Coats & Clark, Inc.

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] MEMBER LEEr o1Vr took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. Coats & Clark, Inc. (Acworth Plant) and Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1941. April 14, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On September 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon 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 Inter- mediate 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 rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner with the following addition." We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Walker Glover. The Respondent con- tends that it discharged Glover because it had received numerous com- plaints concerning his frequent and inordinately long absences from his place of work, and because on the day of his discharge he disre- garded his instructions to stay on a specifically assigned job until it was completed. The record shows that Glover, a twister cleaner, had been a "pretty good hand," and that the Respondent had made no complaints about his work for a period of 6 years. Then, on August 20, 1953, he signed a union card and became active in the organization of the Respond- ent's employees. The Respondent knew of and disapproved Glover's union activities,2 and, significantly, its appraisal of him and his work performance began to deteriorate simultaneously with this knowledge. Furthermore, in the period that followed, it unlawfully interrogated Glover on 2 occasions, and on 5 other occasions, it either threatened 'The Tiial Examiner incorrectly repotted that Mr. and Mrs Glover attended a union meeting on October 17, 1954 The correct date is October 17, 1953. 2 Although the Respondent denied knowledge of Glover' s union activities its witnesses admitted that they knew In August 1953, that Glover was talking to other employees about the Union . In November 1953, the Respondent 's second shift overseer told an employee that the union organizer was not going to do his work for him, and if lie was lined up with the Glovers, "to liell" with him. 112 NLRB No. 27. COATS & CLARK, INC. 147 employees with job reprisals or unlawfully interrogated them con- cerning union activities. It also referred to the organizing activities as the spreading of propaganda and poison. Although the Respondent alleges that it received numerous com- plaints concerning Glover's absences from his place of work, it never threatened him with discharge and was able specifically to identify only two occasions on which he was reprimanded for any reason. On February 26, 1954, the day of Glover's discharge, he was instructed to stay on his job and set up and start a twisting machine. Subse- quently, he was allegedly discharged for leaving his place of work twice, once to go to the supply room to get supplies, and once to go to another part of the plant where he assisted his wife and another female employee by doffing the spindles on their winding machines. The record shows that getting supplies from the supply room had been a part of Glover's duties, and at the time in question he was getting supplies for use in the job to which he had been assigned. There is no showing that he was ever instructed to refrain from going to the supply room to get supplies. Although doffing spindles was not considered a part of his regular duties, it had been Glover's practice in the past to assist his wife and the other winding help in this manner. He did this on ills own initia- tive and was never criticized for doing so. On the day of Glover's discharge the Respondent asked Mrs. Glover, a winder in the winding department, to perform extra work because another employee was absent. Mrs. Glover consented to do a job and a half but stated that in view of her physical condition, she was 51/2 months pregnant, she was afraid to doff all the spindles. The Respondent's overseer, Brown; told her that he would do the doffing for her. An hour later Mrs. Glover informed the overseer that her spindles were ready, and he told her he would come over and doff them. However, when another hour had passed without the overseer's coming, she looked for him again, and, being unable to find him, she went to Glover's department and asked an employee to tell her huband to come to her assistance. When Glover returned from the supply room, he was informed of his wife's request, and he went to her place of work. After he had finished doffing his wife's spindles, at his wife's suggestion, he doffed the spindles for another woman winder who was also doing a job and a half. Immediately thereafter, he left the winders to return to his work. On the way he was met by the Respondent's overseer, Brown, who asked him on whose authority he had doffed the spindles. Glover said it was at his wife's request. Brown then discharged him.3 On 3 According to the credited testimony of Mrs. Glover, about 30 minutes after Glover was discharged she had a conveisation with the Respondent 's overseer , Jack Brown, in which she asked him, "Jack, did you fire walker for doffing my flame" and he replied, "That wasn't what I flied him for " 369028-56-vol 112-11 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this occasion Glover had been absent from his work for only 10 or 12 minutes. In spite of his absence and discharge, the twisting machine that he was instructed to work on was placed in operation in the normal time required for this activity. That the Respondent did not take any action against Mrs. Glover, an active union supporter, or any other employees because of union activity, itself does not establish that the Respondent did not dis- criminate as to Glover as our dissenting colleague suggests.4 Neither does the fact that Glover left his job twice on the day of his discharge require a conclusion that his discharge was disciplinary and not motivated by antiunion considerations. These events must be viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the effect of the absences upon the Respondent's business in deciding whether they provide the real reason for the discharge or only a pretext. At the time