Leisure Lads, Inc.

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that under the rule stated above, the alleged statement at the union meeting falls within the area of campaign propaganda which the Board will not police and accordingly, find no merit in this objection." 4. The Petitioner's other objections pertain to matters which were litigated at the representation hearing and in effect constitute a mo- tion to reconsider the Board's Decision and Direction of Election. As these objections raise nothing which the Board did not consider in reaching its original decision, we agree with the Regional Director and find them to be without merit. As we have found no merit in any of the Employer's objections or exceptions, we will adopt the Regional Director's recommendations and will overrule the Employer's objections. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast,12 we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective- bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified United Shoe Workers of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. n The Employer contended in its objections and exceptions that the election should be set aside because the Petitioner misled the Board and the Employer by purporting to give the Employer a copy of the contract placed in evidence while giving it a copy of a different contract. However, as it appears that the only alleged difference between the two copies does not in fact exist, we conclude that the Employer was given an accurate copy and find it unnecessary to consider this contention further. 12 The challenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of the election. Leisure Lads, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL. Case No. 11-CA-699. April 18,1955 DECISION AND ORDER On October 15, 1954, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie 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 In- termediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in that respect. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 112 NLRB No. 38. LEISURE LADS, INC. 187 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions 2 and briefs, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications : 1. The Trial Examiner, crediting a portion of dischargee Wise's testimony, found that Floorlady Ingram told Wise that Manager Ray had queried her (Ingram) as to "why there were so many girls going out of other units . . . because of the Union, and there were not any going out of her unit." The Trial Examiner further found that the phrase "going out of other units . . . because of the Union" meant discharge or layoff for union membership or activity, and that Ingram's remarks were violative of the Act because they contained a threat of reprisal. We do not. agree with the Trial Examiner's con- struction. The phrase "going out of other units . . . because of the Union" is ambiguous, and an adequate explanation of its meaning does not appear in the record. Accordingly, in this state of the record we do not find that Floorlady Ingram's remarks constitute a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. " The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's rulings : ( 1) Denying its application for a subpena daces tecuna which would have required the Union to produce minutes of its meetings and certain of its records pertaining to its membership rolls; and ( 2) pre- cluding it from questioning dischargee Johnston concerning the whereabouts of her signed union-membership card The Respondent argues that the rulings prevented it from impeaching the credibility of Johnston , whose testimony that she joined the Union on November 25, 1953 , was disputed by a witness for the Respondent who testified that Johnston admitted to him that she had not joined the Union until after her discharge on December 6, 1953. These exceptions lack merit When the Trial Examiner made his rulings , the date on which Johnston joined the Union was not in issue On the contrary, the Respondent' s attorney requested the subpena for the purpose of showing that all members of the Union had not been discharged ; and at the time the Respondent sought to question Johnston concerning her membership card , it offered no reason therefor. More- over, the Respondent did not renew its efforts either to secure the subpena , or to question Johnston about her membership card, after the conflict in testimony developed concerning the date when Johnston joined the Union In these circumstances , therefore, the Trial Examiner 's rulings were not improper. 2 Among other matters , the Respondent excepts to : (1) The failure of the Trial Exam- iner to find , in view of the uncontradicted testimony to that effect, that no general solicita- tion of employees to join the Union was ever made at the plant by union agents or organ- izers; and (2) the failure of the Trial Examiner to find that the Respondent hired no new employees in its finishing department after the layoff of employees Parris and Gobbles, who worked in that department. As to (1) above, the respondent contends that such a finding would lead to the conclusion that the Respondent had no knowledge of the union activities at the plant Although it appears that no such general solicitation occurred, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner , that there has been sufficient credited testi- mony adduced herein of the Respondent 's knowledge of the union activities of the dis- chargoes, to more than offset whatever inference may be drawn from the absence of a general , open , solicitation of the employees . As to (2) above , the Respondent contends that such a finding supports its contention that the layoff of Parris and Gobbles was an economic necessity dictated by a surplus of employees in the finishing department. It in fact appears that no new employees were hired in the finishing department after Parris and Gobbles were discharged . However, because two new employees were hired in this department no moie than 2 days before the discharges , such fact does not alter, in our opinion, the correctness of the result reached by the Trial Examiner , i e., that Parris and Gobbles were laid off because of their union activities. 188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. We concur with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that employee Johnston was discriminatorily discharged. In addition to the facts relied upon by the Trial Examiner to support this conclusion, we also rely upon employee Earnhardt's testimony, credited by the Trial Ex- aminer, that on the day she (Earnhardt) was discharged, Manager Rab told her, in effect, that Johnston had been discharged the previous day because of activities on behalf of the Union. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Leisure Lads, Inc., Salisbury, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from the following : (a) Discouraging membership in -United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership and activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or co- ercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, or threatening them with reprisals because of such activities. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to,form, join, or assist the Union named above, 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 bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organizaticn 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 it is found will effec- tuate the policies of the Act : (a) Make whole Sybil Johnston, Daisy Earnhardt, Vivian Gobbles, and Ruby Parris in the manner set forth in Section V of the Inter- mediate Report, entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its plant, Salisbury, North Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main- I In 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." LEISURE LADS, INC. 189, tained for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged employees Elizabeth Hartman, Joanne Howard, Susanne Howard, and Frances Wise, and that the Respondent violated the Act by virtue of the remarks of Floor- lady Ingram to employee Wise, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and 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 interrogate our employees concerning their union membership and activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, or threaten them with reprisals because of such activities. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Textile Work- ers of America, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to Sybil Johnston, Daisy Earnhardt, Vivian Gobbles, and Ruby Parris immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without preju- dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above- named Union or any other labor organization. We will not discrimi- nate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or ac- tivity on behalf of any such labor organization: LEIsmRE LADS, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge filed by United Textile Workers of America, AFL, herein called the Union , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region ( Winston-Salem , North Carolina), issued a com- plaint dated March 4, 1954, against Leisure Lads, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer on or about April 2, 1954, in which it admitted in part the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Salisbury, North Carolina, from May 4 to 21 , 1954, before the duly designated Trial Examiner . At the opening of the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint . The motion was granted over the Respondent's objection . At the close of the General Counsel's case the Respondent moved to dismiss the amended complaint . The motion was denied. At the close of the whole case the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof, as to names , dates, and other minor variances. The motion was granted without objection . The Respondent moved to strike from the record all testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel as to any statements, conversations , or actions attributed to Harry Feit, Mabel Chapman, Mildred Mur- dock, Doris Bost, and Roxie Ingram on the ground that there was no proof that they were supervisory employees or agents of the Respondent. Ruling was reserved. The motion to strike hereby is denied. The Respondent also renewed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint . Ruling was reserved. The motion to dismiss is disposed of as hereinafter indicated . After the close of the hearing the General Counsel filed with the Trial Examiner a "motion to correct the transcript of pro- ceedings and to reconsider and reverse ruling made at the hearing ." No objection to the motion having been raised by any of the parties , the motion hereby is granted. In accordance with the motion to reconsider and reverse the ruling made at the hearing, the ruling on page 240, lines 14 through 16, of the transcript , is corrected so as to show the motion to strike as denied . The General Counsel's affidavit of service and motion are received in evidence and marked Trial Examiner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and IA, respectively. