Cone Mills Corporation

C(ONE MII.LS CORPORATION Cone Mills Corporation, Revolution Division and Kurt Krumperman and Dan L. Stoneman. Cases I I -CA 7093-1, 11-CA-7249 3, and 11 CA-7249 2 September 21, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On May 2, 1979, Administrative Law Judge George Norman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board had delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, Cone Mills Corporation, Revolution Division, Greensboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, ex- cept that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. i We view the unlawful discharges of two of the leading union activists to be of an egregious nature and, when this is considered in the context of Respondent's other widespread misconduct, it forces us to conclude that Respondent has demonstrated a general disregard for the employee's funda- mental statutory nrights. Accordingly, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that a board order is warranted in the circumstances of this case. See Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 1979). We have modified the Administrative Law Judge's notice to conform with his recommended Order. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against employees in regard to hire or ten- ure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment because of their union or protected concerted activities. WE WIIl.L NOT interrogate our employees con- cerning their union or protected concerted activi- ties. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharges if they engage in union or protected activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with re- prisals for associating with persons known to be union adherents or promoters of employees' pro- tected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT restrict the freedom of move- ment in the plant of our employees working as overhaulers because of their involvement in union or protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Dan L. Stoneman and Kurt Krumperman immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of pay or other benefits suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against them, with interest. CONE MILLS CORPORATION, REVOLUTION DIVISION DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Greensboro, North Carolina, on April 24-26 and June 20 22, 1978. The original charge was filed on June 30, 1977' by Kurt Krumperman, then a Cone Mills Corporation, Revolution Division (herein Respondent) employee. Thereafter, on Oc- tober 27 and October 28, additional charges were filed by Dan Stoneman, also a former employee of Respondent, and Kurt Krumperman, respectively. The charges allege that Respondent has engaged in, and is now engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce as defined in the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 151 e seq., herein called the Act. On January 25, 1978, the Regional Director of Region 11 I issued an order consolidat- ing cases, consolidating complaint' and amended notice of hearing. ' Unless otherwise stated. all dates referred to herein are 1977. 2 At the heanng, counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend para. 7 of the complaint to delete the name of Coolidge Ward as a supervisor and to substitute therefor the name Delbert Rumley. as a substitute supervisor. (Continued) 245 NLRB No. 32 159 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Issues I. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by interferring with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by interrogations, threats, and restrictions of free- dom of movement in the plant of its employees. 2. Whether Respondent's discharge of employees Dan L. Stoneman and Kurt Krumperman was in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act in that said employees were discharged because they joined or assisted the Union, or engaged in other union activity or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid and pro- tection. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Re- spondent. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs and argument, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. JURISDICTION Cone Mills Corporation, Revolution Division, is a corpo- ration with facilities located in North Carolina, including plant at Greensboro where it is engaged in the manufacture of textiles. During the past 12 months, a representative pe- riod, Respondent received at its Greensboro plants, goods and raw materials directly from points outside the State of North Carolina, valued at in excess of $50,000 and shipped directly to points outside the State of North Carolina, prod- ucts valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is and has been at all material times, an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION At all times material herein, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, successor to Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, has been and is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 1I1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Kurt Krumperman was hired by Respondent around the end of July 1976, and worked in Respondent's Revolution Division until October 27, 1977, when he was terminated. At the time of his termination he was an overhauler helper, utility, in the card department on the first shift. His imme- Counsel for the General Counsel also moved to amend para. 9 of the com- plaint to substitute the date September 23 for September 26 and the date October 27 for November I. Respondent had no objection to the deletion of Coolidge Ward as a super- visor and to the proposed amendments to paragraph 9. but objected to the inclusion of Delbert Rumley as a substitute supervisor. I granted the said motions to amend the complaint. Respondent then denied the supervisory status of Delbert Rumley. diate supervisor was Darrell Carter, Carter in turn, was un- der the general supervision of Card Department overseer John Allen. John Allen reported to Herman Cone, who is vice president and general manager of the Revolution Divi- sion of Respondent. The union organizational activity Some time in September of 1976, Krumperman and other cardroom employees started talking about the need to orga- nize a union, "to fight some conditions we had to deal with in the mill." They talked about that for awhile and later that month four of them met on a Sunday and discussed further how to go about getting a union and getting more people involved in an organizational drive. After that meet- ing they talked to their fellow employees and met on subse- quent weekends until January 1977. The employees dis- cussed the possibility of joining the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union (herein ACTWU). In January of 1977, the employees, including Krumper- man, felt they were strong enough, in the card department and other departments of the mill, to go to ACTWU and ask for their support for an organizational drive at Respon- dent's plant. Krumperman, Sandra Smith, and Ron Mitch- ell met with union representative Julius Frye. Frye, in that meeting, asked several questions concerning the amount of support for a union, the different departments, and the race and sex of the employees in the mill. Frye then told them that the first step was to provide him with a list of workers in different departments and after that he would talk with Scott Hoyman, the regional director