Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corp.

CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 277 sary to consider whether the contract is not a bar on any other basis urged by the Petitioner. The Employer further contends that should the Board direct an election herein that such election should be limited to determining whether or not the Petitioner should administer the existing contracts covering the requested unit. However, we find it unnecessary in this proceeding to pass upon this issue.' 4. We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All mechanics, mechanics' helpers, apprentices, and leadmen at the Employer's Knoxville, Tennessee, motortruck service station, exclud- ing clerical employees, guards, all other employees at the Employer's Knoxville motortruck branch of the Nashville motortruck sales dis- trict, assistant foremen, foremen, the manager, and all other super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 Wales-Strxppat Corporation, 110 NLRB 951 ; Arthur C. Harvey Company, supra; Bos- ton Machine Works Company, 89 NLRB 59. Chairman Farmer deems the issue presented here substantially different from that of the Boston Machine case, and therefore, though agreeing with the majority decision herein, finds it unnecessary to rely upon the rule of that decision Member Rodgers believes that under the circumstances of this case, if the Petitioner is certified as a result of the election directed herein, it should be deemed to assume the rights and obligations conferred by the existing contract. CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO . Case No. 11-CA-642. January 04,1955 Decision and Order On August 25, 1954, Trial Examiner John C. Fischer, issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and supporting briefs of the Respondent 111 NLRB No. 46. 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the General Counsel, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications : We disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding of no violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act in Fitts' statement to Shaw after her discharge that he could not give her a reference, because no plant in Sanford would take a union worker. In the context of Shaw's dis- criminatory discharge, we find that the above statement was essen • tially coercive. Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corporation, Sanford, North Carolina, and its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, or in any other labor organi- zation of its employees , by discriminatorily laying off or discharging any of its employees , or by discriminating in any other manner in re- gard to their hire, or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Engaging in surveillance of any place of union assembly, at or about the time of any scheduled union meeting. (c) Threatening its employees with loss of employment because of their union membership or activities. (d) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in, or their activities on behalf of, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (1). (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union of Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in collective bargaining or other mutual aid for protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 279 (a) Offer to Doris Georgene Shaw immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position without preju- dice to her seniority and other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole the same employee for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her, in accordance with the Board's usual remedial policies.' (c) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment records, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due. (d) Post at its plant in Sanford, North Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representa- tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. I See F IV IVootwoi tll Company, 90 NLRB 289 2 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 Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminatorily dis- charging and refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL offer to Doris Georgene Shaw immediate and full re- instatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of any place of union assembly, at or about the time of any scheduled union meeting. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment because of their union membership or activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem- bership in, or their activities on behalf of, the above-named or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interfer- ence, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1). WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza- tion, to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named 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 or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 19, 1953, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, herein called the Union, filed with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a charge that the Respondent Company, through its officers, agents, and supervisors, has coerced, intimidated, and threatened its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Act, and that the Com- pany unlawfully terminated the employment of Doris Georgene Shaw on or about July 21, 1953, because of her activities in behalf of the said labor organization and at all times since that date has refused and does now refuse to employ and reinstate the above-mentioned individual in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136). Upon the Union's charge adverted to above, the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region (Winston- Salem, North Carolina), issued his complaint dated November 20, 1953, alleging that Respondent by the acts described above, has 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 Act. After the answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices, and pursuant to the order of a Trial Examiner granting in part Respondent's motion for bill of particulars with respect to certain allegations contained in the complaint, the issues were joined and the case set for trial. A hear- ing was held in Sanford, North Carolina, between January 26 and 28, 1954, before John C. Fischer, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented and participated therein and had full opportunity to be CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 281 heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce relevant evidence. Oral arguments were made by both parties and a brief was submitted by the Gen- eral Counsel. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act admitting to member- ship employees of Respondent. II. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corporation is, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware , having, among other places , an office and place of business at Sanford, North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as the Sanford plant, where it is now and has been at all times material herein, continuously engaged in the manufacture of condensers , capacitators , and other electrical products. It was agreed that Respondent Company does not intend actively to contest jurisdiction; rather it preferred to stipulate the facts bearing upon jurisdiction , thus allowing the Board to draw such legal conclusions as may be proper. It was stipulated that the Sanford plant has only recently been put into operation , is not yet under way except in an initial sense, but that in a typical 12-month period after the plant is under way, it will cause goods to be shipped there having a value in excess of $100,000, more than 50 percent of which will come from outside the State of North Carolna; and that during such typical 12 months it will cause goods and products to be shipped from here having a value in excess of $100,000 , and more than 50 percent of which will go to points outside of the State of North Carolina. It was also stipulated that the Respondent Company does own and operate other plants in