Robbins Tire and Rubber Co., Inc.

In the Matter of ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMAN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 402, AFL Case No. 10-C-1761.--Decided July 12,1946 Mr. William M. Pate, for the Board. Mitchell d Poellinitz, by Messrs. W. H. Mitchell and Charles A. Poellnitz, of Florence, Ala., for the respondent. Mr. Roy E. Raley, of Sheffield, Ala., for the Union. Mr. Angelo J. Fiumara, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER On January 22,1946, Trial Examiner Frederic B. Parkes II, issued his Intermediate 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 a copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pur- suant to notice and at the request of the respondent, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on June 20, 1946; the respondent and the Union appeared and' participated therein. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, the oral argu- ment, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions hereinafter set forth. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent discriminated in respect to the tenure of employment of Robert H. 'In footnote 2 of the Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner refers inadvertently to Gargis as the witness to whom certain inquiries were made. The name "Huggins" was obviously intended , and we hereby correct the Report in this respect. 69 N. L. R. B., No. 53. 440 ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 441 Crittenden, Jr. In our consideration of the weight of the evidence in-connection therewith, however, we were not unmindful of the fact that the testimony of employee Herbert L. Agee that his immediate supervisor, Louis Wagnon, had told him that he and Foreman Burson had talked to the respondent's plant manager, Davis Stokes, and had been instructed by Stokes "to fire [Crittenden] and anybody else they heard say anything about a union" constituted rather remote hearsay. Although admissible under Section 10 (b) of the Act, we do not, in finding that Crittenden was discriminatorily discharged, attach much weight to it. However, we are satisfied, from an ex- amination of the entire record, that the respondent's anti-union ani- mus, rather than its asserted reason, was the motivating factor which led to Crittenden's discharge. This conclusion finds strong support in Foreman Pressley's statement to employee William McDonald that, "you know Mr. Crittenden got fired for just such as that " (i. e. distributing union cards). 2. The respondent excepted to and, at the oral argument before the Board, questioned the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. It is an established principle of this Board that a Trial Examiner's credibility findings are entitled to great weight because, in resolving conflicting testimony, he is in a position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand. We are therefore reluctant to disturb such findings, unless they clearly appear to be unreasonable. We see no reason under the circumstances of this case to do S0.2 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Robbins Tire and Rubber Company, Incorporated, Tuscumbia, Alabama, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by dis- criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of their employment; (b) 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 International Brotherhood of 2 Cf. Matter of Bohn Aluminum and Brass Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 847. 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., and Burleson Johnson im- mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva- lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other privi- leges; (b) Make whole Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., and Burleson Johnson for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the re- spondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally havg earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earn- ings during said period; (c) Post at its plant at Tuscumbia, Alabama, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of-said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall , after being duly signed by the respondent's representa- tive, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. William M. Pate, for the Board. Mitchell d Poellnitz, by Messrs. W. H. Mitchell and Charles A. Poellnitz, of Florence, Ala., for the respondent. Mr. Roy E. Raley, of Sheffield, Ala., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first paragraph thereof the words "The Recommendations of A Trial Examiner" and substitut- ing in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order." ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 443 by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), issued its complaint dated November 20, 1945, against Robbins Tire and Rubber Company, Incorporated , Tuscumbia, Alabama, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance : (1) that on or about July 26 and August 19, 1945, respectively, the respondent discharged Robert H. Crittenden , Jr., and Burleson Johnson for the reason that they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; (2) that the respondent ( a) disparaged and expressed disapproval of the Union, (b) interrogated its employees concerning their union affiliation and activity , and (c) urged, persuaded , threatened, and warned its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of the Union ; and (3 ) that the respondent by the foregoing conduct engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 3) of the Act. On or about November 30, 1945, the respondent filed its answer, admitting that it was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act but denying that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Tuscumbia , Alabama , from December 12 to 14, 1945, inclusive, before Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and the Union by an official representa- tive. Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved that certain allega- tions be stricken from the complaint . The motion was denied by the under- signed. Following the introduction of all evidence, the undersigned granted a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof as to dates and minor variances . Upon the conclusion of the hearing , the undersigned advised the parties that they might argue orally before, and file briefs with, the Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent participated in oral argument. No briefs were filed. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Robbins Tire and Rubber Company, Incorporated, an Alabama corporation hav- ing its principal office and place of business in Tuscumbia, Alabama, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of rubber inner tubes and related products. 