of ACTWU in Char- lotte, North Carolina, and get him to set up a meeting be- tween the Revolution Organizing Committee (herein ROC) and ACTWU. Later, the employees prepared the requested list, which contained between 14 and 20 names and turned it over to Frye who, afterwards told them that he had discussed the matter with Hoyman and that it was their belief that ACTWU could not support a union drive at the time, inas- much as there was not enough support in the mill for a union. About 2 days after that conversation with Frye, about 20 workers from Respondent's plant went to the union hall in Greensboro to again talk to Frye. Frye was not there at the time, but the secretary told the employees that it was her understanding that there was not enough support in the mill for a union. Spokesmen for the employees replied that 20 people coming down to the union hall indicated there was pretty good support and that some of those employees were involved in the last union drive (supported by ACTWU) and that drive had a smaller organizing commit- tee (1976-77). They could not understand why ACTWU felt it was not enough support. For the next few weeks following that discussion in March with the secretary in the union office, the employees made several phone calls to John Kissett, Southern Re- gional Organizer for ACTWU in Charlotte. Kissett told them that he would get back to them and set up a meeting. The ROC invited Kissett, Hoyman, and Frye to their orga- nizing committee meetings, but the three officials never at- tended the ROC meetings. 160 CONE MILLS CORPORATION At the end of March, at an ROC meeting of about 30 employees, it was decided, that they would go ahead with the union drive because so many people knew about it in the plant, and that if they did not open it up so that every- one could get involved, "there was a great chance the Com- pany would find out and a lot of people would get into trouble." They also decided that they would continue to try to talk ACTWU into supporting the drive. On or about March 31, ROC put out a leaflet announcing it was starting its union drive, explaining that a union was needed in the mill to fight for better conditions and that the committee was still in contact with ACTWU. The leaflet also called for a mass meeting at Cosmos I Club on Sunday. April 3. The leaflets were handed out at gates 2 and 4 of the plant, both for the first shift and the afternoon shift. Other leaflets were prepared and distributed to employ- ees at Respondent's other plants in Greensboro on Thurs- day night and Friday morning, April 1. Those leaflets, in effect, told of the organizational drive at the Revolution plant of Respondent and invited the employees (who, at the time, were represented by ACTWU) to attend the April 3 meeting. Also around that time, several members of ROC went to newspapers and television station to talk about the drive at Revolution. No official of ACTWU attended the April 3 meeting. Articles about ROC were published in the April I Greensboro Record. Approximately 180 workers from Revolution attended the mass meeting of April 3 at which Members of ROC discussed why a union was needed, the conditions of the plant, their organizing efforts, and their efforts to get ACTWU support. Cards were distributed to the employees for their signatures. They stated, in substance, that the sig- nators wanted to be members of, and have, a local union of ACTWU at the Revolution plant. Following that, the organization drive continued and many different leaflets were distributed at different times at the Revolution plant and some leaflets were distributed at other of Respondent's plants. Kurt Krumperman was ac- tively involved in all of these activities, including scheduling and attending meetings, preparation of leaflets, and the dis- tribution of leaflets at Respondent's various plant gates. The newspaper article appearing in the Greensboro Record named Kurt Krumperman as the chairman of publicity for the ROC, but named no other employee. The event leading to the discharge of ROC Leader Kurt Krumperman The day following the mass meeting on April 3, Respon- dent restricted the movements of Krumperman and his fel- low employees on the overhaul crew of the cardroom. Del- bert Rumley came to the overhaul crew on that day and told the crew members they could no longer use the fill-end smoke booth at the end of the day at their break. He said they had to use the warp-end smoking booth. Delbert Rum- ley was the head overhauler and at times was substitute supervisor.' The fill-end smokeroom was on one end of the 3 At the time that Krumperman took the job as overhauler-helper. he was informed by Allen that he was to do whatever Rumley told him to do and that Rumley had the authonty to recommend punishment or give warnings cardroom and the warp-end smokeroom was on the other end of the cardroom. Following Rumley's instructions, the employees who left by gate 2 at the fill-end after their break, were required to leave by gate 4 at the warp-end. Inasmuch as a large number of workers at the end of the shift would use the fill-end smoke booth to have their break (15 or 20) and then wait for the light to go on to leave by gate 2 and many workers would come in gate 2 (many, more than at gate 4). Krumperman was previously able to talk to more employees, both leaving and coming. while taking his break at the fill-end smoke booth. In addition, the over- seer's and the supervisor's offices was on the warp-end smokeroom side. Thus. it was not possible for the employ- ees to speak freely at the warp-end side for fear of being observed by the supervisors. The day after these instructions by Rumley. Rumlev ad- dressed the entire overhauling crew at the beginning of the day, pointing to Krumperman, he stated, "You're union organizer over here is a Communist."' Shortly after ordering the switch in break rooms, Rumley told the crews, which consisted of Krumperman, Willie Sur- geon, Charles Daye, John Bud, and Wayne Stevens, that they would have to get their belongings out of the lockers in the fill-end room and place them in the lockers in the warp- end room which is right across the hallway from Allen's office. The employees followed the instructions and, after they went back to their jobs, Rumley told them that hence- forth they could not be seen in the fill-end room unless they were there working on a particular machine and that they would have to ingress and egress through gate 4. At the time no reasons were given to the crew for the changes. On April 5, while Krumperman was working on a draw- ing machine with another overhauler. Rumley approached Krumperman and told him he could no longer leave the department for any reason, to pick up supplies, rags, lap-x, or tools. Prior to April 4. during the course of the day, Krumperman would leave the card department for any or all those reasons. At the time no other employee on the overhaul crew was so restricted. Prior to April, the employees on the overhaul crew, in addition to their regular scheduled breaks of approximately 10 to 15 minutes duration, took four cigarette breaks (8, 10, 12, and 2). Some time in April, Rumley told the employees of the overhaul crew that there would be no more smoke breaks. Krumperman testified that at the beginning of the day, Rumley announced to the crew that supervisor Carter had something to say. Whereupon, Carter told the employ- ees of the overhaul crew that there were to be no more smoke breaks, that they were to