of his discharge Glover had been in the Respondent's employ for 6'/z years, and, as noted above, during the first 6 years of his em- ployment the Respondent admits that he had had a good work rec- ord. There is no showing that the Respondent's operations were hindered in any way by his absences on the day of his discharge. On the contrary, by doffing the spindles for his disabled wife, and thus making it possible for her to resume operations, and by getting supplies for the job to which he had been assigned, Glover was plainly acting in the Respondent's interest. Moreover, it is to be noted, that he did the doffing only after Mrs. Glover had waited an hour in vain for Overseer Brown who had agreed to perform the function. We do not believe that a nondiscriminatorily motivated employer would have discharged Glover under such circumstances. It is much more reasonable to infer that Glover's union activities, toward which Respondent had been hostile, were the real reason for his discharge. On the basis of the above facts, and the record as a whole, we find that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the reasons given for Glover's discharge were not the real reasons, but that they were a pretext to hide the antiunion motivation of the Respondent. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging Walker Glover.' 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, Coats & Clark, 4 N L. R. B v. W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 276 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 344 U S. 865 , Rschards and Associates, 110 NLRB 132 5 N L R. B. v. Kibler-Camp Phosphate Enterprise, 216 F. 2d 113 , 115 (C. A. 5) ; N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co, 192 F. 2d 160, 162-163 (C A. 2) ; The Plastic Holding Company, Inc, 110 NLRB 2137 COATS & CLARK, INC. 149 Inc. (Acworth Plant), Acworth, Georgia, and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with economic reprisals because of their union affiliation and activities. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or activities on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (c) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- charging any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (d) 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 Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such ac- tivities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment 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 Walker Glover immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner provided in the sec- tion of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re- ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Acworth, Georgia, copies of the notice at- tached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of such notice, to be fur- nished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it 6In the event that this Order is enforced by 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 " 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply therewith. MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part : I do not believe that the record shows that the Respondent discrimi- natorily discharged Walker Glover. On February 26, 1954, the day of Glover's discharge, the Respond- ent's production was being held up because of building repairs and an insufficient number of operating twister machines. To alleviate this situation, the Respondent decided to set up and start another twister machine. The Respondent assigned Glover, a twister cleaner, and two other employees to do this job. According to testimony credited by the Trial Examiner, Plant Manager Hilley told Glover, "Walker, we have got to get this twister started up, and we are getting complaints about you leaving the job and being gone too long. Stay on the job today and get this twister started up." Getting the twister started up was an 8-hour job. The plant manager also told Overseer Brown, according to the credited testimony, that Glover had been leaving the job entirely too much, that he was to "stay on him and get this twister started up," and that he was to discharge Glover if the latter left his work except to go to the warehouse or to the canteen for his supper. Notwithstanding the plant manager's order to stay on the job, Glover left his work twice, once to go to the supply room, stopping to talk to a watchman, and a second time to doff the spindles of his wife and those of another worker. Doffing spindles was not part of Glover's regular job, although he performed that work on occasion. The evidence is undisputed that Glover did not ask the permission of his supervisor, Overseer Brown, to leave his job either to go to the supply room or to doff the spindles. Brown, however, learned that Glover had left to go to the supply room, and saw Glover talking to the watchman. Noticing that Glover was missing a second time, Brown went to the warehouse and there observed Glover doffing spindles. When Brown asked Glover on whose authority he had left his job to doff the spindles, Glover answered that he had done so at his wife's request. Brown thereupon discharged him. The Trial Examiner found that Glover's deviation from his instruc- tions, although a valid reason for Glover's discharge, was a pretext and not a real reason. He found that the real reason for the dis- charge was the Respondent's hostility toward the Glovers because they had taken an active and open part in the Union's organizing COATS & CLARK, INC. 151 campaign. I do not agree that the General Counsel has established the pretext theory by a preponderance of the evidence. Before being assigned to the twister job on February 26, Glover was warned about his frequent absences and was instructed to stay on the job. He ignored the warning and instructions and absented himself from the job without the approval of his supervisor. Overseer Brown then discharged him in accordance with his own previously received instruc- tions. There is no evidence here of entrapment, as the Trial Examiner insinuates but, significantly, does not find to have been the case. The order to Glover to stay