'During 1944, the respondent purchased raw materials and supplies, consisting principally of synthetic rubber, carbon black, and valve stems, valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 90 percent was shipped to it from points outside the State of Alabama. During the same period, the respondent manufactured and sold finished products, valued in excess of $1,500,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Alabama. The respondent concedes that it is subject to the Board's jurisdiction. 444 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the respondent. 111. THE UNFAIR LAROR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. Sequence of events The first indication of employee interest in self-organization revealed by the record occurred about July 1, 1945, when employees Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., and Lacey DeGraw sought advice about the matter from Roy E. Raley, assistant business agent of the Union. A few days later, the two employees signed cards authorizing the Union to act as their collective bargaining representative and Haley gave them, as well as other employees, union authorization cards to dis- tribute among the respondent's employees. Immediately thereafter, Crittenden, DeGraw, and William McDonald, who was also in the respondent's employ, openly carried on extensive union activities, frequently during working hours, by solicit- ing memberships, distributing authorization cards, and collecting signed cards for remittance to the union's business manager. Employee G. T, Gargis testified and the undersigned finds that shortly after he joined the Union early in July 1945, he had the following conversation with his supervisor, Stanley Trousdale: Trousdale asked, "Gargis, they got you into the Union yet?" Gargis replied that he was a member and asked the reason for the inquiry. Trousdale refused to divulge the reason for his question. There- upon, Gargis stated, "Well, I hear there is going to be some of the Union men laid off around here," and Trousdale replied, "Well, they can't lay you off for joining the Union . . . They could lay you off for something else and have that in mind. " 1 During the period union authorization cards were being distributed, William Pressley, foreman of the third shift, asked employee Looney Huggins if the latter had seen "any card signed at all" and inquired if Huggins had signed a union card? Late in July 1945, a petition to the effect that the signers thereto desired to withdraw from the Union was openly circulated during working hours one even- ing on the second shift. When the petition was not being passed from employee 1 Trousdale denied that he told Gargis that the respondent could not lay off an employee because of his union activities but could find some pretext to terminate his employ if he engaged in union activities. Trousdale did not deny the inquiry attributed to him regard- ing Gargis' union affiliation. In view of Trousdale's failure to deny the complete colloquy, as well as the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Trousdale's partial denial of the conversation but finds that Trousdale made the statements attributed to him by Gargis. 2 This finding rests upon the credible testimony of Huggins, called as a witness by the respondent. Pressley testified that he had never attempted to prevent the Union from organizing the respondent's employees, that he had never criticized the Union to any em- ployee or made disparaging remarks regarding the Union to any employee, and that he had talked to employees respecting the Union only when they asked him about it. From his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Pressley's general denials but finds that he made the inquiries attributed to him by Gargis. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 445 to employee, it lay upon a desk in the molding department. At least 17 or 18 employees signed the petition' About July 25, 1945, Foreman Pressley asked employee Clarence V. ,McCollum, according to the latter's credible testimony, if he "was trying to sign a card." When McCollum replied that he had already signed an authorization card, Pressley asked McCollum if he "was coming in after [his] card clown at the Union Hall." McCollum stated that he had not considered taking such action. Thereupon Pressley said it would be a "darn good idea" if McCollum would regain his card and further stated, "You are letting the Union talk you out of your job."' A few days later, Hubert Morgan, who was an assistant foreman and Mc- Collum's direct supervisor, asked McCollum if he desired to go to the union hall and retrieve his card that morning. Upon McCollum's refusal to cancel his card, Morgan offered means of transporting McCollum to the union hall and stated that 15 other employees were going after their cards.' On July 26, 1945, employee Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., was discriminatorily discharged' Employee Paul Kizziah testified that about the first of August he had the following conversation with Harold Cobb, foreman of the second shift, as they were going home from work : Cobb stated that the following day the Union would have a picket line around the plant but that he would nevertherless go through it to work. Kizziah replied that he had heard nothing of such action on the part of the Union but that the Union was planning an election. Thereupon Cobb said that the respondent would destroy the Union before it had a chance to have an election and that if the Union did "put a picket line around there the job would be gone." Cobb also stated that 32 of his subordinate employees had signed union cards but 27 had subsequently withdrawn their cards, that "one girl came to him and told him that she was sorry she joined the Union, that she wanted her card back, and he sent and got her card for her." In addition, he stated that he knew "everyone that signed the card and when they signed it." Cobb denied generally that he had ever criticized or condemned the Union in any way or had told employees not to join the Union. He admitted that he and Kizziah had had a conversation regarding the Union at the time and place testified to by Kizziah, but Cobb denied specifically that he had made the statements attributed to him by Kizziah. According to Cobb, Kizziah initiated the conversation by asking "what all the mess was about the Union," to which 3 These findings are based upon the undenied testimony of employee J. W. J. Willis, a witness for the respondent. Although the date on which the withdrawal petition was circulated is not specifically revealed by Willis' testimony, the undersigned infers and finds that it occurred late in July in view of the fact that the union's organizational campaign was then intensive and of the other incidents in which supervisors attempted to persuade employees to revoke their union membership, more fully discussed hereinafter in the text. 4 Pressley denied that he had ever had a conversation with McCollum regarding the latter's union card, that he had ever told McCollum to withdraw his union card, or that he had ever threatened McCollum with the penalty of discharge if he did not withdraw his card. For the reasons heretofore stated, Pressley did not impress the undersigned as a witness whose testimony is entitled to credence. The undersigned does not credit Pressley's denials but finds that the conversation occurred as testified to by McCollum,. 