States other than North Carolina. On August 10, 1954, the Regional Director advised the Trial Examiner that he had reviewed their files and determined that the commerce informa- tion given in this case from his standpoint appears to be complete and to meet the Board's new criteria . I concur and thus is obviated the question as to whether the case should be reopened in order to elicit more information in order to meet the commerce requirements. By reason of the foregoing agreed and stipulated facts, it is found that Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and locale The background and locale of the Sanford , North Carolina, operation of Cornell- Dubilier is important because of the novelty of the questions raised in this case. During the early part of 1953 , Respondent started operations in Sanford, North Carolina, and while its permanent plant was being built, operated in rented space within the town of Sanford , "located over the express office." During this period of time, Respondent was engaged in hiring, training, and organizing employees, while making as much production as possible . Late in June, when the plant was completed sufficiently for Respondent to move its employees in, Respondent moved its now 150 employees to its new plant 3 miles out of the city. Only 3 sections of the new plant had roofs and concrete floors and the employees were placed in these 3 places. In the front of the building two groups of employees were placed in what later were to become restrooms. The third group of employees , consisting mainly of office workers, was placed in the center section eventually intended to be an office. The .employees in the two restrooms were designated as departments Nos. 1 and 2. B. Advent of the Union Mrs. Georgene Shaw, the alleged discriminatee in this case , worked in depart- ment No. 1. According to the testimony of Mrs. Shaw , and several others, the Union began its organizing attempts early in July 1953, immediately after Re- spondent had moved into the new plant. By letter dated June 29, 1953, it so in- 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD formed management officials and there is testimony that the Union claimed to rep- resent a majority of the employees. It was during the initial phase of the cam- paign that Georgene Shaw became interested in the Union-"about 2 weeks before she was fired on July 17." Mrs. Shaw, apparently, knew very little about a union but undertook to help the Union get started. She volunteered to try to get names of employees who might be interested in the Union in order for the Union to pre- pare a mailing list to disseminate information among all of the employees. Ac- cording to testimony, most of the people who were interested in the Union at that time were in department No. 1 and, because of the distance and building construc- tion obstacles between departments Nos. 1 and 2, not much was known by the sponsors of the union sentiments of the employees in department No. 2. Mrs. Shaw, therefore, arranged to contact Mrs Mae Metz, a prounion advocate, who was working in department No. 2. According to their testimony, Mrs. Shaw spoke to Mrs. Metz the morning of July 17 about securing a list of employees of depart- ment No. 2 who would be interested in forming a union. Mrs. Shaw informed Mrs. Metz that she would be down at lunchtime to pick up the list. Mrs Metz agreed to do what she could to get up such a list for her. The women were alerted to expect her and were advised of her purpose. C. The lunch hour conflict Mrs. Shaw and fellow employees Myrtle Sistrunck, Jessie Allen, Virgina Goins, and Mrs. P. Clark went to lunch together on the morning of July 17. According to Mrs. Shaw and Mrs. Sistrunck, they left the plant at exactly 11:30 and rode a short distance, which took about 2 minutes, to a small lunchroom, the "Milky Way." Mrs. Shaw testified that they ate lunch hurriedly and that she got back to the plant about 11:45 and then punched her timecard. Mrs. Shaw testified under oath, that she, herself punched the card that day. The timecard, which was produced in evidence, showed that it had been punched at 11.49. Counsel for Respondent, however, produced testimony from Mrs. Goins and Mrs Allen that it was not 11:49 when they got back but rather 12 o'clock and that they barely made it back on time. Respondent further produced the timecards for Mrs Allen, Mrs Goins, and Mrs. Clark showing that they punched in at 12 o'clock. Mrs. Sis- trunck testified that she punched her card in that day too, and her card was also punched at 11:49 The General Counsel argues that it is obvious that Mrs. Shaw and Mrs. Sistrunck came back into the plant at the time they stated and as their timecards show. He argued that it is more than likely that Mrs Goins, Mrs. Allen, and Mrs. Clark stayed outside the building smoking until it was time to come in to go back to work. There are, however, admissions by some of the girls that there was a surreptitious practice of punching in fellow employees' timecards. Lewis Cooper, Respondent's supervisor, stated further that Mrs Shaw may have been in the plant several minutes before 12 o'clock This appears likely since he gave her permission to go to department No. 2. Also, Mrs. Parker, her machine tablemate, testified she told Mrs. Shaw she would not have to secure permission to go to department No. 2 because it was still lunchtime Mrs Parker testified to the time as approximately 11:45 stating that she looked at the clock. However, with reference to Shaw's arrival at department No. 2, Mrs Mae Metz whom she was to meet testified- "I sat down to go to work around 12 o'clock, and Mrs. Shaw came in." In this welter of conflict, the Trial Examiner, perforce, must rely, for resolu- tion, on the official records which show that Mrs. Shaw and Mrs. Sistrunck returned and punched in 11 minutes before noon. Credence is lent to this because Mrs Shaw had a mission in mind-to get the union list from Mae Metz in department No. 2 during the noon hour. She also had received permission from Foreman Cooper to leave her machine and thus, ab initio, had complied with the applicable plant rule: "Do not leave your department without a pass or permission from your su- perior." In this new organization, it is clear from the testimony, including that of Plant Manager Fitts, that discipline was lax-employees signed in for each other, girls had to be rounded up from restrooms, collections and contributions were taken up, punch board lotteries were conducted, and merchandise sold without permis- sion from Plant Manager Fitts and his subordinate supervisors. His was the obvi- ous explanation that these things transpired before he knew about them, and/or caused no disturbances, that he did not have sufficient supervisory personnel. The most flagrant breach of discipline concerned a scissors fight between two of the girls Fitts warned the participants and did not fire them. Actually, the resolution of this conflict is not obligatory, because I find that Mrs. Shaw did solicit names on company time as developed below. CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 283 D. Mrs. Shaw visits department No. 2 Thus, it was under these circumstances that Mrs. Shaw presented herself, shortly before 12 o'clock, at department No. 2. Upon her arrival she received no pre- pared list of names as planned from Mae Metz, so she advantageously placed her- self before several girls, equipped herself with paper and pencil , launched into an explanation of the purpose of her mission, and followed this with successful per- sonal solicitation for signatories. In the absence of the supervisor, Mrs Jackie Gaster, certainly some commotion ensued as the girls animatedly discussed the sub- ject of unionization. The department supervisor, Jackie Gaster, testified that she returned from lunch with five other girls at "about a quarter past 12:00" 1 and found Mrs. Shaw standing between two rows of machines talking to a group of operators. She said the girls were mumbling about something, and some were away from their machines. She asked her what she was doing down there, stating. "She [Shaw] said she was get- ting the