adhere to their four sched- uled breaks. Rumley then said to the crew while looking at Krumperman. "How do you like Krumperman eating cheese?" On May 5, Rumley called the employees on the overhaul crew together, and according to the testimony of crew member Willie Surgeon, Rumley said he had a special man to go get the parts and rags and whatever else was needed. and for the others on the overhaul crew to stay on the job to people. I find Delhert RumleS to he a suhstitute supervisor n a supervi- sor within the meaning of he Act ' Krumperman admitted he Is Communist 161 Dft(CISIONS OF NA'IONAL. IABOR REILATIONS BOARI) and then he pointed to Krumperman and said. "Especially you." He mentioned that the special man was Charles Daye. Following that announcement. Surgeon on several occasions, left the department to obtain those materials on special instructions from Rumley to "go get this or get that." Surgeon said that others were so dispatched during the day by Rumley. but not Krumperman. On or about May 3 or 4 Krumperman filed two griev- ances. He grieved harassment against himself' and other people, and a warning he received for an unexcused ab- sence. Krumperman filed another grievance in early June concerning which he had a meeting with Overseer John Allen. Krumperman was accompanied by I)anny Stone- man, Ronnie Mitchell, and another unnamed employee as witnesses. That grievance was also discussed with Sidney Allen and Herman Cone, Jr. at succeeding steps. During his conversation with Cone, Krumperman asked if he had re- ceived a letter written by ROC complaining of the use in the plant of dangerous chemicals, such as tris. ite asked Cone to identify those chemicals and to indicate whether they were dangerous to the employees' health. Cone replied that he did not recognize the ROC: that he would not dis- cuss with ROC any of those matters: that they were not to discuss those matters at that meeting: and that the meeting was a grievance meeting. Both Sandra Smith and Dan Stoneman, who accompa- nied Krumperman, also spoke at that meeting. Stoneman told Cone about a situation he had experienced in the dust house; that he did not have any equipment to keep the dust out of his lungs while cleaning it, and for several days there- after he had a bad cough, expectorating the inhaled dust from his lungs. He said he did not see how he or others could go back to that job without proper protection and that it was not right. Cone responded that he had to get a job done and, if they did not want to do it, they would have to go out the gate. In the latter part of August, Krumperman and other ROC members were circulating a petition which was signed by 16 employees in the cardroom. The petition concerned posting of bumping rules, advanced notice on layoffs. work- ers sent home in the middle of the day without a full days pay and guaranteed 40 hours work or 40 hours pay per week. The petition was on a grievance form. Upon presen- tation of the petition to John Allen, Krumperman told Al- len that there were 16 signatures on it. Allen told Krumper- man he would get back with him later. A few hours later, Allen called Krumperman to his office and told him that it was not a proper grievance: that they were not following the grievance procedure and that he would not accept it. Allen then crumpled it and threw it in his waste can. Krum- perman went behind his chair, got it out of the waste can and asked Allen what the proper grievance procedure was. Allen responded that Krumperman had not followed the right procedures with regard to all of the grievances he had filed previously: that the proper procedure was that one first talks with his immediate supervisor, if not satisfied, the overseer: if still not satisfied, get a grievance form and state the problem in writing. Krumperman asked Allen for a grievance form, but Allen refused to furnish one. He told Krumperman to talk to Darrell Carter. his supervisor, first. Whereupon, Krumperman left and set up a meeting with Darrell Carter himself. Stoneman, Ronald Mitchell. and Willie Washington. All went down to the main office to talk to Personnel Director Jarvis. Krumperman asked Jarvis why they, the RO('. could not file a grievance together since they had a conimon problem. Jarvis told them it was not written in the rules that way: and that it was not good management procedure to meet with a group of workers at one time: that it was disruptive and nothing could he ac- complished. Stoneman then asked Jarvis whether he would meet with 30 people if'30 had signed the petition and Jarvis replied in the negative. Then Stoneman said. "How abhout 6(X)." and Jarvis turned around and walked away. Ihe em- ployees then left the office. Krumperman and three employee witnesses then had two grievance meetings with Carter at which the content of' the petition was discussed. Carter denied the grievance. Stoneman then called a meeting out in the parking lot. In attendance were Krumperman. Jack Miller, James Blythe. Richard DeBerry, and Ronald Mitchell. All except Krum- perman were card tenders. The employees discussed the fact that it was important for them to stick together, and since Blythe had a grievance concerning the number of' cards he was running, as compared to his fellow employees who received the same pay, that they would set up a meet- ing with John Allen concerning that grievance as well as the grievance containing the four demands on the petition. The meeting in John Allen's office took place about the middle of September. Present at that meeting were John Allen. Jarvis. Stone- man. Blythe. Mitchell. and Krumperman. After discussing the grievances with SMr. Allen. Blythe asked Allen what he was going to do about his job. and Allen said he didn't know: that there were still going to be some changes made and that Blythe would have to keep doing it as he had been. Krumperman asked a similar question as to what was going to happen with Blythe's job, and Allen told Krumperman it was none of his business. At that point. Stoneman turned around and said, "I can't believe this." and walked out. Mr. Krumperman then arranged to have another meet- ing with Mr. Allen. At that meeting. Krumperman told Al- len that he would like to postpone it because he expected to be accompanied by three witnesses and only one appeared. Allen agreed that the meeting could be postponed. On or about September 21. Krumperman asked John Allen when his meeting with management would be concerning the grievance. Allen told Krumperman there would he no meeting and Krumperman would get a written response to his grievance. An argument ensued as to who said what at the last meeting (concerning the postponement until Krum- perman had three witnesses). Both Krumperman and Allen called each other liars. On the next day, September 22, Supervisor Bill C('aviness asked Krumperman to go down to the office with him. Krumperman asked Caviness why and Caviness said he did not know. Krumperman asked Caviness if that was his grievance meeting and Caviness replied that he did not know. Krumperman asked him whether he thought he needed witnesses and Caviness did not reply. On the way to the office, Krumperman :aw Stoneman and asked him if he would go with him to the office, indicating that he might need a witness. Krumperman overheard aviness say, "Kurt does not need any witnesses." And he heard Stone- 162 CONE MILLS CORPORATION man say. "()ka!'