6 This finding is based upon the testimony of McCollum. Morgan denied that he had ever talked to McCollum about the Union, told McCollum to retrieve his union card, or offered means of transportation to the union hall. Upon the entire record, as well as his observa- tion of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Morgan's denials but finds that be made the statements attributed to him by McCollum. 6 The discharge of Crittenden is hereinafter discussed. 446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD inquiry Cobb replied that lie did not know and "couldn't have anything to say into it. It was up to them as to what they did." Cobb further testified that he took no part in persuading employees to withdraw their cards and never drove any employee to the union hail for that purpose. Kizziah, who at the time of the hearing was a supervisor of maintenance, impressed the undersigned as an especially sincere and earnest witness whose testimony Is entitled to credence. In view of the other incidents regarding the withdrawal of union cards heretofore found to have occurred previously as well as his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Cobb's denials but finds that the colloquy between Cobb and Kizziah occurred substantially as testified to by Kizziah.° Not long after the conversation with Cobb, Kizziah was asked by Assistant Foreman Sam Styles how he "stood on the Union."' On the same day, Kizziah complained to Superintendent Grady Oaks respecting an alleged inequality in wage rates between electricians and machinists. Oaks admitted that the griev- ance was justified, stated that he would confer with the respondent's officials but that in order to rectify the inequality it would be necessary to file an application with the National War Labor Board and it would take some time to process the application. According to Kizziah, Oaks further stated that if the respondent should correct the inequality in wage rates at that time, "the men would all think the Union was the cause of it and [therefore] he couldn't do it right away."' Employee William McDonald, who was one of the most active union adherents in the distribution and collection of authorization cards, testified and the undersigned finds that about August 1, 1945, Foreman Pressley told him at work, "Max, they tell we you have been giving out these old Union cards." When McDonald admitted the truth of Pressley's remark, Pressley then asked where McDonald had obtained the cards, whether he had collected the cards signed by employees, and to whom he had given the signed cards. After re- ceiving McDonald's answers to the various inquiries, Pressley stated, "You know Mr. Crittenden got fired for just such as that, don't you." '0 Employee Ollie Crittenden" testified that a few days after lie joined the Union on August 3, 1945, he had the following conversation with his foreman, Stanley 7 Although the respondent contended that the statements made by Cobb to Kizziab con- stituted mere personal opinion and although Kizziah testified that he so considered it, the undersigned finds that viewed in the light of the respondent's open opposition to the Union, these statements were violative of the Act. 8 Styles testified that he and Kizziah had had one conversation regarding the Union but that Styles did not tell him to join or not join the Union and did not advise him in respect to the Union. Even if this testimony be deemed to be a denial of that of Kizziah set forth in the text, the undersigned cannot credit the denial since, as heretofore mentioned, Kizziah impressed the undersigned as an especially reliable and truthful witness. The undersigned finds that Styles made the Inquiry attributed to him by Kizziah. 0 This finding is based upon the testimony of Kizziah. Oaks testifie rthat Kizziah com- plained of the inequality in wage rates referred to in Kizziah's testimony but denied having said that the respondent could not rectify the inequality at that time because it might reflect to the credit of the Union. As heretofore stated, the undersigned was especially impressed with the honesty and credibility of Kizziah as a witness. The undersigned accepts Kizziah's version of the conversation between him and Oaks and finds that Oaks made the statements attributed to him by Kizziah. 10 Pressley denied having ever had a conversation with McDonald about the Union, having ever questioned McDonald with respect to the distribution of union cards, and having ever told McDonald that Crittenden had been fired for distributing union cards. In view of Pressley's earlier interrogation of McCollum with respect to signing a union card. as well as the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Pressley's denials. He finds that Pressley mule the inquiries and statements attributed to him by McDonald. 11 Ollie Crittenden was a cousin of Robert H. Crittenden. Jr. ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 447 Trousdale: Trousdale asked, "Crittenden, did you sign a Union card?" When Crittenden replied in the affirmative, Trousdale said , "Crittenden, if the Union goes in the plant . . . it will be a hell of a mess . . . what did you want to join the (Union] for?" Crittenden replied that he had joined in the hope that the Union might secure a wage increase for him. Trousdale then asked Crittenden if he were "going to get [his] . . . union card." Crittenden replied that he would not do so and Trousdale stated to "let him know the next night whether [Crit- tenden] was going to go get it or not." The next evening at work, Trousdale asked Crittenden what he "was aiming to do . . . what did [he] have agin; was [he] agin the people, [Trousdale] or the job." When Crittenden complained that he was not assigned to a regular job but was being transferred from one type of work to another, Trousdale said, "I will give you recure molds on regular and will pay you 100. more on the hour if you go get your card and tear it up." Crittenden refused to withdraw his union authorization card. Trousdale denied that he ever told Crittenden that the Union would get everybody in a "mess" or that Crittenden should withdraw his union card or that he had ever inquired if Crittenden had taken such action. He admitted offering Crittenden the position on the recure molds, Crittenden being eligible for the job, but denied that the offer was conditioned upon Crittenden 's withdrawal from the Union. Trousdale was not questioned with respect to