Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corp.

332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT discourage membership in MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OII.ERs, affiliated with AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminatorily refusing to reinstate any of our employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their membership, activities, and sympathies ; threaten employees with discharge or the loss of their jobs or threaten not to employ or reinstate them because of their union activities; promise our employees benefits or threaten them with reprisals in order to discourage membership in any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. or L, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to the 15 individuals whose names are listed below im- mediate and full reinstatement to their respective former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay or expenses they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them : Enrico D. Fennel Dale Bullard Betty Jean Fenton Charles J. Woodward Victor Hartman Walter Zinzer Joseph May Doris E. Art J. D. Angel Levern C. Davis Howard W. Givens Harold Bryant John Lipsey Earl Sanders William S. Jehlen All our employees are free to become or remain members of MORTUARY EM- PLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. OF L., or of any other labor organization, except to the extent above stated. PIERCE BROTHERS Employer. Dated-------------------------------- By-------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION and UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-CA-839. December 10, 1951 Decision and Order On July 31, 1951, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair 97 NLRB No. 53. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE_ CORPORATION 333 labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and supporting brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addi- tions and modifications : 2 1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by interrogation of its employees, and by threats of reprisal and promises of benefits, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. However, in so finding, we do not rely, as did the Trial Examiner, on Glassman's admonitions to the employees that they consult their priest for guidance in voting against the Union; nor do we rely on Saxe's speech to the employees in October 1950. 2. We find, for the reasons detailed in the Intermediate Report, that Simonne Tremblay was constructively discharged on September 26, 1950, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act .3 More- over, even assuming arguendo that there was no such constructive discharge, but that, as the Respondent contends, Tremblay volun- tarily quit on that date, the question would still remain whether the Respondent's refusal to reemploy her on December 19, 1950, was discriminatory. The only reason given by the Respondent for its refusal to rehire Tremblay on that date was that she had quit. However, as the Trial Examiner found, she was known to the Respondent to be one of the most ardent advocates of the Union, and was the subject of frequent threats of reprisal and interrogation by the Respondent during the period of her employment. In view of these facts, and of the Re- spondent's acknowledgment that she was one of its most efficient 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles]. 2 The following minor corrections of the Trial Examiner' s findings are noted : ( 1) There is no evidence to support the finding that in July 1950 the Respondent had promised to set piece rates; (2) contrary to the finding in footnote 4 of the Intermediate Report, the Respondent did, in fact, deny at the hearing that it maintained lists of its employees indicating the extent of their union activity ; (3) while the Examiner found that Newfield offered Lesante 5 dollars plus the expense of a baby sitter to spy upon the Union, the record shows that Newfield offered her only 5 dollars ; (4) there is no evidence that Lesante's version of her interview with Nadeau, as reported to Newfield, was "concocted" between Nadeau and Lesante ; and (5) contrary to the Examiner's finding, Gaudette did not accept the Respondent's offer of reinstatement in the letter of February 27, 1951. None of these inaccuracies in the Trial Examiner's findings is of such a nature as to affect his ultimate conclusion, or our concurrence therein. 3 Olin Industries, Inc., 97 NLRB 100. 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, and in the absence of any evidence that no work was available for her on that date, we find that even assuming that she voluntarily quit on September 26, 1950, the Respondent's refusal to rehire her on December 19, 1950, was prompted by her union activity, and therefore violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 3. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent dis- criminated against Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. In so finding, we rely upon the following circumstances, in addition to those set forth in the Intermediate Report : Plessis was laid off on October 4, 1950, together with all the other fancy stitchers, but was not rehired, like the others, when she first applied for work on October 9. When she again applied on October 11, her supervisor, Newfield, told her there would be no work for her "until the damn Union is settled." At the same time, Respondent had recalled to work other fancy stitchers with less seniority than Plessis.4 In view of these circumstances, -and the other circumstances recited by the Trial Examiner, particularly the frequent interrogation of Plessis and the prominent role in the organization of the plant ascribed to her by the Respondent, we find that the Respondent re- fused to reinstate her on October 9, 1950, because of her union activity, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Nadeau was the only double stitcher laid off on October 4, 1950. Although she was told at that time to return on October 9, she was informed on that date that there was no work for her. Subsequent applications by her for reemployment were similarly rebuffed, until she was finally rehired on February 27, 1951. The other double stitchers, who remained at work during the entire period of her layoff, included at least one less experienced employee.5 Moreover, although Nadeau had considerable experience as a fancy stitcher, and in the past had been transferred to such work when there was no double stitching to be done, she was not, between October 4 and February 27, 4 Glassman testified that seniority was given weight in selecting employees for reten- tion in the event of layoffs . This is confirmed by the experience of Lesante , who was rehired after calling Glassman 's attention to the fact that junior employees were at that time employed by the Respondent . While Glassman stated, also , that factors other than seniority were considered, there was no evidence as to which, if any, of those other factors were relied upon by the Respondent in recalling other employees in preference to Plessis. Nor was any other evidence offered by the Respondent to justify the disparate treatment of Plessis. o This was Kay Murphy who was learning the work of double stitcher Florence Poirier, another double stitcher, had been hired in May 1950, 1 month before Nadeau was rehired by the Respondent. However, Nadeau's total employment for the Respondent covered a period of 4 years, whereas there was no evidence that Poirier had been employed by the Respondent before May 1950. Apart from introducing an exhibit showing the production records of Poirler and Nadeau since May and June 1950, respectively, Respondent offered no evidence to justify the selection of Nadeau as the only double stitcher to be laid off or the subsequent refusal to rehire her. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 335 offered reemployment as a fancy stitcher, notwithstanding that during that period the Respondent found it necessary - to hire several new fancy stitchers. In view of these circumstances, and in view of the other circum- stances set forth in the Intermediate Report, particularly the promi- nent role in the Union's organizational campaign ascribed to Nadeau by the Respondent, her refusal to comply with Glassman's 'request on September 26 that she oppose the Union, Newfield's efforts to keep Nadeau under surveillance through Lesante; and Newfield's inquiry of Lesante about the middle of November whether Nadeau could be turned against the Union if she was recalled to work, we find that the Respondent laid off Nadeau on October 4 for discriminatory reasons, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Gaudette, like Plessis, was laid off together with the other fancy stitchers on October 4, 1950, with instructions to return on October 9. Partly because of her fear of being interviewed by Glassman, Gaudette did not return until October 13, when Newfield told her he didn't know when she could return to work. About a week later, when she again asked Newfield for work, he stated that he had just laid off the fancy stitchers. Gaudette, upon investigation, was informed by other fancy stitchers that they had not been laid off. When, on October 27, Gaudette was finally recalled to work, Newfield, while professing dis- interest in her attitude toward the Union, admonished her "not to talk too much." In view of these circumstances, together with the findings of the Trial Examiner, particularly as to Newfield's inquiry of Gaudette's fellow employees whether she was one of the leaders in the union activities in the plant, as well as his interrogation of Gaudette herself, we find that the Respondent's refusal to rehire Gaudette between Oc- tober 13, when she first applied for work, and October 27 was due to her union activities, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act" Gaudette was later discharged, on November 16, 1950, allegedly for defective work. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons stated by him, that her discharge on that date was dis- criminatory, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Order Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor 6 As in the case of Plessis, the Respondent offered no evidence to. justify the refusal to rehire Gaudette on October 13. As found by the Trial Examiner, she had a total of 18 years' experience as a fancy stitcher, and the Respondent had made no adverse comment upon her work prior to her layoff. 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Relations Board hereby orders .that Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corporation, Saco, Maine, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent, excluding executives, sales- men, foremen, office and clerical employees, part-time employees, watchmen, professional employees and supervisors. (b) Discouraging membership in United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of its employees. (c) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Open Door Committee, or the formation or administration of any other labor organization, and from contributing support to the Open Door Committee, or to any other labor organization. (d) Recognizing the Open Door Committee, or any successor there- to, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (e) By interrogation, threats of reprisal, promises of benefits, or 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 United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit hereinabove described with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. (b) Make whole Simonne Tremblay, Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner provided in the section of the Intermediate Report -entitled "The Remedy," and specifically make whole Simonne Tremblay and Ger- maine Nadeau for the loss of pay which each suffered by reason of the Respondent's failure to pay them in accordance with the increased rate of pay granted to other employees on October 29, 1950. (c) Withdraw all recognition from the Open Door Committee as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing SAXE -GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 337 with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish such organization as such representative. (d) Post in conspicuous places at its plant in Saco, Maine, in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tives, 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 the employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice shall not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF ArTERICA, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees of Saxe-Glass- man Shoe Corporation, excluding executives, salesmen, fore- men, office and clerical employees, part-time employees, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors. WE HEREBY WITHDRAW recognition from, and completely dis- establish, the Open Door Committee as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with, us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- rgent, or other conditions of employment, and we will not recog- nize it or any successor thereto for any of the above purposes. ' If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States court of appeals, there shall be inserted before the words "A Decision and Order," the words "A Decree of a United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the administratioa of the Open Door Committee or the formation or administration of any other labor organization or contribute financial or other support to the Open Door Committee or any other labor organization. WE wn L make whole the employees named below for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them : Simonne Tremblay Lea Plessis Bertha Gaudette Germaine Nadeau WE wn.L NOT by interrogation, threats of reprisal, promises of benefits, or in any other manlier, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi- zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist UNrrED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such activity except as such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 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. - SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION Employer. Dated ------------------ By ---------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge duly filed on December 18, 1950, by United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively referred to as the General Counsel' and the Board, by the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massa- chusetts ), issued a complaint dated March 19, 1951 , against Sate-Glassman-Shoe 1 The attorney for the General Counsel appearing at the hearing is included within this term. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 339 Corporation, hereinafter called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2 ), ( 3), and ( 5) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, hereinafter called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charge , and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance that the Respondent : ( 1) Formed, dominated , and interfered with a labor or- ganization of its employees known as the Open Door Committee in violation of Section 8 ( a) (2) of the Act ; (2) discharged , laid off, and refused to reinstate four named employees because of their membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act; (3) refused to bargain with the Union at specified dates from August 24 , 1950, to December 22, 1950, as the duly certified representative of the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act; and (4) by the above and other enumerated acts 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 ( a) (1) of the Act. The Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Biddeford , Maine, from April 17 to April 19, 1951, inclusive, and in Boston , Massachusetts, on April 25, 1951, before the undersigned designated Trial Examiner. The Respondent and the General Counsel were represented by counsel , participated in the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine wit- nesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the *issues involved . At the be- ginning of the hearing the undersigned denied the motion of the Respondent to dismiss the complaint herein on the ground that said complaint did not allege compliance by the charging Union, or by the national or international labor organization with which it is affiliated , with the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The parties waived oral argument at the conclusion of the hearing but briefs were received from the Respondent and the General Counsel on June 15, 1951. 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 Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corporation is and has been at all times herein mentioned a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Maine, having its principal office and place of business in the city of Saco, Maine, where it has been continuously engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of shoes and related products. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, causes, and continually has caused at all times herein mentioned, large quantities of leather, shoe findings, and other raw mate- rials used in the manufacture of shoes to be purchased and transported in inter- state commerce from and through the various States of the United States other than the State of Maine, and causes, and continuously has caused at all times herein mentioned, substantial quantities of shoes to be sold and transported from said plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States other than the State of Maine. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1. Interference, restraint, and coercion Sometime in July 1950, after the Respondent had rebuffed the efforts of some of its employees to make the Respondent set piece rates on some of the work going through the plant as the Respondent had promised but neglected to do, employee Simonne Tremblay approached a union organizer to see if the Union could assist the employees. Quite soon thereafter the Union began organizing the employees at the plant. Upon learning of this turn of events, the Respondent's supervisory personnel from the various foremen to the president began a campaign of intiiuidation, interference, and restraint designed to prevent the organization of the employees' Benny Newfield, foreman of the stitching room, commenced shortly after the union campaign began to ask many, if not all, of the employees whether they had signed union cards, whether they were "for the Union," and whether they were going to vote for the Union in the consent election the Respondent agreed to. These inquiries were made not once but many times to each employee. He also interrogated various of the employees under his supervision whether or not certain named employees in his department were in favor of the Union.' Newfield told employee Tremblay, one of the most ardent advocates of the Union, during one of their many discussions about the Union that "If I go down- stairs and say everything you said here, you will be fired." Newfield informed employees that their names were "on a list downstairs" (referring to the Re- spondent's office) as being "for the Union." Newfield threatened various em- ployees that they "were to be called downstairs" because of their attitude towards the Union. He also informed employee Nadeau that "your name is downstairs for the Union . . . [Simonne and Lea] are 1 and 2 on the list, you are 3. You are going to get called downstairs." Plant Manager Fred Junior engaged in the same type of a campaign as Fore- man Newfield. After telling Tremblay and Plessis that he had heard they "were making a lot of trouble upstairs organizing the fancy stitchers," he re- minded them that he could discharge anyone he cared to. At the conclusion of the interview Junior ordered the employees "to go upstairs now and talk against the Union." They were also told that if they wanted holidays, all they had to do was to go see President Joel Glassman. In other interviews Junior threatened the employees that "if the Union came in, they would move the plant to the Canadian border." Another employee who was in favor of the union organization was ordered by Junior : "You go upstairs and say a few nice words about the shop so I can hear about it, just like I heard that you were for the Union." Thus both Newfield and Junior were using threats and promises of benefits to intimidate the employees under their jurisdiction to abandon the Union. On September 18, 1950, the Union and the Respondent executed an agreement for a consent election among "all production and maintenance employees of the 2 The Respondent's brief quite candidly admits that the acts of Foreman Benny Newfield and Plant Manager Fred Junior amounted to violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the'Act but attempts to excuse the Respondent from responsibility therefor on the grounds, that there is no evidence that the Respondent had ordered its supervisors to engage in such conduct. This contention will be discussed hereinafter 8 For the sake of brevity, these incidents will be treated in general and not in detail. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 341 Company but excluding executives, salesmen, foremen, office and clerical em- ployees, part-time employees, watchmen, professional employees and super- visors as defined in the Act" to determine the question as to whether the Union was the exclusive representative of the employees in the afore-described unit. The afore-mentioned campaign of interference, restraint, and coercion initi- ated by Newfield and Junior was culminated in the interviews with the in- dividual employees whom Joel Glassman called to his office for that purpose. From lists 4 of the employees containing, among other things, notations of loans or other benefits bestowed upon the individual employees named, matters which were designed, according to Glassman, to assist him in the interviews, Glass- man summoned the employees to his office where he interviewed them individ- ually or in small groups as he chose. Although he originally intended to inter- view each employee in the plant, Glassman was unable to accomplish this although he interviewed almost all of them. Glassman exercised considerable selectivity in these interviews as to who and how many were called to the office as well as to the contents of his remarks. On September 22, 1950, 4 days after the execution of the consent election agreement, Newfield sent Lea Plessis to Glassman's office where she was inter- viewed by Glassman. According to Glassman's extremely generalized testimony, he took pains in each of these interviews to explain to the employees being interviewed that, as we were living in a democracy, they were entitled to vote for or against the Union as they chose. After this preliminary statement the interviews, as Glassman recalled them, consisted largely of an explanation of the numerous benefits which the Respondent claimed it had conferred upon its employees and the Respondent's reasons why the employees should vote against the Union in the coming election. According to Plessis' undenied testimony, which the undersigned credits, Glassman stated near the beginning of his inter- view with her that "I heard that you talk an awful lot about union upstairs . . . ypu know I can fire you for that." Then he continued by giving his usual argu- ment as to why the employees would be better off without having to pay for a union, stressing the benefits the Respondent had given the employees in such matters as the use of the cafeteria, loans to employees, etc.' Following this Joel asked : "Do you think if God was here, He would tell you to vote yes [for the Union] ?" And then instructed her to consult her priest.' Promptly upon the return of Plessis to the stitching department after the conclusion of her interview with Glassman, Newfield came to her and inquired as to how she was going to vote in the election! In his interview with Tremblay on September 22, Glassman stated that "after the election," he would "fix everything." He amplified this remark during his interview with Plessis when he said : "I'll fix everything up after October 11, even the firing to be done." 4 Although requested to produce these lists, the Respondent failed to do so stating that they could not be located. Thus it could not be determined that these were the same lists on which Tremblay, Plessis, and Nadeau were listed as the 1, 2, and 3 union adherents. The Respondent made no denial during the hearing that the union members were listed in the office as testified to by the General Counsel's witnesses. " Plessis was one of the employees who had borrowed money from the Respondent, a part of which was owing. 6 Although Glassman did not mention it during his testimony, it was apparently his custom to refer his employees of French descent to their priests for guidance that they should vote against the Union. This appeal to the employees' religion is obviously an attempt by the Respondent's president to intimidate his employees to abandon the Union and, therefore, a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4 This would indicate considerable close coordination between Glassman and Newfield in sampling the results of the Glassman interviews. 986209-52-vol. 97--23 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On September 26 Glassman recalled Plessis to his office where, after reiterating his original talk, he mentioned : "After I spoke to you the other day-you went up and talked to the girls about the Union, and you had them confused." 