on the job was clearly reasonable in the circumstances. No action whatever was taken against Mrs. Glover. Nor is there any showing that any action was taken against any other employee because of union activity. Although the evidence shows some hositility on the part of the Respondent toward the Union and toward Glover because of his union activities, that evidence, without more is not sufficient, I believe, to convert what clearly is a discipli- nary discharge into an unfair labor practice. The fact that an em- ployee is active on behalf of a union does not give him a privileged status. Nor does an employer's hostility to a union deprive him of the right to take warranted disciplinary action against an employee for reasons unconnected with the latter's union activities. Accordingly, I would find, contrary to the Trial Examiner and my colleagues, that the Respondent discharged Walker Glover for cause, and not for discriminatory reasons. MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX 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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals because of their union affiliation and activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their member- ship in, or activities on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner con- stituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of our employ- ees, by discharging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Work- ers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer Walker Glover immediate and full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to the seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. COATS & CLARK, INC. (ACWORTH PLANT), 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 This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein referred to as the Act, was heard in Marietta, Georgia, May 25, 1954, pursuant to due notice. The complaint as amended at the hearing was issued April 30, 1954, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.' Based on charges duly filed and served , the complaint alleged in substance that Respondent 2 had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by: ( a) Discharging Walker N. Glover on February 26, 1954, because of his union activities and (b ) on various occasions interrogating its employees regarding their union activities ; threatening its employees with reprisals or promising them benefits in connection with their union activities; and keeping under surveillance its employees' union activities. Respondent's answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Briefs were received from both Respondent and the General Counsel. At the end of the General Counsel's case-in-chief Respondent's motion (opposed in part by the General Counsel) to dismiss the surveillance allegations of the com- plaint was granted. i The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board . Coats & Clark, Inc (Acworth Plant ), is referred to as the Respondent and sometimes as the Company; Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is referred to as the Union The "Acworth Plant" portion of the name was added by amendment at the hearing COATS & CLARK, INC. 153 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 RESPONDENT For the calendar year prior to the issuance of the complaint Respondent, in the operations of its Acworth plant, purchased raw materials, equipment, and supplies valued in excess of $500,000 of which more than $250,000 worth were purchased and shipped from outside the State of Georgia. During the same period at the Acworth plant, Respondent sold finished products valued in excess of $500,000 of which more than $400,000 worth were sold and shipped to points outside the State of Georgia. I find Respondent to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issue The main issue in this case is whether or not the discharge of Walker Glover, an employee of 7 years' standing, was for cause or, as contended by the General Counsel, was motivated by his union activity. The facts, as found below in more detail, show that Respondent was disturbed and antagonized in the latter part of 1953 and the first part of 1954 by a union organizing campaign involving its Acworth and Clarksdale plants. Respondent's opposition to the Union was reflected in several demonstrations of interference , restraint, and coercion towards its employees with respect to their union activities. Particularly pointed was Respondent's preoccupation with and animosity toward Glover and his wife ( also an employee) for the part they were taking in support of the Union. In this background and the light of 61h years of admittedly good work, Glover was discharged ostensibly because he had disregarded instructions to stay on a specifically assigned task until it had been com- pleted. This instruction allegedly was motivated by a preceding 6 months' period of complaints and warnings to Glover about time-wasting in the performance of his work. B. Respondent's opposition to the Union outside the 10 (b) period Two or three days after the union organizer called at the Glovers' home on August 20, 1953, and got them to sign union application cards, according to Walker Glover's testimony, Hoyt Gilbert,3 then second hand on the second shift (the same shift that both Glover and his wife worked), said to Glover, "I hear there is a union man coming to your house " Glover admitted it. Gilbert said, "I wouldn't have thought you would think of such a thing." Glover replied that he was undecided about the Union. Gilbert left and returned shortly with Overseer Jack Brown. The latter asked Glover, "where was you when the war was going on?" Glover replied, "I was in the army; where was you?" Brown said, "didn't you know soldiers did not like strikes when the war was going on? If you signed a union card I want you to quit." Gilbert also told Glover, "If you signed a card it will follow you the rest of the days of your life and you can't get a job anywhere." The following day Brown and Plant Manager Hilley, the latter looking angry, came to Glover. Hilley said, "I hear you are not happy." Glover confirmed