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Leisure Lads, Inc., is a New York corporation , having an office and plant at Salisbury, North Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture of children's garments. The Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business Operations at its Salisbury plant, during the period of 6 months from October 27, 1953, to April 27, LEISURE LADS, INC. 191 1954, furnished manufacturing and shipping services valued at $60,364 to and on behalf of a customer-corporation located outside the State of North Carolina, which services were necessary to the operations of said customer-corporation. Approxi- mately 95.5 percent of such services were rendered upon garments which were destined for shipment outside the State of North Carolina at the direction of said customer-corporation. Said customer-corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, since it annually ships in interstate commerce goods valued in excess of $50,000. The officers and directors of said customer-corporation have overall control through stock ownership of the management and labor relations policies of the Respondent. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. Background It appears that the chamber of commerce was instrumental in bringing the Re- spondent to Salisbury. It raised $20,000 which was loaned to the Respondent in order to partly finance the building of a plant. This loan was secured by mortgage on the plant. Harry Feit was a member of the chamber's committee for raising the amount of the loan. Feit often visited the plant, until January 1954, in order to check on the work of the contractors. During September 1953, he assisted the Respondent in interviewing applicants for employment. At the request of Louis Rab, the Respondent's general manager, he notified by letter or telephone a number of applicants to report for work. At the plant Feit also assisted in directing new employees to their place of work. He did not receive any compensation from the Respondent for these services. It is found that the Respondent is responsible for Feit's statements to employees, hereinafter related and found.' The plant opened on October 27, 1953, starting with about 25 employees. By December 1953, the Respondent had over 160 employees. The employees were paid hourly rates until about January 1954, when they were put on a piece-rate basis with a guaranteed hourly minimum. It appears that shortly after the plant opened some of the employees became dis- satisfied with their working conditions. Employee Elizabeth Hartman contacted an organizer of the Union whom she had known, and a meeting of the employees was held at her home on Friday, November 20, 1953. Employees Hartman, Susanne Howard, Joanne Howard, Helen Daniel, Daisy Earnhardt, and Martha Waller attended the meeting. Radford Cope, a representative of the Union, also was present. The employees obtained union authorization cards from Cope, which they distributed to other employees at the plant, starting on Monday, November 23. The cards were distributed before and after work, and during the employees' lunch period. A second meeting of the employees was held on November 25 at the Union's hall in Spencer, a suburb of Salisbury. Employees Susanne Howard, Gladys Davidson, Frances Wise, Ruby Parris, Sybil Johnston, Joanne Howard, Jean Earnhardt, Hartman, and Elaine Barnes 2 were present. A committee was selected for the purpose of furthering the Union's organizational campaign in the plant. Other meetings were held at the union hall on December 8 and January 1, 1954. The eight employees named in the complaint were laid off or discharged between December 2, 1953, and January 8, 1954. The Respondent contends that their employment was terminated for various reasons, other than their union membership and activities, and that it did not have knowledge of such activity. In this connec• tion, Rab testified to the effect that he did not learn of the Union's attempt to organize the plant until December 14, when a representative of the Union called him. B. Supervisory status of floorladies The Respondent admits that Frances Sullivan is a supervisory employee within the meaning of the Act. She acted as the floorlady over one of the jacket lines. The Respondent contends that she also had general supervision over the plant, as an Babcock if Wilcox Company, 108 NLRP. 1622 The record indicates that Barnes was a floorlady over 1 of the 2 jacket lines until some few days before the above meeting 192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assistant to General Manager Rab. However, the record indicates that she did not exercise such general authority. Respondent contends that the other floorladies were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. As related above, Elaine Barnes was floorlady over the second jacket line until shortly before November 25, 1953. She was succeeded by Roxie Ingram, who in turn was replaced by Ruby Brown about the middle of January 1954.3 Doris Bost and Mabel Chapman were floorladies over the pants and T-shirt lines, respectively. Mildred Murdock was floorlady over the pressing and finishing department. There is considerable testimony concerning the duties and responsibilities of each of these floorladies. For the most part, the facts in this connection are not in dispute. At the hearing, the Respondent conceded that all of the floorladies, excepting Sullivan, were in the same category; and that it it should be found that one was a supervisor, then the same finding should be made as to all of them. Further, when Rab was questioned concerning the status of Chapman, Murdock, Bost, Ingram, and Brown, he testified, "I considered them all the same." Accordingly, I do not believe it neces- sary to set forth the testimony concerning each floorlady separately. Floorladies, including Sullivan, are required to punch the time clock, and are paid straight hourly rates. As of the date of the hearing, Sullivan was paid $1.20 per hour, Chapman $1.50, Bost $1, and Murdock $1.12'/2. The record does not show Brown's rate. Sullivan testified that Ingram received 90 cents per hour when she was floorlady. Most of the employees were paid 75 cents per hour before the piece-rate system was inaugurated. Thereafter, only the floorladies were paid on the hourly rate basis. During the times mentioned herein, the number of employees in each floorlady's unit ranged from approximately 14 to 30. They carried bundles from the cutting table to employees in their line, took work from the machines to other places in the plant, brought supplies such as thread to the employees, trained new employees in the work, distributed pay envelopes to the employees, collected their piece-rate tickets, changed employees from one operation to another, and at times operated machines when production on the line was held up due to the absence of employees? They advised and consulted with Rab concerning the work on their lines, and transmitted hiF orders and warnings to the employees. They also notified employees of their lay- off or discharge. The evidence shows that Rab usually goes to New York City each week, and is absent from the plant on Thursday and Friday. When he is away he calls the plant and talks to about two of the floorladies each day, according to whether or not they have any problems on their lines. If an emergency arose during Rab's absences, the floorladies consulted together and arrived at a decision. This occurred when Bost, at about noon on January 15, 1954, dismissed from work and sent home employees Cora Mae Hagler and Gladys Davidson because they had engaged in a fist fight dur- ing the lunch period. Sullivan was not present when the floorladies consulted, and it conclusively appears that Bost herself made the decision to send the employees home. Rab testified to the effect that during his absence floorladies had authority to send home employees who were guilty of misconduct, or to grant them leave during emergencies. At a representation hearing, held on February 16, 1954 (Leisure Lads, Inc., Case No. 11-RC-603, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). Rab was questioned and testified concerning the authority of Mabel Chap- man and Doris Bost as follows: Q. Can she hire or discharge? A. Mabel Chapman, No, Sir. Q. Can she recommend it? A. Yes, Sir, she can. Q. What weight do you give to her recommendations; I mean, then what happens? If she recommends somebody be hired or fired? A. That is up to me to decide. Q. Does she make the recommendation to you? A. That is right. Q. On what do you base your decision, once she recommends it to you? A. Well, most of the time, I call in the girl; it all depends on what it is, see? 8Ingram did not appear at the hearing as a witness. Sullivan testified that Ingram was a machine operator at the time of the hearing herein. * Murdock testified that about 60 percent of her time was spent in packing, pressing, folding, inspecting, and shipping. LEISURE LADS, INC. 193 Q. Did Doris Bost give orders? A. Well, to a certain extent she would. Q. Did she make recommendations? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could she recommend hiring and firing? A. She could recommend Q. Was her recommendation given weight? A. Not more than the others. Q. What others9 A. Like Mable Chapman and the other ones. At the instant hearing in explanation of the above testimony Rab testified, "They [floorladies] would sometimes recommend, but most of the time I would never pay much attention to it." Concerning her recommendations to Rab, Chapman testi- fied, "I recommend sometimes, sometimes it is effective and sometimes it is not." The discharge of Hagler on Monday, January 15, 1954, shows that the recom- mendations of floorladies were effective. Concerning her discharge, Hagler testified credibly, "When I was paid off on Monday morning, Mr. Rab talked to me in the of- fice and he told me to wait a minute, he would be back and he didn't come back. Bost came back and she set down beside me and she told me, said, 'Mae, Mr Rab said it was up to me whether I worked you or not,' and if she didn't want to, she didn't have to, and she didn't want to work me and she was not going to, and she was paying me off." 5 The Board, in its Decision and Direction of Election, dated May 28, 1954, in the representation case, found, "as the record indicates that M. Murdock and M. Chap- man have authority effectively to recommend the hiring and discharging of em- ployees, we find them to be supervisors within the Act...." However, the Board found Ruby Brown, the successor of Roxie Ingram, not be a supervisor. The evidence shows that the duties, authority, and responsibilities of the floor- ladies have not changed to any material extent since the opening of the plant I find that at all times hereinafter mentioned Floorladies Chapman, Murdock, Bost, and Ingram were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. In view of the evi- dence in the instant case and particularly the Respondent's admission that all of the floorladies had the same status, I am unable to differentiate between Ingram and the other floorladies, and believe that the Board's finding with respect to Brown would have been otherwise if it had had the above facts before it at the time. C. The discharges 1. Elizabeth Hartman and Joanne Howard Howard and Hartman were hired by the Respondent on October 27 and 28, 1953, respectively. Both worked on Sullivan's jacket line. They joined the Union on November 20 at the first meeting held at Hartman's home. At the second meet- ing held at the Union's hall on November 25 they were selected as members of the Union's committee to organize the plant. Starting on Monday, November 23, and thereafter they both solicited other employees at the plant to sign union author- ization cards. Hartman testified that sometime between November 23 and 25 Sullivan came to her sewing machine; that Sullivan "opened the drawer, took everything out of it and laid it on my machine"; that when she made the remark "no fair peeping," Sullivan replied, "Oh, I am only looking for my scissors"; that she contradicted Sullivan, saying, "you have not had your scissors at my machine"; that Sullivan then put everything back in the drawer and looked under the work piled on the machine; and that her own scissors were on her machine at the time. Sullivan admitted the incident; but testified that she did not remember Hartman's remark about "peeping," and that she had loaned her scissors to Hartman the day before. Concerning incidents involving Floorladies Chapman and Sullivan the day before her discharge, Howard testified as follows: On December 1st. about 2:30 Martha Waller and I went to the Cafeteria to get a coke, and when I went in there Mabel Chapman and Rose Hol- hauser, they were waiting in the Cafeteria, I didn't have the correct change to get a coke, so I asked Mabel would she change a dime for me, she gave me two nickles, Martha had gone on to the table and Mabel got up and gave me the two nickles and I went and got the two cokes and brought them over to the table where Martha was sitting and then Mable came over to our table; at 5 Bost denied the above remarks. Her denial is not credited. 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that time when Mable came back to the table Martha was talking about how she was aggravated with her job, it was not going right and she was complain- ing about it, and Mabel went on to say she thought that was the awfulest bunch of girls over there any way that were working for Frances, said like I told Mr. Rab this morning, the next one if I was him, the next ones that come to me asking for more money, and all those connected with this Union busi- ness, if I was him I would fire them; she said, "I am pretty sure that none of the girls in my department are connected with it, but if they were and If I find out about it, I would certainly tell him so he could fire them," said like, with the Union at Yadkin Finishing Company and Irwin Cotton Mills; and I said something then about what you were supposed to do when the Floor Ladies cursed you: I mean I had never been cursed by a floor lady, but I had heard one curse and she said she didn't uphold with that at all. She didn't believe in any Floor Ladies cursing any of the girls, because after all, we are all human beings, we are not dogs; and then I said, "well, I have got to be going, and I went to the rest room," said I have got to go to the rest room, and I went to the Rest Room, and Martha Waller went with me, I think she stopped on the way for a drink of water, and I went on in the lavatory part and Martha and I were talking and Martha said she was going back and I thought she was just going out and I was finishing buckling my belt when she, Frances Sullivan, came in cursing and ordered me back to my machine, grabbed me by the arm and escorted me back. On cross-examination Howard testified to the effect that she was away from her machine approximately 13 minutes in all. With respect to the cafeteria incident, employee Martha Waller testified, "Joanne Howard and I were there, we went into the cafeteria . . . Mabel [Chapman] and that other girl and I were sitting there and Joanne was getting a drink or some- thing, and how the subject came up, I don't remember, but Mabel said that this Union stuff, said she told Mr. Rab that they ought to fire or get rid of everybody that talked the Union or wanted it." She also testified that she thought that she went to the restroom with Howard after leaving the cafeteria. Concerning the conversation in the cafeteria, employee Rose Holhauser was questioned and testified as follows: Q. Now, Martha Waller and Joanne Howard testified in this case con- cerning that conversation in the cafeteria, and they testified that Mabel Chap- man said in substance that she told Mr. Rab she would fire every girl who was in the Union. Did she say that, or anything like that? A. No, sir. Q. Did she, Mabel Chapman, mention the Union at all in that conversation? A. No, sir. Q. What did she say? A. I cannot quote her, but in my own words Mabel said if she was Mr. Rab, she would not raise wages until the girls settled down and went to work, and if they failed to do this, then, if she was him, she would fire them. Q. Now, she didn't say, did she, that she said that to Mr. Rab? A. No, sir. Floorlady Chapman denied the remarks attributed to her by Howard and Waller. She admitted having a conversation and testified , "we were talking about the seventy five cents an hour rates, some of the girls were wanting a raise, and I said if I were Mr. Rab, I would not give anyone a raise until they settled down and went to work." Immediately before Howard went to the cafeteria, she was joining shoulders, or sewing "backs to the fronts." Employee Mildred Teeter performed the next operation on the jackets, setting sleeves. Her machine was about three machines in front of Howard's on the line, and she received her work from Howard. In substance, Teeter testified that on December 1 when she had been out of work for about 10 minutes , she told Sullivan; that Sullivan immediately sat down at Howard's machine and joined shoulders for about 10 minutes ; that at the time fronts and backs waiting to be sewed were on Howard's machine; that Sullivan then went to the restroom after Howard; that Sullivan was not holding Howard by the arm when they returned; and that she had never heard Sullivan "curse" any employee 6 e A number of witnesses called by the Respondent testified to the effect that they had never heard Sullivan or other floorladies "curse" employees. LEISURE LADS, INC. 195 Employee Mary Spry testified that her machine was between Howard's and Teeter's; that she saw Sullivan working at Howard's machine on December 1; that she saw Sullivan go to the restroom after Howard; that as they returned she observed them for about 25 feet; and that Sullivan was not holding Howard by the arm. Employee Myrtle Beasley testified that she, Howard, Sybil Johnston, Roxie Ingram, Sullivan, and several other employees were in the restroom on December 1; that Sullivan said, "Now, girls, you will have to come back to your job, we have work that has to go out, and you cannot spend all day in the Rest Room"; that after Sullivan left the room, Howard said, "The next damned time she comes in here after me, something is going to be done about it"; that Howard followed her out of the restroom; that Howard caught up to Sullivan at the entrance to the cafeteria and walked back through the plant with her; that Sullivan did not hold Howard by the arm at any time during their walk; and that Sullivan did not use any curse words while talking in the restroom. Concerning the same incident, Sullivan testified as follows: a couple of days before December 2nd, over in the afternoon, Mildred Teeter came to me and told me that she had caught up with her work and that Joanne Howard had gone to the Ladies Room; I asked Mildred, I said, "Mildred, how long has she been gone," and she told me about five minutes; Joanne joined shoulders then and Mildred set sleeves, so I went back to Joanne's machine and I sat down and joined shoulder seams for Mildred, I worked there about ten minutes and Mr. Rab came over to me, and he said Frances, why are you working on the machine," and 1 said "well, Joanne has gone to the Ladies Room and she didn't leave enough work to keep Mildred busy, so I am trying to get some for her to do, and I says "she has done this several times before"; so he said "well, you go after her then," said she should be finished there now, . . . and I told him she had been there about ten minutes, so I then went on and joined some more shoulder seams, enough to keep Mildred busy until I could go to the Rest Room and get Joanne back to