Maryland Sportswear Co.

70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the time of the hearing herein, the Employer employed 2 machinists. It appears that thereafter and at the time of the election only 1 such employee was employed. As it would be contrary to the settled policy of the Board to certify a repre- sentative for bargaining purposes in a unit consisting of only 1 employee, we find that, in view of the changed circum- stances, a machinists unit is no longer appropriate. Accord- ingly, we shall grant the Employer's motion to that extent, and revoke the certification for a machinists unit.' As for the welders unit, consisting of two employees, no such policy considerations apply. Because no timely objections to the election had been filed, we see no justification for dis- turbing the IAM certification for the welders unit. Accordingly, we shall deny the Employer's motion in this respect. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the certification issued in Case No. 11-RC-453 to International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 183, AFL, as the collective-bargaining representative of machinists of the Virginia -Carolina Chemical Corporation, Richmond, Virginia, be, and it hereby is, revoked, and that the Employer's motion in all other respects be, and it hereby is, denied. Members Houston and Styles took no part in the considera- tion of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. BAs the effect of our decision is to deny severance of the machinist from the production and maintenance unit, he remains part of that unit which is now covered by the certification issued to International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Local Union No. 863. The outcome of the election in the production and maintenance unit would not have been affected by the machinist's vote. J. A., M. D., AND R. A. WASSERMAN d/b/a MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O. Case No. 10-CA-1421. April 15, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On January 23, 1953, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, and recom- mending that the Respondent 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. 104 NLRB No. 7. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 71 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,' the exceptions' and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.4 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharge of Bizzell, Justice, and Moyer, and the layoff and subsequent dis- charge of Maloy, constituted discrimination within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, but we emphasize the fol- lowing reasoning and additional facts with respect to the findings concerning Bizzell, Justice, and Maloy. Ada B. Bizzell: This employee was described by a former supervisor, whose testimony was not refuted, as a "very good, fast operator" who frequently did sample shirts because of the quality of her work. Fellow employees described her as a "steady, fast worker" who would get up to look for additional work or help the girl next to her while waiting, and as a "good worker . . . fast," who didn't "loaf" on the job. Bizzell's interest in the Union was suspected by both active partners i The Respondent excepts to the allegedly inadequate time allowed by the Trial Examiner, midhearing , for preparation of its defense after the close of the General Counsel's case. Yet the Respondent acquiesced in the time allotted and, at the end of the hearing, commended the Trial Examiner for his fairness in conducting the proceeding . Early in the hearing the Trial Examiner had advised the Respondent that it might later request postponement on the basis of surprise should the testimony concern matters for which the complaint and the response to the bill of particulars laid inadequate ground, but no postponement on this basis was requested by the Respondent . And we note that, after consideration and discussion, it was the Respondent 's decision not to put R. A. Wasserman on as its witness, thus relying upon his initial testimony in the case as an adverse witness called by the General Counsel. We see no merit to this exception. 2 We note the following typographical error in the commerce figures stipulated by the parties: The Respondent 's purchases for the period in question were in excess of $350,000, not $450,000. 7 The Respondent 's "Additional Exceptions " have likewise been considered by the Board. 4We see no prejudice to the Respondent in the Trial Examiner 's finding that its restroom facilities were "hardly adequate." The Trial Examiner's conclusion ( 2), in the section of the intermediate Report "Concluding Findings," we affirm with the understanding that it was not the reprimand of Irene Richards for failure to carry out a forelady 's instructions that constitutes a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, but the fact that the reprimand did not reveal what instructions had been dis- regarded and occurred in a contextof agressive interrogation and interference by the Respond- ent concerning union activities. The Trial Examiner's conclusion ( 3) in that same section we do not adopt inasmuch as Lizzie Sykes herself initiated the discussions with the Respondent R. A. Wasserman concern- ing union activities. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD R. A. and J. A. Wasserman 5 from its inception in early October, and she and Marcum , also an instigator in the union movement, were then given raises from 75 to 80 cents an hour. Concerning this raise R. A. Wasserman testified: "I believe that Ada [Bizzell], as she became proficient like anybody else in the place , received some increase . I wouldn ' t know offhand. She might have . We were so anxious to get help that we had to do anything to retain them if they were all right ." Bizzell ' s union activities continued and, despite Respondent ' s admitted need for competent help , she was discharged on November 16, 1951, without convincing reason. R. A . Wasserman testified that he advised her of her discharge by saying he "just wouldn't have any more work for her. " Her separation notice in January said: "Insubordination ; refusal to carry out reasonable orders of forelady ; stating she would not cooperate with forelady ." At the hearing Wasserman explained the discharge as solely due to "union activity on company time." In view of the Respondent's vacillation in assigning a reason for the discharge of a compe- tent employee known to it as an outstanding proponent of the Union , 6 we conclude that none of the 'reasons given was the real reason for discharge -- that all were mere pretexts used by the Respondent in connection with ridding itself of an employee whose union activities were unacceptable to it. On the record as a whole we find that the Respondent discharged Bizzell because of her union activities. Minnie L. Justice : Although the Trial Examiner did not resolve the difficult credibility issue involved in the discharge of this "very, very good . . . very able worker ," t his con- clusory paragraph appears inclined to credit Justice ' s denial that she called her employer a "damn Yankee Jew." The Board has now carefully reviewed all testimony bearing upon this subject , including the testimony of numerous witnesses adverted to by the Trial Examiner ,' and concludes that , even assuming Justice ' s use of these disrespectful words to her Employer, the 5 Respondent R. A. Wasserman 's inquiry of Supervisor Andrews about the union activity of Bizzell and Marcum, occurring "possibly a month and a half" before Andrews left the Respondent's employ in November 1951, is not mentioned in the intermediate Report. This testimony was not rebutted by R. A. Wasserman. who testified only as an adverse witness of the General Counsel. 6 We do not indulge in the Trial Examiner 's presumption (Intermediate Report section III, C) that Bizzell's remark of November 16 that she was a ringleader for the Union was trans- mitted to the Wasserman . Regardless of whether it was transmitted, it was made to a super- visor. Moreover the record is otherwise clear that the Respondent had knowledge of Bizzell's union activity. In this connection we note R . A. Wasserman's testimony, not mentioned by the Trial Examiner, that Minnie Justice "was allied with Ada Bizzell in union activities . We make no bones about it . . . . " as well as his manner of recollecting the November 23 speech to employees occasioned by the union telegram: "That was a few days, I believe, after Ada Bizzell was let go... I didn't even know Ada was in the union officially until after that, until after we received that telegram." (Underlining supplied.) 7 This quotation is from Respondent R. A. Wasserman 's testimony. BNot mentioned by the Trial Examiner was Weathers , unrebutted testimony that R. A. Wasserman told her in ensueing months that the "only reason" he had fired justice was "because she cursed the forelady." MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 73 incident of which they were the culmination, was calculated to and did provoke a ground for discharge as intended by the Respondent. Hence the remark, disrespectful and insubordinate though it appears, is no defense in the circumstances to a charge of discriminatory discharge of an employee who dog- gedly persisted in union activities to the obvious annoyance of her Employer. In reaching this conclusion we are particularly mindful of the long period of "baiting" of this employee in- dulged in by the Respondent R. A. Wasserman, beginning im- mediately after she signed a membership card in late November, characterized by insults and ridicule in front of fellow em- ployees and visitors to the plant, and, in private, by threats about her job, including finally R. A. Wasserman's explosive statement the afternoon before her January 3 discharge: "You are going to pay for what you have done a damn hard way, through the damn nose." 9 Without delay the groundwork for the next day's incident was laid by Forelady Kohler, who complained to employee Saia on the way home that afternoon that she under- stood that Justice was referring to her as a "damn Yankee" from whom she did not have to take orders, and that she, Kohler, was going to "see a little lady" about it the next morning. Kohler never identified the person supposed to have carried this tale 10 and no witness testified that he or she heard Justice make such a statement, 11 but it served as the vehicle for an argu- ment between Kohler and Justice in the plant early the next morning, with Respondent R. A. Wasserman conveniently in the vicinity to carry out his threat of the previous afternoon. On this record we think the evidence clearly shows that Justice's alleged insubordination in addressing her Employer was not the reason for her discharge; on the contrary, the real reason was her persistence in union activity despite the equally per- sistent efforts of the Respondent to discourage that activity. Trudie Louise Maloy: In affirming the Trial/ Examiner's finding concerning this employee the Board stresses not only the Respondent's inconsistency in laying off Maly for lack of work on November 2114 and -- after refusing tof reinstate her -- issuing a separation notice in January for "/excessive ab- senteeism ," but also the fact that Maloy, who was a satis- factory worker with longer service than at least 4 of the 7 or 8 folders, was apparently the only one laid off at the time, and was replaced "a day or two" later by a new employee, and in turn by still another new employee, as well as by the fact that Maloy's absences -- given as the reason for discharge only as an afterthought -- were excused absences." Unquestionably 9 The Respondent readily admitted knowledge of justice 's union activity. See footnote 6, above. 