girls to sign for the Union." Gaster asked Shaw if Foreman Lewis Cooper knew she was down there and upon being told by Shaw that he did, she returned to the stockroom where she discussed the matter with Floorgirl Hazel Wilkins say- ing: "We talked it over and thought we would call Lewis [Cooper], and if he said it was all right for her to be up there, that we would let it drop " Being told that he knew Shaw was down there, she then inquired if he knew about the paper or union list Shaw was compiling. Gaster testified in this connection: "He said he knew the girl was down there, and I asked him about the paper, if he knew she had come about the paper and if she had a paper and he said, `no' . . I told him I didn't care too much about what the paper was for, but when I came in the girls were not working, some of them." Cooper then directed that Shaw speak to him on the telephone, and upon speaking with her ordered her back to the department. Gaster testified that Shaw left at about 12.25. Shaw admits that she was there 8 or 9 minutes before Gaster came back-Mae Metz having failed her, she had to get the names herself. I concluded however and find, that she left very shortly, perhaps within minutes after Gaster's return at 12:15. As Counsel Dyer said: "when the cat's away the mice will play," and Shaw took full advantage of Super- visor Gaster's late return. E. Shaw returns and is waited upon by Cooper Shortly after Shaw's return to her machine she was visited by Foreman Cooper who asked her for an explanation as to what she had been doing down there so long-to which she replied that she had been getting names signed up for the Union. In the course of this discussion, Cooper asked to see the paper, but she refused to show it to him. Cooper then had to make his inspection rounds, and she took this opportunity to dispose of her list by handing her paper of names to her friend, Mrs. Sistrunck . Cooper, admittedly, returned to her 2 or 3 times, each time requesting the same information but without success and , not knowing "exactly what to do," then decided to call Manager Fitts-who advised him to bring Shaw to the main office. Shaw's version of these colloquies, which I accept, was : "He [Cooper] asked me where the paper was at and I told him I had put it up ; I didn't have it; and he wanted to know where I had put it, and I didn't tell him, and he asked me who the people were." Ten minutes later : "He asked me for the paper again, and I told him I didn't have it, and he asked me who the people were and I told him I didn 't know; and he asked me didn't I know I could lose my job if I didn't tell him who the people were, and I told him no, I didn't. . He said I could lose my job and asked for the paper and left." [Emphasis supplied.] She further testified that Cooper returned in about 10 or 15 minutes, again asked for the paper, stating that if she did not get the paper she would have to see Mr. Fitts, and that there was a chance that she would lose her job if she did not get the paper. Cooper's testimonial reason for repeatedly visiting Shaw at her machine was that he "was trying to find out what actually hap- pened in No. 2 building . . . how much disturbance was caused by her being there . my only concern about this list was how much disturbance she had caused while getting this list." He denied telling her she could lose her job if she did not give him the list. i Ida Mae Banks, the stockroom girl, testified that she rang the starting bell and punched timecards at 2 minutes past 12 for employees Gastei, Alai inelli, Dobie, Tucker, and Wilkins, but it was about 12 • 15 when they came in their department (It is to be recalled that Gaster was referred to as a supervisor and Wilkins as a floorgiil ) 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cooper, however, on August 24, 1953, had given the following affidavit to a Board field examiner: I have been working for Cornell-Dubilier Electric Corporation, Sanford, North Carolina, for last 4 months. For the last 3 months I have been foreman of the Electrolytic Winding Department. I am responsible to W. H. Fitts, personnel manager. At present I supervise 90 employees. Georgene Shaw worked in my department as a winder. She did average work but it seemed difficult to keep her on her machine. She would leave her machine frequently for one reason or another. The employees are permitted to go to the coke machine or rest room during working hours. Otherwise they are supposed to be at their machines unless there is some official business elsewhere. When I became foreman of my department I noticed that Shaw was away from her machine more frequently than the other employees. Over a period of time I warned her 6 or 7 times about this. This warning was given to the entire group. I told her on one occasion I would let her go if she did not improve in this regard. On July 17, right after lunch, Shaw told me she wanted to go to another de- partment for a few minutes. I was under the impression that it was something in connection with her ride to and from work and gave her permission. I got busy with something and forgot about it. About 30 minutes later the supervisor in the other department, Jackie Gaster, telephoned me and told me that Shaw was going around in her department and talking to the girls there. Gaster asked what she was doing there. I told Gaster to send Shaw back. When Shaw came back I decided to let her go as I thought I had given her enough warnings. I asked Shaw what she had been doing in the other department. She replied she was going around to each girl and having them sign union cards. I asked who had given her permission and why she had taken time off from her work to do it. Shaw replied that some of the girls had asked her to do it, that some of the girls had been nice to her when she was sick. I asked to see the list she was using because I did not know what it was. Shaw resented this and, said that before she would show me the list she would quit. I then told her to go see Fitts with me. We went to see Fitts. She told him the same thing she told me. She again refused to turn over the list. She went back to her job. Fitts and I discussed the matter and decided that in view of her past record we would' let her go. However, I neglected to pull Shaw's card on Monday, July 20, so she worked until the end of the shift on July 21. At that time I told her she was laid off. Between July 17 and 21 I asked her again one time for the list but she refused to give it to me. I have not seen her since she was laid off. When summoned by Supervisor Hilda Talley who deposed that she had warned Sbaw several times about leaving her machine, she joined Cooper at his office and he escorted her to Manager Fitts' office. She testified to their conversation en route: "We talked on the way and he asked me for the paper, or asked me could I point out the people who signed the paper, and I told him I could, but I would not; and he asked me did I think more of my friends than I did my job, and I told him I thought my friends meant a whole lot to me." This interrogation Cooper denied, but I credit it as recited by Mrs. Shaw. F. Mrs. Shaw on the carpet Upon arrival at Manager Fitts' office Shaw testified: "I spoke and he spoke, and I said it looks like I got in a little trouble, don't it, and he told me not exactly." In this connection Fitts testified, saying: "well, maybe not, . . . I asked her what she was doing away from her department and she said that she had permission from Mr. Cooper to go down to the other department and I asked her what she was doing down there and she said she was getting signatures of girls for the purpose of forming a union, and I asked her what was on the paper; she said she did not know; I asked her how many signatures she got, she said not over two or three, that there were sev- eral of them that told her it was all right and she put the names on there herself. I asked her if she would let me se the paper? And she said no, and I asked her where she got the paper to begin with, and she said she was not going to tell, so I dropped it at that." 2 0 Fitts' recital was that Cooper "told me that she