." All three kept on walking. Krumperman entered Allen's office with (Caviness behind him. Cainess shut the door. John Allen gave Krumperman a written warning for using improper languaZge and a written answer to the griev- ance about the bumping rules being posted, etc. While in the office. Krumpermnan and Allen observed Caviness go to the door several times and look out. Finally. John Allen said, "What are ou doing')? You are making me nervous." Caviness then went back to his seat. As Krumperman left he walked past Stoneman. who was standing in the hallway. On the following Monday. Krumperman filed a grievance concerning the warning from Allen for having called him a liar. Near the end of September. there was a plant gate rall of employees at gate 2 during which several made speeches. Earlier the same day, the employees in the cardroom and others involved in ROC passed out little slips of paper indi- cating there would be a meeting of employees at 11 I a.m. in the canteen located in the cardroom. At about II o'clock. when the meeting was scheduled, a group of management personnel, including trainers and supervisors (about 12 in number), sat at various tables to eat, leaving unoccupied only one table for four for the employees who usually eat at that time. It was not normal for management personnel to eat in the canteen at one time and in such large numbers. As a consequence. the meeting for employees scheduled for II o'clock was called off. The rally at gate 2 occurred as scheduled and among the employees who gave speeches were Krumperman and Stoneman. Following that demonstration. Krumperman and others passed around a petition in an effort to get Stoneman's' and Sam Little's jobs back.' On the following Thursday another rally took place at the same time and gate. The employees at that rally carried picket signs and yelled and chanted. The purpose of the rally was to protest Stoneman's and Little's firing. The ral- lying employees were also trying to develop more interest in the union drive. They passed out. for the first time, a leaflet with union authorization cards of the type that had been passed out earlier inside the mill printed on it. The suspension and discharge of Kurt Krumperman On October 277 at around 10:30 a.m.. Krumperman was working with Charles Daye on a machine. They had just finished stripping it (taking all the parts off it) and were blowing it off with an air hose.' Upon completing blowing off the machine, Krumperman blew off his clothing. Daye then blew his clothing off (as they had done in the past). At that point Rumley came up from behind Krumperman and Daye and told them they were not suppose to use the air hose for that purpose and that he was going to tell Bill. ' Stoneman was fired, the circumstances surrounding his firing will he dis- cussed later. Sam Little also was a cardroom employee that had been fired. Starting October 24, as a result of a complaint filed by RO(' on health and safety in the plant, OSHA officials inspected the plant. I While blowing the machine off with the air hose. the workers got covered from head to toe with cotton dust. dirt and grease. referring to Bill Caviness the assistant overseer. That oc- curred about 10:30 a.m. At about 1:30 p.m.. Caviness came to Krumperman and told him he had to go to the office. Whereupon Krumper- man and Caviness went to John Allen's office. In the pres- ence of Caviness, Allen told Krumperman he was reading from a paper and then read that Krumperman had been found using the airhose for his personal use, and that that was a violation of the plant rules: that it was his second violation in a year9 and that Krumperman was suspended. Allen then told Krumperman that he would call Krumper- man back in 3 days. and that he could pick up his tools now or later. Krumperman told Allen. "You know, everyone blows off all the time. I've been blowing off and everyone else blows off ever since I've been working in this mill. Y'ou're just trying to get rid of me for the union activity." Allen said he did not want to hear anymore and that Krum- perman could leave the plant. Krumperman repeated that Allen was just trying to get rid of him for trying to get the Union in. Allen again told Krumperman that he did not want to hear anymore and that Krumperman would have to be forced out if he did not leave. Krumperman then said, "I want to go back to work. This is ridiculous. Everyone blows off. You see it and all the other boss men have seen it." Allen reiterated that Krumperman would have to leave. Krumperman then left. Krumperman testified that Rumley saw him blowing his clothing off at least 50 times prior to the time that he turned him in. Rumley never warned him about it in the past. Krumperman testified further that he had seen many other employees blowing off their clothes almost daily. including Supervisor Carter. On October 28. Krumperman went to the main office and asked Jarvis to give him a grievance form so that he could grieve the suspension. Jarvis said he was not entitled to a grievance form until after the Company made its decision. Krumperman asked, "Decision as to what?" Jarvis replied as to what was going to happen to his status as an em- ployee. Krumperman asked. "How can you make a deci- sion without hearing my side of the story?" Jarvis said he gets his reports from supervisors and bases his decision on that. Krumperman told Jarvis that was unfair, that he had his side of the story and asked how the Company can make a decision without that. Jarvis ordered him out of the office. Krumperman then asked whether he would get the griev- ance form he requested. Jarvis said, "After we make our decision." Jarvis again told Krumperman to get out of the office and that if he did not leave they would have to arrest him for trespassing. At that point, the security guard came in and told Krumperman he would have to leave or a war- rant would be served on him. Krumperman tried to explain what happened to him. The guard repeated that if he did not leave a warrant would be served on him. Krumperman said he could not do that. but left when the guard pulled out his badge of deputy sheriff of Guilford County. On or about November 2, John Allen phoned Krumper- man and asked him to come down to Allen's office. Allen, Jarvis. and Wordest Felts were present. John Allen read from a paper stating that Krumperman violated plant rules: Ihe first violation was Krumperman leaving the department to make a telephone call without permission. 