her machine; I guess that took me around twenty minutes to do enough to keep her busy. I went into the Ladies Room and I found Joanne in there talking with Elizabeth Hartman, and I told Joanne and the other girls that were in there to come on back to their machines, that we had work to do and we could not do work in there, we had to do it out in the plant, so I went on out and Joanne came out then, and she caught up with me as I walked down through the Plant, and she walked alongside of me, and I told her, I said "Joanne, don't ever go in the Ladies Room and stay like that again," I said "that puts Mildred out of work," I said "I am giving you a warning this time, and if it happens again, I will have to let you go." Sullivan testified further to the effect that she was the only person who supplied Howard with work; that she had not brought any work to Howard's machine during her absence; and that work was on the machine when she went to it. She denied that she held Howard's arm or that she cursed her. Howard denied that she had left work on her machine and that Sullivan gave her a warning. In this connection she was questioned and testified as follows: Q. And all in all, you were there about ten minutes when Frances Sullivan came to the ladies room and told you Mildred Teeter was out of work and for you to come back to your machine? A. She didn't tell me Mildred Teeter was out of work. Q. She just told you to come back to your machine? A. Plus some other things. Q. Didn't she warn you then about the fact of leaving your machine too fre- quently and if you didn't stop leaving your machine too frequently she would discharge you? A. No, sir she didn't say that, she just told me Mildred was waiting on work and I told her that there was not-When I left to go to the Rest Room, to the Cafeteria that there was not any work there for me to sew; so, Like I told you, there were fronts there but no backs and I could not do any work without both pieces. Q. But I thought you told me she didn't tell you Mildred was out of work; now, you say- A. She said the girl ahead of me was waiting on work. Q. She did tell you that? A. Yes, sir. 369028-56-vol. 112 14 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hartman denied that she was in the restroom when Sullivan went to get Howard. She testified that before her discharge on December 2 she never went to the restroom with Howard during working hours. Howard testified to the same effect. Employee Imogene McClenny testified that about a week before December 2 she saw Hartman and Howard coming from the direction of the restroom during working hours. Employee Mildred Meyers testified that several days before December 2 she was in the restroom with Hartman and Howard during working hours; that they solicited her at the time to sign a union card; and that she saw them go to the rest- room together during work on the following day. Employee Vonnie Bonds testified that she saw Hartman and Howard go to the restroom together on more than three occasions. Rab's testimony supports that of Sullivan as to the above. He testified, "Well, it was a couple of days before I discharged them [Howard and Hartman]. I was around the machines down there and I noticed Frances Sullivan was sitting at a machine there, I went over to her and asked her why she was sitting at the machine, and she told me that Joanne Howard went in the Ladies' Room and left the girl Mildred Teeter, I think it is, who is a sleeve setter, without any work; I said to her, `how long is it that she is away,' and she says, `well, about 10 minutes any how,' I said, `well, in 10 minutes she ought to be through, you better go tell her to come back to work."' Concerning the discharge of Hartman and Howard, Sullivan testified to the following: Well, on December 2nd at 9 o'clock, I noticed that both Joanne and Elizabeth Hartman were away from their machines and I looked for Mr. Rab and I saw him over next to the time clock; well, he came over to me then and I was over with my line, and he told me that both Joanne and Elizabeth had gone into the Ladies Room at 9:20, and I said "Well, do you want me to go in there after them," he said "no, I will handle it myself," so again, several hours later, I noticed they were away from their [sic] again and I looked for Mr. Rab and he was standing up next to the time clock, leaning against the table, and I saw Joanne and Eliza- beth come out of the Rest Room and he stopped there and talked with them, the girls came on back to their machines and went back to work, and he came over to me and he said that he had warned them several hours before and that he had told them that at lunch time that they would be laid off, and he said to see that that was done, that they had wasted too much time there; so then, about five minutes of twelve, I went to Elizabeth Hartman and I told her that she had wasted too much time in the Ladies Room and that she had been warned by Mr. Rab and that I had been given orders to discharge her at lunch; I then went on back to Joanne and I told her that she had been warned about spending too much time in the Rest Room, and that I would have to discharge her, and I then went on about my work; and then all I know after that, after lunch, Elizabeth Hartman came towards me as I was walking towards the Office, and she told me she would get me, and I then turned and went the other way into the Office. Rab testified, in substance, that during the morning of the day that Hartman and Howard were discharged he was standing in the middle of the sewing room near the time clock; that at 9.20 a. in. he saw them go into the restroom; that he went over to Sullivan who said, "Mr. Rab, you know that the girls are in the Ladies' Room. . Do you want me to go call them out"; that he replied, "No, this time I handle it myself"; that when Hartman and Howard came out of the restroom at 9:34 a. m., he warned them that they would be discharged if they did not stop spending so much time in the restroom; that he saw them go to the restroom again at 11:10 a. in. and come out at 11:27 a. m.; that he reminded them that they had been warned about the restroom earlier that morning and told them that they were being discharged as of noon that day; and that he then went to Sullivan and told her to see to it that Hartman and Howard were discharged at noon. He testified that "exactly when I discharged those two girls . . . around 12:00 o'clock, the noon hour . . . exactly when I went into the office" a memorandum of the times and conversation was made under his supervision. The memorandum was received in evidence and states as follows: At 9:20 A. M. went to the Ladies Room and came out at 9:34. I warned them not to stay so long. At 11:10 went in again and stayed 16 or 17 minutes (11:27). I stopped them right on the floor and told them I didn't object to any one going to the bathroom, but did object to any one going in there just to kill time. Told them to go into the office and get their pay. This date was December 2, 1953 (noon). LEISURE LADS, INC. 197 Employee June Meyers testified that at about 11:15 a. m. on December 2 she saw Rab talking to Hartman and Howard while standing in front of a time clock which was located about 15 feet from the restroom . McClenny testified that during the morning of December 2 Hartman went to the restroom three times and that the last time she was gone at least 15 minutes . Employee Mary Cable testified that Hartman "usually" went to the restroom twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon; 7 that .,at times" Hartman stayed in the restroom 15 to 20 minutes ; that during the morning of December 2 she saw Rab standing near the door of the restroom ; and that Howard left her machine twice that morning, the first time "early in the morning" and the second "up near dinner time." Cable also testified without contradiction concerning conversations that she had with Howard and Chapman on December 2. In this con- nection she was questioned and testified as follows. a Q. Now, did you have a conversation with Joanne Howard on the day that she was discharged? A. Yes, sir. Q. When was that? A. In the morning. Q. Was that before she was discharged or after? A. Before. Q. What was the conversation about? A. Well, one conversation was about Mabel Chapman , she turned to me and asked me if I knew what Mabel Chapman had said, and she asked me if I knew it, and I said "no, what," and she told me that Mabel was in the lunch room in the Cafeteria and said that any girl that asked for a raise or joined the Union should be fired, and I told her I would ask Mabel about it at lunch time. Q. Did you ask Mabel? A. I did. Q. After you spoke to Mabel, what happened? A. It was near time for the bell to go back to work, and Mabel said she would bring Joanne and prove that it was not so, and she came to my machine after the bell had rung and brought Joanne with her. Q. What was said? A. Joanne said it was not so, and wanted to know why I went to Mabel. Q. Did you say anything to her? A. To Mabel or Joanne? Q. To Joanne? A. Mr. Rab came up and asked her to leave, that they had their pay and Mabel told him that she had told the girls to come back to straighten out something. As related above, both Howard and Hartman testified that they never had gone to the restroom together. Hartman testified that on December 2 she went to the restroom at about 9 a. in. and again about 2 or 21/2 hours later; that Howard was not with her ; and that she neither spoke to nor was warned by Rab that morning. Hartman testified that she had several conversations with Sullivan on December 1. In this connection she testified , " . on Tuesday is when I asked her if I was going to be discharged. . . At my machine, she asked me who told me that I was going to be discharged ; I told her I just heard from some of the girls, and I thought I would ask her to see if it were true , and she said 'no,' then she asked me again who told me, I said 'Ailene Lackey' is the girl that told me. . . She called me into the cafeteria and she asked me again who told me that: I still refused to tell her... . I told her, I said, 'I won't tell you who told me,' but she said to me then, said, 'we will go see Ailene and get it straightened out, because I have not told anybody you would be discharged,' but Ailene had gone home that day at noon, so