10 Although questioned about it repeatedly , Kohler could not recall who had told her this. 11 Apparently justice's reputation in the plant was that of an "even tempered ," "quiet" operator. The Trial Examiner 's summation of her demeanor at the hearing indicates that he was similarly impressed. 12Maloy 's testimony that there was no shortage of work-- it was simply a question of the employees engaged in earlier steps catching up--was not convincingly refuted. 13 The Trial Examiner credits the testimony of Moyer concerning a replacement for Maloy, as well as Maloy 's own testimony that her absences were excused , but he apparently placed no reliance upon these facts in reaching his conclusion. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent R. A. Wasserman had knowledge of Maloy's union activities immediately after her layoff, for he saw her dis- tributing union leaflets outside the plant several hours later. And it is a fair inference on this record that because of Maloy's earner activity, including the November 17 square dance at her home, to which all employees interested in the union were invited and which many attended, Wasserman knew of her ac- tivity before the layoff. We conclude, therefore, that alleged lack of work and absenteeism were mere pretexts of the Re- spondent for ridding itself of this active union adherent. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, and pur- suant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Maryland Sportswear Company, its partners, officers, agents, supervisors , successors , and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Work- ers of America, C.I.O., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because of their membership in or activity on behalf of any such organization. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union ac- tivities, affiliations, or membership; segregating , publicly ridiculing, and accusing its employees of disloyalty to their Employer when they engage in such activities; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C.I.O., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all of suchactivities, except to the ex- tent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ= ment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Ada B . Bizzell , Trudie Louise Maloy, Minnie L. Justice, and Margaret J. Moyer immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges; and make each of them whole in the manner set forth in The Remedy" section of the Intermediate Report. (b) Upon request, make available to the Board and its agents for examination and reproduction all payroll records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and compute back pay and other rein- statement rights required by the recommended order herein. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 75 (c) Post at its plant in Jacksonville , Florida , copies of the notice attached hereto and marked " Appendix A."14 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent ' s representative , be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including the bulletin board beside the time clock and all other places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta , Georgia ) in writing within ten ( 10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith. 14 in the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing An Order " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Re- lations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their activities , affiliations , or membership in Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, C.I.O., or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discourage membership inAmalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C.I.O., or in any other labor organization of our employees , by discharging or threaten- ing to discharge any of our employees , by accusing our employees of disloyalty by reason of their union activities, and by segregating them and publicly ridiculing them in this connection , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self - organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C.I.O., or any other labor organization , to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the ex- tent that such right may be affected by an agreement re- quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer to the employees listed below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed; and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them: Ada B. Bizzell Minnie L. Justice Trudie Louise Maloy Margaret J. Moyer All our employees are free to become, or refrain from be- coming members of the above-named union or any other labor organization , except to the extent that this right may be af- fected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, 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 and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE By reason of a charge filed on December 10, 1951, a first amended charge filed on December 18, 1951, a second amended charge filed on February 19, 1952, and a third amended charge filed on March 12. 1952, by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C.I.O., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein separately designated as General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint on July 14, 1952, against J. A., M. D., and R. A. Wasserman doing business as Maryland Sportswear Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that Respondent engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and the complaint were duly served upon the Respondent. With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended by bill of particulars alleges in substance that Respondent (1) violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating its employees as a group on or about November 23, 1951, and continued thereafter during the months of December 1951 and January 1952 to interrogate, threaten, warn, and harass specif- ically named employees because of their activities on behalf of a labor organization; and (2) violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate Ada B. Bizzell, Trudie Louise Maloy, Minnie L. Justice, and Margaret J. Moyer because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. The Respondent filed an answer admitting that it is a partnership operating under laws of the State of Florida , and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sportswear for men; but specifically denies all allegations of the complaint with respect to commerce and unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted at Jacksonville, Florida, on August 4, 5, 6, 7, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1952, andSeptember 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11, 1952, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel, afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 77 and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues involved. At the close of the hearing counsel for all parties waived oral argument . All parties were advised of their right to file written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law . Written briefs were thereafter filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent , which have been given due consideration. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Maryland Sportswear Company is a family partnership consisting of Ralph A . Wasserman, his father , J. A. Wasserman, and his wife , M. D. Wasserman. Ralph A . Wasserman is manager of the business . J. A. Wasserman is an elderly man but spends considerable time in a supervisory capacity at the plant . M. D. Wasserman takes no active part in the operations. Prior to 1951 the Respondent engaged in the manufacture of sportswear at Baltimore, Mary- land, and operated under a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union for approximately 3 years. In September 1950 the Respondent canceled its contract with the Union preparatory to a removal of its operations to the South . In the early part of 1951 the Respondent moved its machinery and equipment from Baltimore , Maryland , to Jacksonville, Florida , and resumed the manufacture and sale of sportswear for men at the latter city in June 1951 , 1 During the representative period July 1951 through March 1952 , the Respondent purchased outside the State of Florida, and shipped in interstate commerce to its Jacksonville plant , raw materials and supplies valued in excess of $450 ,000. During the same period the Respondent at the Jacksonville plant manufactured and sold sportswear for men valued in excess of $450,000, 60 percent of which in value was shipped to customers outside the State of Florida. 2 It is found, therefore, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case. s II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , C.I.O., is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act, admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. 4 Motion of the Respondent to require the General Counsel before the Trial Examiner to prove compliance by the Union with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act as a requisite of jurisdiction was denied on the ground that such compliance was administratively determined by the Board prior to the hearing, and is not litigable by the parties herein . The Trial Examiner takes judicial notice of the compliance records maintained by the affidavits compliance branch of the Board, which show that the Congress of Industrial Organizations and its affiliate , Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America , were in compliance with Section 9 (f). (g), and (h) of the Act on December 10, 1951 , and at all times thereafter to the date of this report. 5 The aforesaid period includes the dates on which all charges were filed herein against the Respondent, and the issuance of the complaint by the General Counsel on July 14, 1952. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Ai Plant premises and working conditions The factory of the Respondent is a 1-story concrete-block building approximately 85 by 170 feet in size. Employees enter the workshop through an anteroom , where a time clock is located. To the right of the entrance, space within and alongside the building is enclosed for the use of management as offices and the accounting department. Outside the office space a rail- 1 Ralph A. Wasserman testified that prior to Respondent's departure from Baltimore, a vice president of the Union said to him: "Ralph, wherever you move, you are married to us. Wherever you move, we'll do our best to organize you. It doesn 't make any difference where you go. We consider you a runaway shop even though you have cancelled your contract." =See stipulation of counsel. SStanislaus Implement & Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618. 4Printed copy of its constitution was duly proven and admitted in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 11. SLouisville Container Corporation , 99 NLRB 81; N. L. R. B. v. Red Rock Co., 178 F. 2d 76 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 341 U. S. 950. 