163 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his second violation of plant rules. He proceeded to read off other things Krumperman had done after he was suspended including Krumperman leaving the department without permission, using abusive language, disrupting the plant of- fice, and kicking machinery. Allen concluded that based on all of that Krumperman was fired. Krumperman told them he was being fired for organizing the Union, that it was a setup, that the rules were never previously enforced, and that he was going to the National Labor Relations Board to file a charge. Testimony concerning use of the compressed air hose There was much testimony concerning the use of the air hose. Stoneman testified that. "Just about everybody that worked there used the air hose to blow cotton off them- selves." and that this practice continued from the first day he went to work, mostly at the end of a shift. Stoneman: "People would be standing around everywhere blowing cot- ton off themselves wherever there was an air hose outlet." He said also that he had never heard of any employee re- ceiving any warning for the rule violation of blowing him- self off with a compressed air hose. Ronald Mitchell testified that until Krumperman's dis- charge approximately 90 percent of the cardroom employ- ees blew themselves off: that he used compressed air on himself on a daily basis and was seen doing so by supervi- sors Bob Graham and Darrell Carter but never received a warning for it. He said he saw Delbert Rumley blowing himself off on two occasions. On the second occasion. Mitchell himself and Rumley alternately used the com- pressed air on themselves simultaneously. Sam Little testified that he blew off with compressed air once or twice each workday and that supervisor Woody Rush observed him doing so "just about every day." He said Rush also below himself off "once or twice a day" and that other employees blew themselves off in front of Rush without receiving warnings. He said that blowing one's self off with compressed air was so common in the cardroom that the employees waited in line to use the air hose, some- times while the supervisor finished blowing himself' off. Willie Surgeon testified how he blew off with compressed air once or twice a day and that over half the employees in the cardroom did the same. He said he blew himself off in the presence of supervisors Jay Via, Woody Rush, and Del- bert Rumley without ever receiving a reprimand. As in the case of other employees who testified concerning this mat- ter, Surgeon was not aware of any other employee besides Krumperman and Charles Daye ever being given a warning for blowing themselves off with an air hose. Indeed, Sur- geon testified that he continued to blow himself off after Krumperman's discharge. Charles Daye, Respondent's own witness, admitted that he had blown himself off before the day that Delbert Rum- ley caught him and Krumperman and that he was not at all concerned when Rumley saw him blowing off. Futhermore, Daye testified that he saw many employees blow off in the cardroom; and that he had even observed employees blow- ing off with compressed air since he received his warning.' l0 None of this testimony concerning other employees blowing themselves off was controverted by Respondent. Supervisors Carter, Rush, Graham, and The suspension and discharge of Dan Stoneman Stoneman was suspended on September 23 and termi- nated on September 26. The union and concerted activities engaged in by employees Dan Stoneman and Kurt Krum- perman already have been discussed in detail. Ihe Respondent was aware of most of their union activi- ties. Thus, there is no issue with respect to knowledge by the Company of their union activities. According to Re- spondent, Stoneman was fired because on September 22 he went to overseer John Allen's office at the end of the shift and refused to return to his work station as told to do (re- peatedly) by supervisor Bill Caviness. Stoneman testified that he was going to John Allen's of- fice on the afternoon of September 22 to file grievances and to turn in the daily card setter for report. He further testi- fied that no one ever told him to go back to his job. As previously stated, Stoneman started working at Re- spondent's plant in March and was terminated on the 26th of September. At the time of his termination he was work- ing as a card setter in the carding department. Stoneman estimated that the cardroom is about as long as three foot- ball fields, end-to-end, and about as wide as the length of one fbotball field. The function of the cardroom operation was to process raw cotton into a useable product. The raw cotton came in bales and was processed by the cardroom employees and put in containers where it could be made into yarn. Stoneman's supervisor was Darrell Carter who in turn reported to overseer John Allen. Stoneman's other su- pervisor from time to time has been Jay Via, who was nor- mally the supervisor over the warp-end. Carter supervised the fill-end. Stoneman's grievance Stoneman reported to work on a "rain" day." Later, when he received his check he realized that he was not being paid for that day, as he expected, whereupon, he grieved that and another matter concerning his pay rate. Having been dissatisfied with the responses to his griev- ances at the initial levels of the grievance procedure, Stone- man, on or about September 23, after being told by Carter to take it up with John Allen, spoke to Krumperman, who informed him that he (Krumperman) was having a griev- ance meeting in Allen's office on that same day. Krumper- man asked Stoneman if he would be a witness for him if a witness were needed, and Stoneman agreed. Stoneman then went to his toolbox, got the card setter report (maintenance report) that he turned in daily, and proceeded to John Allen's office. On the way to Allen's office he met Krumperman and Assistant Overseer C'aviness who also were on their way to Allen's office. Caviness told Stoneman that he was not Rumley, who either observed employees blow off and said nothing or blew off themselves were not called as witnesses for the Company. Supervisor Jay Via, who did testify, did not testily concerning the use of compressed air hoses in the cardrtxm. Thus, the testimony concerning the use of air hoses by practically all cardroom employees and their supervisors or by employees in the presence of supervisors, without any warnings having issued, is uncon- traverted. A "rain" day is described as a day that employees report to work and because of the rain interfering with "on going" construction or some other operation the employees are sent home before starting to work. 164 CONE MILLS CORPORATION needed as a witness for Krumperman. Stoneman replied, "O.K." Notwithstanding, Stoneman continued toward Allen's office to submit the card setter report and to file his own grievance with Allen. As he approached the office. Caviness and Krumperman went in ahead of Stoneman and closed the door behind them. Stoneman waited outside Allen's office at a location approximately 15 to 20 feet from the door and observed that Caviness had come to the door a few times and looked out through the glass part towards Stoneman without gesturing. Stoneman waited until the meeting ended, and as he entered the office, Krumperman and Caviness were walking out. Caviness then turned around and came back into the office behind Stoneman. Stoneman went to Allen's desk, gave him the report" and told him that he would like to talk to him about the "rain" day and that he would like to file a grievance about that and about his rate of pay on the job. Stoneman told Allen that he had already talked to Darrell Carter about both matters and that Carter told him that he had talked to Al- len, and that the next step in the grievance procedure was for Stoneman to talk to Allen directly. Allen responded that Carter had not talked to him and that he (Allen) would have to get back to him later. Stoneman said, "O.K." and left. During that meeting Caviness said nothing. The next morning, September 24, when Stoneman re- ported to work, Caviness approached him and told him Al- len wanted to talk to him. Shortly thereafter, Stoneman went to Allen's office and found Caviness and Allen there, at which time Allen read off from a piece of paper that Stoneman was being suspended for insubordination and that he was to call Mr. Jarvis on Monday morning about his job. Stoneman was also told to collect his tools either then or Monday. Stoneman asked Allen what he meant by insubordination but Allen said he did