8 Also on September 26, 1950, employee Germaine Nadeau was interviewed by Glassman. This interview, in the undenied words of Nadeau, was as follows : I got into the office, and I sat down. Joel was busy at the time with a phone call . He hung up on the phone and he said, "I guess you know what you are downstairs for." I said, "No, I could be called for most anything." He said, "Well," he said, "you know what you are down here for." And I looked at him and I kind of stayed stunned. I didn't think of what I could have been downstairs for, and there could be several reasons. So I said, "No," I said, "I don't know what I am down here for." He said, "For this nuisance that has been going around for these last few weeks." And I said, "Nuisance?" He said, "Yes, the Union." And I said, "Oh, that ; I am not here to be bothered about that." I said, "I am here to mind my own busi- ness." I said, "I am supposed to be here to work , and I want to mind my own business, and that's all there is to it." He said, "Well, you know, some girls gave me your name, and I have on the list down here that you are for the Union." I said, "Yes, you have my name. I heard about it." He said, "Well," he said, "what are you going to do?" I says, "Well, there is nothing I want to do." I said, "I told you I am here to mind my own business, and I intend to do that." And he said, "Well, then, you know there are some girls here in the shop that came down here the night before the last," he said, "and they came down here to talk for Benny, to keep his job." I said, "They are a bunch of two- faced women." He said, "They came over here and swore to God as Catholics that they are against the Union, and all the time they were for it." He said, "I know they were for it." And he said after he said, "I knew they were for it," I couldn't say anything because I didn't know who the girls were that were downstairs. So I said, "Now, look, I told you before I am here to mind my own business, and I intend it to be that way." He said, "Are you for the Union?" I said, "No, I am not for the Union " He said, "You know the Union"-he said, "here"-he had a shoe and he threw the shoe on the table. He said, "Here, can you make that shoe for $2?" I said, "No, I am not here to patent the shoe or to sell it." I said, "I don't know anything about that." He said, "Well, since you are not for the Union," he said, "I'd like you to go upstairs and make a soap box speech against the Union," he said, "and then you can have anything you want on your pay check or otherwise." And I said, "I wouldn't think of doing it for the Union," and I said, "I wouldn't do it for you, either." And I went upstairs. In its evidence and brief the Respondent did not deny that the above-found facts actually occurred but merely argued that the Respondent could not be held responsible for these violations of Section 8 (a) (1) because : (1) There was no evidence that the Respondent ordered Newfield or Junior to coerce the em- ployees; (2) the discharge of Newfield and Junior in February 1951 proved that their acts were not sanctioned by the Respondent ; and (3 ) it was "impos- sible" for the Respondent to deny the testimony of the General Counsel's wit- nesses because Newfield was then working in New Yoik City. While these arguments are astute , they are unsound both as to law and fact. The Respond- s Plessis had obeyed Glassman's orders to talk against the Union but had prefaced her remarks by telling the employees not to believe her. I SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 343 ent's first argument omits the fact that Glassman himself was an integral part of the campaign of coercion and intimidation originally engaged in by Newfield and Junior. It also forgets the fact that Newfield and Junior were responsible supervisors whose acts not only were never publicly-or privately-repudiated by the Respondent but, on the contrary, were in fact implemented by Glassman during his own personal inters ogation of the employees.' As the undersigned refused to allow the General Counsel to probe the reasons for the discharge of Newfield and Junior upon objection by the Respondent, and, therefore, this record fails to show why the Respondent dispensed with their services so that the Respondent's second argument is based upon whole cloth. As to the Re- spondent's third argument, the record affirmatively shows that at least by the second evening of the hearing, Respondent's counsel knew that Newfield main- tained a residence at Old Orchard Beach, 5 miles distance from Biddeford, even though he was employed in New York City. Thus the record affirmatively shows that Newfield was not unavailable to testify. There was a complete dearth of evidence even to suggest that Junior was unavailable if the Respondent had seen fit to produce him as a witness. Therefore the Respondent's arguments are patently unsound. On the basis of the undenied testimony the undersigned, therefore, finds that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating its employees both as to their own as well as to their fellow employees' union membership, activities, and sympathies, threatening to discharge union adherents, promising benefits If the employees would refrain from joining and voting for the Union, and threatening to close the plant or move the same if the Union won the consent election. 2. The refusal to bargain On September 18, 1950, the Respondent and the Union executed a consent elec- tion agreement to determine whether or not the Union was the exclusive repre- sentative of the Respondent's employees. The undersigned finds, in accordance with the agreement of the parties in the consent election, that the appropriate unit consisted of : "All production and maintenance employees of the Company but excluding executives, salesmen, foremen, office and clerical employees, part-time employees, watchmen, pro- fessional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act." On October 11, 1950, in accordance with the terms of this consent election agreement, the Board conducted an election among the employees in the appropriate unit above described. The vote at this election was 188 in favor of the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees to 145 against. The Respondent duly filed objections to this election based upon allegations accusing the Union of (1) threats of injury to employees unless the employees voted for the Union; (2) falsely identifying persons voting in the election; (3) financial inducements made by the Union to employees to vote for the Union ; 9 The Respondent also argues from the fact that Glassman told Tremblay that "after" the election , he would fix everything-and to Plessis added the significant phrase "even the firing to be done"-that Glassman meant thereby that he intended to discharge Newfield and Junior thereby repudiating their antiunion campaign . In advancing this argument the Respondent misconstrues the meaning which the employees would have drawn from this remark. As Newfield and Junior were not discharged until 4 months later , February 1951, the employees could not conceivably have anticipated that the discharges referred to were to be those of Newfield and Junior. The natural construction the employees would have given this remark was that the firing was to be of union adherents. Nor could the discharge of Newfield and Junior at that late date have any effect upon the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent some 4 months previous thereto. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and (4) threats of loss of employment unless the employees voted for the Union. As the Respondent acknowledged during the instant hearing , the Respondent produced and filed with the Regional Director all the evidence it had to support these contentions . On November 20, 1950, as indicated in his "Report on Objec- tions and Certification of Representatives," the Regional Director after discuss- ing the Respondent's claims in detail and rejecting the same found , as does the undersigned , that "It is hereby certified that the majority of the valid ballots has been cast for United Shoe Workers of America, C. I. O. and that pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act said organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the Unit defined [above] for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment and other conditions of employment." Thereafter on December 28, 1950 , the Respondent filed the following designated as "Appeal from Regional Director 's Denial of Hearing" : Now comes the Employer in the above-entitled case and hereby appeals to the Board from the Order of the Regional Director denying the Company's application for a hearing on its objections to the conduct of the election in this case; and Moves that the Board vacate the Certification issued by the Regional Director and either (a) Order the Regional Director to conduct such a hearing; or (b) Assign a Trial Examiner of the Board to conduct a hearing for the Board on the Employer's objections. To which the Associate Executive Secretary of the Board replied on January 23, 1951, as follows : The Board is in receipt of your letter of December 28, 1950, enclosing the Employer's Motion for Appeal and brief in the above-captioned matter. Our files indicate that the parties to this case had agreed to resolve the question raised by the petition through the medium of a consent election agreement. The consent election agreement states in part that "the determi- nation of the Regional Director shall be final and binding upon any question . . . It is the firm policy of the Board that where the parties have entered into such an agreement, that it will not intervene when any of the parties indicate disapproval of the judgment exercised by the Regional Director. The Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 203.54, indicate this policy. Accord- ingly, pursuant to this policy, the Board will not pass upon the Employer's motion and brief in this matter. At the instant hearing the Respondent