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD enclosed aisle leads from the anteroom entrance to the center of the workshop, where a cross-aisle divides the working space approximately in half. Employees follow these two aisles to reach their positions of work. All operations are conducted in open space extending the entire length of the building , except a cutting room partitioned off along the outer wall opposite the offices . The sewing operations occupy the front half of open space , and finishing operations are conducted in the rear half. Approximately 100 people (mostly women) are employed in 1 large room . The sewing department is equipped with electric sewing machines, and the finishing department includes stockroom and storage space . All sewing machine operators work in proximity to each other. Working conditions are somewhat crowded. The ladies restroom is located on the office side beyond the cross - aisle and near the center of the building. Facilities there are hardly adequate to accommodate 100 women employees. The Respondent commenced operations in the summer of 1951 with William H. Andrews as managing supervisor of the sewing department . Andrews was a machinist , and it was his primary duty to maintain the electric sewing machines. The sewing department was divided into two sections: (1) The small parts section, and(2) the assembly or double-needle machine section. Initially, Imogene Sticksel was forelady in the first section, and Helen P. Kohler was forelady in the second section. Alice T . Boggs exercised supervision over employees in the finishing department . Her duties were proximate to those of a forelady in other sections.6 Sybil Barnett was employed as payroll and personnel clerk in the accounting department under the direction of Ralph A. Wasserman, manager. Her duties were entirely administrative, and she exercised no supervisory authority over other employees. The Respondent operates a "progressive bundle system." The cloth is cut by patterns in the cutting room , and the material for individual parts of the garments are forwarded in bundles to the small parts section, where it is made into collars, cuffs, pockets, flaps, fronts, and backs. These individual parts then go in bundles to the double - needle section, where they are assembled and made into completed garments . Then the garments go to the finishing section for pressing, folding, and packing. Foreladies expedite operations by assigning and distributing the work among employees designated to perform various individual operations. Necessarily, considerable noise is created by the operation of sewing machines and the interchange of information with respect to the work. The Respondent has published no written rules with respect to talking or going to the restroom . It is a responsibility of the foreladies to preserve order and expedite the work. Wages have always been paid on an hourly basis, except for a period of about 2weeks in September 1951 when the Respondent initiated piecework rates temporarily , and then abandoned that plan as unsatisfactory. B. Origin of union activities In the early part of October 1951 . Margaret Marcum and Ada B . Bizzell (seamstresses in the small parts section) initiated discussions among employees to form a labor organization. They discussed their grievances and the advisability of organizing a union with Forelady Imogene Sticksel and also with Supervisor William H. Andrews. These two supervisors declared their neutrality with respect to organizational activities, and did not discourage the formation of a union. Shortly thereafter, Ralph A. Wasserman, managing partner, called Forelady Sticksel to his office, requested her to identify the employees engaging in concerted activities . He told her that he did not intend to havea union in the plant, and that he expected her to keep him in- formed as to what was going on. J. A. Wasserman also approached Forelady Sticksel and inquired specifically about the activities of Margaret Marcum and Ada B. Bizzell. Ralph A. Wasserman inspected some collars made by Margaret Marcum, remarked that she was doing sloppy work and that she was a troublemaker. However, on the same day the Respondent granted a wage increase of 5 cents per hour to Margaret Marcum , Ada B. Bizzell, and Irene Richards. It is apparent that Ralph A. Wasserman suspected Forelady Imogene Sticksel and Supervisor William H. Andrews of encouraging an organization of the employees , because on separate occasions he inquired of each of them whether the other was participating in the movement. On October 23, 1951, at the request of Margaret Marcum , Forelady Imogene Sticksel circu- lated a paper to secure the names andaddresses of employees . It appears that such a list was desired for the purpose of an employee organization , but it was announced that the list was to be used for sending out sympathy cards, gifts , etc. Supervisor Andrews confiscated the list before it was completed . He refused to surrender the list to Ada B . Bizzell because it might cause trouble. Ralph A. Wasserman had told him that if a union came in, he would pull the switch and go to Miami for a while- -that he would fire those girls and hire colored help in the plant. Immediately following this incident, Forelady Imogene Sticksel was called to the office 6It is concluded that William H. Andrews, Imogene Sticksel, Helen P. Kohler, and Alice T. Boggs were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 79 and discharged at approximately 10 o'clock onOctober 23, 1951. Ralph A. Wasserman told her that he regretted discharging her--that he was goingto give her a full week's pay--that he was satisfied with her work but there were too many foreladies, and that he was going to get a strong man to run the plant.i The discharge of Imogene Sticksel caused a furor in the plant. Employees in the small parts section stopped work, stood up at their machines, and were preparing to go en masse to the office of Ralph A. Wassermantoprotest thedismissal of their forelady. Supervisor William H. kndrews persuaded the protesting groiip'to r&§lime work and wait until the lunch hour to see .vir. Wasserman. At noon the protesting groupwenfto the manager's office- -some entered and some stood around outside the door in the hallway. According to the testimony of Ralph A. Wasserman. 6, 7, or 8 girls led by Ada Bizzell came into his office and said, "unless you reinstate Gene [Sticksel] at once, we are going to quit." He told them their resignations were accepted Then the girls walked out. Ada Bizzell came back in a few minutes and said, "We have reconsidered, all except one who wants to quit, and the rest of us want to go back to work." He told them to go back to work. That afternoon Ada Bizzell came again to his office and inquired, "Who are you going to appoint as your new forelady?" He told her "that doesn't happen to be any of your business, and I am getting sick and tired of you telling me how to run my business, and I want you to go back to your machine." When Ada Bizzell asked for the job as forelady, he said, "Ada, if you were the last girl in the world, I wouldn't give you that job. Now, go back to your machine." At that time Ada Bizzell told him that union activity was going on in the plant; and he said, "Is that so? I'm not interested in hearing anything that you have to say concerning union activity." Following the "Sticksel incident," the Respondent reorganized its supervisory staff. Helen P. Kohler was designated as head forelady in charge of the entire plant. William H. Andrews was deprived of supervisory functions and classified as machinist. Margaret Marcum was ap- pointed as assistant forelady to take over the duties of Imogene Sticksel in the small parts section.8 C. The discharge of Ada B. Bizzell Prior to the "Sticksel incident," the Respondent had made no complaints with respect to the work or conduct of Ada Bizzell. She was hired by Supervisor William H. Andrews as a collar- worker on June 25, 1951. Both Andrews and Sticksel testified that she was a capable and above average employee. After the promotion of Margaret Marcum to succeed Sticksel, the relation- ship between Forelady Marcum and Ada Bizzell was somewhat strained. Bizzell assumed leadership of the employees seeking to obtain union representation. During the lunch hour on Friday, November 16, 1951, Ada Bizzell conferred with representatives of the American Federation of Labor and arranged to hold a meeting of employees at the AFL hall in Jackson- ville on the following day, Saturday November 17, 1951. She announced the proposed meeting to other employees at the close of the lunch hour in the plant, and invited them to attend. At approximately 2 p.m. (November 16, 1951) several of the employees, including Ada Bizzell and Forelady Helen P. Kohler, were in theladies, restroom. J. A. Wasserman stood outside the door and obtained the names of those present in the restroom from Forelady Kohler when she came out. At approximately 2:45 p.m , Forelady Marcum told Ada Bizzell that Ralph A. Wasserman had given instructions that the girls quit talking. Ada Bizzell replied, "All I want to tell you is this, I'm working to get a union in this plant, and you can go back and tell J. A. Wasserman or Ralph Wasserman that I'm ringleader for the union in this plant." It must be presumed that this message was delivered toRalphA. Wasserman, because shortly thereafter hecameinto theworkshop and watched the girls at work for a while. At 415 p.m. Ada Bizzell. Gertrude Hallock. Iris Prom, and Annie M. Salters were called to the office and discharged. Ralph A. Wasserman stated that he was laying them off for lack of work, and also criticized some of them for goingto the restroomtoo much. He specifically told Ada Bizzell that she was being laid off for lack of work, more or less. Notices of separation required by the Florida Industrial Commission were not issued for the discharges until January 4, 1952. Reason stated therein for the discharge of Ada B. Bizzell (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 22) was "Insubordination; refusal to carry out reasonable orders of forelady; stating she would not co- operate with forelady." The reason stated therein for the discharge of Annie M. Salters (G. C. Exhibit 24) was "Hired on trial basis. Did not become proficient." The reason stated therein for the discharge of Gertrude F. Hallock (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 25) was "Continued t The testimony of Imogene Sticksel and William H. Andrews was not contradicted or successfully impeached. 8 Thereupon Marcum abandoned all activities as an employee to organize a union in the plant. Her testimony concerning former activities was evasive and noncommittal. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD neglect of duties after warning." The reason stated therein for discharge of iris P. Prom (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 26) was "Employee stated she woudl not cooperate with fore- lady; threatened to get even with forelady; failure and refusal to perform normal day's pro- duction:" 9 In my opinion, neither a preponderance of the evidence, nor the record as a whole, would in this case justify a finding that Ada Bizzell was discharged for insubordination and refusal to carry out reasonable orders of the Respondent Employer D. The discharge of Trudie Louise Maloy Trudie Louise Maloy was first employed by the Respondent on September 4, 1951, the day after Labor Day. She was assigned to duty as a folder in the finishing department under the supervision of Alice Boggs. On or about November 1, 1951, Blanche Casey, an inspector in the finishing department, discussed the possibilities of organizing a union with Maloy. Thereafter, Maloy talked to other employees during the lunch hour and other off-duty periods, and de- livered to Blanche Casey the names and addresses of those she found interested in such a movement. She discussed the organizational effort with Ada Bizzell and attended the first organizational meeting held on Saturday, November 17, 1951.19 The meeting was conducted by Peter Zubal and Ada Bizzell. Included among those present were Minnie L. Justice. Gertrude Hallock, Merrill Salters, Irene Richards, MattieMathis, Myrtle Merritt, and others. During the course of this meeting, Trudie Louise Maloy invited all present to attend a square dance party at her home that night.i i Following the party she continued her activities on behalf of the Union. On Wednesday morning, November 21, 1951, she arrived at the plant about 8 o'clock, but sat outside in an automobile with Margaret Jean Moyer and Catherine Brooks until 9 o'clock before punching the clock preparatory to commencing work. They had been instructed by the Respond- ent to wait until that hour until work was available for the folders. As she came into the anteroom, Sybil Barnett notified her to see Ralph A. Wasserman, so she waited in there until he came out. Thereupon, Ralph A. Wasserman notified her that she was being laid off indefinite- ly for lack of work, but that she would be reinstated as soon as work was available. Sybil Barnett delivered her paycheck but no separation papers were prepared at that time. That afternoon she joined Ada Bizzell and Peter Zubal in distributing union literature outside the plant at 4:30 o'clock to employees leaving their work. Ralph A. Wasserman stood at the door and observed what was going on. In the latter days of December 1951 or early part of January 1952, Maloy called Ralph Wasserman at the factory by telephone and inquired whether he had any work for her to do. After some difficulty in identifying herself, Mr. Wasserman said he would let her know, and then hung up the receiver. Thereafter, on or about January 4. 1952, she received a notice of separation on form UCB- 1 provided by the unemployment division of the Florida Industrial Commission. The reason for separation stated thereon by the Respond- ent was "Discharged due to excessive absenteeism." (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 27.) Ralph A. Wasserman testified that he knew nothing concerning the union activities of Trudie Louise Maloy. He said, "I know nothingofTrudie Maloy except I laid her off. We had too many people. You can ask me all the questions you want, I can only tell you this. I know nothing about Trudie Louise Maloy except she was laid off. We had too many people in that section. She was the one who was absent quite a bit, and we laid her off the same as we laid everybody else off. Trudie as far as I am concerned Ididn't even remember until I saw her today again. I mean, I didn't know Trudie Louise Maloy was until Isaw her again. I saw an awful lot of people. I know nothing about Trudie Louise Maloy except she was laid off." He also said, "It might have been brought to my attention she was soldiering a little bit," but he did not recall that he ever re- ceived any complaints from supervisory employees concerning her work. Margaret Jean Moyer (a folder) testified without contradiction that there were about 7 or 8 girls employed as folders, including Trudie Louise Maloy. Maloy was replaced by a new girl named Juanita, who quit just before Christmas to get married and was in turn replaced by another new girl by the name of Edith Ellis. With respect to absenteeism, Trudie Louise Maloy credibly testified that she was never absent from work except after obtaining permission from J. A. Wasserman or Alice Boggs. She was absent about 10 or 11 days during the entire term of her employment. The first absence was a day or two in September when her husband was injured in an accident. The second oc- 9 Ralph A. Wasserman testified at the hearing that the sole reason for discharge of Ada B. Bizzell was union activity on company time from October 23 to November 16, 1951. to The meeting scheduled at the AFL hall did not materialize, and the assembled employees went over to the hall of Communication Workers, CIO, to a meeting conducted by Peter Zubal, an organizer for the CIO. 11 Maloy had previously planned the party and had invited Helen P. Kohler and Alice Boggs. neither of whom attended. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 81 casion was in the latter part of October on account of female illness The third occasion was the first week in November when she became ill at the plant and was thereafter confined to bed with influenza. It was 2 or 3 weeks after she had returned to work after the last - named ill- ness that she was laid off on November 21, 1951. E. Interference, restraint, and coercion Following discharge on November 16, 1951, Ada Bizzell continued her activities on behalf of the Union and assisted Peter Zubal (an organizer for CIO) in a campaign to organize the em- ployees of the Respondent. They visited employees in their homes at night to solicit member- ship, and distributed union literature on the street outside the entrance to the plant The following leaflet (Respondent's Exhibit No. 3) was distributed: THE UNION PROGRAM THIS LEAFLET IS PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED TO YOU BY THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS UNION. The Amalgamated represents over 350,000 workers and 9516 of the employees in the niens clothing industry in America. YOU ARE AMONG THE FEW CLOTHING WORKERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS UNION. Several weeks ago we started an organizing campaign among Maryland Sportswear Company employees in Jacksonville. A majority of the workers signed Union membership cards This is the first leaflet in a campaign to organize Maryland Sportswear employees in the Green Cove (sic) plant. Belowwelis: se,-_-ral benefits now being received by organ- ized workers in the Mens Clothing Industry. 1 Six paid Holidays per year. New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July Fourth. Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Two and one half times your regular wage if you work on one of these Holidays. 2. Vacation with pay. 3. A Pension Plan. 4. Insurance, Sickness, Health, Hospitalization and Life Insurance. 5. Four hours reporting time if called to work and given less than four hours work. 6. Time and one half for all over eight hours per day Time and one half for all Satur- day work. 7. Seniority Rights. 8. Job protection against unjust discharge or lay-offs. 9 Rest period ten minutes in the morning and afternoon If you want a similar program in your plant, sign and mail the attached application to AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA. 409 West Adams St. or P.O. Box 4616. Jacksonville, Florida. 1. hereby request and accept membership in the AMAL- GAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, and hereby designate said Union. it's Agents or Representatives , to act as my collective bargaining agent in all matters per- taining to wages, hours , and other conditions of employment. Signed: Telephone number Address: Operation -_____ On November 23, 1951 , the Respondent received a telegram (General Counsel's Exhibit No 12) from Charles L Cowl, Regional Director , CIO, Tampa, Florida, which reads as follows PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A MAJORITY OF YOUR EMPLOYEES HAVE DESIGNATED THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS, CIO, AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WE WILL BE EXPECTING TO MEET WITH YOU TO DISCUSS A CONTRACT AND WE ALSO ASK YOU TO REFRAIN FROM DISCHARGING OURMEM BERS WITHOUT CAUSE BECAUSE WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO FILE UNFAIR LABOR CHARGES UNLESS SUCH ACTION BE- COMES NECESSARY DUE TO THE UNFAIR TREATMENT ACCORDED OUR MEMBERS. That afternoon (November 23, 1951) Ralph A. Wasserman stopped operations and assembled all employees in the plant for the purpose of making a speech. He read aloud the telegram, and requested all employees who had joined the Union to raise their hands. Receiving no response, he told them to speak up and not be afraid of losing their jobs; that it was a free country, and that he didn't give a damn. Then he pointed out Irene Richards, a collarworker, saying, "You lady with the glasses--are you in the Union " She denied membership Forelady Helen P. 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kohler also iread the telegram and exhorted the girls to speak up and not be afraid , because Mr. Wasserman had a right to know who had joined the Union--to know how he stood. When none of the employees admitted membership in the Union. Ralph A. Wasserman announced that he would place a bet of $100,000 that a majority of his employees had not joined the Union, and would give the money to charity (if he won). He then stated in effect that if the union representative came to the plant, he would call him a liar and throw him out. Then he told the employees to go back to work and forget it.iz Ralph A. Wasserman credibly testified that immediately after his speech to employees, upon advice of counsel, he prepared , posted, and distributed a written statement (Respondent's Exhibit No. 6), as follows: NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES We understand that a union , The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of the CIO has been at- tempting to get you to sign cards authorizing that union to represent you in all your dealings with us. DON'T SIGN ANYTHING unless you are^sureyouknow what itmeans and how, it will affect you and your jobs These cards are used b^ the union to get the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an in- vestigation ,and ad election which may result in the union beiti _ceiifie4 to represent all members of the company. If this happens you cannot talk with us about anything concerning your jobs , your wages , your hours, or any of your working conditions . We could then only deal with this union's representatives- -for at least a year and maybe for many years to come. DON'T SIGN AWAY YOUR RIGHTS WITHOUT THE FULL TRUTH' You have a right to join a union if you want to but the union 'representatives will probably tell you that you will have to join the union. This is not true. You did not have to join a union to get your job here and you will never have to join a union to hold your job. It is a violation of State and Federal laws to try to force you to join a union . If anybody tells you that you will have to join a union please report the matter to the office immediately. ASK YOURSELF: Why are these strangers interested in me? Is it because they want to help or is it because they want my money? Who would you rather deal with--Strangers from another state or people you work with every day? We believe you are entitled to a frank statement of how we feel about the union. Here it is: We don 't want to deal withsieangerswhoknow nothing about our business and our prob- lems. We don 't believe that the union can gei you anything you can't get for yourselves and without paying dues. Think about these things -- they may affect you and your jobs for years to come The Respondent also distributed and posted a special notice , as follows: SPECIAL NOTICE ALL EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING SIX MONTHS OR MORE WILL BE PAID FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY. ALL EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ONE CONSECUTIVE YEAR OR MORE WILL BE GIVEN ONE WEEK 'S VACATION WITH PAY BEGINNING WITH THE SUMMER OF 1953. Shortly after the group meeting of employees on November 23, 1951 , Ralph A. Wasserman initiated interviews with individual employees . Irene Richards was called to his office to dis- cuss l..zr job at the plant. He complimented her work and assured her of job security . Then he iaFindings herein are based upon the composite testimony of Irene Richards . Mattie Mathis, Gladys M. Weathers , Audrey Blankership, Eva Cornell, Nell Jean Newton, Bessie Bonnie Elliott, Jessie Mae Long, Minnie L. Justice, and others present at the meeting. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 83 mentioned the fact that she and Ada Bizzell had worked close together and did a lot of talking on the job. He said, "She was a bad influence on you:' 13 Several days thereafter, Irene Richards was again called to the office and angrily reprimanded for not obeying the instruc- tions of Forelady Margaret Marcum, without disclosing to her the nature of her offense. He said, "Let that be a warning to you, don't ever cross a forelady, just carry out instructions." Richards replied, "Yes, sir, I will, just like I been, and as long as I work here I am going to try to please everybody." That afternoon at quitting time when Irene Richards punched the clock, she found a written warning attachedtoher timecard signed by Sybil G. Barnett as per- sonnel manager, saying: "This is to give you final warning that in the future you must obey all instructions given you by your forelady. Any further deviation from this rule will result in your dismissal. "14 She is still employed by the Respondent. ,Lizzie L. Sykes (a buttonhole worker) was solicited by Ada Bizzell and Peter Zubal for membership in the Union, but refused to loin. En route to work the next morning, she reported the visit to a fellow employee and expressed a desire to inform her Employer. Shortly there- after she was called totheofficetosee Ralph A. Wasserman and told him that she had visitors on the previous night at her home. He inquired, "Well, did you join?" After being informed as to the identity of her visitors, and that she did not join the Union, Wasserman told Sykes there was nothing to it and to go back to work. At a later date, this employee voluntarily reported to the Respondent that an investigator had called to see her. At that time Ralph A. Wasserman questioned her and requested that she sign a written statement, which she declined to do. She also refused to sign a statement for an attorney (Sindler ) from the Regional Office of the Board. Sykes is still employed by the Respondents. Bessie Bonnie Elliott (a collarworker) was also called to the office for interview. Ralph A. Wasserman opened the conversation by saying, "Mrs. Elliott, you came here looking for a job. We gave you a job, didn't we?" She expressed appreciation for her employment; and he said that was trot thewayheheardit.She inquired what he meant. Thereupon, he told her that he had been informed that she had been sending these union people around to the homes of the other girls. She told him that she had gone to the CIO when employed by the telephone company. He inquired whether the Union had helped them, and whether her husband belonged to a union. Then he showed her a printed leaflet and said that the Union was communistic. He told her not to tell the other girls why she had been called to the office. On another occasion during the lunch hour, Ralph A. Wasserman incompanywithhis father, J. A. Wasserman, laughingly pointed out Bessie B. Elliott, Lillie Mae Roberts, and Thelma Lee as good union members,' as they entered the plant.15 Elliott is still employed by the Respondents. I Eva Cornell (a collarmaker) was called to the office of Ralph A. Wasserman, and questioned with respect to alleged threats made by AdaBizzell. Cornell denied the threats and refused to sign a written statement. Shewas questioned concerning her sympathies for the Union, and with respect to visits made by Ada Bizzell to her home. Prior to the interview of this witness, Forelady Margaret Marcum had reported the alleged threat to Ralph A. Wasserman. On that occasion Cornell stood at the door of the office and observed that Wasserman pulled a pistol from the drawer of his desk, and stated in effect that "he just wanted some, S.O.B. to come out there and mess with him - that he was going to give them all six loads of it." On or about December 3, 1951, Mrs. Gladys M. Weathers (a seamstress) was called to the office of Ralph A. Wasserman.is Mr. Wasserman opened the conversation by saying, "I under- stand that you are a Bible teacher." Then he handed her a circular to read pertaining to the CIO unions, and containing allegations concerning operationofthose unions by Communists. He called attention to a list of officials at the bottom of he page, and said that those people were foreigners. He inquired whether she knew anythingabout unions, and talked about the rise of the Negroes and communism in labor unions. Mrs. Weathers told him that she knew something about a railroad union because her husband had been a member for 25 years. He said. "Well, the railroad union is not like the other unions . Well, I assure that they are not the same. There is no resemblance. Operate different." He then complimented her intelligence, requested that their conference be "just as if it had never been," and then sent her back to work.17 On the morning of January 23, 1952, representatives of the Union passed out circulars in front of the plant, and supervisory personnel of the Respondent including Helen Kohler and isBizzell had been previously discharged for union activities. 1 14 The Respondent offered no testimony in explanation of the interviews or warnings given to this employee. iSThe testimony of Bessie B. Elliott with respect to that incident was corroborated by Lillie Mae Roberts. is Mrs. Weathers attends the same church and is the Sunday School teacher of Minnie L. Justice. 17 Condensed from the uncontradicted testimony of Gladys M. Weathers. 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Margaret Marcum watched employees as they came into work. Organizer Peter Zubal handed a leaflet to Mrs. Gladys M. Weathers, and she put it under her pocketbook. She heard Helen Kohler shout, "I guess I got eyes . I saw the paper under her pocketbook ." Immediately thereafter , Forelady Kohler brought a blank sheet of paper to Mrs. Weathers and instructed her to keep a record of her production that day to be picked up at 3:30 p.m A few minutes later the forelady brought workcards to all the sleeve operators, and told Mrs. Weathers to use the workcard as a record instead of the sheet of paper. On the next afternoon three of the sleeve operators including Mrs Weathers were summoned to the office of Ralph A. Wasserman, who stated, "Now, girls, I want to talk to you about your production, and this is strictly a 'production meeting.' " Turning to Mrs Weathers, he facetiously remarked, "And when you make your report, you state that this is a production meeting." She said, "No sir, I don't make any report." Then he said, "That's enough out of you. I know what you're doing." In anxiety about her job, Mrs. Weathers went to J. A. Wasserman to discuss her problem. After listening to her story, he referred her to Ralph A. Wasserman and escorted her to the latter's office. Thereupon, she told Ralph A. Wasserman that she needed the job in order to provide for her daughter 's education, and expressed regret that he distrusted her. She assured him that there was no cause to distrust her, that she was tending to her own business , and working 8 hours a day the best she could. Ralph A. Wasserman again handed her the same circular about communism in the Union that he had given to her during a previous interview . He then talked about the problems of the Employer , the expenses involved in operating the business and the business conditions as they were today, the Communists were infiltrating everything, the Negroes were rising, and various other things She assured him that she could not help that-- that she just came to tell him that she was working loyally for him and would like to continue in her job. She admitted having signed a union card, and reminded him that he had told them that it did not make any difference. He inquired whether she had been put under pressure to sign the card, and she told him that she made up her own mind and signed it. He inquired whether she would get out on the street and hand out circulars, or go downtown and run down his shirts. She assured him that she would not do that. He remarked that he had investigated and knew that she was a Sunday School teacher, and that her husband worked for the railroad; that he never had any complaint about her work; and that she could go back to work and be treated as a loyal employee in the future. In the course of their conversation, Wasserman in- quired whether she belonged to the "Minnie Crowd," and she assured him that she didn't belong to any crowd. She voluntarily resigned her employment on May 30, 1952, on account of illness. F. The discharge of Minnie L. Justice Minnie L. Justice was first employed by the Respondent on June 25. 1951. She was hired by Supervisor William H. Andrews as a machine operator in the sewing room. Her forelady was Imogene Sticksel in the smallparts section. In the latter part of September or early in October 1951. Margaret Marcum (a fellow worker) inquired whether she would be interested in a union. Thereafter, justice discussed the subject with ForeladySticksel, and received some encourage- ment from her neutral attitude. In company with other employees she went to the office of Ralph A Wasserman on October 23, 1951, to protest the discharge of Forelady Sticksel. She attended the first union meeting on November 17. 1951, the day following the discharge of Ada Bizzell, but did not join the Union at that time. On the following Friday. November 23. 1951, she was present at the meeting of employees when Ralph A. Wasserman made a speech concern- ing the telegram received from the regional director of the CIO. On Saturday, November 24, 1951, she attended a second meeting and signed the union card for membership. Thereupon, she became an active worker in the campaign to organize the employees of the Respondent. At the request of organizer Peter Zubal, she kept a record of all her conversations with Ralph A. Wasserman by [[taking written notes thereof on the days they occurred. On November 26. 