not care to discuss it with him at that time, that he was sending the report to Jarvis, and that he should discuss it with Jarvis Monday morning. On Monday morning Stoneman went to Jarvis' office and asked Jarvis what it was all about. Jarvis, reading from the report that Allen had sent him, said that Stoneman was being terminated because of insubordination. Stoneman asked Jarvis for an explanation and Jarvis replied that Stoneman was asked three times to go back to his job and he did not return. Stoneman said nobody asked him to go back to his job and asked if he was being terminated. Jarvis told him he was. The interrogations and threats Some time in April, employee Samuel G. Little was ap- proached by Supervisor Jay Via while Little was at his work station in the cardroom reading an ROC leaflet. Via asked him why he was reading the paper and if he was "in that mess." Little said, "No." Via then told Little that it could get him in trouble. Jay Via denied ever "discussing the Union with employ- ees." He said the Company had given all supervisory per- sonnel guidelines to follow on dealing with employees, one 12Stoneman turned in the maintenance report to Allen's Office at about the same time every day and he did not depart from that practice on that day. of which involved a prohibition against interrogating em- ployees about their union activities. Sam Little further testified that on another occasion in April he was reading an ROC leaflet while in the plant *when he was approached by Supervisor Woody Rush, who asked him what he was doing, Little told him he was just reading. Rush asked him why he was reading that paper and l.ittle said he was interested and read them all the time. Rush asked him if he was "into that stuff' and Little said. "No." Little then asked if it made any difference. Rush did not reply. Rush was not called as a witness. Mary Stokes, a former Cone Mills employee, testified that around the second week of April while employed with Respondent, she had a conversation with Supervisor Jay Via in the canteen area of the plant. Via asked her if she was for the Union. She said she just looked at him. She testified further that Via then asked her, "If I knew if' I was for the Union that I could lose my job, and I told him I knew that, and then he asked me if I lose my job how would I manage to pay my bills, and I told him that wasn't none (sic) of his business."" On or about May 25, supervisor Via asked Stoneman if he was interested in being a supervisor or ftreman to which Stoneman replied he had not given it any thought. Via then asked him if he knew there was a drive going on. When Stoneman said he did, Via told him it would be best for him not to get involved in a union drive, and to try to keep straight and keep away from people like Kurt Krumperman because they were "troublemakers." Stoneman replied that he. "didn't know Kurt Krumperman that good." 4 Discussion and Conclusions The 8(a)( I) allegations Having discredited the testimony of Supervisor Jay Via and credited the testimony of Mary Stokes that Jay Via 1 As previously stated. Via denied discussing union activities with em- ployees. He specifically denied asking Stokes if she was for the Union or if she had been for the Union in 1973. Via also denied asking Ms. Stokes or any other employee if they were for the ROC. 14 Supervisor Jay Via's denials of discussing the Union with any employee, including Mary Stokes, Sam Little. and Dan Stoneman are not credible. When counsel for the Respondent asked him many specific questions his answers were without hesitation and definite. In sum, he appeared to give straight answers. However, on cross-examination. II was a different Via. His memory appeared good as to what he didn't say and bad as to what he did say. To put it differently, he was quite confident in answering questions put to him by counsel for Respondent but shaky, insecure, and of poor memory in answering questions asked by counsel for the General Counsel. When that inconsistent behavior was called to Via's attention during the tnal. he re- sponded. "Most of the questions Mr. Johnson (for Respondent) asked me were about things that I knew that I wasn't really supposed to discuss and I knew that I didn't. The questions that Mr. Morgan (for General Counsel) asked me are more detailed and I just don't remember everything I did, such as lengthy conversations. This has taken place over a year or a year and a half ago or maybe up to 2 years." On cross-examination, Via gave the follow- ing response to a question concerning a conversation he had with his supe- rior, John Allen: I really don't recall what I said to him because I really don't recall what time he had asked me or what was going on or anything. The inconsistency of Via's testimony is revealed in part by the following. At first he testified: I do not discuss the Union with employees . I did not discuss ROC either. That was just a subject I didn't discuss with employees. In his later testimony Via recalled conversations with employees concerning the ROC which he engaged and reported to his supenors 165 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD interrogated her by asking her if she was for the Union and threatening her by telling her she could lose her job if she were for the Union, I find such conduct to be in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. Similarly, I credit the testimony of Samuel Little, over the denials of Supervisor Jay Via, that in April Little too was interrogated by Via. While Samuel Little was reading the ROC leaflet at his work station, Assistant Overseer Via, in referring to the ROC, asked Little "if he was in that mess." Via's remark was clearly intended to elicit a re- sponse. It had no legitimate purpose and had a tendency to coerce Little. Ace Manufacturing Co., Inc., 235 NLRB 1023 (1978). Via then threatened Little with reprisals by inform- ing him that if he were associated with the ROC "it could get him in trouble." I find that also to be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Butler-Johnson Corporation 237 NLRB 688 (1978). Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act when Supervisor Via threatened Stoneman by warning him "It would be best for (Stoneman) not to get involved in the union drive, to try to keep straight and keep away from people like Kurt Krumperman because they are trouble- makers."" Supervisor Woody Rush interrogated Samuel Little by asking him why he was reading the ROC leaflet, Little re- sponded by stating that he frequently read ROC publica- tions. Whereupon Rush, referring to the ROC, asked Little if he "was into that stuff." That testimony went undenied. Little was a straight, consistent, and a credible witness. Ac- cordingly, I find that Supervisor Rush's comments consti- tute violations of Section 8(a)(1). See Ace Manufacturing, supra. I also find the following to be violations of Sections 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged because the conduct of Re- spondent constitutes interference with the employees' Sec- tion 7 rights. I. On or about April 3, requiring the overhaul crew to cease using the fill-end smoke booth and to use the warp- end smoke booth during their break from 2:45 to 3 p.m. 2. In April, requiring the overhaul crew to cease leaving the plant by gate 2 and to exist only by gate 4. 3. On about April 5, requiring the overhaul crew to move their lockers from the fill-end locker room to the warp-end locker room and also on that date prohibiting the overhaul crew from being in the fill-end except to perform work. 4. Prohibiting Krumperman from leaving the cardroom. 