the information. Hilley said, "If you are not happy, why don't you quit?" Glover replied, "I ain't ready to quit. If you all find anything the matter with my work, lay me off." Later that day Brown returned and told Glover, "If you signed a union card we want you to quit." Marie Glover also testified that about 3 days after she signed the union applica- tion card Gilbert told her he heard that there was a union man coming to her house. As did her husband, she admitted it. Brown commented that he hoped that the employees would not organize because the mill would close. He also said, "Clark wouldn't have a contract." Mrs. Glover showed him a copy of a contract in effect at the Respondent's Pawtucket mill. Gilbert told her that the Pawtucket 3It was stipulated that Hoyt Gilbert (who gave his name In the record as John Hart Gilbert), Jack Brown, Joe Sandors, and Paul Hilley at all times material herein were supervisors within the meaning of the Act I so find 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mill had not run full time since it had been organized . On the same day Brown also told her the mill would close if they organized . He further stated that unions caused nothing but trouble and confusion and that unionism was nothing but a branch of communism. The substance of the foregoing was denied by Brown in his testimony but was not denied in Gilbert's. Notwithstanding Brown's denial I credit both of the Glovers in this instance . Gilbert was an evasive witness-even at the questioning of his own counsel. An example of Brown's lack of reliability appears in his denial on the stand that he knew Glover was for the Union until Respondent "got that indict- ment," 4 having just before that testified about accusing Glover 2 days before his discharge of "strewing propaganda and poison" around the plant which Brown clearly identified on the stand as prounion statements. As I pointed out at the hearing, pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act I would make no finding of unfair labor practices involving incidents which occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the charge . Since the foregoing matters fall with- in that limitation I attribute no unfair labor practices to Respondent as a result thereof. Nevertheless, the evidence does serve to show an aggressive antiunion atti- tude on the part of Respondent. C. Interference , restraint, and coercion On Saturday, October 17, 1954, Glover and his wife attended a union meeting at Powder Springs for the Clarksdale plant employees . The following Monday ac- cording to Glover's testimony, Gilbert asked him "what did you learn over at the union meeting Saturday? Did they promise you a job?" Gilbert further commented, "all they [the Union] are after is your money. They never run a spindle of yarn in their lives." Glover also testified that after attending another weekend union meeting at Powder Springs about February 20, 1954, Brown asked him the following Monday, "what kind of a time did you have over at the meeting Saturday ?" Glover replied that he had had a "pretty good" time. Brown then asked , "who all went from the plant over there besides you ?" Glover replied, "Jack, I can't speak for nobody but myself and I sure as hell was there myself." Brown retorted , "I have got the exact figures on how many was over at that meeting and there was 34." Marie Glover also testified about attending the October 17 meeting at Powder* Springs. According to her testimony , the following Monday, Brown asked her who in the plant was for the Union telling her he felt she would know because the union man had been coming to her house so often . On the same day Gilbert asked her how many of the employees had attended the union meeting at Powder Springs. Sometime in November 1953, Brown took Mrs. Glover to the lower end of the mill and showed her some machinery that had been shipped into the plant , telling her it was from Respondent's Pawtucket plant which had closed or was closing as fast as it could to avoid operating under a union contract. Mrs. Glover commented that she did not dispute Brown's honesty but did not believe him . Brown said she was trying to bring "outsiders" into Respondent's employee relationship and if she was she should be laid off. According to Mrs. Glover's further testimony , the night before her husband's discharge Brown told her that she and her husband must be getting paid well for the "work and talk" they were doing for the Union. Mrs. Benson testified that 2 or 3 weeks before Glover's discharge, she and three other employees (Edna Burnette , Betty Baker, and a boy named Jordon ) had been taken for a tour of the plant by Brown . Besides discussing the plant operations, Brown told them at this time "Mr. Clark had sworn and be damned that he wouldn't have an organized mill in the South ." 5 Brown also told them "he wasn't going to make any bones about it," that the employees knew how management felt and vice versa and went on to say that "Marie and Walker Glover were getting paid plenty for what they were doing for the CIO ." On May 18, 1954 , when Brown learned that Mrs. Benson had been subpenaed by the Board, he asked her if she had made any statement as to what he had said on the tour of the mill . Hearing that she had, he said "Good Lordy Mighty." About a week after the above tour Brown asked Mrs. Benson if Mrs. Glover had talked to her about the CIO lately . On or about March 2, 1954, when it was learned in the Acworth plant that the Union had lost the election at Clarksdale, Brown asked Mrs . Benson what Mrs. Glover had said about it. Mrs. Benson replied that Mrs. Glover had made no comment but that "she kinda looked sick." 4 The "indictment" could only have been the charge or the complaint which was not served upon Respondent until after Glover's discharge. 