Frances said 7 Employees McClenny, Eula Safrit, and Bonds testified to the same effect . Hartman testified that, except when necessary, it was her custom to visit the restroom only twice each day, at 10 a in and 2 p. in. 8 The testimony of Hartman confirms that of Cable in part. Hartman testified, "I had started out of the plant and I met Joanne Howard, she was standing about half way between my machine and the door, and she was talking to Mabel Chapman , and I just beard part of the conversation there; and while we were standing there talking Mr. Rab walked up and said, 'All right girls, you have been paid, will you please leave the plant?' Mabel said , 'Mr. Rab , these girls think I am the cause of them being laid off and I called Joanne back to get that straight with her, that I had nothing to do with her being laid off.' " 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD she would see her the next day, " 9 Hartman testified that she was discharged by Sullivan at about 11:45 a. m. on December 2; that Sullivan said at the time, "When the bell rings, go to the office, you're being laid off. . . Mr. Rab said your work is not satisfactory . don't feel hurt at me, I cannot help it, I had nothing to do with your being laid off"; 10 and that she went to the office with Howard and had a conversation with Rab. Concerning the conversation with Rab, Hartman testified as follows: When I walked in the office I said, "Mr. Rab, Frances told me I am laid off due to unsatisfactory work, I would like to know what it is all about"; he said, "that is a mistake, I have no complaints against your work, you have done very good work since you have been here," said, "Frances said I spent too much time in the rest room, and I asked him then to call Frances in the office and get her face to face, for she gave me one reason and he gave me another, and he said, "it is no need to call her in, because when the Floor Lady took a stand they had to back her." . . . I asked him then for my separation papers, and he said I had not been working long enough to get separation papers, and I told him at least I could draw from the last place that I had worked; he said the Employment Office at the place had never furnished him with Separation Papers, and I asked him then again what was wrong with my work I had never had any complaint from it; he said my work was very good, he had no com- plaint, then he said, "in two weeks we are going to start a new Jacket Unit, and I will tell you what I will do," said, "you return to work on the 15th," said, "come to the office before you go back to work, because you will have to come to an agreement," and I asked him what kind of an agreement, and he said that would be discussed when the time came, he then said they were losing money, said they could close the Plant down and save money, said, not any of the girls he had were experienced machine operators; I said, "they are not experienced in this particular line of work, but they are experienced machine operators"; he then started talking about he could operate on a 55 cents an hour basis, and then he said he could bring the girls from up at the other Plants down here and operate the plant; and I said, "you cannot bring the girls from up there down here and work them for the wages we girls work for," and he repeated again he could operate the plant on a 55 cents an hour basis; and I said, "not with the girls you have here, you can't because they are all experienced Machine Operators;" and then he looked at me and said, "you are smart, I see I am going to have trouble out of you"; then he said there was a little matter going around in the Plant he had to get settled, and I said, "you cannot settle that little matter without laying me off," and he said, "no, and I asked him what it was and he said you know without my telling you, he said a little handful of girls thought they could take the plant into their own hands and operate it the way they wanted it operated, and before he would let them do it, he would stop the machines from being shipped out, he said by the middle of June he was planning to have five hundred employees there, but if this little matter was not settled, he would stop it at a 200 limit and operate it on that basis. Hartman testified that she had another conversation with Sullivan after leaving Rab's office. In this connection she testified to the following: 11 I went back on the floor, I started back to my machine and I met Frances Sullivan, my Floorlady, and I stopped and I said, "Frances, you told me you had nothing to do with me being laid off, you said Mr. Rab said my work was un- satisfactory, but Mr. Rab said that is a mistake, he has no complaint against my work, but that you told him I spent too much time in the rest room"; and she said, "Lib, that is not true, I have no complaints against your work," said, "you have done good work since you have been here"; I said, "come and go with me in the office and get it straightened out, he tells me one thing and you tell me another," I said, "I would like to know the real reason for my discharge"; she 9 There is no explanation in the record for the apparent contradiction in the above testi- mony of Hartman Sullivan denied the conversation. Ailene Lakey was called as a witness by the Respondent, but was not questioned in this connection. 10 Sullivan denied the above statements attributed to her by Hartman. n Sullivan denied having any conversation with Hartman. She also denied that she had ever instructed Hartman or any other employee to go to the restroom when idle or out of work. Howard testified that on one occasion she heard Sullivan tell employee Alice Barrow to go to the restroom so that Rab would not see her idle. This testimony was denied by Barrow. LEISURE LADS, INC. 199 said, "I have no complaints against your work," I said, "but you did tell Mr. Rab I spent too much time in the Rest Room and you didn't tell him you had told me to go to the Rest Room on several occasions to keep him from catching me sitting idle when I didn't have work, you would tell me to go to the Rest Room until you could cut out for me," she said, "I did not tell him you spent too much time in the Rest Room, but everytime you went to the Rest Room four or five girls would get up and follow you"; I asked her who, she called Alice Barrow's, Mabel Coble's, Joanne Howard's and Susanne Howard's names; and I said, "I have never gone to the Rest Room with either one of those girls nor they have never followed me in there"; I said, "I didn't tell Mr. Rab that you had told me to go to the rest room, but I will when I come back from the Un- employment Office"; I then went to my machine to get my scissors and personal belongings. Howard testified concerning her discharge as follows: 12 About five minutes to twelve on December 2nd Mrs. Sullivan came to my machine, she had not spoke to me all morning in any way, she came to my machine and said Joanne, when the bell rings I want you to go to the office and get your time, you are being fired; and I asked her has this got something to do with you cursing me yesterday and me not liking it; she said this is nothing personal between me and you, said Mr. Rab said your work is not satisfactory, and I said well, I will see Mr. Rab. Howard further testified that she went to the office with Hartman and had a con- versation with Rab. In this connection she testified as follows: Well, we went in, he was sitting behind the desk, looked like he was scrib- bling or doodling or something, and I said Mr. Rab, what seems to be the trouble here, Frances said you said you are not satisfied with my work; and he said "why, I have not said anything about your work," said, "I don't really know what job you do," but said, "Frances came to me and told me you spent too much time in the rest room, and for instance yesterday," says "I walked down the line and Frances was sewing at a machine," says "I asked her, `Frances why do you have to sew don't you have enough girls to take care of the sewing'," and said "she told me that you were in the rest room and had been there for twenty minutes"; well, I told him that that was not true, that I had not been in there twenty minutes, and offered to call in another floor lady to prove it, be- cause I had been talking to her for a few minutes, which had took up more than the time I actually spent in going to the rest room, usually I didn't stay but seven to ten minutes at the most, and on account of my having this conversation with this other floor lady I had to hurry up in the rest room, and I was hurrying and was about to come out when she came in after me, and she came in cursing me and all the way back to the machine, and she grabbed me on the arm and was hanging on to me. . Well, he said then when I offered and told him that Mrs. Chapman could tell him I was not gone too long, because when I went into the cafeteria she was already there, and when Frances came and got me out of the rest room she was still in the cafeteria, and I figured if any one could clear me of being gone twenty minutes that she could, that he would not do it, and that he said, "it is like this, when Frances takes a stand we have got to back her up, because she is the supervisor of the rest of the girls and if I go taking their word over hers she won't have any supervisory authority left"; and so I said something about not being fair, and he said, "well, I will tell you what I will do," said "I will put you to work under a new floor lady in a couple of weeks," he said "we are going to open up another line of jackets and I will put you to work under another floor lady"; and I said "I am quite willing to go on working now under any floor lady," and he said it would not do, said "there is a matter in this plant any way that has got to be straightened out before I can put you back to work"; he said "when you come back in in about two weeks," and he looked up at the calender, and he said "come back on the 15th, we expect to have the machines ready to work then," but said "don't go into the plant, come in my office and if we can come to an agreement I will put you back to work"; and I said "can't this matter be straightened out and me still work," and he said "I don't believe so"; and so I told him then, I said well, I need to work right then and it didn't seem right that he wouldn't