had left her department in the Plant No. 1-and was down in Plant No. 2, and was causing quite a disturbance down there, that she had some kind of paper she was trying to get the girls to sign up and she was causing a disturbance, and had been away from her department a good long while." Cooper testified that she asked him for permission to be gone only a short time-"a couple of minutes or so to see a girl." CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 285 Shaw's further recital of the meeting was as follows: "He asked me did I know what the Union was, and I said no, not much, and he said they were nothing but a bunch of Communists. He told us how much the union people would make off of us, the people of the plant would pay so much a month to belong to it, by the month or year. He asked me who the ringleader of the Union was, and I told him I didn't know who she was ... he said that the plant people [management] could not sit around and let grass grow under their feet while the union people went to work. [Emphasis supplied.] With reference to the compilation of the list, there are two versions: Fitts testified as above, that Shaw told him that she wrote all but 2 or 3 of the names on her list, while she testified that "all of them put their names but the one." In this connec- tion she stated: "and he told me if I put one name on the paper to take it off, for the union people forged names on papers so they could get a vote in the plant." Having carefully observed the demeanor of these witnesses, intently listened to their recitals on direct and cross-examination, and weighed their varied testimonies, I have come to the conclusion that these particular events transpired substantially as given by Shaw except that she equivocated in saying all of them put their names but the one. Nevertheless, it does not follow that simply because one does not believe a particular thing to which a witness testified that everything he says must then be rejected. Judge Learned Hand states the rule thus: It is no reason for refusing to accept everything that a witness says because you do not believe all of it; nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some and not all. N. L. R. B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F. 2d 749 (C. A. 2). G. Shaw is fired Shaw then returned to her machine and finished the day. This day being Friday, she came in Monday and worked all day without talking with Fitts or Cooper. Al- though Fitts came into her department around 2 o'clock on Tuesday, he did not speak with her, but Cooper talked with her on two occasions-once right after Fitts left the department and again half an hour later. The first time "he asked me if I had de- stroyed the paper. I told him yes, I had . about thirty minutes later he came back and asked me could I stay over some after we got off from work, and I told him no, the lady riding with me had to go take her child to the doctor. He asked me if I had destroyed the paper again and I told him yes, I had." She testified that at 3:30 she went up to Cooper's desk: "He spoke and 1 spoke and he gave me my daily time card and told me to punch out and told me to take it and give it to Mr. Fitts." She then went to Fitts: "I give him my papers and told him I would come back and talk with him on Wednesday morning, because I was in a hurry, and he said all right, that is fine." On Wednesday morning, July 22, she met with Fitts and asked him the rea- son for her being fired, saying: "He said for working for the Union on company time." Shaw testified: "I asked him was there any possible chance of me keeping my job because I needed it. . . . I told him I needed a job for my husband was flat on his back from an operation and he was in a cast, and he said he already knew [what] my family problems were. . . . He said I could get my check from the secretary, that she had them all made out; and I asked him for a reference from the plant so I could get a job somewhere else, because I needed one; and he said he could not give me a reference, because no plant in Sanford would take a union worker." She also testified that he again asked whether she had torn up the list. Shaw went back to the plant about 2 weeks later and says she asked for her job and references again, and made a final trip a week later to get her separation card .3 H. General Counsel argues In his brief and argument to me Counsel Dyer, among other things, contends: Respondent makes a great show that there was a tremendous amount of con- fusion caused by Mrs. Shaw in department No. 2. This reason for firing Mrs. Shaw was first advanced at the hearing. Mrs. Shaw was not questioned about any con- fusion. She was never told she was fired for causing any confusion . In fact, con- fusion was never mentioned to Mrs. Shaw. It is strange that the idea of confusion or disturbance first rears its head at the hearing of this matter . Previous to that and during the time that Mrs . Shaw was being threatened , all Respondent was interested in was the list of employees. Respondent admitted by its agents that it was interested 3I attributed her request for a reference to have been first made, not on the Wednesday, but rather 2 weeks later. This unimportant misstatement does not, however, destroy her as a witness. 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in this list. Mrs. Shaw was fired for getting this list. The reason given to her by the Company for being fired was for engaging in union activity on company time, not for causing disturbances. Respondent sought to stress that she was warned about staying away from work. Lewis Cooper so testified as did her other supervisor. However, when Lewis Cooper was faced with his affidavit, he admitted that the warnings had been given to groups of people, not directed at Mrs. Shaw. In fact, Mr. Cooper's affidavit, which he glibly stated he merely glanced at, shows on its face he did more than glance, since on the original affidavit a sentence was added. The sentence inserted is, "This warning was given to the entire group." This sentence is initialed by Lewis Cooper. Thus, a number of reasons were cited by Respondent as to why Mrs. Shaw should have been fired. In looking through, one sees that Mrs. Shaw was fired for not surrendering the list of names of people interested in the Union to Respondent and as a grim warning to Respondent's employees that it was not safe to have anything to do with a union. Respondent states that the disturbance caused by Mrs. Shaw was very great and that as far as the witnesses know there has never been a disturbance to equal this disturbance, however, Respondent passes lightly over the fact that there have been numerous disturbances in the plant, one of which Respondent brought to light. Re- spondent produced testimony from Mrs. Naznetz and Mr. Lewis Cooper concerning difficulties between Mrs. Seymour, Mrs. Pickett, and others. Respondent, through its own witnesses, stated that there were personal matters going on among several women which were causing great difficulty in the plant and a lot of talk and confusion. Re- spondent, through its supervisors, sought to adjust this, but not by firing any of the people involved. There were numerous other disturbances, the most serious of which was the scissors fight. It appears incredible that no disciplinary action whatever was taken in regard to this incident. Gambling went rampant through the plant. Col- lections for any and all sorts of reasons were allowed to go on during company time. Respondent neither sought to curb any of this nor did it investigate it as, according to Mr. Fitts, he should have done. However, the word "union" reared its head. Violent reprisal action was immediately taken. 