6 In substance this was corroborated by the testimony of Baker. COATS & CLARK, INC. 155 According to Mrs. Baker's testimony prior to the time she was taken on the plant tour by Browns he asked her how she liked her job, reminding her that it was only temporary but adding, "well, if you do good I think things will work out all right but it is not that you could use a knotter that you got the job, we have girls who can beat you all to pieces, you don't want to listen to any of those rumors and you don't want to mess up your reputation by going against the Company." Clifford Morris testified that the latter part of November or the first part of De- cember 1953, in a discussion about the Union among employees at the mill canteen, Gilbert had made the comment that if the employees were frank they would admit that "everybody that works for Coats & Clark was better off today than when they went to work for Clark Thread Company." Morris said, "I can't see that I am" and walked off. Thereafter Brown came over to Morris and said, "Cliff, let me tell you, Mr. Porter [the union organizer] is not going to come over here and doff these winders for you, I have been good to you and paid you more than any of the rest of them are getting and if I find out you are lined up with Pat and Walker, to hell with you." 7 This is undenied by Brown. Except for this failure to deny on the part of Brown and his explanation of what comment he made to the four employees given the plant tour,8 the foregoing was substantially denied by both Brown and Gilbert. I nave already stated one appraisal of Gilbert and Brown as witnesses. Besides those noted deficiencies, the air of exaggeration and generalization that pervades their testimony also detracts from their reliability. 9 On the other hand as to Mesdames Glover, Benson, and Baker nothing in their demeanor or deportment on the witness stand nor in the straightforward plausible presentations they made gives rise to any suspicion or doubt concerning the veracity of their testimony. Therefore, I credit their testimony as set forth above and reject the denials of Gilbert and Brown and also reject Brown's version as to what comments he made pertaining to the Union on the occasion of the plant tour. 10 Since Glover's testimony as set forth involves incidents similar to those already found. I credit it as I also credit the undenied testimony of Morris. Thus, from the foregoing evidence it would appear and I find that Respondent engaged in conduct which tended to interfere with, coerce, and restrain its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in the Act by: 1. Brown's statement to Glover after questioning him about the Powder Springs union meeting of February 20, that he had the exact figures on the number of em- ployees who attended. 11 2. Brown's statements to Mrs. Glover in November 1953 that the Pawtucket plant was closing to avoid operating under a union contract and that if she was trying to bring outsiders into the relationship between Respondent and its employees she should be laid off. 12 3. Brown's statement to the four employees on the plant tour in February 1954 that Respondent would not have an organized mill in the South. 13 4. Brown's statement to Mrs. Baker in early February 1954, that she did not want to listen to "those rumors" and "mess up" her reputation "by going against the company" coupled with his remarks that she did not get her job because she was able to run a knotter-that there were girls who could beat her "all to pieces." She did not recall the approximate date Since at the time of her testimony on May 25, 1954, she had been working only about 4 months, I find this incident to have occurred during the first part of February 1954, sboitly after she started on the job The reference to "Pat and Walker" I find was to Marie and Walker Glover In her testimony, Mrs Walker referred to a comment made to her by Brown the night before she got her maternity leave in which lie addressed her as "Pat" saying, "Pat, I hear Walker is mighty sore at me for firing him" adding, "Sometimes we have to do things that we don't want to do " This was admitted and reasonably explained by Brown in his testimony. 8l3rown explained that what he said was, "Mr. Clark doesn't have any mills organized in the south, whether he would operate one is a question, but I doubt seriously if he would " 9 To a lesser extent the two latter qualities are also demonstrated in Walker Glover's testimony For that reason, coupled with inconsistencies between his direct and cross- examinations, I do not credit Glover elsewhere in his testimony as will be shown. 10 l:rown testified that it was the policy to try to give new employees a tour of the plant so as to give their an understanding of the operations. His admission of including com- ments on the subject of unionism in this tour tends to detract from his denials of other comments on the subject "Kohler Co. 108 NLRB 207 (footnote 18) la The threatening implications of these two statements is obvious. 33 Lakeside Packing Company, 104 NLRB 902, 906. 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. Brown's remark to Morris that if he found Morris "lined up" with the Glovers- i. e., in favor of the Union, "to hell" with him. 6. Also the interrogation of the employees by Brown and Gilbert as found above I find under the circumstances herein to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. While it is no longer the policy of the Board to hold that an employer's interrogation of his employees about their union activities is a per se violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, such interrogation may still be an unfair labor practice depending on the circumstances. 