call in the other lady to clear me about being gone for twenty minutes, because I didn't make it a "Sullivan denied that she told Howard, ". . . this is nothing personal between you and me, Mr. Rib said your work is not satisfactory " 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD practice being gone; I went once in the morning and once in the evening, and some time not even in the evening, but I did actually go once every morning, and I didn't take any smoking breaks for I don't smoke; and he would not even give me a chance to clear myself on that charge of being gone so long but kept saying to come back in a couple of weeks; and he would go on telling us how they worked up in the plants up in Delaware, and then he talked on about he could close the plant out here down, he was losing money on it; he said the first week I worked I put out, he named the payroll, I can't tell you the figure now, and we didn't bring in but so much, didn't put out but so much and didn't bring in but so much, and he named about four weeks how that had happened, and said he was going to get a permit to work learners after the first of the year, after the first of the year he was going to get a permit to work learners at fifty five cents an hour, and he said, went on talking about how good the conditions were in this other plant, he said "if I had knowed it was going to be a handful] of people come in and thought they could run this place to suit themselves we would never opened the plant up here"; and every time I would try to get an answer from him as to the reason I was layed off, because he said one thing and Mrs. Sullivan said another. Rab denied the statements attributed to him by Hartman and Howard. He also denied that the conversation took place in his office. He admitted having a con- versation with them which "lasted two or three minutes at the most" in the "Recep- tion Room." He testified, "when they came in, they asked me could they expect a job later and I said no; that is all that was said and I walked out." Sara Fisher, who was Respondent's bookkeeper and in charge of the office, testified, in substance, that shortly after 11:30 a. in. on December 2 Rab told her to figure up the time of Hartman and Howard and to have their money ready by 12 o'clock; that "right after the bell rang for 12 o'clock" Hartman and Howard came to the office and talked to Rab in his office "at the most five minutes"; that Rab was present when they entered the office; that he paid them their mony; that a reception room and two restrooms were between her office and Rab's office; that she could tell when anyone went in or out of Rab's office because "you can hear folks ... going up and down the Hall", and that 5 minutes after they first came in she saw them "as they came out the little door from the Hall in the door that goes from the office into the Factory, or from the Reception Room into the Factory." Hartman testified that during the morning on the Saturday after her discharge Harry Feit called her on the telephone. Concerning the conversation, she testified as follows: He said, "I am sorry to hear about what happened, but he was out of town at the time and didn't know anything about it until he came home"; I said, "well, Mr. Feit, I am sorry too, I would at least like to know what I was dis- charged for"; I said, "Mr. Rab gave me one reason and Frances gave me another," but they would not come face to face and stand up to the rights either of them; I said Mr. Rab said, Frances said my work was-I spent too much time in the Rest Room, and Frances said Mr. Rab said my work was unsatisfactory; he said Mr. Rab was right, Frances did tell him you spent too much time in the Rest Room; he said he didn't have the full details of it, but he would investigate further and find out; said that he had heard our Financial status at home was not too good and that Mr. Rab told him I was coming back to work and that he had called me as a personal friend to inform me that if there were anything that we needed at home not to be afraid to call on them, they would be glad to finance it until I did return to work; I told him that I would not ask for anything, there was still banks in the City of Salisbury and we had never been refused a Loan; he said, "what is the use to go to the Bank and get a loan and pay interest, when we will be glad to help"; he said he got this firm here into Salisbury, done the girls a favor by giving them a job and what did we do but turn around and stab him in the back. I asked him what he was talking about and he said, "you know," said, "a little handful of girls think they can take matters into their own hands and operate the plant in the way they want to"; he then asked me if I knew that this same Firm had already made preparation to build another plant right beside this one, but said, "due to this little matter that is going around, I had it stopped"-I mean, he said he had stepped in and put a stop to it; said he had brought lots of interests and lots of trade into the City of Salisbury and said, "if this little matter is not settled, so help me God, if I never walk another step I will never, if this plant closes, I will never help bring anything else into the City, and if I find any new Indus- tries coming in, if I can keep them out, I will"; he then said, I asked him again LEISURE LADS, INC. 201 what this little matter was they kept talking about, I said that there is no man out there that is man enough to come and tell me what it is, I might be able to help them and help myself both; he said, "you know what it is," said, "you are too stubborn to admit it"; he said, "they were going to need a supervisor for the new Jacket Unit that was going up, and if I was smart and would co- operate with the Firm I would make a good Floorlady"; I then told him I would not consider a Floorladies' job out there, the way those Floor Ladies had abused and cursed the girls, I would not even consider a Floor Ladys' job"; and I said "You talk about cooperation with the Firm," I said, "if the Firm would cooperate with the girls more, they would get farther"; I said, "if I was spending too much time in the Rest Room why didn't Frances come to me and tell me and then if I didn't cooperate to go to Mr. Rab"; he said, "if the Floor Lady spent time running around telling the girls, the so-called-machine operators they are wrong, they would not have time for any work"; I said, "if Frances Sullivan and some of the rest of the Floor Ladies spent some time with those girls, more than they did following Mr. Rab around over the Plant they would probably get more work done." Feit admitted having a conversation with Hartman, but denied the statements at- tributed to him by her. In this connection he testified to the following: I returned to town on a Saturday morning; there was a message on my desk Mrs. Hartman called; I called up Mrs. Hartman, she says to me, "Mr. Feit," she says, "do you know what happened," I said "what do you mean, what happened," something like that, I don't remember the exact words, but she told me that she was fired. Well, I told her I was sorry to hear it, as I am always sorry to hear when anybody has anything bad happen to them; and she also told me that she asked me, if I knew why she was fired. I explained to her I did not know why she was fired, and I had just come back in town and that was the first thing I had heard about it, and she told me she needed the job badly, that she had a payment on her car, a note due for $60.00, and she didn't have the money; and I asked her how much she owed and if the car had enough equity; she told me that she believed that she should have no trouble having the car re-financed; I remember, I believe, she said something about going to Winston-Salem about it, and I even told her that if she had any difficulties in finding anybody that would re-finance the car and get the payments down to a smaller sum, that I would recommend her to some Bank or some Finance Company that would be glad to re-finance the car, but as far as anything else, there is concerned, I never had that conversation with her. I only spoke to her about three or four minutes, if I remember, because I had to go away. Both Hartman and Howard testified that they returned together to the plant on December 15 and spoke to Rab.13 They testified, in substance, that they reminded Rab that he had told them to report back on December 15 and to come to the office before going to work; that Rab denied that he had mentioned any specific date but admitted that he had told them to come back "in a couple of weeks"; that he told them that he was not hiring anybody as he did not get the new line of machines; that they asked him for separation slips; and that he instructed a girl in the office to fill out the slips. The separation slips which Hartman and Howard received from the Respondent show the reason for termination of employment as, "no work available." In the space provided for the employer's signature appears "Louis Rab by S. Fisher." 