1. Respondent's counsel argues Counsel Blakeney in his comprehensive marshalling argument made a forceful and compelling resume of his case to the Trial Examiner, in lieu of a brief. Among .other things he contended: Now the main thing that we are trying here, of course, is the reason of the discharge of Georgene Shaw. It is all just a question of whether or not she did certain things that would justify the Company in discharging her, and no longer retaining her in its employment. It's all just a matter of whether or not the Company was justified on this occasion, under these circumstances, in say- ing now, "we are going to fire you for that." The Statute, of course, doesn't give the Examiner, nor the Labor Board, the duty or the function of weighing causes of discharge, and in saying "well, now, we think probably the employee should have been given another opportunity; that wasn't very good grounds for discharge, we think there should have been greater cause before the Company acted." Those things are not committed to the Labor Board: the Labor Board is not put in the place of the employer. The Law says to the employer if you discharge an employee for cause other, and if your motive is not simply to penalize the employee for Union activity, but if you've got cause for discharg- ing her, then we don't weigh whether it is a good cause, or a poor cause, or a fair cause, or an unfair cause. The Labor Board doesn't undertake to deter- mine the justice, or injustice; and I repeat, it doesn't undertake to weigh causes of discharge to determine whether they are sufficient, or whether, if the Labor Board had been the employer, it would have acted upon it. So that is not the duty, nor the function of the Board. Mr. Fitts told the Labor Board man when he first came around Mr. Fitts told this lady when he let her go, "I'm firing you for working for the Union on Company time," and that, precisely, is what she was doing, and as Mr. Fitts well put it, it doesn't make any difference whether she's working for the Ladies Aid Society on Company time, it is cause for dis- charge. The fact that it was Union activity gives her no protection. This Com- pany didn't fire her instantly upon finding out about this. Why? Management is kind of shell shocked about firing folks that are engaged in Union activity. They know it's dangerous. They knew they would probably get trouble out of it. And they naturally hesitated about discharging this lady. And Mr. Fitts took his time, and said to Cooper "get the whole facts for me; find out from Gaster CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 287 just what happened." How long she was there; who all she talked to; did she stir them up and how much did she stir them up. I want all the facts ; and when he got them, and only then, did he act . I submit to you that demonstrates good faith in the matter. That shows they were trying definitely to find out if it were as she had herself stated to them . They could hardly believe, I judge, what she had herself admitted , that it was as extreme as she had said. If a Company does not have grounds for discharging an employee when it has a situation such as is proved to have existed here, that employer can't run a Plant. I submit that to be a fact. If this employer couldn't do anything to this girl for what she had done here, it might as well close up shop , and we ask you, Mr. Examiner and your Board, not to render any decision which in effect says to this Company, it doesn't make any difference if things like this go on, you are shackled. You may not discipline the employee, you may not touch her. She was on Union business; that protects her. We say to you, that cannot be the Law. Union business, Ladies Aid business, Church business, any kind of business, if on Company time, and it is creating a substantially extreme dis- turbance of work as this one was, the Company must be allowed to take action if it is to operate. That, we submit, is the gist of this case. J. Discussion The main question in this case , in light of the foregoing , is whether the motive of Respondent in discharging Georgene Shaw was actuated by antiunion animus. Mo- tive is entirely circumstantial . In an annual Board report it is stated that "upon scrutiny of all the facts in a particular case, the Board must determine whether or not the employer's treatment of the employee was motivated by a desire to encourage or discourage union membership or other activities protected by the statute." (Na- tional Labor Relations Board, 10th Annual Report, p. 162.) The Supreme Court of the United States said in N L. R. B. v. Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL, 347 U. S. 17, in reference to proof of motive: "But it is also clear that specific evidence of intent to encourage or discourage is not an indispensable element of proof of violation of Section 8 (a) (3)." The only written rule which she could have violated was that an "employee must get permission from her supervisor to leave her department." This permission she had ab imtio. When she arrived, the list which she expected had not been pre- pared and she set about doing the task herself. There was some commotion for 15 minutes until Supervisor Gaster came back. Shaw admits that she addressed eight employees and, it is charged, she personally solicited many more. Some produc- tion was lost-15 minutes by 8 girls would equal 2 hours and for all 35 or 40 em- ployees could mean a full day's production or more for 1 girl, i. e., 100 to 139 con- densers. This computation is based on Shaw's production which before she was fired was, on Wednesday, 126, Thursday, 139, and on Friday, 105. It is said that the plant was chaotic, as is evidenced by a scissors fight and other infractions, and that there was inadequate supervisory personnel. To confound the confusion, the Union made its appearance, and Shaw openly solicited memberships on company time, girls surreptitiously checked in their late companions-up to and including Supervisor Gaster and Floorgirl Wilkins. Certainly there was an unwrit- ten rule "Working time is for work." Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Peyton Packing Co., 142 F. 2d 1009 (C. A. 5). On the notice to the North Carolina unemployment compensa- tion officials, dated August 18, 1953, Shaw's discharge recited: "Discharged for in- fraction of company rule." Obviously this is the only rule Respondent could have had in mind. The question occurs: Would Shaw have been fired if she had been soliciting antiunion memberships? I am persuaded and find in view of the entire record that the Respondent was motivated by its animus against the Union in discharging Shaw, and not because she interfered with the production of a number of the girls in another department. Despite the loose discipline that had existed in the plant prior to this incident, and despite the lack of a specific rule prohibiting solicitation, the Company might well have seen fit not to tolerate the conduct of Shaw, and to have discharged her for that reason . But, the evidence persuasively shows that it was not motivated by Shaw's conduct as such, but rather by the fact that she refused to reveal the names of the employees she had gotten to sign her list. Foreman Cooper tried unsuccessfully on three occasions to get Shaw to divulge the names of those she had successfully solicited. Not only did he attempt to get this information from Shaw, but told her that unless she turned it over to him she might be discharged. Despite these threats, Shaw was adamant in her refusal to be an informer. Not having succeeded by his threats Cooper then took her to his superior, Manager Fitts. The latter did not seem to be too much concerned about her visiting the other department as he was 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in getting the signatories and the names of the union leader . But he was by Shaw's refusal to name those successfully solicited and directed Cooper to make a complete investigation of what happened in department No. 21. It is clear to me that, be- cause of her refusal to turn over this information , that Fitts discharged her half an hour after he was informed that she had destroyed her list. I am satisfied that had Shaw engaged in the identical conduct and "disturbance " by soliciting the same em- ployees to sign a list or petition opposing the Union that Fitts would not have dis- charged her as is evidenced by his surveillance of the union meeting and the sub- sequent threatening and coercive conduct of his supervisors . I find that his use of the formula "Discharged for obtaining signatures