14 Here, in view of Respondent's illegal opposition to the Union and its characterization of union advocacy as the strewing of poison and propaganda it would seem unrealistic indeed to consider any interrogation about such a subject as being innocuous and uncoercive. D. The discrimination Walker Glover had worked for Respondent since 1947 as a twister cleaner. Until August 1953 he had been "a pretty good hand." On August 20, that year, Glover and his wife signed application cards in the Union as a result of a visit to their home by an organizer. Thereafter, until Glover's discharge on February 26, 1954, they took an active and open part in the organization campaign being waged by the Union in connection with Respondent's Acworth plant and its plant at Clarksdale some 20 miles away. In addition to collecting signed union applications cards at the plant the Glovers, particularly Walker, were outspoken among the employees in their support of the Union and attended several union meetings at Clarksdale. Seemingly simultaneously with his interest in the Union, Respondent's favorable reaction to Glover as an employee began to deteriorate. From November 1953 on, according to Respondent's evidence, Glover's supervisors received "numerous" com- plaints about his work from his fellow cleaners. These complaints, unspecified as to identifying details involved (1) Glover's inordinately long absences in the water- house which tended to shift more work to his fellow cleaners and (2) his slowness in getting supplies which tended to keep his fellow employees idle.15 It appears that the complaints about Glover also pertained to his union activity. Thus, about 2 weeks before Glover's discharge in a discussion about the Union between L. E. Simmons, J. D. Brooks, and Glover in the Waterhouse, Simmons told Glover "that the Union couldn't force Coats & Clark to run," that Respondent could close the mill if it pleased. Glover departed looking angry, but later stopped to pursue the question with Simmons further. At that time Glover became profane in his com- ments. Simmons finally told Glover, "the best thing you can do is get out and leave me alone" which Glover did. Simmons reported the incident to Second Hand Shelton.is From the testimony of Supervisor Jack Brown, it appears that 2 days before Glover's discharge the second hand told Brown that Glover was "trying to sell Mrs. McPherson with the idea she wouldn't have to operate 34 sides if they organized." On the basis of this report Brown told Glover he had to stay on the job and "stay out of other parts of the mill strewing his propaganda and poison." The evidence shows and I find that Glover's duties took him to other parts of the mill. Besides cleaning twisters in the warehouse he also got supplies for the cleaning work which were located at the opposite end of the mill some 400 feet from the twister room where the major portion of his work was located.17 The occasion of the above reprimand to Glover is I of 2 incidents prior to the day of his discharge specifically identified in Respondent's evidence although Gilbert and Brown both testified about Glover's being reprimanded concerning his work 14 Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591. 16 There is no showing that enforced idleness of the cleaners affected their earnings ; they were paid on an hourly basis. 16 Simmons was asked the leading question whether he told Shelton that Glover's con- duct had upset him or interfered with him in any way. Simmons' answer was "It flew over me a little bit." What he meant by that remark was not explained In any event there is nothing in his testimony to show that his reaction to Glover's remarks was men- tioned to Shelton 17 According to Gilbert's testimony, about the middle of November he discussed Glover's time wasting over supplies with Brown. The latter instructed Gilbert not to send Glover for supplies anymore unless he was compelled to. Gilbert testified that he followed this instruction. Nevertheless, on the day of his discharge, it appears that Glover was still getting supplies, apparently without special instruction or compulsion. Again I am unable to credit Gilbeit's testimony. COATS & CLARK, INC. 157 on numerous occasions from about November 1953 until his discharge . 18 Glover flatly denied having ever been criticized about his work. Passing over for the moment the resolution of this matter we turn to the details of Glover's discharge. On February 26, according to Respondent's testimony, Glover, and two other employees had been instructed to set up and get started a twisting machine which had just been moved back into the main building. According to Hilley's testimony he told Glover, "Walker, we have got to get this twister started up and we are getting complaints about you leaving the job and being gone too long . Stay on the job today and get this twister started up." In the office with Brown , Hilley told Brown, "Jack, this fellow has been leaving the job entirely too much . . . . Stay on him today and get this twister started up . . He further told Brown that if Glover persisted in leaving his job and being "gone without any reasons for any length of time other than going to the water house and to the canteen for his supper" to discharge him. Glover in his testimony at first denied he had received any in- structions about the twister that day except that his coworker, Red Bennett, had told him it "was getting ready to start up." On cross-examination he admitted that he had been told to get the twister ready and started which he conceded was an 8-hour job. I credit Hilley on the matter. On February 26, Glover's wife and Mrs. Benson were each working a job and a half due to the absence of one of the other winder hands . Their work was being performed in a warehouse some 300 feet from the main building which , since the first of the year, had been used to house machinery temporarily removed from the main building to permit floor repairs there. From the undenied and credited testi- mony of Mrs. Glover it appears that at the start of the shift when she was asked to take over the extra work, Mrs. Glover told Brown she did not mind running the job and a half but, being 51h months' pregnant, she was afraid to doff the 55 spindles under her charge.19 Brown told her he would doff them for her when they were ready. About an hour after the start of her shift (both she and her husband worked on the second shift from 3 to 11 p. m. ) Mrs. Glover went to the canteen where she told Brown her spindles were ready to doff. He said he would be over shortly. After a lapse of about an hour Mrs. Glover went to the main building to look for Brown again Not finding him she asked one of the hands to tell her husband she wanted him to come over to the warehouse . Glover went to her and at her request doffed her spindles which by then she had already "broken back." At