his inquiry as to Critten- den's union affiliation or as to Crittenden's purpose in joining the Union. For the reasons previously stated and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Trousdale's partial denial of the conversation with Crittenden. but finds that Trousdale made the inquiries and statements attributed to him by Crittenden. According to the credible testimony of employee L. V. Franks, the following conversation occurred on August 6, 1945, between Franks and his immediate supervisor, Assistant Foreman Morgan : Morgan called Franks into Foreman Pressley's office and asked Franks if he had signed a union card and if he had returned it to the Union. Upon receiving an affirmative answer to both questions, Morgan then asked, "Would you be interested in going and withdrawing that card this morning?" Franks declined to do so and inquired if his employment would be terminated because lie had joined the Union. Morgan replied, "Well, we are going to get all the Union boys out from time to time until we get them ail out" ; and further stated, "If this was an up-to-date [organization] . . . I don't think there would be anything of it, but this is only a kind of get-up between Roy Raley [assistant business agent of the Union] and [employee] Bill McDonald." '° On August 19, 1945, employee Burleson Johnson was discriminatorily dis- charged." 2. Conclusions The foregoing establishes that immediately upon the commencement of the Union's activities in the plant, the respondent launched a campaign to forestall the Union's organization efforts. From the time the Union appeared in the plant. 36 Morgan testified that lie took no part in the union activities at the plant and never advised anyone not to join the Union. He specifically denied that the conversation testified to by Franks had occurred and that he had made the remarks attributed to him by Franks. Morgan testified that lie had only one conversation with Franks concerning the Union; on that occasion, Franks approached Morgan and said, according to Morgan, "I heard that ones that signed a card for the Union would be fired." Morgan further testified that lie denied the truth of the rumor reported by Franks. Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned does not credit Morgan's denials but finds that Morgan made the statements attributed to him by Franks. 13 The discharge of Johnson is hereinafter discussed. 448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD early in July, until August various supervisors questioned numerous employees regarding their union membership, made threats of economic reprisals which would be inflicted upon employees engaging in union activities , and assumed a vigorous role in the movement designed to persuade employees to revoke their membership in the Union . In addition, Crittenden and Johnson were discrimi- natorily discharged on July 26 and August 19, 1945, respectively , as hereinafter found, because of their union membership and union activities. Thus, the first threat of economic reprisal revealed by the record was voiced by Assistant Foreman Trousdale when he informed employee Gargis early in July that although the respondent could not openly discriminate against an employee's tenure of employment because he engaged in union activities , the employee could nevertheless be laid "off for something else and have that in mind ." Similarly, later in the month Foreman Pressley in a conversation with employee McCollum said, "You are letting the Union talk you out of your job," and still later in discussing the distribution of union cards with employee McDonald , reminded him that Crittenden "got fired for just such as that ." Foreman Cobb also warned Kizziah that "the job would be gone" should the Union call a strike. In August, Assistant Foreman Morgan informed employee Franks that the respondent was "going to get all the Union boys out . from time to time until we get them all out." By these statements , the respondent clearly warned employees who fa- vored the Union that they risked the danger of having their job security impaired. Further interference with the self-organizational rights of employees was notably evidenced by the statement of Foreman Cobb to employee Kizziah that the respondent would destroy the Union before an election might be held , by Super -intendent Oaks' refusal to act imediately upon the admitedly justified wage grievance of employee Kizziah because the employees "would all think the Union was" responsible for the adjustment of the grievance , by Assistant Foreman Trousdale's statement to employee Ollie Crittenden that if the Union succeeded in its organizational campaign the plant would be "a hell of a mess," and by Assistant Foreman Morgan's reference to the Union in a conversation with employee Franks as not being an "up-to-date" organization but rather a "get-up" between the Union's assistant business agent and employee McDonald. Although the record does not reveal whether the. movement to persuade em- ployees to relinquish their union membership arose with the employees or with management representatives, it is clear that numerous supervisors espoused the cause and lent it considerable assistance ." Foremen Pressley and Cobb and Assistant Foremen Trousdale and Morgan interrogated employees concerning their union membership and attempted to persuade them to retrieve and destroy their signed union authorization cards, in some instances offering means of transportation to the union hall for such purposes. Assistant Foreman Trous- dale offered employee Ollie Crittenden a better position if he would recover his "card and tear it up." In this regard , employee Kizziah was informed by Fore- man Cobb that the latter knew "everyone that signed the card and when they signed it" and that of his 32 subordinates who had signed authorization cards, 27 had withdrawn them. Such statements and activities on the part of super- visors patently constituted interference, restraint, and coercion with the employees' statutory rights to self-organization. The foregoing anti-union statements and activities of Oaks, Pressley, Cobb, Morgan, Trousdale, and Styles, all of whom were admittedly supervisory em- 14 Since employees were permitted to engage in union activities during working hours without restraint, no finding is made that the circulation of the withdrawal petition by employees at work constituted interference. ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 449 ployees, are attributable to the respondent.'5 These statements, activities, and conduct, including the discriminatory discharge of Crittenden and Johnson, all evidence an anti-union animus and are part of a pattern of conduct engaged in by the respondent to defeat the Union's organizational efforts. The undersigned concludes and finds that by such statements and conduct the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act'° B. The discriminatory discharges 1. Robert H. Crittenden, Jr. Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., was employed by the respondent in September 1944, on the first shift in the packing department, where he continued to work until he was discharged on July 26, 1945. His starting wage was 50 cents an hour, which was, in successive 3-week periods, advanced to 55 and 60 cents an hour. He was first employed for approximately 4 months in making "paper patterns to go in boxes" and then for a month inspected products classed as "seconds." Thereafter until his discharge he built packing boxes. As previously mentioned, Crittenden and employee DeGraw launched the Union's organizational campaign early in July when they conferred with the Union's assistant business agent, signed authorization cards, and obtained a supply of cards for distribution among the respondent's employees. Crittenden was one of the Union's most ardent advocates. He openly distributed between 65 and 70 cards among the respondent's employees, solicited memberships and collected approximately 20 signed cards, frequently during working hours." On July 25, 1945, Crittenden was informed by Foreman Burson that a position on the recure molds at 70 cents an hour was open and would be given to the applicant in the packing department with the most seniority. Crittenden testi- fied that he was individually offered the position, whereas Burson insisted that the announcement was made to the employees of the packing department generally and was not offered to Crittenden specifically. The undersigned finds it neces- sary to resolve this conflict in testimony, since it is undisputed that Crittenden was included in the offer and that lie had considerable seniority, in fact more 15 Davis Stokes, vice-president and plant manager, and his assistant, Stanley Robbins, testified that in the summer of 1945 they instructed the respondent's supervisory personnel, both individually and in groups, to maintain a neutral attitude with respect to the Union. It is clear that such instruction of its supervisors cannot exempt the respondent from the consequences of the anti-union statements and conduct of its supervisory employees. Not only did the respondent fail to publicize to its employees generally its alleged attitude of neutrality with respect to the union's organizational campaign, but, so far as the record shows, no effort was made to enforce the policy among its supervisory staff. Moreover, whatever effect the neutrality statement may have had was completely effaced by the sub- sequent conduct of the respondent. See Matter of Northwestern Mutual Fire Association, 46 N. L. R. B. 825, enf'd 142 F. (2d) 866 (C. C. A 9), cert. den. 323 U. S. 726; Matter of Norristown Box Company, 32 N. L. R. B. 895, enf'd 124 F. (2d) 429 (C. C. A. 3), cert. den. 316 U. S. 667 ; Matter of Peter Pan Company, Inc., et at., 21 N. L. R. B. 522. 10 In reaching this conclusion, the undersigned has considered the claim of the respondent and the evidence offered through various witnesses that they had not been interferred with, restrained, or coerced by the statements and conduct of supervisors heretofore found. " So far as the record shows, the respondent had no rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union activities during working hours. In any event, the respondent did not specifically rely upon such activities of Crittenden as a reason for his discharge. 701592-47-vol. 69- - -30 450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than the employee who received the position . Crittenden did not request to be given the job because a physical ailment prevented his doing that type of work. Employee Herbert L. Agee testified that about July 26, 1945, he had the fol- lowing conversation with Louis R. Wagnon, also referred to as Roy Wagnon, who was the immediate supervisor of both Agee and Crittenden : Wagnon asked if Agee believed that the Union would assist him "to get more money" and inquired if Agee had signed a card . When Agee replied that he had signed an authoriza- tion card, Kagnon said, "Well . . . we found out who started this union around here . . . George [Burson , foreman of the packing department on the first shift] told me yesterday while I was going to Birmingham Crittenden was going around passing out cards ." il'agnon further stated that he and Fore- man Burson had talked to Davis Stokes, plant manager and vice -president of the respondent, and had been instructed by Stokes "to fire [Crittenden ] and any- body else they heard say anything about a union ." Wagnon concluded the con- versation by saying, "We [are] going to fire Crittenden this afternoon." Agee further testified that as lie and Burson were going home from work that eve- ning, Burson said, "I want you-all to hush up talking about this union on the job . . . Mr. Stokes says you are cutting your own throats." Wagnon testified that he had several conversations with Agee about the Union, generally initiated by Agee's asking for advice from Wagnon , who replied, "You know what you want to do about that outfit. I can't advise you . . . You are a man back here, and you are holding your job . . . as long as you per- form your work and it meets the par you needn 't be uneasy as far as I am concerned." Wagnon denied that he ever told Agee that Stokes and Burson knew of Crittenden's initiation of the union movement and that they were going to discharge Crittenden, Wagnon also denied that he ever asked Agee what the latter hoped to gain from the Union . Burson denied that he had ever had a conversation with Wagnon or Stokes in which it was stated that Crittenden had launched the Union and because of such feat would be discharged . Stokes denied that he had ever made such statements to Burson , Agee, or anyone. From Agee's demeanor on the stand , the undersigned was especially impressed with Agee's Inherent honesty as a witness . In view of the respondent 's anti-union, campaign previously discussed, as well as the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Agee's version of his conversation with Wagnon and does not credit the denials of Wagnon, Burson , and Stokes . It is found that Wagnon made the statements attributed to him by Agee , and that by such statements of Wagnon, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On the afternoon of July 26, 1945, Crittenden reported, at Burson's orders, to the office of Arthur G. Howard, the respondent 's personnel manager, and was informed that his employment was terminated because his work was not satis- factory. The respondent's testimony with regard to the discharge of Crittenden is con- fusing and inconsistent , and in some cases vague. His discharge was occasioned, veco rding to his supervisors , Burson and Wagnon, because of his practice of re- porting for work at about 7: 30 in the morning , 30 minutes before his shift com- menced work, and talking with employees