for purpose of forming a union on company time" to be a pretext designed to cover his union animus thereby en- abling him to nip in the bud the union organization activities of his employees. This is a violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. K. Supervisors One of the principal issues in this case is whether Mesdames Jackie Gaster, Hilda Talley, and Maybelle Cooper were supervisors within the meaning of the Act .4 If they were supervisors , then management is responsible for any violations of the Act which they committed . It is obvious that supervision in this plant was inade- quate in its early stages of operation , but it was during that period that the alleged violations occurred . The three women in question may not have been the best of supervisors, but they were the only ones available and of necessity were charged with the responsibility to direct the employees under them . I subscribe to and adopt the statement following, of General Counsel, as my rationale in holding Gaster, Talley, and Maybelle Cooper to be supervisors within the purview of the Act. Respondent claimed that Mrs. Gaster, Mrs. Talley and Maybelle Cooper were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Testimony produced by Re- spondent shows directly the opposite . The three ladies mentioned had jobs equal in rank to that of Mrs. Horton , another lady who was discharged by Re- spondent. In that particular case a charge was filed on behalf of Mrs. Horton by the Union. Respondent replied to the charge , stating that Mrs. Horton was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. General Counsel demonstrated that the three ladies mentioned had jobs of the same rank as that of Mrs. Horton. Respondent's claim that the three ladies did not have the same status as Mrs. Horton was discredited by their own witnesses . There was an equal amount of supervision at the time Mrs. Horton worked for Respondent as when these three ladies did. They were each in charge of departments . Over them was one man who reported directly to the top man of the plant. Mrs. Talley, Mrs. Gaster and Mrs. Cooper on mere percentages alone were certainly of a super- visory rank. Each of these women had authority over 30 to 70 other em- ployees. 'They kept these employees at their jobs. They gave them orders as to what to do . They were completely in charge of these employees when Mr. Cooper was not present, as he often was not. Furthermore , the duties of these three women were entirely different from that of any other employe They were paid on a different basis. They had different responsibilities. Their responsibility was to see that the work was done by these employees and to keep the employees working. They so testified. Mrs. Gaster, Mrs. Talley and Mrs. Cooper were held out by management as their agents. The em- ployees were told that these women were supervisors and to seek their help and to follow their orders. L. Surveillance The charge of illegal surveillance of a union meeting concerns Manager Fitts. On the night of the union meeting Fitts testified that he was having dinner with a friend. In course of their conversation the subject of Respondent's union affairs arose. Fitts testified that his friend evidenced curiosity and suggested that he drive them past the union meeting in progress at the Community House below town on U. S. Highway 53, located on a dirt road some 100 feet or more off the main highway. 6 Section 2 (11) of the Act defines a supervisor to be "any individual having authority. In the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, dis- charge, assign , reward , or discipline other employees , or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances , or effectively to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of Independent judgment." CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 289 Anyway, Fitts went there between 9 and 9:30 p. in. There is considerable conflict as to what occurred. General Counsel's witnesses Robert S. Waddell and William Dinkins relate similar versions. They testified that a large car (Lincoln) drove up and down the dirt road 2 or 3 times. Dinkins said it parked right opposite his pickup for 2 minutes or so and "they went to pull off and slipped in a ditch there . a guy [Fitts] out for some help and we helped him push it out." Four men, probably husbands waiting for their wives, extricated them. Waddell testified that the car passed the meeting hall three times. "When he was going past the third time, he stopped and sat there a minute or so and backed up and started to pull on off, and when he did, he got in the ditch." According to Fitts they did not get by the Com- munity House because "they got stuck in a ditch." I find the facts to be as given by Waddell and Dinkins. I concur with the General Counsel, and the Board and courts have held that when an employer, by its agents, places itself in an unusual position to observe its employees at a union meeting and while they are engaged in concerted activities, as was the case here, such conduct interferes with, restrains, and coerces his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby constituting a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act .5 I find this to be violative of the Act. M. Bill of particulars-findings In answer to Respondent's request for a bill of particulars General Counsel sub- mitted on January 5, 1954, 13 allegations dealing with paragraph V, subparagraph (a). He also submitted 4 allegations under paragraph V, subparagraph (b); 8 al- legations on paragraph V, subparagraph (c); 2 allegations on paragraph V, subpara- graph (d); 6 allegations on paragraph V, subparagraph (e); and 2 allegations on paragraph V, subparagraph (f). The Trial Examiner considered the various allega- tions in the bill of particulars as follows: 1. Paragraph V, subparagraph (a) (1) On or about July 16, 1953, W. H. Fitts, personnel manager of Respondent, in the city of Sanford, North Carolina, sought to determine the leader of the union movement, stating that the Respondent would take action to effectively stop the union movement. In this connection Mr. Fitts testified that his supervisor, Frances Horton, on July 16, 1953, told him there was an effort to organize. She stated that Mr. Sullivan had come to her home and that he wanted to contact some of the girls. But Mr. Sullivan told her that she would probably not be interested because she was a su- pervisor. This meeting with Fitts was held in front of Frances Horton's house. Counsel Dyer asked Fitts if at that time: "Didn't you tell Frances Horton you were out to get the ringleader of the Union?" Answer-"No, sir." Counsel Blakeney objected to this evidence as immaterial on the grounds that conversation between a supervisor and another supervisor is not admissible evidence. Counsel Dyer argued that the case of Reliance Clay Products, 105 NLRB 135, holds that the Board found that an instruction to a supervisor to discourage and impede the union although not communicated to the employees was a violation of 8 (a) (1). However, I interpret the holding in the case of Reliance Clay Products to be that evidence of this nature is only admissible to establish motive unless communicated. Mr. Fitts denied mak- ing this statement and there is no evidence by Frances Horton to substantiate it. I find no violation of Section 8 (a) (1). (2) On or about July 17, 1953, W. H. Fitts, personnel manager of Respondent, in the city of Sanford, North Carolina, sought to determine the leader of the union movement, stating that the Respondent would take action to effectively stop the union movement. The allegations contained in this section concerns the interrogation, heretofore quoted, referring to the listing of the names, and the request to surrender such list, and the warning given to Shaw at the time that she was called into his office. I find this to be interfering and threatening interrogation and therefore a violation of Sec- tion 8(a) (1). (3) On or about July 22, 1953, W. H. Fitts, personnel manager of Respondent, at the Respondent's Sanford plant, told an employee that she could not obtain em- ployment because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. 