Miller would not remain on the payroll long, coupled with the further fact that Ruby and Miller were each summarily discharged by Royce at the end of this same working day, absent a prior warning that they would be discharged or otherwise disciplined unless their work performance or conduct improved, convincingly shows by a preponderance of the substantial and credible evidence that Ruby and Miller in reality were each discharged because of union activities and not for lawful cause as contemplated by Section 10 (c) of the Act. Accordingly I find that by discharging Ruby and Miller for engaging in union activities, the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, thereby also violating Section 8 (a) (1)•thereof. Regarding the second issue pertaining to the Bosserman case, the record shows, as found above, that the General Counsel failed to sustain the burden of proof regarding the alleged • discriminatory refusal by Respondent to grant overtime work to Bosserman, because Bosserman engaged in union activities. However, as further found above, Fire, Respondent's treasurer, admittedly reprimanded Bosserman for sneaking behind Fire's back to engage in union activities. Such conduct by an employer is a clear violation with the rights of employees to self-organize guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thus also violating Section 3 (a) (1) thereof. This leaves the third issue, namely whether Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by other acts and conduct not heretofore resolved in my concluding findings above to be disposed of. Based on the foregoing findings of facts above set forth, I find: (1) By the conduct of Respondent's president, Rhodes, in permitting and encouraging em- ployee Tate to circulate and solicit the employees to sign the so-called antiunion petition in the plant on company time and property for the stated purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the employees toward the Union ; 25 (2) by the conduct of Foreman Darrah in inducing employees Good and Blauser to sign the above-mentioned petition or risk discharge; (3) by threats uttered by Rhodes and Fire, Respondent's treasurer, to employee Fauth that Respondent would close or move the plant if the Union succeeded in organizing the em- 24 New York Telephone Company, 89 NLRB 383. 25 It is readily apparent that this conduct is tantamount to an interrogation by an employer to his employees regarding union matters which are of no concern to the employer. In addition, the Respondent also encouraged-the employees to engage in con- certed activities on behalf of a quasi-antiunion organization during a period when a duly organized labor union was conducting an organizational campaign. NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC. -845 ployees ; u (4) by the interrogation of employees Fauth and Blauser by Rhodes -and of Bosserman by Fire regarding matters of union concern ; " and (5) by Foreman Royce's statement to employee Tate that employees Ruby and Miller -would not continue to remain on the payroll much longer after Royce had learned from Tate that Ruby and Miller were adherents of the Union," that the Re- :spondentinterfered=with the 'employees'-self-organizational rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thus also violating Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. -IV. THE-EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of 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. V. THE REMEDY U Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, It will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain .affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of emplo9;ment^of Ralph Ruby-and , Charles - Miller thereby. discouraging membership in the Union. It will be recommended that Respondent 'offer Ruby and Miller immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice to -their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that'Respondent make whole Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller for .any loss or pay they may have suffered by payment to them of a sum of money equal to the amount they each would normally have earned as wages from June 15, 1949, the date of the discrimination against them , to the date of Re- spondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings during such period.30, The loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from Respondent 's discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement . It will be further recommended .that Respondent make available to the Board , upon request , payroll and other xecords to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due" The scope ' of Respondent's illegal conduct discloses a purpose to defeat ' self- -organization among its employees . Such conduct, which is specifically violative ,of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, reflects a determination generally to 25 Fire may hare:been•inveigled•into uttgring this- threat -by- reason of matter set-forth 4n a union handbill passed out , on the same day, which contained matter ridiculing Fire and other statements which Fire asserts were false or misleading. There can be no doubt that such a threat voiced directly to employees by an employer would discourage employees from engaging in protected union activities. Nothing in the Act permits or ustifies its violation by an employer. At most Fire was privileged to answer and attempt to controvert the statements made by the Union in the handbill. . " The Board hasconsistently held that the questioning of employees as to any aspect -of union activity is per se violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Standard- Coosa-'Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358, and cases therein. 28 As earlier found above Royce did discharge each of these two employees just before .quitting time on this same day. 2 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, ,65 NLRB 827. 30 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8. 81 P. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; •Gen-Tennial Cotton Gin Company, 90 NLR:B:345. 846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR ,RELATIONS BOARD interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the, right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collet- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, and present a ready and effective means of destroying self-organization among its employees. Because of Respondent's unlawful conduct and since there appears to be an underlying attitude of opposition on the part of Respondent to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally," the under- signed is convinced that if Respondent is not restrained from committing such conduct, the danger of their commission. in the future is. to be anticipated from Respondent's conduct in the past, and the policies.of the Act will be defeated. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 .of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife' which burdens-.and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that Respond- ent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon-the basis of the foregoing and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the . meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of-the Act, 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 Ralph Ruby and Charles Miller thereby discouraging membership in the Textile Workers Union of America,., CIO, Respondent has engaged in, and is. engaging in, unfair -labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. The afore aid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting ,commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of em- ployment of Woodrow Bosserman within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] 32 See May Department Stbrea Company, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 326 V. S. 376. ARLINGTON-FAIRFAX BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. ( RADIO STATION WEAM) and RADIO BROADCAST TECHNICIANS LOCAL UNION No. 1215, INTERNATIONAL. BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 5-CA-336. July 31, 1951 Decision and Order .On April 5, 1951, Trial Examiner W.- Gerard Ryan issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceediilb; `finding that 95 NLRB No. 87.