of the third shift who were still at work in the department. Burson testified that he never told Crittenden indi- vidually to cease such practice, but that he had so instructed the employees of the department collectively in a group meeting. Wagnon testified that he had "warned" the employees of the department at two or three group meetings about <,oming in early and disturbing third shift workers and that he had individually ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 451 "warned" Crittenden about a week or 10 clays before Crittenden's discharge.18 According to Crittenden, he reported to work about 7:30 each morning and he "sometimes . . . would stop and say a word to [third shift employees]. Most times speak to them." He denied that he had been individually warned to cease such practice, although he testified that the employees in the department had been instructed in a group meeting to "go on through back to our jobs whenever we come in." The undersigned finds it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony for the reason that it does not appear from the testimony of Burson and Wagnon that the alleged warnings carried with them the threat of discharge if Crittenden continued to engage in the censored conduct. Furthermore , Trous- dale, assistant foreman in charge of the packing department on the third shift, testified that he had seen Crittenden talk to the third shift employees before start- ing work at 8 o'clock but that several other employees engaged in the same prac- tice of reporting early and talking to third shift employees until the first shift started without suffering the penalty of discharge. In respect to such talking, Trousdale admitted that Crittenden "seemed just about . . . like the rest of them, regular." The respondent's witnesses also insisted that one of the reasons for Crittenden's discharge was that his work was unsatisfactory because be was a slow worker, "loafed" during working hours, and absented himself from his department in order to visit employees in other departments. Burson estimated that Critten- den had evidenced these tendencies "pert near all the time he was there ," whereas Wagnon stated such conduct covered a period of 3 or 4 months. Other witnesses for the respondent testified that they had observed Crittenden to be a slow worker and waster of time for various periods, such as "ever since [Crittenden] has been there," for 6 months or 7 months. A third reason advanced by Burson for Crittenden's discharge was that Critten- den did not observe the respondent's rule that employees were not to receive or make telephone calls during working hours except in emergencies or for urgent business reasons. According to Burson, Crittenden for a period of 4 months be- fore his discharge frequently used the telephone in the office of Lamar Brantley, a shipping clerk, who complained to Burson of such alleged practice . Brantley, a witness for the respondent, testified, however, that the occasion of which he had complained to Burson occurred over a 12-day period about 2 months before Crittenden's discharge and that he had stopped Crittenden's use of the telephone by refusing to summon him in response to calls. Because of the confusion and contradiction in the respondent's testimony with regard to the discharge of Crittenden and also because of the lengthy period of time prior to his discharge during which he allegedly engaged in the dis- approved conduct, the undersigned cannot credit the testimony of the respond- ent's officials. Had Crittenden engaged in the objectionable conduct over the period of time testified to by the respondent's witnesses, it would seem more likely that his employment would have been earlier terminated.19 It is difficult, 18 In regard to this individual warning, Wagner testified, "I just told him I wanted him to pep up. The night foreman and the management of the plant were getting sore at him loafing, sitting around with those employees in the morning before work time and hinder- ing . . . I asked him to quit , come on pep out of it and go to work." 19 The undersigned has considered the testimony of Burson and Wagnon that on two or three occasions they had "pulled" Crittenden's time card with the apparent intention of discharging him, but on each occasion decided "to give him another chance." Inasmuch as they did not inform Crittenden, so far as the record shows, of such action, the under- signed accords no weight to the alleged "card palling" as evidence of earlier warnings to Crittenden. 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as well, to believe that such an allegedly inefficient employee would have been considered for the vacancy on the recure molds. In view of the respondent's anti-union animus, Assistant Foreman Wagnon's statement to employee Agee that Crittenden had launched the Union's organizational campaign and as a re- sult of such action was going to be discharged , and Foreman Pressley's subsequent statement to employee McDonald that Crittenden had been fired because he had distributed union authorization cards, the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondent discharged Crittenden because of his union membership and union activities and that by thus discriminating against Crittenden, the respondent has violated Section 8 (3) of the Act, thereby discouraging member- ship in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Burleson Johnson Burleson Johnson commenced his employment with the respondent in March 1945, on the third shift. For 2 weeks, he attached stems to inner tubes at a wage of 55 cents an hour, and then became a molder's helper at 75 cents an hour. At the end of 2 months, he was promoted to the position of molder at 85 cents an hour. In the latter position, he operated eight molds. His duties required him to fill the molds, close the molds' tops, and then when the molds lifted auto- matically after a certain set time, to remove the inner tube and fill the molds again. Johnson joined the Union late in July or the first of August 1945. Johnson testified that about the first of August, he had the following con- versation with Hubert Morgan, his immediate supervisor : Morgan initiated the conversation by asking if Johnson had signed a union authorization card. When Johnson replied in the affirmative, Morgan asked, "Do you want to go over [to the union hall] after it?" Johnson replied that he did not and Morgan again inquired, "Do you want me to take you over there after" the card. Johnson declined Morgan's otter. Thereupon, Morgan stated, "Well, if you don't go, you will be sorry of [sic] it." Morgan specifically denied having made the inquiries and statements attributed to him by Johnson. The undersigned cannot accept Morgan's denials. Not only did Johnson impress the undersigned as a truthful witness but it is to be noted that the questions and statements attributed by Johnson to Morgan are similar