5H. Al Manufactu,ing Company, Inc., 87 NLRB 1373; E A. Laboratories, Inc., 88 NLRB 673; Sal ant & Salant, Incorporated, 92 NLRB 69. 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , The testimony involved in this instance is the testimony given by Shaw when she came"back on Wednesday morning to get her check. She asked Mr. Fitts for a ref- erence from the plant so she could get a job somewhere else "because I needed one; and he said he could not give me a reference, because no plant in Sanford would take a' union worker." She further testified: "I asked him was there any possible chance of my keeping my job, because I needed it. . He said there sure was not." Fitts testified: "She said, `Am I discharged for working for the Union,' and I said `yes, on company time,' and she asked me if that meant she could not get her job back and I told her she could not get her job back." Fitts explained that it was not the policy of the Company to give anyone references for anything saying: "we have never given one." Fitts denied that he stated that he would not give her a reference because no plant in Sanford would hire a union worker stating he had no authority to speak for other plants in Sanford I credit Shaw as correctly quoting Fitts' gratuitous as- sertion in this instance, but find it no violation of 8 (a) (1) in interfering, restrain- ing, or coercing her in her union activities. (4) On or about July 22, 1953, W. H. Fitts, personnel manager of Respondent at the Respondent's Sanford plant, although permitting various types of solicitations, fired Doris Georgene Shaw for soliciting on behalf of the Union. The answer to this allegation is that she was fired for soliciting on behalf of of the Union on company time. The motive being antiunion it follows that a violation of 8 (a) (1) is involved (5) On or about October 21, 1953, W. H. Fitts, personnel manager of Respond- ent, in Sanford, North Carolina, told an employee that the Respondent was firing employees because of the Union. The evidence relied on in this instance involved a telephone conversation between Mrs. Gladys Vaughn and Mr. Fitts on or about October 21 at which time she told Fitts that some of the girls were saying "that you would be fired if you had anything to do with it [the Union] and I would like to know." According to her, his reply was, "You would not be fired, but they didn't want it in the plant." She testified she had asked him about some 20 girls getting fired and leaving in confusion. He is quoted by her as saying, "Did you see all that confusion that took place this after- noon? And I said, `Yes' and he said `that [the Union] was the cause of every bit of that"' The confusion referred to was the firing of some 18 or 20 girls. Fitts denied this version, stating: "I believe I did make the statement to her though that she would not be fired on account of any union activity" but denied saying that 20-odd girls had been fired the day before because of the Union. It is incredible that Fitts would have made this statement over a telephone to a person who would not even give her name or come to his office. (6) On or about October 29, 1953, W. H. Fitts, personnel manager of Respond- ent, at or near Sanford, North Carolina, spied upon and kept under surveillance a union meeting which took place at the Community Building on Highway 53. This allegation relates to the question of surveillance which has already been handled in this report and found to be a violation of 8 (a) (1). (7) On several occasions on or about July 17, 1953, Lewis M. Cooper, fore- man for Respondent at the Respondent's Sanford plant, warned and attempted to persuade and coerce an employee to stop a listing of names of persons inter- ested in the Union from reaching the Union and to surrender said list to the Respondent and to report the names of the individuals on the list to the Respondent. This allegation covers the subject matter of the interrogation and threats by Cooper of Shaw at her machine, also en route to Fitts' office, and subsequently when she was discharged. I find them to be coercive and violative of Section 8 (a) (1). (8) On or about July 22, 1953, Lewis M. Cooper, foreman for Respondent at the Respondent's Sanford plant, warned an employee not to have anything to do with the Union and questioned the employee as to her signature on a document prepared for the Union. This allegation relates to a meeting about 9 30 outside the door of department 2 with Lewis Cooper and Helen Naznetz. at which Annie Pickett and Elsie and Margie Seamore were present. Cooper said that the meeting concerned a personal matter: "Mrs. Pickett was crying about something Margie Seamore had said about her." Naznetz and Pickett both testified this meeting concerned a personal matter, and Pickett testified this meeting had nothing to do with the Union. However, accord- ing to Margie Seamore: "Lewis Cooper said he could not understand why I would sign a Union Card, I asked him did he see a Union Card that I had signed; he said he did see a Union Card and he smiled, and I said are you sure that you seen a Union Card that I signed and you are sure it is my signature, and he said, no, said I seen a Union Card with your name on it, but we made Georgene Shaw admit CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRIC CORPORATION 291 it was not your signature , but said that these Union People were a bunch of crooks and they had your name forged on that card." Q. What did you tell him? A. Well, I told him that I gave the girl permission to put my name on the paper, and I also asked him did he see a piece of paper and he said he did, that they had it at the office. Q. Now, was anything further said? A. Yes, sir, he told me that I had better be particular and not have any- thing else to do with that whatsoever, I asked him if I was going to be fired about it, he said no, not now, just don't have anything else to do with that because it is just a bunch of crooks that is trying to get a union down here. Cooper denied making these statements and Pickett and Naznetz denied hear- ing Cooper say the above. Pickett stated, "If he said it, I didn't hear it and I was standing there." Naznetz said she was standing there during the entire conversation. Seamore stated Pickett and Hurley were present when part of the conversation about the Union took place, but left before hearing the entire conversation between her and Lewis (Cooper) and Helen Naznetz I credit her testimony because Seamore was the first signatory and she would naturally defend her action. Such a warning was in character with Foreman Cooper. I find this threatening interrogation to be a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (9) On or about October 19, 1953, Lewis M. Cooper, foreman for Respondent at the Respondent's Sanford plant, told an employee that the Respondent was going to stop all union solicitations, although permitting all other types of solicitations. In connection with this allegation, Gladys Vaughn testified that on the Monday before the 20 girls were fired (Wednesday, October 21), shortly after lunch, "As I walked up, I heard Edna (Brogden) telling Lewis (Cooper) that Laura Hart and myself were really riding those girls in the bath room trying to get them to sign Union Cards; and Lewis Cooper said, `well we will soon put a stop to that.' " It was during lunchtime that they were soliciting the girls to join the Union. Later she testified that Laura Hart was 1 of the 20 girls fired. Q. There are plenty of girls down there that were active in the Union that are still there? A No, sir. Q. Are you the only one? A. I am the only one in our department. Mrs. Vaughn said, however, that she did not know about the leaders in the union movement in the other departments. Mrs. Brogden testified that she "asked Lewis if it was all right for the girls to high pressure the new girls in the rest room about joining the Union, and he asked me if it was during Lunch Hour and I told him that it was, and he said, `well, that is all right, if it were during Lunch Hour.' " She denied that she mentioned Gladys Vaughn by name to