made an effort to reopen the merits of the objections to the election. Upon objection, the undersigned refused to permit the reopening of the merits but agreed to hear any and all evidence the Respondent might care to produce showing any arbitrary and capricious action by the Regional Director in reaching this decision . Subsequently the Respond- ent withdrew any contention that the Regional Director had acted in an arbi- trary or capricious manner. A portion of paragraph 6 of the consent election agreement executed by the Respondent on September 18, 1950, provided as follows : "If the challenges are determinative of the results of the election , the Regional Director shall in- vestigate the challenges and issue a report thereon. The method of investiga- tion of objections and challenges , including the question whether a hearing should be held in connection therewith, shall be determined by the Regional SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 345 Director, whose decision shall be final and bindings 10 In the absence of arbi- trary and capricious action by the Regional Director in determining challenges and objections to the election, this provision of the agreement precludes appeals from the Regional Director's decision on the merits of the objections as well as to his determination of the methods of investigation of those claims. When, therefore, the Respondent during the hearing withdrew its original con- tention that the actions of the Regional Director had been arbitrary and capri- cious in arriving at his judgments both as to the merits of the objections and to the method used for the investigation of those contentions, there remained nothing appealable to nor determinable by the undersigned. If an employee of the Board is arbitrary and capricious in his official acts, that fact should be brought to the attention of the Board and, if proved, that employee should be properly punished. The Respondent's several expressions of opinion as to the Regional Director here made upon the record makes it clear that he is not such an employee. Surely, also, due process does not require a hearing upon objections to an election made by either party when that party has specifically waived his rights to such a hearing. By demanding such a hearing after solemnly and carefully entering into an agreement waiving the right to such a hearing, the Respondent appears to be repudiating a solemn agreement entered into by it. It might even constitute some evidence that the Respondent was using this method as a maneuver to prevent the necessity of bargaining with the duly constituted bargaining agent of its employees. The undersigned finds, therefore, in accordance with the decision of the Regional Director, that on October 11, 1950, and at all times thereafter, United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, was and now is the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit above described. The undisputed evidence proves, and the Respondent admits, that by letters dated August 24, November 22, December 5, and December 22, 1950, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the employees in that unit. The Respondent refused even to reply to these requests except that, on December 28, 1950, the Respondent enclosed and sent to the Union its appeal to the Board above quoted. Based upon this undisputed evidence, the undersigned finds that, on Novem- ber 22, 1950, and at all times thereafter, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive and certified representative of the employees in the above-found appropriate unit in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. • 3. Surveillance The election of October 11, 1950, did not end the Respondent's antiunion campaign. In fact it appears to have intensified it. On November 2, 1950, the Union held its second meeting in a hall in the town of Biddeford. Foremen Newfield and Belanger, accompanied by several of the antiunion girl employees, parked in a red car directly in front of the entrance of this hall at the scheduled meeting time. When this was called to Union Or- ganizer Dallman's attention, he went outside and spoke to the foremen and thereupon returned to the hall. A few minutes later Newfield, Belanger, and party left this parking place only to return within a matter of minutes in a black car which they parked across the street from the entrance to the hall and where they remained until after the conclusion of the meeting. In its brief the Respondent suggests that the foremen might have been on legitimate business. This suggestion hardly explains the extraordinary strata- 10 In its brief Respondent states that the above-quoted part of this consent election agreement was "in small print" ( emphasis as in brief ). This emphatic claim is a misstate- ment of fact as the provision is in the regular sized print used throughout the agreement. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gem of moving a complete party of five or six persons from a red automobile to a black one nor the reluctance of the foremen to park their automobiles at any place but exactly in front of the hail where the Union was holding its meetings. Nor was this open surveillance the only surveillance the Respondent indulged in during this time. Mrs. Beatrice Lesante, an employee, had been laid off by Respondent in Sep- tember and not recalled to work when work picked up. Requiring work in order to maintain an invalid child, Lesante returned to the plant on October 4, told Glassman of her necessity, and upon discovering that two girls with less sen- iority than herself had been recalled and were then working, she was sent by Glassman to Newfield for a job. After the circumstances and the discovery had been explained to Newfield, he offered Lesante her job back. Early on the morning of October 14,1950, Newfield and employee Laboute drove up in front of the Lesante house. Laboute aroused Mrs. Lesante saying that Newfield wanted to see her in his automobile. When Lesante invited Newfield into the house, Newfield insisted upon holding the conversation in his automo- bile. In the automobile Newfield stated that he had heard that Lesante was Nadeau's best friend, that the Union had certain tricks of getting into a factory and he would like to know what those tricks were. He then asked Lesante to investigate and report back to him whether or not the Union had paid her sister- in-law for voting in the election. Newfield stated that this was only to satisfy his own curiosity. Laboute suggested to Lesante that she "play up" to Nadeau, find out what union activities were taking place from Nadeau, and let Newfield know. After Newfield had given Lesante his telephone number, he and Laboute departed. About an hour later Newfield returned alone to the house of Lesante. He produced a typewritten paper stating that on October 13, 1950, Nadeau had asked Lesante to execute a paper for the Union. When Lesante protested that this statement was erroneous, Newfield replied : "You know I could make it tough for you later." Mrs. Lesante thereupon signed the statement still pro- testing that it was not true. n The following day, Sunday, Lesante telephoned Newfield that she had talked to her sister-in-law and discovered that the Union had not paid her but had only requested that she appear at the polls and vote. About a month or so later Newfield inquired in the shop whether Lesante had seen Nadeau and whether, if he recalled Nadeau to work, he could "convert her" to be antiunion. Then he asked : "Do you think there is any way in which you could find out about union activities and let me know. I could make it worth your while. I am in a position where I could help you quite a bit." New- field then requested Lesante to attend the union meeting and report back to him what occurred there, offering her $5 per evening plus the expense of a baby sitter if she would do so. After vainly protesting and because, as Lesante testified, she had to have the work, Lesante finally agreed to see her friend, Nadeau, and report back whatever she might learn about the Union. A few days later Lesante did see Nadeau, told her the whole story, and then reported back to Newfield a story concocted between Nadeau and herself that Nadeau had become suspicious of Lesante and had "kicked her out of the house." Upon hearing this report, Newfield said : "Well, forget it." " "Whether this was one of the affidavits the Respondent submitted to the Regional Director is not disclosed by the record. - v If untrue, this testimony was so .detailed involving a number of persons other than Newfield that it could have been denied by others involved even assuming-that Newfield was actually available as a witness. No such witnesses appeared to contradict Lesante. Lesante was not impeached nor contradicted. In addition, in the opinion of, the under- signed, Lesante was an honest witness whose testimony is worthy of credit. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 347 Without a question of a doubt the Respondent engaged in surveillance and in espionage upon the Union and its members in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. Domination of the Open Door Committee In the latter part of October 1950, while refusing to answer letters from the Union and otherwise evading its duty to bargain with that organization as the exclusive representative of the employees, Myer Saxe, treasurer of the' Respond- ent, made a speech to the assembled employees in the plant cafeteria in which he mentioned that, if it had not been for the "Fifth Columnists," the plant would never have had an election. He also stated that he hoped that next year there would be another election and the plant would return "to America." After adding that "everything is not settled, the Union is not in yet," Saxe announced a 10 percent wage increase for all the employees with the further suggestion that he could see no reason for "strangers" to be running the plant. This speech with its obvious threats and promises of benefits to employees for becoming antiunion is not protected by the free speech provisions of the Act and obviously violates Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. In addition the granting of a wage increase without consultation with the duly certified bargaining agent of the employees also constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. . In the pay envelopes distributed on October 29, 1950, when this unilaterally determined upon 10-percent wage increase went into effect, the Respondent placed the following circular : OUR "OPEN DOOR" POLICY We feel that most of you are aware of the Saxe-Glassman Shoe Company's "Open Door" Policy, and individually know of the personal as well as factory problems that have been satisfactorily adjusted, by bringing them to our attention. No superintendent or foreman in this plant is either offended or disturbed by this procedure, because they are just as proud as we are of this "Open Door" Policy. We realize that there are certain times that neither Myer Saxe or Joel Glassman is in the plant. Also, it is not always possible for an operator to conveniently leave his work, and thereby cause a stoppage of work and loss of pay to himself and his fellow employees. For these reasons, it has been decided to form a committee of you employees, made up of rep- resentatives from each department. This committee will be changed every month, so that eventually, everyone will have the chance to serve on this committee, if they so desire. In the event that any of you wish to take up matters, either personal or otherwise, directly with Myer Saxe, Joel Glassman or Fred Junior-your department representative will contact one of us, so that a meeting can be arranged without interrupting your work. If you wish the committee to take up your individual problem, or even general suggestions for any improvements in your department, there will be meetings held every Tuesday morning, at which time, these matters will be discussed and adjusted. (All committee members will be paid for loss of the time while attending these meetings.) We are confident that this committee, which is your very own, will help bring us nearer and nearer to our goal of mutual confidence and complete 'understanding. Myer Saxe Joel Glassman Fred Junior 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In accordance with this announcement of the Respondent, the room repre- sentatives were selected in the plant on company time the following week. The selection of these representatives was left by the Respondent to the discretion of its foremen. In one department at least, Foreman Newfield conducted an election by ballot among the employees while they were at work. After the ballots had been passed around among the working employees, Newfield an- nounced that Florence Gaudreau had been elected and then instructed her to collect all the complaints of the employees so that she could present them at a meeting the next Tuesday. At 11: 45 a. in. that Tuesday, Newfield sent Gaudreau to this meeting which was attended by Joel Glassman, the various foremen, and the Respondent's selected representatives of the employees of the various divisions. At this meeting the representatives of one of the other divisions presented so many complaints and grievances that none of the other representatives had a chance to voice the complaints which they had gathered. Gaudreau had checked out of her division at 11: 45 so that she failed to receive pay for the time she spent at this meeting. The following Tuesday Newfield again sent Gaudreau to the meeting. This time Plant Manager Junior presided over the representatives and stated that he could see no sense in these meetings. However, the meeting lasted the full hour before the Respondent excused the representatives to return to work. This time Gaudreau failed to check out and was thus paid by the Respondent for the time spent at the meeting. Since then the Respondent has failed to convene another meeting of this group. The Respondent argues that this organization was "never intended to be a labor organization" and thus Respondent's action in connection therewith is not a violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. Whether intended as a labor organ- ization or not, the Open Door Committee was participated in by employees for the purpose of discussing wages, hours, conditions of employment, and grievances and, therefore, was a labor organization under the definition of that term in Section 2 (5) of the Act. Under these facts, the Respondent's "intent" is im- material. The Open Door Committee was a labor organization. The Respondent also argues that the committee has obviously gone out of existence and, therefore, there is no necessity for formally disestablishing it. This is only partly so. Obviously the Respondent formed the committee as an integral part of his cam- paign to prevent the Union "from getting in" and, while the committee has not been called into session by the Respondent since its second meeting, it has not been disestablished and could be called into session again at any time if the Respondent considered it wise to do so for its own antiunion purposes. In this condition, the Open Door Committee remains at all times a threat to bona fide collective bargaining. In view of the steadfast and unrelenting campaign by the Respondent to keep the Union "out," it is necessary to have the Respondent publicly disestablish this labor organization so obviously in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act and for the Respondent to assure the employees that it will not again resort to this illegal stratagem. Because of this undenied evidence, the undersigned finds that by forming, establishing, and maintaining the Open Door Committee and granting it financial and other support, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act and further finds that, by establishing said committee at the time when the Re- spondent was under a legal duty to' bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees, the Respondent also violated Section,8°(a) (5) of this Act. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 349 5. The discharges a. Simon'ne Tremblay At the time of the hearing Tremblay had been a fancy stitcher for the Re- spondent or its predecessor for 10 years or more. During that time she had been one of the highest earning employees working on piece rates. Tremblay was one of the employees who unsuccessfully tried to get the Re- spondent to set piece rates on various operations on certain relatively new shoes. After the Respondent rebuffed this effort, Tremblay sought the assistance of the Union to help the employees with this problem. She then became one of the most ardent union advocates in the plant. After the Union had begun organizing and Tremblay had shown her prounion sympathies openly in the plant by her advocacy of the Union, Foreman Newfield on nume^bus occasions during working hours interrogated her about the Union and its activities as well as argued with her about the necessities for having a union in the plant.18 After one of these conversations, Newfield threatened that "if I go downstairs [to the office] and say everything you said here, you will be fired." By August 19, 1950, Tremblay consulted a doctor who prescribed pills for a nervous condition Tremblay had developed. Tremblay attributed this condition to Newfield's numerous inquiries about the Union. The undersigned makes no finding on this latter matter. On August 30, Manager Junior called Tremblay to his office and granted her a 9-cent increase on a certain type of work upon which Tremblay was working with the following comment: "I heard that you and your friends were making a lot of trouble upstairs organizing the fancy stitchers-I am giving you 9 cents now-if the Union wasn't here, I'd block it, you wouldn't get it." After inter- rogating Tremblay about the