in form to those which Morgan was found in Section 3 A, above, to have made to employees McCollum and Franks. Indeed, the conversation between Morgan and Johnson was a part of the course of conduct engaged in by the respondent to nullify the Union's organizational ef- forts and of the movement sponsored by several supervisors to persuade em- ployees to relinquish their union membership. The undersigned finds that the colloquy occurred as testified to by Johnson and that by the statements made to him by Morgan, the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Not long after this conversation, production of the plant was temporarily curtailed ; and of the six molders in Johnson's department, Johnson was among the four molders to be laid off for a period of 2 weeks, after which Johnson was reemployed. On Sunday morning, August 19, 1945, the molds on the third shift were shut down for repairs at 7: 30, which was 30 minutes before the usual end of the shift. The employees of the mold department were informed that they could proceed forthwith to the shower room, to bathe and dress. En route to the shower room, Johnson stopped to chat briefly with Flora Hooper, who was employed in a neighboring department. According to Johnson, he said only "about a half dozen words" to Hooper and went on his way to the showers only to be halted ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 453 by Assistant Foreman Morgan who informed Johnson that he was discharged. The separation notice given Johnson by the personnel department stated that Johnson's employment was terminated because his work was unsatisfactory. As in the case of Crittenden, the respondent's testimony with regard to the discharge of Johnson is confusing and contradictory and in some respects vague. According to witnesses for the respondent, Johnson frequently left his work to talk with girls working in other departments and was often heard yelling, laughing, and jesting in a loud and boisterous manner in conversations with various employees at some distance from his molds. Assistant Foreman Morgan testified that Johnson performed his duties capably until 2 weeks after he became a molder, "then he got to loafing on the job." According to Morgan, Johnson would fill his molds and then leave the department to talk with girls working in other departments. Morgan testified that he "talked" with Johnson about Johnson's leaving his molds on an average of about twice a week for "about a couple months" and that on the last occasion, about a week or two before Johnson's employment was terminated, Morgan warned him that he would be discharged if lie again left his work unattended. Foreman Pressley testified that he had noticed that Johnson was neglecting his molds for "better than a month." Trousdale, who was assistant foreman in charge of the packing department on the third shift, testified that Johnson had been neglecting his work in order to talk with girls in other departments for as long as Trousdale could remember. According to employee Looney Huggins, Johnson had engaged in such conduct continuously from the time Johnson commenced to work for the respondent. The respondent called as witnesses several girls who worked in other departments and who testified that Johnson frequently stopped by their tables to chat briefly during working hours. However, it is clear from their testimony that Johnson was not the only employee who came to their depart- ment and engaged them briefly in conversation during working hours, but that such sociality was a common practice among the employees. Johnson denied that anyone had ever complained of the quality of his work performance or had reprimanded him for talking to other employees and making too much noise. He admitted, however, that he knew that the respondent's regulations forbade employees to talk to other employees who were working. For the reasons previously stated and upon the entire record, the undersigned accepts Johnson's testimony in regard to this issue and does not credit Morgan's testimony regard- ing the warnings allegedly given Johnson. In addition, the respondent sought to justify Johnson's discharge by the testimony of Morgan to the effect that he had detected the odor of liquor on Johnson's breath on two occasions at work, the first being about a month before his discharge and the second about 3 weeks before the termination of his employment. Pressley testified that Morgan had reported one such observation. According to Morgan, the respondent's rule regarding intoxication was that an employee would be discharged for "drinking on the job" or if the odor of liquor could be detected on his breath. Foreman Pressley, however, testified that under the rule an employee would be discharged only if found drinking at work. He further testified that Morgan "never reported that [Johnson] was caught drinking on the job." In contradistinction to Morgan, Pressley's testimony indicates that the alleged alcoholic incidents played no part in the decision to discharge Johnson.2° 20 Johnson denied that he ever used intoxicating beverages . In view of the contradictory testimony of Morgan and Pressley as to whether the alleged alcoholic incidents were a motivating factor in Johnson 's discharge , the undersigned finds it unnecessary to resolve the conflict in the testimony in regard to Johnson 's use of intoxicating beverages. 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because of the confusion and contradiction in the respondent's testimony in respect to Johnson's discharge, the undersigned cannot credit the reasons advanced by the respondent for the termination of Johnson's employment. It seems clear that if Johnson's work performance had been as inefficient and if his conduct at work had been as vexatious to other employees for the 3- to 6- month period as witnesses for the respondent insisted, his employment would have been terminated earlier. In fact, if he had been such an inefficient em- ployee, it is most unlikely that after the lay-off necessitated by the curtailment of production, he would have been recalled to work in August, only a few days before he was discharged. In addition, it is clear that the incident which directly brought on his discharge, namely, talking to another employee during working hours, was commonly engaged in by other employees, none of whom suffered the extreme penalty of discharge. In view of the strategic time chosen to effect Johnson's discharge and Morgan's threat, made not long before the discharge, that Johnson would be "sorry" for, having refused to follow Morgan's suggestion of relinquishing his union membership, as well as the respondent's anti-union animus and campaign to nullify the effects of the Union's organizational efforts, previously discussed, the undersigned concludes and finds that Johnson was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act, because of his membership