Cooper, but admitted telling him that Irene Hart was talking to the girls. She denied that Cooper said, "well, we will put a stop to that." Cooper also denied making the statement, but I credit Mrs. Vaughn. I find this threat to constitute illegal interference of protected union activities. (10) On or about October 22, 1953, Lewis M. Cooper, foreman for Respondent at the Respondent's Sanford plant , threatened to discharge an employee unless the employee abandoned her activities in behalf of the Union Apparently, this allegation involved an altercation with Cooper when Mrs. Vaughn was caught copying, from the bulletin board, production rates of some friends who had been fired Counsel Blakeney as well as I, myself experienced dif- ficulty articulating it in the bill of particulars. She quoted Cooper as saying- "If you don't give me those papers, you won't be here more than another week." Cooper denied this and justified his position contending that she had no right to the company efficiency records without authority from the Company nor a right to use his tele- phone to send out personal records. I credit Cooper and find no violation of the Act in this incident. (11) On or about July 29, 1953, Maybelle Cooper, supervisor for Respondent at Respondent's Sanford plant, warned an employee that Respondent was keeping her union activities under close surveillance and that she would be discharged unless she abandoned the activities and ceased solicitation for the Union on Respondent's property , although Respondent permitted various other types of solicitation. This allegation involves a conversation between Mrs . Annie Belle Parker and May- belle Cooper at Mrs. Parker's machine in which Maybelle is alleged to have said, "Parker, I am telling you as a friend," said ; "Watch your step ," said; "they know 344056-55-vol. 111---20 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that you are for the Union," and said, "You are going to be the next one on the list fired"; ... she said , "You know Georgene was fired and you will be the next." Parker continued to discuss her right to talk about the Union before and after work. She quoted Cooper as saying, "Parker, don't do anything on the ground" and I said, "I will pass out cards anytime I am off duty." I find this to be a threat under Sec- tion 8 (a) (1). Maybelle Cooper was a supervisor and did not testify in this case. (12) On or about August 3, 1953, Maybelle Cooper, supervisor for Respondent in or near Moncure, North Carolina, warned an employee not to go to a union meet- ing and on the following day inquired whether the employee had gone to said meeting. In this connection Laura Irene Hart testified and quoted Cooper as saying, "she said I will advise you not to go to the union meeting, Irene, it will probably cost you your job." Mrs. Hart quoted Maybelle Cooper as asking her if she had gone to the meeting and when she replied that she had, stated , "I hope it won't cost you or cause you any trouble." Supervisor Maybelle Cooper did not testify and I find this to be a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act being interrogation. (13) On or about October 22, 1953, Jackie Gaster, supervisor for Respondent at the Respondent's Sanford plant, told an employee that persons discharged the day before were discharged because of the Union. Mrs. Irene Hart testified to a conversation between herself and Jackie Gaster, her supervisor, that the day after the 20 girls were fired: "Jackie said she knew the girls were fired on account of the Union, because there was no other reason they could have been fired." Supervisor Gaster stated, "I have never expressed myself-my opinion-in any way; I have expressed my own personal opinion about the Union in there but never did it that way; I was told they were fired for low efficiency, but I have never expressed those words like that. . . . We talked about it a lot in there and I told them they probably might have been, I didn't know, told them. I said could have been, that I was told they were fired for low efficiency." In this connection she testified : "I will tell you exactly. I was mad because they had fired the girls, I really was. They were all my friends I thought and she asked me if I thought they were fired because of the Union; the girls had been there a long time and they had been making good, and I thought that was good enough and my opinion was that they were." In resolution of this matter, I find there was no violation of the Act. 2. Paragraph V, subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e ), and (f) The evidence, recited and relied upon, with the findings thereon in the bill of par- ticulars, paragraph V, subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are comprehended within, consonant with, and keyed into 1 or more of the 13 allegations or counts of paragraph V, subparagraph (a), set out immediately above . In the interests of econ- omy of time and space , the count involved in each subparagraph is followed by a citation of the applicable section of subparagraph (a) thus: Paragraph V (b): 1. violation, see (a)(2); 2. violation see (a)(7); 3. viola- tion see (a) ( 8); 4. violation see (a) (12). Paragraph V (c): 1. no violation, see (a)( 1); 2. violation see (a )(2); 3. no violation see (a)( 3); 4. no violation see (a )(5); 5. violation see (a)(7); 6. no violation see (a ) ( 10); 7. violation see (a ) ( 11); 8. no violation see (a) (13). Paragraph V (d): 1. violation see (a ) (2); 2. violation see (a) (7). Paragraph V (e) : 1. violation see (a) (2); 2. violation see (a ) (6); 3. viola- tion see (a)(7); 4. violation see (a)(8); 5. violation see (a)( 11); 6. violation see (a)(12). Paragraph V (f): 1. violation see (a)(4); 2. violation see (a)(11). IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section II, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices by interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees . It will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. PUERTO RICO FOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION 293 It has also been found that the Respondent has discriminated against Doris Georgene Shaw in regard to her hire and tenure of employment . It will therefore be recommended that the Respopdent offer to Doris Georgene Shaw immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position , without prej- udice to her seniority and other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have normally earned less net earnings ,6 which sum shall be computed on a quarterly basis during the period from the discriminatory discharge to the date of proper offer of reinstate- ment, in accordance with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company (90 NLRB 289 ). It will also be recommended that the Respondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of back pay due. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Doris Georgene Shaw, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. (Recommendations omitted from publication.) 6 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440 PUERTO Rico FOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION and UNION INDUSTRIAL AMALGAMADA NUM. 1. Case No. 24-CA-438. January 24., 1955 Decision and Order On August 9, 1954, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' ' The Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner erred In ruling that it had not presented competent proof of a settlement agreement . It argues that the complaint should be dismissed because it informally settled the case with the Board. It relies on an oral agreement which, it asserts , it reached with the Board 's field examiner , and with which it complied in part. The Respondent does not rely on any statement or act by the Board's Regional Director settling the case , and the evidence discloses none. The Respondent's representatives (its president, general manager, and attorney ) testified to attending a conference with a Board field examiner in December 1953 at which they indicated that the Respondent was willing to reinstate the alleged discriminatees and post the customary notices prepared by the 111 NLRB No. 47