5. In April, prohibiting the overhaul crew from taking its regular smoke breaks. 6. On or about May 5, prohibiting all overhaulers, except Charles Daye, from leaving the cardroom to pick up sup- plies and equipment. Those restrictions placed upon the cardroom employees including Kurt Krumperman, a known leader of the ROC, were designed to keep Krumperman from being in contact with other employees and thus was an attempt to interfere with his rights under Section 7 of the Act. I do not accept is Even though not specifically alleged, and contrary to the contention of Respondent I find that conduct, which is similar and along the same pattern as Via's other conduct discussed above, to be a violation of Sec. 8(aXI). the explanations given by Respondent that the changes were either in the works or made necessary because of the mess created by the overhaul crew in the smokeroom. Because of the timing of the imposed restrictions (the organizational drive of ROC was at its peak) and the fact that the restrictions apparently focused on the overhaul crew of which a leader of the organizational drive, Kurt Krumperman, was a member. I am convinced by prepon- derance of credible testimony that Respondent was at- tempting to stifle union activity on the part of Krumperman and the ROC'6 in violation of the Act. ILloi'd Well dib/a Pere Marquette Park Lodge, 237 NLRB 855 (1978). The discharge of Krumperman In view of the large volume of consistent testimony of employees and former employees, including Krumperman, that the compressed air hose was used by employees and supervisors (and employees in the presence of supervisory) on almost a daily basis for the purpose of cleaning dust and cotton and dirt from their clothing, without any warnings or penalties being issued prior to the Krumperman and Daye incident. I am constrained to find that Krumperman's suspension and discharge, based in part on his having used the compressed air hose to blow off his own clothes in vio- lation of a plant rule is pretextual. None of the testimony of Krumperman, Stoneman, Mitchell, Little, Surgeon, and Daye concerning cardroom employees and supervisors regularly blowing themselves off was denied by Respondent. Except for assistant overseer Jay Via, all the supervisors named, including Darrell Car- ter, Woody Rush, Bob Graham. and Delbert Rumley, who either observed the employees blow off or blew off them- selves, were not called by the Company as witnesses. With respect to Jay Via who did testify, he was not asked on direct examination by Respondent any questions involving the use of the compressed air hose in the cardroom. Thus, Respondent isolated Krumperman (and Daye) and decided to enforce its rule against blowing off, after condoning all past violations of that kind. As for the warning received by Daye, he was warned for blowing off because, unfortu- nately, he was doing it at the same time as Krumperman. In addition, there is no testimony that Respondent ever warned or fired anyone for the rule violation of blowing one's self off in the cardroom with an air an air hose. Over- seer John Allen testified that he knew of no disciplinary 16 Ac Manufacturing Co., Inc., 235 NLRB 1023, (olumbia Transit (orpo- rarion 237 NLRB 1196 (1978). 11 Respondent contends that the ROC is not a labor organization: that its purpose is political; that its aim is communist inspired (Krumperman, an admitted communist, is its leader). I reject that contention for the following reasons: The evidence is that R.O.C. an organizing committee had as a purpose the improvement of the wages and working conditions of the em- ployees in the Revolution Division of Respondent and to get ACTWU to represent the employees there. See eighborhood legal Services Inc.. 236 NLRB 1269 (1978). It attempted unsuccessfully to gain the support of ACTWU, an admitted labor organization. The evidence that ROC contin- ued its attempt to get the support of ACTWU but was told by A(TWU officials that not enough employees were signed up to insure success. the inference being that if the showing of support increased. ACTWU would, as an organization. actively support the dnve. I do not believe any more need be shown. 166 CONE MILLS CORPORATION action having been taken for that violation prior to Krum- perman's discharge." I find that his post-suspension conduct in Jarvis' office was neither so egregious nor unwarranted (in view of Re- spondent's provocations in firing Krumperman illegally) as to be a valid basis for discharge. As to his prior rule viola- tion, others left the department to make phone calls without permission without warnings.' Therefore, I consider Re- spondent's additional causes for discharge similarly pre- textual. Krumperman was singled out, not because of his plant rule violations, but because of his concerted and union organizational activities. The discharge of Stoneman In Stoneman's case, as in Krumperman's, Respondent was well aware of his numerous union and concerted activi- ties. According to Respondent, Stoneman was terminated because on Thursday, September 23, he went to overseer John Allen's office at the end of the shift and refused to return to his work station as instructed repeatedly by Su- pervisor Bill Caviness. Stoneman was not discharged out- right. He was suspended on Friday, September 23, and ter- minated on September 26. Accordingly to Stoneman, he was going to John Allen's office for two reasons, (I) to file grievances, and (2) to turn in the daily card setters report. Stoneman testified that no one ever told him to go back to his job. Caviness testified that he told Stoneman to go back to his job but both Stoneman and Krumperman denied20 that. If Caviness' three trips to John Allen's door, during the meeting with Allen and Krumperman and looking out the glass portion of the door at Stoneman was telling Stone- man to go back to his work station, no one but Caviness knew it. Nor was Caviness' superior, John Allen, aware of such instructions. Allen asked Caviness what he was doing and to sit down because he was making Allen nervous. Caviness sat down after Allen's comment. At first Caviness testified that after he told Stoneman to return to his job, Stoneman said, "No," and later, he testified that Stoneman said nothing when he told him to return to work. John Allen testified that Caviness told him that Stoneman wanted to come to the office to file a grievance. Later, con- trary to his earlier testimony, Allen testified that the only E A warning to employee James Reynolds dated October 26, the day be- fore Krumperman received his warning and suspension, signed by Alien, issued in the spinning department a different area of the plant with its own supervisory hierarchy and rule enforcement policies. Moreover, the spinning department is not equipped with compressed air. It has forced air system. In any event, the rule went into effect in 1972 and apparently only two other warnings were issued since, and at about the time Krumperman and Daye were warned. The failure of Respondent to discipline Krumperman or an- other cardroom employee. Daye were warned. The failure of Respondent to discipline Krumperman or for earlier conduct of the same character is fur- ther evidence of the pretextual nature of Respondent's action. Sileo Vending Co. Inc., 219 NLRB 472 (1975): Lafayetre Radio Electronics Corp., 216 NLRB 1135(1975). '' Respondent's contention that a second rule violation means termination apparently is discretionary with Respondent, inasmuch as Krumperman was not fired outright. He was suspended after his second rule violation. 