his wife's request he also doffed Mrs. Benson's. According to Glover's credited testimony as he was doffing the last of Mrs. Benson 's he saw Brown watching him momentarily before walking out of the building. Glover left immediately to return to the twister job. In the yard on the way he encountered Brown who asked him upon whose authority he had gone over to doff spindles . Being informed that it was at his wife's request, Brown discharged him. There is no conflict as to the details of Glover's discharge. However, certain additions are alluded to in Brown's testimony : After Hilley had directed Glover to keep at the twister job and Hilley had discussed the matter in the office with Brown, the latter, on his way from the office, noticed that Glover was not at the twister job. Upon inquiry he learned that Glover had gone for supplies. He further testified : I stayed quite a bit and checked all over the mill and met the first shift over- seer and we walked down the railroad track and I said, "where is Walker, he is taking too much time," and when we got to the railroad track I saw Walker in the shop talking to the watchman and presumably he saw me and we started down on the railroad track and spent 15 or 20 minutes talking and I was 19 Brown also testified about talking to Glover in December telling him he was a good man "and he ought to go ahead and do his work and quit fooling around " 19 The spindles or spools when sufficiently full (a matter left to the experienced discre. tion of the operator ) weigh 31/2 to 4 pounds It is at this stage that they are doffed or taken off the machine . Before doffing it is necessary to "break them back "-i. e , ap- parently to sever the thread being wound Mrs Glovem , small in stature , testified credibly that in doffing it was necessary to lift the spools above her head She also testified credibly that on this particular occasion all of the spindles would be coming off at the same time having been started at the same time by the previous shift-a practice which was unusual but sometimes occurred While not specifically denying that such was the case on this occasion Respondent, by showing that it was customary to stagger the running of the spools so that doffing would not take place for the entire run at one time, apparently would cast some aspersion on Mrs Glover's motives or her testimony I credit Mrs . Glover 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD watching the shop and he didn't come out and I went toward the shop-and Walker left and went toward the supply room.20 Brown did not see Glover come out of the supply room, because at that point Brown went to the canteen. He next saw Glover back working on the twister while Brown and Shelton were talking nearby. During this conversation Brown noticed again that Glover was missing. Learning that Glover's wife had sent for him, Brown went to the warehouse where he was in time to see Glover doffing the last of Mrs. Benson's winders. In his testimony Glover insisted that his job was a potpourri of duties (including the doffing of winders) almost all of which as an experienced hand he performed without orders or instructions. It would appear, however, from an official descrip- tion of the duties of twister cleaner that doffing was not a regularly recognized duty of the job. Nevertheless doffing winders could be and on occasion was required to be done by the cleaners. Moreover, whether or not it was a common practice for the cleaners to assist the distaff winders by doffing for them without directions from supervision, I find on the testimony of Mrs. Glover and Mrs. Benson that on occa- sion doffing was done for them at their request and without the specific sanction of supervision. I also find in accordance with their testimony, and that of Clifford Morris and Walker Glover that the latter did more doffing than the other cleaners, which was unauthorized by but nevertheless known to management. I also credit the Glovers' undenied testimony that they were never criticized for either asking for help with the doffing or for volunteering such help nor were they ever directed to refrain from such conduct. Glover testified that he spent no more than 6 minutes doffing for the two women that evening. Gilbert testified that it would take 20 to 25 minutes to doff 110 spindles "like they are supposed to be doffed." It did not appear in Gilbert's testi- mony whether this included "breaking back" the spools. Glover's doffing for his wife and Benson, of course, did not include that operation. The foregoing constitutes the essential evidence pertaining to Glover's discharge. As already indicated, I believe and find that Glover, on the day of his discharge, was instructed to stay on the twister job as testified to by Hilley. However, in the face of Glover's flat denial and long record of satisfactory employment it would be difficult to credit Respondent's vague generalizations as to the "numerous" other criticisms that were allegedly leveled at him 21 Certainly, as already found, if com- plaints were made to Glover by management they did not include criticism of or restriction on voluntary doffing by him. The issue thus narrowed is whether or not Glover's deviation from his instruc- tions that day when he went to doff for his wife and Mrs. Benson was really the cause for his discharge or whether, as alleged by the General Counsel, it was a mere pre- text seized upon to rationalize antiunion motivation. I find it to have been the latter. It seems to me that on the facts herein it would be impossible to reach any other conclusion. Respondent's opposition to the unionization of its employees and the illegal tactics resorted to by Respondent to combat the Union are demonstrated in the record. Also amply demonstrated in the record is Respondent's concern about and preoccupation with the part played by the Glovers in the union campaign and its antipathy and hostility toward them as a result thereof. In such light a normal or otherwise impartial appraisal of or reaction to Glover's conduct on the job could hardly be expected. Moreover, in addition to the generalizations and exaggerations in