Union and the persons responsible for starting it, Junior ordered Tremblay to "go upstairs now and talk against the Union." On September 22, 4 days after the execution of the consent election agreement referred to before, Newfield, after a previous warning of the impending event, sent Tremblay to the office where Joel Glassman lectured her about the Union and the benefits which the Company granted its employees. When Tremblay told Glassman about a previous incident when Junior had refused to allow some of the employees to see Glassman about some grievances they had and about New- field's continual interrogation of the employees as to their union affiliation and sympathies, Glassman answered that he couldn't do anything "now" but "after the election he would fix everything." Promptly upon her return to the stitching room after this interview Newfield came up and asked Tremblay who happened to be with her friend Plessis whether she had "confidence in Joel" and in himself and then stated : "Well, now, you are going to tell me what you are going to vote." When Newfield refused to allow her time to consider the matter , Tremblay told him that she was going to 13 The undersigned is inclined to believe that Tremblay exaggerated the frequency and length of these conversations when she testified that Newfield talked "union" with her every day for a period of 3 months for 15 minutes or so per day . That these interrogations were extremely frequent is amply proven not only by Tremblay 's testimony but also that of the other witnesses in this proceeding . Although Newfield Interrogated Tremblay almost daily about her union activities , the Respondent well knew that Tremblay was one of the leading union advocates in the plant . In fact, about September 20, when Newfield told employee Nadeau that she was to be interviewed by Glassman during his interrogation of the employees as above found, Newfield told Nadeau that the names of Tremblay , Plessis, and her own were listed as 1, 2, and 3 for the Union in Glassman's office. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vote "No" [against the Union ]. Whereupon Newfield said : "Joel is going to give you everything." On September 26, Tremblay was again sent "downstairs " to see Glassman who was angered because he had received a report that Tremblay had caused another female employee to cry through her vigorous solicitation that she become a union member. Although Tremblay denied this accusation , Glassman asked : "If God was sitting here, [do] you think he'd tell you to-vote for the Union?- Even your priest wouldn't tell you to do it." Glassman stated that he had "called Boston" and learned that he could "fire" her. Tremblay then inquired : "If you think I make so much trouble, why don 't you lay me off ? I am a nervous wreck from having you and Benny [Newfield] on my heels." To this Glassman an- swered : "If you feel so miserable, why don't you quit?-Benny is going for his interest and mine." After each had respectively refused to discharge or to quit, Tremblay stated that she was going to fight for her rights even if sh,14Whad to go to Augusta and Washington. Glassman's answer was "You may have to go- we will beat this thing through yet." After this interview Tremblay returned to the stitching department where she completed three more shoes , announced to her friends that she was quitting, walked out of the plant, went to see her doctor , registered at the U. S. Employ- ment Service where she reported that she had "quit" Saxe-Glassman , and then telephoned the Union about the matter. On October 11 Tremblay voted in the consent election and then on October 13 accompanied Nadeau who was then also out of employment , as will be more fully related hereinafter, to see Newfield where Nadeau asked for her job. Looking at both Nadeau and Tremblay , Newfield said, "No work for you." Tremblay was one of the persons at the union meeting of November 2 who saw and talked' to Newfield , Balanger , and their party which was keeping the union meeting under surveillance. On December 18, 1950, the Union filed its original charge in this matter. On December 19, Tremblay, in company with Nadeau , Gaudette, Ledaux, and Union Official Bergeron , went to the plant where the employees asked Newfield to reinstate them. This request was refused on the ground as far as Tremblay was concerned that she had quit. Tremblay attempted to explain that she had quit because she was under pressure all the time from continual interrogation but Newfield paid no attention. On February 28, 1951 , Tremblay received a letter from the Respondent offering her employment which she accepted and has worked since that time. Although on October 29, 1950 , the Respondent had granted a 10-percent wage increase to all employees, the Respondent continued to pay Tremblay her old rate of 75 cents per hour. When this was brought to the Respondent 's attention at the hearing, the Respondent, at the instance of its attorney , "corrected" her rate of pay as of that date. The only other person similarly treated regarding pay rates was Nadeau, the number two union person in the plant. The Respondent contends that Tremblay "quit" voluntarily. The General Counsel maintains that Tremblay was "constructively discharged ." There is no question but that the Respondent considered Tremblay to be the number one union advocate in the plant even as Newfield reported she was listed in the office. There is also no question but that the Respondent through Newfield, Junior, and Glassman interrogated her almost daily concerning the Union, as heretofore found to violate Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Further there is no question but that, after her second interview by Glassman during which he invited her to leave the Respondent's employ because of her union activities, threatened her with his right to discharge her but carefully refrained from doing so though making it clear to her that he was retaining that threat over her head, SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 351 Tremblay went back to her machine and in a mentally distressed state told her fellow employees that she was quitting, a statement which she reiterated to the U. S. Employment Service. Tremblay did quit as contended by the Respondent but she did so under considerable constant pressure from the whole of the Respondent's supervisory staff which, as shown heretofore, was fighting the organization of the plant with every possible machination it could devise. Trem- blay must have realized from this continual pressure from the Respondent's supervisory staff that her days of employment by the Respondent were definitely limited because of her union activities and solely because of those activities. Under these conditions the undersigned concludes that the Respondent con- structively discharged Tremblay on September 26, 1950, because of its objections to her union activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. b. Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau were all working in the stitching department under Foreman Newfield on October 4, 1950. Plessis, during her last tour of employment with the Respondent, had worked steadily since 1945. Gaudette had worked for the Respondent from December 1948 to June 1949, and again from May 1950 to November 16, 1950. She had had a total of 18 years' experience as a fancy stitcher. Nadeau had a total of 4 years' employment with the Respondent, the last tour of employment being of approximately 1 year's duration. All three of these employees had joined the Union and all of them had been subjected to interrogations by the Respondent's supervisory staff on numerous occasions similar to those described heretofore. Plessis had been ordered by Manager Junior, at the time he interrogated her, to "go upstairs and say some nice words about the shop so that I can hear about it, just like I heard you were for the Union." Plessis and Nadeau were both interviewed on the union question by Glassman who admitted he had them listed as being "for the Union." Accord- ing to Newfield, they were listed as being the number two and number three union advocates in the plant. Just prior to the election of October 11, Newfield was making inquiries of the employees as to whether or not Gaudette was one of the leaders of the Union. Obviously the Respondent considered these three employ- ees to be close rivals of Tremblay as union adherents. On October 4, just 1 week before the scheduled election, Newfield laid off the 18 or 19 fancy stitchers in the department until October 9 upon the ground that there was no work for them. Gaudette did not return on October 9 because she feared she would be sent to be interviewed by Glassman. When Plessis reported on October 9, Newfield told her that there was no work for her although most of the other fancy stitchers in the department were returning to work. Plessis returned again on October 11 as she heard all of the other fancy stitchers were working but was again told by Newfield that he had sent word to her not to report as there would be no work for her the rest of the week. After receiving a letter from the Respondent requesting her return, Plessis returned on November 6 at which time Newfield inquired why she had been so strong for the Union and ordered her not to talk to anyone "so you won't get into no trouble." Plessis has worked steadily since that time. During Glassman's interview with Nadeau on September 26, he informed her : "I have on the list down here that you are for the Union," and then ordered her to return to her department and "make a soapbox speech against the Union." Nadeau refused to do so and 1 week later she *as laid off, the only double stitcher so treated, by Newfield with a statement that there was "no work for her." , When Nadeau returned on October 9, Newfield met her at the elevator with the infor- matidn that there was no work for her. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On October 11, Nadeau acted as a union teller at the election. When she again returned for work on October 13, this time accompanied by Tremblay, Newfield reiterated that there was no work for them. It is further to be recalled that the whole espionage incident involving New- field and employee Beatrice Lesante was centered upon securing news of the union activities from Nadeau. Newfield also inquired of Lesante whether she thought that Newfield "could convert" Nadeau to be antiunion if he recalled her to work. It is clear from the Respondent's own undenied acts and words that Plessis and Nadeau were not reinstated on October 9 because of Respondent's opposi- tion to the Union and because of the Respondent's knowledge that they were the second and third union advocates. Although their work had never been adversely criticized, these two were not recalled even though new stitchers were employed during the time that they were laid off. There was one other element in the Gaudette case. Newfield recalled her to work on October 27 though warning her not to talk too much. She thereupon worked under this admonition until November 16, 1950, when Newfield brought four or five shoes on which the stitches had pulled out of the plug which Gaudette had sewn. These shoes had been heeled and soled, an operation which follows the work Gaudette did. Newfield stated that he could not keep her on account of this work and discharged her forthwith despite Gaudette's attempt to explain that the damage must have been done in the lasting room where the shoes are stretched prior to the heeling and soling operation. Prior to the time the sewed uppers go to the lasting room, they are inspected" These particular shoes had been heeled and soled so that it is obvious that they had passed inspection after Gaudette had completed her work. Consequently the damage must have been done in the lasting room or subsequent operations. It was unprecedented for the Respondent to return for sewing repairs shoes which had been heeled and soled. After heels and soles have been added, it becomes impossible for repairs to be made to the sewing. All previous repairs had been returned to Gaudette prior to the operations in the lasting room and subsequent operations which, of course, is 'only practical as these subsequent operations pre- vent the making of repairs to the sewing. Therefore it is apparent that the Respondent was making use of damage done subsequently to Gaudette's work as an excuse to rid itself of an employee whom it believed to be one of the strong union people. The undersigned so finds. Gaudette and Nadeau were offered jobs with the Respondent by similar let- ters dated February 27, 1951. They accepted and have worked for the Re- spondent since that time. However, like Tremblay, Nadeau was not paid the increased rate for her job established by the Respondent's unilateral 10 percent blanket increase of October 1950. This wage rate was not corrected in Nadeau's case until called to the Respondent's attention during the hearing. While the Respondent's brief states that this "inadvertance" had been fully corrected dur- ing the hearing, this statement is not accurate for the Respondent also inadver- tently forgot to make the correction retroactive to the date of the reemployment of either Tremblay or Nadeau as it merely commenced the correct rate from the date of the hearing. The undersigned finds that the Respondent laid off or discharged Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau because of their union beliefs and sympa- thies and in order to discourage membership in the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 34 The Respondent acknowledges that the uppers were so inspected prior to being sent to the lasting room. SAXE-GLASSMAN SHOE CORPORATION 353 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. • It has been found that the Respondent on various dates discriminated in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Simonne Tremblay, Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette, and Germaine Nadeau by discriminatorily discharging or laying off each of them in order to discourage membership in the Union. The undersigned will, therefore, recommend that, as the Respondent has already reinstated or re- employed each of the above-named employees, it make each of said employees whole fQr any loss of pay which she may have suffered by reason of the Respond- ent's discrimination against her by payment to each of them of a sum of money, equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of t4e discrimination to the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during said period, to be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It is also recommended that the Respondent be ordered to make available to the Board upon request payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the back pay due. Having found that the Respondent on November 22, 1950, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of its employees in the appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to and bargain collectively with the Union. The undersigned has also found that the Respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the labor organization known as the Open Door Committee and, although this organization appears to have been allowed to become dormant, the Respondent has never publicly disestablished this organization, so the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent publicly disestablish this labor organization as a representative of its employees. Upon a consideration of the record the undersigned is convinced that the Respondent's conduct in employing the many techniques it did to evade its duty to bargain with the Union and to prevent the unionization of its employees indicates an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed hi Section 7 of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent, but excluding executives , salesmen, foremen , office and clerical employees , part-time employees, 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD watchmen, professional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 3. United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, was on October 11, 1950, and at all times material thereafter has been , and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on November 22, 1950 , and at all times thereafter, to bargain with United Shoe Workers of America, CIO , as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit, the Respondent has en- gaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act. 5. By discrim ,hating in the hire and tenure of employment of Simonne Trem- blay, Lea Plessis, Bertha Gaudette , and Germaine Nadeau by either discharging or laying off each of them thereby discouraging membership in the United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. 6. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of and giving financial and other assistance to the Open Door Committee, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging , in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. S. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommended order omitted from publication in this volume.] PORT CHESTER ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and JOHN TAY- LOR and WESTCHESTER-FAIRFIELD CHAPTER, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION, INC., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT LOCAL UNION 501, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK- ERS, AFL and JOHN TAYLOR and WESTCHESTER-FAIRFIELD CHAPTER, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION, INO., PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. Cases Nos. 2-CA-1115 and 2-CB-367. December 10, 1951 Decision and Order On July 11, 1951, Trial Examiner Isadore, Greenberg issued his. Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged 'in certain other alleged unfair 97 NLRB No. 59.