in the Union and that by thus discrimi- nating against Johnson, the respondent has discouraged membership in the Union and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act?' IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the respondent has independently violated Sections 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act, the undersigned must recommend that the respondent, pur- suant to the mandate of Section 10 (c), cease and desist therefrom. The re- 21 Even if the respondent 's reasons for the discharge of Johnson , as well as Crittenden, were accepted, it is still clear that in view of the entire course of events and the strategic timing of the discharges that such reasons did not in fact motivate the discharges but served only as a pretext for the discharges . As the Board stated in Matter of The Kelly- Springfield Tire Company, 6 N. L. R. B. 325, 342 "While proof of the presence of proper causes at the time of discharge may have relevancy and circumstantial bearing in explaining what otherwise might appear as a discriminatory discharge , such proof is not conclusive." That is, even if it be assumed that, in the discharges of Johnson and Crittenden, the respondent was in part motivated by considerations not violative of the Act (which the undersigned does not believe ), the fact nevertheless remains that a material and substantial part of such motivation was the respondent 's purpose by these acts to defeat the Union . If the discharges were motivated by two reasons, one legal and the other illegal , the burden was on the respondent under such circumstances to separate the two ; that is to say, to show that the discharges would have in any event taken place absent the illegal motivation . This the respondent has failed to do. The facts , indeed , indicate the contrary . See N. T. R. E. v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F. ( 2d) 862, 872 (C. C. A. 2), cert . den. 304 U . S. 576. ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 455 spondent's whole course of conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization among its employees . For example, in the course of the union organization, the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Act by questioning numerous employees with respect to their union membership, by threatening economic reprisals which would be inflicted upon employees engaging in union activities , by assuming a vigorous role in the movement designed to persuade employees to revoke their union membership, and by other anti-union statements and conduct heretofore discussed. Finally, the respondent actually penalized employees Crittenden and Johnson for their concerted activities by discriminatorily discharging and thereafter re- fusing to reinstate them. Such discrimination "goes to the very heart of the Act." 22 Because of the respondent 's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past 2' The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore , to make effective the interdependent guarantee of Section 7, 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 under- signed will recommend that the respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned has found that the respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert H. Crittenden , Jr., and Burleson Johnson. The undersigned will therefore recommend that the respondent offer to each of these employees immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. The undersigned will further recommend that the respondent make whole these employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them , by the payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings ,2' during such period. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., and Burleson Johnson, thereby discouraging member- 22 N. L. R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F . ( 2d) 532 (C. C. A. 4). See also , N. L. R. B. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 116 F . ( 2d) 350, 353 (C. C. A. 7), where the Court observed : "No more effective form of intimidation nor one more violative of the N. L. It. Act can be conceived than discharge of an employee because he joined a union . . 22 See N. L. R. B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426. 24 By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else- where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L. R . 13. 440 . Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be considered a.s earnings . See Republic Steel Corporation jr. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7. 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ship in a labor organization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (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. RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under- signed recommends that the respondent, Robbins Tire and Rubber Company, Incorporated, Tuscumbia, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in international Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment ; (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, or any other labor or- ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., and Burleson Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Robert H. Crittenden, Jr., and Burleson Johnson for any loss of pay that they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of the discrimina- tion against him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period ; (c) Post at its plant at Tuscumbia, Alabama, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respond- ent has taken to comply therewith. It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Re- gional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respond- ent to take the action aforesaid. ROBBINS TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED 457 As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceedings (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as be relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the parties and shall file a copy with the Re- gional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party de- sire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order trans- ferring the case to the Board. FREDERIC B. PAxxxs, 2nd, Trial Examiner. Dated January 22, 1946. "APPENDIX A" NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that- We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Holpers of America, Local No. 402, AFL, 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. We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. ROBERT H. CRIrrENDEN, Jr. BuaLEsoN JOHNSON. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. ROBBINs TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, INCORPORATED. Employer. Dated--------------- By-------------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not to be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.