14 13 Rab denied having any conversation with Hartman and Howard on December- 15 14 The other six employees named in the complaint received separation slips identical to the above During cross-examination of Hartman, Joanne Howard, Johnston, Earnhardt, Wise, and Susanne Howard, the Respondent developed that they had applied for unemploy- ment benefits. Copies of the claims filed by then with the Employment Security Com- mission of North Carolina were received in evidence The claim forms of Hartman, Wise, Johnston, Earnhardt, and Susanne Howard show the cause of separation either as, "no work available" or "NWA"; that of Joanne Howard shows, "no work available- lack of orders " They testified to the effect that when the claim taker questioned them as to the cause of separation, they presented their separation slips; and that they did not read over the answers to the questions on the forms before signing Irene Barker, an "Interviewer" of the commission, testified as to her "usual and customary practice" in taking claims. In substance, she testified that she always obtained the information from the claimant in answer to item No 11 on the foam, entitled "cause of separation from last job," regardless of the reason given by the employer on the separation slip. Counsel for the parties stipu- 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is apparent from the testimony set forth above that the witnesses for the parties agree on very few, if any, facts ; and that perjury is rampant in the case. At the hearing Sullivan, Waller, Holhauser, Teeter, Spry, Beasley, McClenny, Mildred Meyers, Barrow, Bonds, June Meyers, Cable, Safrit, and Fisher all im- pressed me as reliable and credible witnesses . From their demeanor as witnesses, Hartman and Howard also impressed me favorably , but there are minor con- tradictions in their testimony, as related above. Chapman, Rab, and Feit did not so impress me. A careful review of the record has neither changed my observa- tions at the hearing nor aided me in arriving at the true facts in these two cases. If believed, the testimony of the Respondent 's witnesses , aside from that of Chap- man, Rab, and Feit, completely discredits Hartman and Howard . Under the cir- cumstances, I am unable to resolve the conflicts with respect to the alleged conversa- tions, set forth above , that they had with Sullivan , Rab, and Feit . I also made no finding concerning Chapman 's alleged statements in the cafeteria on December 1. As stated above, both Waller and Holhauser impressed me as credible witnesses. Chapman is discredited hereinafter in connection with the discharge of Sybil Johnston. However, Cable's testimony, to the effect that on December 2 Howard admitted that Chapman did not make the remarks originally attributed to her, stands uncontradicted. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel failed to prove by a preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence that the Respondent discharged Hartman and Howard because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. It will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to them. 2. Sybil Johnston Johnston was hired by the Respondent on November 4, 1953. She worked at side seaming and sleeve setting on the T-shirt line under Floorlady Mabel Chapman. She joined the Union shortly before November 25 at the solicitation of Frances Wise. Johnston attended the union meeting on November 25 and was selected for the committee. Thereafter and starting on Monday, November 28, she dis- tributed union authorization cards to other employees at the plant "during lunch and before work." Concerning her discharge on December 3, Johnston was questioned and testified as follows: Q. (By Mr. Cohn. ) Now, directing your attention to December 3rd, just tell us what happened that day? A. Well, on the morning of December 3rd, we drew names for Christmas presents in our Department ; Mabel passed out the names, you know when we drew one, each drew one for Christmas presents , and I thought it would be a good time to get the names and addresses of all the girls in our Depart- ment so that I could send them a Christmas card ; so I had this little blue note book and I handed it to the girl behind me , Rose Holhauser and I asked her to write her name and address in it , and I would send her a Christ- mas card, and she did, and she passed it to the girl beside her, and it went all the way around our Department before I got it back; but in the meantime Mable came and sat opposite me, Mabel Chapman, and she said "whose little book is that," and I said "it is mine, and I want your name and address in it too," and she kinda blushed and said "I have already put mine in it," and then the book came back to me, and shortly afterwards Mabel came to me and she said "Sybil , you sleevers are so far ahead, the hemmers will never catch up" and said "I just don't know what I am going to do"; and I said "Mabel, you need another hemmer," there were just two hemmers, and she said "no, said Mr. Rab said that two hemmers should be able to keep up with the work that we put out, and I said "well, do you want us to slow down" and she said "no, you are doing all right, said the hemmers will just have to do better" and then that was all of that conversation. Q. Well, when , about what part of the day was that, before or after lunch? A. I believe that was right after lunch. Q. All right, now, did you see Mr. Rab after that? A. Yes, sir, he came and stood right by my machine and watched me for the first time he had ever done that before, he just stood and watched me work, it seemed like it was five or ten minutes , of course I don't guess it lated that Elizabeth RTinkley and Agnes Russel , claim takers or interviewers of the Com- mission , would testify to the same effect as Barker. The evidence shows that these 3 interviewers signed the claim forms of the 6 employees named above. LEISURE LADS, INC. 203 was that long, but it seemed that long by him standing there staring, and then at quitting time, well , I was putting my sweater on and everybody else in our Unit had gone, and Mabel came running back there with a pay envelope in her hand, and Q. What day of the week was this? A. It was on Thursday. Q. Did you usually get paid off on Thursday? A. No, sir, we got paid on Friday. Q. Go ahead. A. And she said "Sybil, said you girls are so far ahead , said Mr. Rab said I would just have to let you go, said it was between you and Vivian, you and Vivian came in the same day, and said I don 't know which one to pick, and Mr. Rab picked you. ... And I said "is that the real reason, Mabel," and she said "that is all I can tell you," and I walked out. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Rab after that? A. He was standing at the door when I went out , but I didn't speak to him. Johnston testified further that Anne Shoe and Doris Grahm , who performed the hemming operation, were in front of her on the line; that they were hemming shirts when she was hired on November 4, that there was "a large accumulation" of shirts waiting to be hemmed when she was discharged ; that there were three regu- lar sleevers ; and that other employees at times performed the sleeving operation. Johnston testified that she called the plant on December 10 to ask for reinstate- ment and that Feit answered the telephone . As to the conversation, she testified credibly, "Well , at first, he didn't recognize my name, and he asked what I could do, and I told him that I sleeved, and he went on to talk about what a nice place they had out there , and so then I told him that I had worked there and had been laid off, and then he just turned cold of a sudden , and said, 'no , there is nothing here at all, we don't have a thing to do.' " 15 Employee Vivian Bradshaw testified that on December 4 she overhead a con- versation between Chapman and employee Howard Williams , a mechanic who was working on her machine at the time . In this connection she testified, "Howard Williams asked Mabel Chapman why was Sybil Johnston laid off ; Mabel said be- cause the work was piling up for the hemmers , Howard Williams asked her was she [Johnston] mixed up in the Union business . Mabel Chapman said she didn't know but there was someone in the Union that was telling who the ones that were in it , and she had turned a list in and they were going to let them go, one by one; Howard Williams said he was against the Union business and that is all," Chapman denied the statements attributed to her by Bradshaw She admitted hav- ing a conversation with Williams , but testified that it took place at the collar turn- ing machine about 20 feet from Bradshaw's machine . She testified that Williams asked her why Johnston was laid off and if it was because of the Union ; and that she replied, "certainly not, take a look over there at the shirts we have piled up . . . you will know why Mr Rab discharged her " Williams testified that he had a conversation with Chapman about "a day or two" after Johnston 's discharge at the collar turning machine , which he estimated to be about 40 or 50 feet from Bradshaw's machine . He denied the statements attributed to Chapman by Brad- shaw, and testified, "We were talking about the parts for the hemming , and Mabel said `when do you think we will ever get the parts for this third hemming machine,' and I said `I don't know , it don't look like we are going to get them' and then I asked her why was Sybil laid off , and she said `Well, you see the pile of work, we had to let one go, and she was the last one hired.' " He also testified that he asked Chapman if Johnston was laid off because of the Union and that he had heard union talk in the plant for several weeks before the conversation. Bradshaw impressed me as a reliable and credible witness. Accordingly, I credit her testimony concerning this conversation and find that Chapman's remarks con- stitute interference , restraint, and coercion since they contain a threat of reprisal. There are contradictions in Williams' testimony , particularly with respect to work on the two hemming machines in question Further , the evidence shows that the parts for the third hemming machine were not ordered until January 5, 1954. Chapman testified that she first heard of union talk in the plant "about the last of December" when "one of the girls, I don't remember who, told me , said there was talk of it in the rest room." This testimony conflicts with her testimony concerning her conversation with Williams . When during cross-examination she was asked to explain the discrepancy , her testimony was incredible. 'y Felt denied the conversation His denial is not credited. 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employee Cora Mae Hagler 16 testified credibly that she had a conversation with Chapman "sometime right after Sybil Johnston was laid off." She testified, ". . I was laughing and talking with her and told her it was the first time I heard anybody getting fired because they did too much work. . . . 