1951. Ralph A. Wasserman approached Minnie L. Justice in the plant and inquired whether she always told the truth. She informed him that she was a Christian girl and was always truthful. On November 27, 1951, he again approached her and inquired whether she was behaving herself- -what church she attended-- and the name of her pastor. On that occasion justice told him that she attended Woodstock Park Baptist Church; that her pastor was the Reverend Woodrow Flynn; and that she was a member of the Sunday School class taught by Mrs. Gladys Weathers, an employee of the Respondent. On November 30, 1951, Ralph A. Wasserman and his attorney (Bowden) addressed the employees en masse, and told them that the Respondent did not want a union in the plant--that the law did not force anyone to join a union--and that they did not have to join if they didn't want to. Reference was made to alleged threats by the union representatives, and employees were told that they could call the police or Mr. Wasserman if they caused any disturbance. Ralph A. Wasserman inquired MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 85 as to the whereabouts of a girl (Eva Cornell) who had reported to his office that a union representative had threatened to spank her fanny if she didn't join the Union. On December 3, 1951, Minnie L. Justice was called to the office and interviewed by Ralph A. Wasserman and J. A. Wasserman. Ralph A. Wasserman inquired whether she had ever heard the story of Judas; and stated that it would be a good idea to have her Bible teacher and pastor tell her the story of Judas. to He told Justice that the other girls were beginning to hate her because of her membership in the union organization, and that half of the organi- zation was Communist. He told her to ask Organizer Peter Zubal if he was a Communist He complimented justice as a good operator, and asserted that she could have a job there for life if she would keep her mouth shut; said she was not half as dumb as she acted- -that he did not want that organization in there- -that he knew and was watching her three friends, who would say no if she would say no. He inquired whether she knew any other place in town she could earn as much money as there In conclusion he cautioned her to bear in mind what he had said and not to inform the other girls as to the nature of their conversation; and to be careful what she signed, because it might affect her job and working conditions. During the morning of December 11, 1951, Minnie L Justice felt sick and faint on the job, and reported that fact to Forelady Helen Kohler in the restroom. Other employees observed her condition and inquired as to her condition. Ralph A. Wasserman observed her temporarily idle and went to her machine. Without inquiry he said, "Minnie, I don't know who else is paying your salary to give out information except me I am paying you a salary to work I want you to stop this stalling and looking around and put out some work. All you have done today is stall around. I'm getting fed up with you. I'm getting a damn belly full of you, and if you can't do any better. I will put someone else over here in your place. I want you to stop annoying these girls and pay more attention to your work or I will put someone over here to time check you all the time. What I've got to say to you, I can say in the open." Then he left without affording an opportunity for her to explain. At that time her machine was located in line with other operators near the windows in the forepart of the building. During the lunch period that day the Respondent moved justice's sewing machine to a new location near the center of the building and adjacent to the inspectors' section. The new position was isolated from other operators and out of line with the other sewing machines. No other machines were moved. When Mrs. Justice returned from lunch, Ralph A Wasserman said to her, "Minnie, I've put your machine over here. You are a good operator, you are a wonderful girl and I don't want to get rid of you, don't want to lose you, so I put your machine over here." A few minutes later he returned to the position with a stranger and introduced him as Mr. Duke. He said, "Mr Duke, this is Minnie. She's one of my best operators, but she just won't keep her mouth shut. She is always prying into someone else's affairs." Less than an hour later Wasserman came to her again and said, "Minnie, I want to make you comfortable. I don't want your boy friends to think I am picking on you. Mr. Zubal, he's a tough little fellow, isn't he?" When she replied that she did not know what he was talking about, Wasserman said, "Minnie, you are not half as dumb as you look. Stop your pretend- ing." Then he walked away. The next morning. December 12. 1951. Ralph A. Wasserman again came to justice's machine in the new position and inquired how she liked it over there She said, "It is fine." He said, "I thought you would like it out here with all this money tied up in these machines out by yourself with all this space." Then he turned to some of the inspectors working nearby and said, "Girls, this is Minnie. Girls, do you know Minnie? This is Minnie, the little Christian girl that is always jabbing you in the back like this [ illustrating]. That is the way with them kind. They are always jabbing you in the back." Then he turned to Justice and said, "Minnie, when you were a little girl did you ever hear the remark made that if you lie down with lice, you will get up lousy9" i9 At quitting time on a subsequent afternoon prior to Christmas, as Mrs. Justice was leaving the plant, Ralph A. Wasserman facetiously raised his hand, and remarked to her, "Minnie, remember three fingers is the signal for tonight." On January 2, 1952, the Respondents moved the sewing machine of Mrs justice to another position nearer the cutting room, but she was still isolated from other machine operators. In company with a stranger in the plant, Ralph A. Wasserman walked up to the new position and said to him in her presence: "That's one of my best operators, but she just won't keep her mouth shut. She's always prying into someone else's affairs and tending to someone else's business." During the lunch hour that day Mrs Justice gave a union membership card to one lo it is apparent that Respondent had reference to the Bible story of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed the Christ on the eve of his crucifixion. i9 Myrtle Merritt (an inspector) credibly testified that Ralph A Wasserman spent consider- able time for 2or 3days around the machine of Minnie L. Justice and appeared to be ridiculing her 283230 0 - 54 - 7 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of her fellow employees. Prior to that time her activities had been confined to conversation about the Union and procuring names and addresses of interested employees for the use of Ada Bizzell and Peter Zubal. Within a few minutes after resuming work following the lunch period, Minnie L. Justice was called to the office. When she inquired of Ralph A. Wasserman if he wanted to see her, he said, "You're damned right, I want to see you. Quit your damn lying. You know damn well why I want to see you. You and that Sunday School teacher of yours has caused me a hell of a lot of trouble. I'm mad as hell with you and you can tell Pete Zubal but listen, when this is over, one way or the other, me and you are going to have trouble You are going to pay for what you have done a damn hard way, through the damn nose. You can tell your girl friend. Any damn girl friend you want to.,, Then Mrs. Justice returned to her machine. 20 According to the testimony of Forelady Helen Kohler, an unidentified girl reported to her that same afternoon that Minnie L. Justice had said that she did not have to take orders from her (Kohler), and that she (Kohler) was a damn Yankee Thereupon Forelady Kohler informed her riding companion (Sadie Saia) that "I'm going to see a little lady tomorrow-- Little Minnie. I just want to know why she is going around telling the girls not to do what I tell them to do." The forelady reiterated her intention to Sadie Saia en route to the plant next morning (January 3, 1952). The conflict in evidence as to what occurred thereafter at the plant, is demonstrated by the contrary versions ofForelady Kohler and Minnie L. Justice, as follows: Helen P. Kohler (forelady) testified in substance that she stopped Minnie L. Justice in the aisle and asked her what the idea was of calling her a damn Yankee. "She said, 'I didn't do it.' I said, 'You did do it.' She said, 'It is a lie.' I said, 'I've got just as much right to believe this girl as I have to believe you.' So she said, 'Bring her to me.' And I said, 'I will not. I want to tell you what you do, fromnowonI don't ever want to hear tell of you ever telling a girl in this factory not to do what I tell them to do. That is my business and I don't ever want to hear it again. I want you to go back there and start sewing, but don't bother me any more, my personal affairs.' Mr. Wasserman came up there . I guess he thought we were tearing the building down and he asked me what was going on. A lot of girls were there then . I said, 'She called me a damn Yankee yesterday.' He said, 'Why, Minnie, you like that Yankee money, don't you,' and went over and stood by the pressing table there and we kept on 'yakking.' It was before 8 o'clock. So Ralph said to her, 'Minnie, you go back there, you have to do what Helen says. Remember I am out of it. She is your supervisor, your forelady. You had to do what she says.' She said, 'You can't fire me.' He said, 'I can't do what9' She said, 'You can't fire me, you damn Yankee Jew.' He said, 'Well, then you are fired.' She said, 'I'll bring my husband down. He will fix you.' So the bell rang and we went to work." Minnie L. Justice testified in substance that she was called by Forelady Helen P. Kohler in the presence of Ralph A. Wasserman, as she was walking in the plant to work that morning. "Helen said, 'Minnie, you can talk about my work and talk about the way I do, but when you start talking about my character . Iamnot standing for it.' I said, 'Helen, I haven't said a thing about you.' She said, 'Yes, you did. Get that bunch of girls that you told that and prove it.' I said, 'What bunch of girls9I'venottoldanyone anything. How can Iproveit 'She said, 'Get the one that you said that I was a damn Yankee to.' I said, 'I didn't even know that you were a Yankee.' She said. 'Yes, Iamadami1Yankee and I am proud of it instead of being a Southerner. And I want you to leave my girls alone over here or you can get out, you can get out.' I said, 'I am not walking out. There's not'but one way I am going out. Helen said, 'How is that, to be fired?' I said, 'Yes, to be fired.' Thereupon, Ralph A Wasserman said, 'Well, you are fired. I want you to quit talking about me . telling everybody that I am a damned Jew . You make your living working for a Jew and you are spending Jew's money. Why talk about a Jew. All you do is cause disturbance. Get out, gettohellout of here.' Then he turned towards the other sewing machine operators, and said, 'Minnie is gone. Is there anybody else wants to go with her, get out."' Forelady Kohler repeated after him, "Yes, if anybody else wants to go with her, get up and get out." Mrs. Justice then went toJ. A. Wasserman and asked for her pay. He said, "You will have to see my son." Then she went into the hall near the office and waited a few minutes until Ralph A. Wasserman came out.When she askedhim for her pay and separation papers, he said, "You will get your damned pay Friday. tomorrow. You will get your God damn separation paper and 20 With respect to events prior to and including January 2 , 1952, the Trial Examiner has credited the testimony of Minnie L. Justice in its entirety . Her testimony was uncontradicted except to the extent that Ralph A. Wasserman generally denied all improper statements and conduct towards this employee when cross- examined as an adverse witness and official of the Respondent Company in the early stages of the hearing under the provisions of par. 43 (b), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts of the United States. He did not later appear as a witness on behalf of the Respondent, but the Trial Examiner has given due consideration to his testimony for all purposes. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 87 I am going to see to it good, that it is fixed up good. You are going to pay for what you have done, you and that Sunday School teacher of yours has caused me to.have to spend a hell of a lot of money. It's a good thing you don't have a husband." When she told him she did have a husband, he said, "Tell him I said come over this afternoon. Tell him I said to be sure and come over this afternoon." She said, "Don't worry, He will be over. He happens to be an ex-G.L" Ralph A. Wasserman then said, "I 'm an ex-G. I. also. You God damn fool, what in the hell are you waiting for9 Get out, get the hell out of here." Thereupon, she walked out of the plant without her pay. She received a separation notice (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 28) through the mails on January 5, 1952, and her paycheck on January 15, 1952. zi Sadie Saia testified in substance that she heard Helen P. Kohler and Minnie L. Justice arguing loudly about whether justice had called her a damn Yankee. Mrs. Justice said it was not true Ralph A Wasserman came up, and Kohler told him that Justice had called her out of her name, a damn Yankee. Mrs. Justice again denied it to him. He told Mrs. Justice to quit arguing and go back to her machine or he would fire her Mrs. Justice then said, "No damn Yankee Jew could fire her. He said, "You are fired." Then she left and went back to her machine. At that time the bell rang. Arlene Hetzel testified in substance that she passed Helen P. Kohler and Minnie L. Justice in the aisle, while they were engaged in argument whether Justice had called her a damn Yankee. Minnie Justice denied it. Ralph A. Wasserman appeared on the scene, and Kohler told him about it. He told Justice to go back to her machine, and she said, "You can't fire me, you damn Yankee Jew" or "Damn Jew Yankee." He said, "I can't fire you? You are fired right now." Minnie Mixon (a shirt folder) testified in substance that she saw Helen P. Kohler and Minnie L. Justice when they met in the aisle that morning. Kohler told Justice that she had been calling them damn Yankees, and said, " We might be Yankees, but if you don't go to your work and quit talking about people, you aregoinigto lose your job." Mrs. Justice denied the accusa- tion. Ralph A. Wasserman walked up and told Mrs. Justice to go back to her work. She replied that she was not afraid of them, and said, "You can't fire me, I belong to the Union " She called him a damn Yankee Jew or a Jew Yankee, and then he told her she was fired. ,}ai•gen^^oing Alice T. Boggs (supervisor) testified in substance that she heard an angry on between Helen P. Kohler and Minnie L. Justice. Ralph A. Wasserman walked up and tried to quiet them. She does not remember just the words Kohler said to Justice, llllt )e5rd the latter say to Kohler that "she couldn't fire her, nor neither could that damn Jew Yankee." At this point Ralph A. Wasserman fired her. I Shellie Cardin (a double- needle machine operator) testified in substance that Ralph A. Wasserman, Helen P Kohler, and Minnie L. Justice were standing tdgeiher in the aisle when she came into the plant that morning. She did not pay much attention to what was being said but heard their voices. They were all talking, first one and then the other. She heard Minnie L. Justice say, "You can't fire me, or something like that." Ralph A. Wasserman said something about, "I can't? Why can't I? I can." Then Minnie said something about, "You can't fire me, you damn Yankee Jew," something like that. He said, "You are already fired, so get out." Gladys M. Weathers (a machine operator) testified in substance that she and Minnie L. Justice rodef, to the plant together on the morning of January 3, 1952, and entered the sewing room at the same time. Ralph A. Wasserman, Helen Kohler, and Margaret Marcum were standing at the entrance to the workshop . It was almost time to go to work. As they walked towards their positions, Minnie was detained. She heard loud talking , and she could hear Helen and Mr. Ralph Wasserman talking very loud, accusing her of something. The signal to start work sounded, the machines started. Then in just a moment, she turned around and saw Ralph A. Wasserman waving his hand towards the entrance and shouting to Minnie to "get out, to get out now, to get out." Minnie left. Then Ralph A. Wasserman and Helen P. Kohler came over to her machine, and he shouted ather, "And you can go too. Your friend is gone, and you can go too. Just get up and go right now if you want to." She replied, "I don't know what you mean," and he said, "Well, your friend is gone and you can go too. I'm tired of this under- current in here." She explained to Wasserman that she was not to blame for the undercurrent at all; and then he said anybody could work there that wants to or anybody can quit who wants to. Then he left her position. G. The discharge of Margaret J. Moyer Margaret J. Moyer was hired by J. A. Wasserman on October 29, 1951, and assigned to duty in Respondent's plant as a shirt folder under the supervision of Alice T. Boggs . He instructed u Minnie L. Justice emphatically denied that she at any time called or referred to Helen P. Kohler as a damned Yankee, or to Ralph A. Wasserman as a damned Yankee Jew, or to either of them by any reproachful name whatever; or refused to obey their irstructions. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs. Boggs to train her in the job and report to him with respect to her efficiency Thereafter, this employee regarded Boggs as her forelady. Moyer became interested in the Union on December 7, 1951, whenOrganizer Peter Zubaland Ada Bizzell called at her home and induced her to sign a membership card. Prior to that time she had heard union gossip among other employees in the rest room at the plant but paid little attention to it. Zubal gave her some cards to use in procuring membership applications from fellow employees, but she never distributed any of the cards She did, however, discuss the Union with other employees, obtained the names and addresses of prospective members, and delivered them to Blanche Casey, who was an ac- tive worker for the Umon On or about January 9, 1952, Ralph A Wasserman came to her work- table, and said, "I hear you are a pretty hot signer-upper." She just looked at him, and said, "A who9" He said, "Oh, you know who I mean. I can get you all that wholesale," and walked off As she was leaving the plant at 4:30 o'clock that afternoon, Ralph A. Wasserman called her into the showroom office and said he believed that she knew what he meant when he had spoken to her previously that afternoon. She replied, "If I think I know what you mean. I deny it " He then said that both he and his dad thought she was a pretty nice girl, and should not get mixed up in anything like that because it was too big for her. She told him that she was not mixed up in anything; and he said, "Well, there were 14 different people told me about what you were doing " She vigorously denied having signed up anyone for anything. He left the room, and came back with a list of names on a sheet of paper . Each of the 10 or 15 names was followed by the statement "Russian-born" with exception of one at the bottom of the list marked "English- born." She inquired, "How did this Englishman get in here," and thereupon the conversation came to an end The paper pertained to communism. On the following day (January 10, 1952), Ralph A. Wasserman passed her table without speaking, and she casually inquired, "Ralph, are you angry with me." He grinned, and said, "No. How could anybody be angry with you," and walked away. On Thursday, January 16, 1952, Margaret J. Moyer discussed with her. forelady, Alice T. Boggs, the possibility of obtaining sick leave in order to see a doctor concerning a back ail- ment with which she was suffering. Boggs referred her to J. A Wasserman, so she applied to him that same afternoon. She discussed the ailment with J. A. Wasserman. and he exhibited some concern about her condition. He advised her to consult a physician and consented to her leave of absence from work. It was agreed that she could take the following week off, and that her job would be held open for her. No definite limitation was placed upon the agreed absence Moyer was at work on the following day (Friday), and received her pay for the week less the last day 22 The agreed sick leave began on Monday, January 21, 1952. On the following Friday, January 25, 1952, Moyer returned to the plant and collected the 1 day's pay still due her. At that time she again talked with J. A. Wasserman, and informed him concerning the result of her visit to see the doctor. She told J. A. Wasserman that the physician (Dr Leo Wachtel) had found her anemic, gave her a prescription, and advised that she not report back to work for 2 weeks. J. A. Wasserman instructed her to follow the doctor's orders and to come back to work when she felt better On the following Friday morning , February 1, 1952, Moyer received through the mail a termination notice of her employment with the Respondent (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 29) on a form of the Florida Industrial Commission, Unemployment Compensation Division (UCT-1). The reason for separation stated thereon was, "Voluntarily quit Reason unknown." Immediately upon receipt of the termination notice, Moyer went to the plant, and arrived there at the lunch hour. Near the close of the lunch hour, Ralph A Wasserman saw her in the plant and inquired where she had been. She told him she was on sick leave. He then invited her to his office to discuss the matter in the presence of J A. Wasserman. Throughout the discus- sion Moyer remonstrated without avail that she had not quit her employment and that her absence was known to and authorized by the Respondent through J. A. Wasserman, one of the partners. 23 The upshot of the interview was that Mrs. Moyer had not been fired but that another girl had been assigned to her job, and that the Respondent was unwilling to get rid of her re- placement but that she could have her job back when the other girl quit At the conclusion of the conversation, J A. Wasserman told her to come back on Monday, February 4, 1952, and they would see what could be done for her. When she came back on Monday, the Respondent 22Employees were customarily paid on Fridays for a 5-day week ending on Thursday of each week. 23J. A. Wasserman did not appear at the hearing, and did not take the witness stand to refute or explain the testimony of Margaret J. Moyer with respect to her leave of absence from work. MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 89 again deferred her employment and agreed to call her back when employment was available. She was never recalled or reinstated 24 Concluding Findings The Respondent has stated a variety of reasons for the discharge of Ada Bizzell. According to the testimony of Ralph A Wasserman, during a controversy concerning the appointment of Margaret Mari um as forelady, Ada Bizzell invited him to fire her, and he replied, "That's what I do not intend to do at this particular time, when I am ready. I'll do it at my own leisure " Several days later on November 16, 1951, Ada Bizzell, Gertrude Hallock. Iris Prom, and Annie M. Salter were called to the office and laid off for alleged lack of work Termination notices were not issued until January 4, 1952(General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 22, 24, 25, and 26), in which entirely different reasons were asserted. At the hearing Ralph A Wasserman testified that Ada Bizzell was discharged for the sole reason that she engaged in union ac- tivities on company time Such uncertainties and other evidence in the case point inevitably to the conclusion that Ada Bizzell was discharged because of her protected activities on behalf of a labor organization. 