10 Krumperman and Stoneman showed an unusual degree of calm, consis- tency and good memory. They stood up well under cross-examination. I believed them Caviness, on. the other hand, was not candid. He was evasive and his testimony was inconsistent with Allen's. I do not credit Caviness. information reported to him by Caviness was that Dan Stoneman wanted to be a witness for Kurt Krumperman. Allen acknowledged that Stoneman had a right to come in and file a grievance.' There is no dispute that, in his griev- ance, Stoneman had reached the John Allen step inasmuch as he had already discussed the grievance with his immedi- ate supervisor. Darrell Carter. As indicated, Stoneman's other purpose for going to Allen's office was to deliver the daily card setter report. 22 1 find it odd that Allen and Cavi- ness did not explain to Stoneman what was meant by insub- ordination or why he was being suspended even though Stoneman requested it. Allen testified that Stoneman re- mained silent when told he was suspended. That is incredi- ble, especially in view of Stoneman's active part in ROC and his demonstrated lack of hesitation in filing grievances whenever he felt such was necessary.2 Considering Stoneman's record with Respondent, includ- ing the fact that he had not been previously warned. repri- manded or punished, it would appear that his alleged in- subordination (a first offense) certainly would not have justified the severe punishment of discharge. At most, Stoneman waited 10 minutes outside of Allen's office rather than go hack to his job. Did that justify the maximum pun- ishment of termination? Indeed, a first offense of the cali- ber. such a drastic action in itself, raises the suspicion of pretext. Belrs Baking Conmpan. Inc. v. N.I..R.B., 380 F.2d 199 (10th Cir. 1967). In determining whether Respondent really discharged Stoneman for his insubordination, the se- riousness of the offense must be considered. For if the of- fense is minor, it is reasonable to infer that the severity of the penalty had its source in some conduct beyond the of- fense. In this case I am convinced that conduct was Stone- man's union concerted activities. IV. THFE FFECI OF 1THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACIIC(ES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev- eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. CONCLUSIONS OF LAw I. Respondent Cone Mills Corporation, Revolution Di- vision, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 21 Respondent's witness. Jarvis, said that Stoneman insisted to him later that he went to Allen's office for the purpose of filing a grievance and not to be a witness for Krumperman and that he told Stoneman that. if that was the case, he should have pointed that out to the supervisor. 22 According to Respondent's witness, employee Edward Moore, the proper time to take the report to Allen's office was between 2:45 and 3 p.m.. which was the time that Stoneman was there 2' Allen's testimony is not consistent with that of his subordinate. Jay Via. Allen said, with respect to the ROC. that he was never given any instructions whatsoever. But Via, who worked for Allen. testified that he was instructed by the Company. probably Allen. "to keep his eyes and ears open and to report anything back that [he] heard on the ROC." In addition, such instruc- tions to Via, if not given by Allen certainly would have been known by him through the chain of command. 167 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, successor to Textile Workers Union of America, AFL CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Dan L. Stoneman on September 26 and Kurt Krumperman on November 1, the Respondent discouraged membership in a labor organization by dis- criminating in regard to tenure of employment, thereby en- gaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union activities; threatening its employees with dis- charges if they engaged in union or protected concerted activities; by threatening its employees with reprisal fbr as- sociating with persons known to be union adherents and/or promoters of employees' protected concerted activities: by restricting the freedom of movement in the plant of its em- ployees working as overhaulers because of their involve- ment in union and/or protected activities Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Accordingly, the Respon- dent shall be Ordered to immediately reinstate Dan L. Stoneman and Kurt Krumperman to their former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist, then to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of earnings and compensation they may have suffered because of the illegal discrimination against them in their employ- ment as herein found. Backpay shall be computed in ac- cordance with the formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),24 Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found, the recommended Order, will provide that Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner in- terfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER25 The Respondent Cone Mills Corporation, Revolution Di- vision, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 2nSee, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 2s In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging. or otherwise discriminating against em- ployees in regard to hire to tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment because of their union or protected concerted activities. (b) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union activities or protected concerted activities. (c) Threatening its employees with discharges if they en- gage in union or protected concerted activities. (d) Threatening its employees with reprisals for associat- ing with persons known to be union adherents and/or pro- moters of employees' protected concerted activities. (e) Restricting the freedom of movement in the plant of its employees working as overhaulers, because of their in- volvement in union or protected concerted activities. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Dan L. Stoneman and Kurt Krumperman to their former respective jobs, or if those jobs no longer exists, then to substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay or other compensation they may have suffered by reasons of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in that portion of this decision entitled "the Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel reports and all other records necessary to analyze and determine the amount of' backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Greensboro, North Carolina, facility cop- ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'" Copies of said notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region I I shall, after being duly singed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted immediately upon re- ceipt thereof and be maintained by if for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11 in writ- ing within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the consolidated complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings. conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 26 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board." 168