Respondent's testimony about Glover which detract from its convincingness, there are certain aspects of the evidence that raise further doubt. Thus, after originally promising Mrs. Glover he would doff her winders that evening, there is no explanation by 'Brown why he failed to do so-making it necessary for her to seek the aid of her husband after having informed Brown her winders were ready to doff and having waited for him for over an hour to doff them as he had promised. Furthermore, in face of Hilley's pointed instructions to Brown to discharge Glover if he was gone from his job "without any reasons for any length of time other than going to the water house and to the canteen for supper," it seems odd that Brown (if his testimony on the matter can be believed) would have permitted Glover to spend 15 or 20 minutes talking to the watchman and have taken no steps to comply at that time with Hilley's instructions. 20 The credited testimony of Glover shows that he was getting supplies on this occasion. 21 Evidence less general in nature has been held to be of little probative value. See Heider Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB 1185 (footnote 10). COATS & CLARK, INC. 159 Several possible explanations of this testimony occur to me: 1. Brown was not testifying truthfully . While the evidence shows that Glover did talk to the watchman on the occasion of his getting supplies that day, it may have been only for a moment rather than 15 or 20 minutes or have taken place si- multaneously with the performance of his duties. 2. Brown testified truthfully but was reluctant to discharge Glover on this occa- sion and chose to overlook the matter. 3. Brown testified truthfully but since Glover's absence was in connection with an official duty Brown felt it did not come within the letter of Hilley 's instructions. 4. Because of his support of the Union it had been decided to discharge Glover. Since he had been helping his wife doff, particularly during her pregnancy, such an occasion was to supply the pretext. To insure its occurrence that day, Brown deliberately refrained from doffing for Mrs. Glover contrary to his promise to her. In the meantime Glover presented an opportunity for discharge but because of pure preoccupation with the plan or reluctance to deviate therefrom , or because he felt that Glover's conduct did not present a safe enough vehicle for discharge he preferred to wait. While the foregoing points to the possible entrapment of Glover I deem it unneces- sary to make such a finding to support the conclusion that his discharge was dis- criminatory within the meaning of the Act. In my opinion the preponderance of the evidence in the record as a whole establishes that the reason given by Respondent for Glover's discharge was not the real reason but a mere pretext to hide Respondent's discriminatory motive.22 Notwithstanding that the reason assigned by Respondent for Glover's discharge was a valid reason, the mere existence of a valid reason is no defense where the discharge is motivated by antiunion consideration.22 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 1, 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 Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that the Respondent offer immediate and full reinstatement to Walker Glover to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay resulting from the discrimination against him by paying him a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement less his net earnings to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294. Earnings in one quarter shall have no effect upon the back- pay liability for any other such period. It will also be recommended that the Re- spondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate checking the back pay due. F. W. Woolworth Company, supra; The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch , 65 NLRB 827; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 444, 497-98. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Walker N. Glover, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent 22 That Respondent permitted antiunion considerations to govern its employment prac- tices is also shown by Brown's statement to Baker implying that she had been given her job over better qualified applicants because of Respondent's hope or expectation that she would not "mess up" her reputation "by going against the company " 23 N. L R B. v Premier Worsted Mills, 183 F. 2d 256 (C A 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. Mont- gomery Word & Company, 192 F 2d 160 , 162-763 (C A 8) 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, 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 affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Phelps Dodge Corporation , Copper Queen Branch and Interna- tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Independent, Petitioner. Case No. 921-li'C-3708. April 14,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carl Abrams, hear- ing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employ- ees of the Employer's crushing and concentrating plant. The Em- ployer and the Intervenors, Bisbee Miners Union, Local No. 22972, AFL, herein called Bisbee Miners, and International Association of Machinists, AFL, for itself and in behalf of its Local Lodge 1121, herein called the Machinists, contend that their current contract, known as the Continuing Agreement, operates as a bar to a determina- tion of representatives at this time. On October 6, 1951, the Employer and nine other labor organiza- tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, including the Intervenors herein, executed a contract known as the Continuing Agreement, covering the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Copper Queen Branch, in the vicinity of Bisbee, Ari- zona, in a production unit and in separate craft maintenance units. The crusher and concentrator plant, known as, and herein referred to 1 In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to rule on the motions of the Employer and the Intervenors to dismiss the instant petition on other grounds 112 NLRB No. 30.