25 I am, therefore, constrained to find that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of Ada B Bizzell to discourage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. With respect to the discharge ofTrudieLouiseMaloy, the Respondent was equally uncertain as to the reason for her layoff on November 21. 1951, although she was replaced in the job by a new girl named Juanita. Ralph A. Wasserman professed no recollection of this incident, although this employee was called to his office at the commencement of work that day and indefinitely suspended from employment allegedly for lack of work at the plant. When her termination notice (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 27) was prepared and sent to her on January 4, 1952, the reason therein was "Discharged due to excessive absenteeism." Re- spondent's failure to show a satisfactory consistent reason for the discharge of an employee actively engaged in protected concerted activities with other employees persuasively indi- cates discrimination because of such activities. From a preponderance of the evidence I find, therefore, that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the tenure of employment of Trudie Louise Maloy to discourage membership in a labor organization. Following the Respondent's discrimination against Ada B. Bizzelland Trudie Louise Maloy, the Union intervened by sending the Respondent a telegram requesting recognition as bargain- ing representative and warning the Respondent to refrain from further discriminations The record clearly shows that the Respondent, upon receipt of this telegram, intensified its efforts to suppress the organizational activities of its employees . In so finding . I rely especially upon the following coercive acts and conduct of the Respondent set forth in the foregoing findings of fact, to wit: (1) Interrogating its employees as a group , and Irene Richards as an individual , on Novem- ber 23. 1951, concerning their membership in the Union, and threatening violence to a union representative in the event he should come into the plant. (2) Interviewing Irene Richards concerning her association with another employee (Ada Bizzell), who had been discharged because of union activities ; and reprimanding her for failure to carry out instructions of a forelady, without revealing the nature of the offense (3) Interrogating an apprehensive employee (Lizzie L Sykes ) as to whether she had joined the Union, and requesting her to sign a written statement concerning a visit of union repre- sentatives to her home. (4) Interrogating Bessie B. Elliott concerning her activities in sending union representa- tives to the homes of other employees, and concerning her former affiliations with the Union while employed elsewhere. (5) Interrogating Eva Cornell with respect to her sympathies for the Union, the visits of a union representative (Ada Bizzell) to her house , and alleged threats by union representa- tives. (6) Interrogation of Gladys M Weathers concerning her personal affairs in which Ralph A. Wasserman inquired whether she had signed a union card, whether she had been subjected to pressure in joining the Union, and whether she belonged to the "Minnie Crowd." URalph A. Wasserman testified that before the Respondent had a chance to notify her they received a complaint from the Labor Relations Board and that he wanted to see what the out- come of this thing was, what sort of charges she would make against him. M. Snower & Co., 83 NLRB 290. 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (7) Interrogation of Minnie L, justice concerning her personal and religious affairs, accusing her of lying and engaging in disloyalty to her Employer comparable to that of Judas Iscariot , because she was engaged in concerted activities on behalf of a labor organiza- tion. (8) The segregation of Minnie L Justice from fellow employees and subjecting her to ridicule in the presence of visitors and employees by uncomplimentary remarks reflecting upon her loyalty to the Respondent, and threatening her with discharge for engaging in con- certed activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. With respect to the discharge of Minnie L. Justice on January 3, 1952, I find no merit in the contention of the Respondent that she was discharged for calling her employer a "Damn Yankee Jew." The explosive dismissal of this employee occurred at a time when she was being unjustly and publicly reprimanded by Forelady Helen P. Kohler based upon a fictitious and hearsay report Neither the forelady nor Ralph A. Wasserman paid any attention to her denial of the charges. It is hardly conceivable that on this occasion an employee would reiterate and include the employer himself in uncomplimentary remarks as to which she was at the time protesting her innocence In any event, the past conduct of Ralph A Wasserman towards this employee, and the unjustified accusations of Forelady Helen P Kohler were far more repre- hensible than the alleged remarks of Minnie L Justice at that time. Because I am convinced from previous conduct of Ralph A. Wasserman that he had determined to discharge Minnie L. Justice, it is not deemed necessary to determine the disputed credibility issue as to whether she referred to him as a "Damned Yankee Jew." From a preponderance of the evidence and the entire record in the case, I find that the Respondent discriminated in the tenure of em- ployment of Minnie L Justice to discourage membership in a 'labor organization To reach a different conclusion, the Trial Examiner must close his eyes and ignore the long continued baiting and harassment of an admittedly worthy and competent employee, whose only fault to the instant of discharge was to passively insist upon the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining as guaranteed to employees in Section 7 of the Act Having carefully observed the conduct and demeanor of Minnie L Justice as a witness and throughout the turbulent hearing in this case, it is impossible for the Trial Examiner to concur in the contentions of the Respondent that she was an insurrectionist, intermeddler, or dis- ruptive influence in its manufacturing plant. The Respondent through Ralph A. Wasserman, manager, on January 9, 1952, disclosed its suspicion that Margaret J. Moyer was engaged in union activities by confronting her with the accusation that she was procuring members for the Union Within a week thereafter Moyer applied for and was granted sick leave to procure medical attention and recuperate from her ailment. During that absence, without investigation, the Respondent issued a termination notice (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 29) dated January 30, 1952, reciting voluntary resigna- tion for unknown reasons. In the interim she had visited the plant and discussed the progress of her recuperation with J. -A Wasserman, who had granted the leave of absence She was admittedly a satisfactory employee, and no complaints were made concerning her work. Upon receipt of the termination notice she immediately applied for reinstatement For reasons best known to itself the Respondent delayed reinstatement, and finally admitted that her request for reinstatement was dropped because her name had been included in an amended charge and complaint filed against the Respondent alleging unfair labor practices. From such conduct by the Respondent, and from the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner is convinced that the termination notice was issued to this employee by reason of suspected activity on behalf of the charging Union. to I find, therefore, that the Respondent discriminated in the tenure of employment of Margaret J Moyer to discourage membership in a labor organization in vio- lation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States tending to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce New York Telephone Co , 89 NLRB 381 at 384: ".. when an employee is discharged because his employer believes him to be engaged in concerted activity, the discharge is violative of the Act, whether or not such belief is well founded. " MARYLAND SPORTSWEAR COMPANY 91 V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act It has been found that Respondent duringthemonth of November 1951, and thereafter, inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by coercively interviewing and interrogating them en masse and as indi- viduals concerning their sympathies for, affiliation with, and membership in a labor organi- zation. It has been found that Respondent threatened to resort to violence and do bodily harm to representatives of a labor organization if they entered the plant. It has been found that Respondent segregated one employee from other employees and sub- jected her to ridicule, abusive language, and unjust accusations of disloyalty, in the presence of visitors and fellow employees, because of her protected activities on behalf of the Union. By the aforesaid unfair labor practices the Respondent has demonstrated contempt for and rejection of the principle of collective bargaining. It has adopted an attitude of violent hostility to the general purposes of the Act. The antipathy of Respondent to the objectives of the Act justify an inference that other unfair labor practices may be anticipated, and that the purposes of the Act may be frustrated unless the Respondent be required to take affirmative action adequate to dispel the threat It will be recommended, therefore, that the Respondent cease and desist from acts and conduct herein found to be a violation of the Act, and from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 27 It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Ada B Bizzell on November 16, 1951, Trudie Louise Maloy on November 21, 1951, Minnie L Justice on January 3, 1952, and Margaret J. Moyer onJanuary 30, 1952 1 shall recommend, therefore, that the Respondent offer to each of said employees immediate and full reinstatement to her former or sub- stantially equivalent position, 28 without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against her by the payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned as wages since the date of her discharge to the date when such offer of reinstate- ment is made, less net earnings 29to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co , 90 NLRB 289 Earnings in one particular quarter shall ha%e no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other such period it will also be recommended that the Re- spondent make availableto theBoard and its agents, upon request, its payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the computation of back pay herein awarded Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C 10 , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged iii and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act - 3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ada B. Bizzell, Trudie Louise Maloy, Minnie L. Justice, and MargaretJ Moyer, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (3) of the Act 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 27 The publication. posting, and enforcement of reasonable rules to preserve order and continuity of work in its plant during working hours will not be deemed a violation of this recommendation 28 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York. San Juan. Puerto Rico, Branch. 65 NLRB 827 29See: Crossett Lumber Co . 8 NLRB 440