1 said some of the girls said it was due to the Union, Mabel never did directly tell me it was the Union was the reason why. . . . She did tell me that the girls ought not to get anything like that started, because they knowed they would all have no jobs if they did, and .. . That Mr. Rosenstock 17 had said that he didn't have anything in that building out there except his machines, and nary other plant he owned was run by a Union and before that one went Union, he would lock it and take his machines out." Chap- man denied the statements attributed to her by Hagler, and testified, "I have never had a conversation with Cora Mae Hagler." Her denial is not credited. It is found that her remarks to Hagler constitute interference, restraint, and coercion since they contain threats of reprisal. Concerning Johnston's termination, Chapman testified, "Mr. Rab told me that we would have to lay off one of my side seamers and sleeve setters, that the hemmers were too far behind, I asked him which one was he going to lay off, he said . `The last one that was put to work'; I told him that Vivian Bradshaw and Sybil Johnston came in the same day. . . He asked me to go to the office and get their application blanks for him; I got them and gave them to him and he looked at them and Sybil Johnston's was dated September 25th and Vivian's was dated Sep- tember 24th. . . . He said Sybil Johnston was the last one hired, said her applica- tion is a day later than Vivian Bradshaw's, said we will let Sybil Johnston go until we have more work for her and then we will put her back to work. . I went to Sybil and told her that Mr Rab told me I would have to lay her off until the hemmers got caught up, and he would probably put her back to work." Otherwise Chapman denied the statements attributed to her by Johnston. She admitted, how- ever, signing Johnston's notebook. Chapman testified further that her conversation with Rab took place during the morning of the same day that Johnston was laid off; that hemming did not start until the "latter part" of November; that about 400 dozen shirts were waiting to be hemmed when the hemming machines were put into operation; that about 500 dozen had accumulated by the time of Johnston's layoff, that no one was hired after December 3 to take Johnston's place, that Loree Eudy was hired as a hemmer to take the place of hemmer Doris Grahm who took a leave of absence for about 2 weeks; that Eudy remained after Grahm returned and per- formed odd jobs until the third hemming machine was ready "the latter part of March"; that during this period of time Eudy worked on side seaming and sleeve setting a half day each week: that Eudy worked steady at hemming after the third machine was put into operation and did no more sleeving; that the hemmers worked overtime starting "around the last part of November"; and that when Grahm re- turned from her leave of absence, Rab ". . . told me he was going to put on an- other hemmer to keep Doris and Anne from having to work so much overtime, and to keep Loree [Eudy] on doing odd jobs until the hemmer came in, and he would put her back to hemming." Rab denied that he stood by Johnston' s machine on December 3 and watched her work for 5 or 10 minutes. Concerning her termination of employment, he testified as follows: Sybil Johnston was not discharged, she was layed off. The first week in Decem- ber I was on the floor, and we have a knitters department, and I went over to the knitting department and I spoke to the floor lady, and I looked around and there were an awful lot of shirts laying around which were waiting to be finished hem- ming, and we went in the office and we discussed that, and the floor lady asked me what to do; I said well, the best thing to do is to cut down one of the sleeve setters and seamers, and she said which one do you want me to cut down, and I said the last one that you hired would be advisable to lay off. She said, well, the last two were hired the same day. I called over the girl from the office and I told her to get those two applications, and I noticed that one application was made out a day later, Sybil Johnston's application was made out a day later than the other one, and I said this is the girl that you are going to lay off, and that was done. He also testified that Johnston was not replaced; that Eudy was retained when Grahm returned from her leave of absence because ". . . we were still behind with a lot of Hemming and I told the machinist to get another Hemmer . . . and when the new 16 As related above, Hagler was discharged on January 15, 1954, by Floorlady Doris Bost. 17 It was stipulated by the parties that Rosenstock is president of Respondent. LEISURE LADS, INC. 205 Hemmer came in, we put it on the machine and we had three Hemmers going"; and that before the third hemming machine was put into operation, Eudy "was doing every- thing," including sleeving, "but very little of that." Doris Grahm testified, in sub- stance, that she was hired on October 27; that she did not start to hem shirts until "the last of November" because the machine needed special hemming attachments; that she performed odd jobs until that time; that about 500 dozen shirts had accumu- lated when she started to hem; that starting sometime before Christmas she and Annie Shoe worked overtime until the third hemming machine was put into operation; and that Eudy performed odd jobs, including sleeving, when she was not hemming. Shoe testified that she was hired on October 27; that she did not start hemming until "the latter part of November," at which time about 400 dozen shirts were waiting to be hemmed; and that about 500 dozen had accumulated on December 3 when Johnston was laid off. Williams testified that hemming of shirts did not start until "the last of November" because "we didn't have the attachments for the hemmers and work was being held up"; that he gave the order for the parts to a representative of the Singer Sewing Ma- chine Company; and that when the hemming operation commenced, "there was a platform about 20 feet long and [the accumulated shirtsl were filed up six feet high, I don't know how many dozen, but a bunch of them." Concerning the operation of the two hemming machines before the special parts arrived, his testimony was contradictory. He first testified that the machines were operated. Later he testi- fied that no sewing was performed on the machines. There is no contention on the part of Respondent concerning the quality or quantity of Johnston's work. The Respondent contends that she was not discharged but laid off, and that she was not replaced by a regular sleeving operator. It admits that the sleeving operation was performed at times by other employees, including Eudy. It apparently contends that the layoff was caused by reason of the fact that the hem- mers were behind in their work and that shirts were accumulating. The evidence conclusively shows and I find that the hemming operation on T- shirts did not commence until near the end of November; and that on December 3 there were about 400 or 500 dozen shirts to be hemmed. Even with these facts established it is difficult to understand the Respondent's defense. The evidence does not disclose that any of the three sleeving operators were idle because of a lack of work before December 3. Therefore, it follows that other employees had to absorb the work formerly performed by Johnston. Under the circumstances, the fact that Johnston was not replaced by a regular sleever is not conclusive. In my opinion, the General Counsel made out a prima facie case. Chapman's statements to Bradshaw and Hagler, found above, show that the Respondent had an antiunion animus and was keeping a close watch on the union activities of its em- ployees. On the other hand, the Respondent's defense is not supported by substan- tial or reliable evidence. It is significant that Johnston's employment was terminated without any notice and on the day before the employees received their pay. There are discrepancies be- tween the testimony of Chapman and Rab. Chapman testified that her discussion with Rab took place "right in front of the machine where all the shirts were piled up for the hemmers"; and that he told her to go to the office for the applications. Rab testified that the conversation for the most part was in the office and that he told Sara Fisher to get the applications. There is no explanation by Rab as to the necessity for laying off any employee or as to why he decided to lay off a sleever rather than an em- ployee on some other operation. The Respondent conclusively proved that on De- cember 3 it was in need of another hemmer, not that it had too many sleevers. Accordingly, it is found that on December 3, 1953, the Respondent discharged Sybil Johnston because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. 3. Daisy Earnhardt Earnhardt was hired by the Respondent when the plant opened on October 27, 1953. She worked on the pants line under Floorlady Doris Bost. She attended the union meeting on November 20 at Hartman's home, and joined the Union at that time. Thereafter, she solicited three employees at the plant to loin the Union, but did not distribute any authorization cards. On December 3, at the request of employee Kate Smith who occupied the ma- chine next to her, Earnhardt circulated a sheet of paper among the employees in her line in order to get their names and addresses for Christmas cards.18 Earnhardt testi- 16 Smith denied Earnhardt 's testimony in this connection. 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fled that after lunch on December 4 she had a conversation with Bost; that Bost asked her who had circulated the paper; that she admitted that she had in order to get names and addresses for Christmas cards; that Bost said, "Don't you know the girl that done that yesterday got fired for it, she told they were for a Christmas Card, but they were for the Union"; 19 that she answered, "I didn't know it, . do you reckon they will fire me"; that Bost replied, "I don't know"; and that Bost looked at the sheet of paper with her permission.20 Concerning her discharge later that same day, Earnhardt testified as follows: Well, I sewed all the evening and just about time, 4:30, it was on pay-day, and when she brought the envelopes around to give us our envelopes, well, she usually would give mine the third or fourth envelope as she handed them out, but she didn't, she kept mine, and I said, "the bell had already rung for us to get off" and I followed her up, she walked on down the front, and I followed her, and she said, "just a minute, Daisy, I have something to say to you," so she handed me two and I said what is this other one for, and she said I am sorry, but Mr. Rab said he just cannot use you any more, and I said, "well Doris, will you come and go with me in the office," and she said, "yes, I will," and she went with me in the office, but she turned and walked out. . Well, I went in and Mr. Rab was using the 'phone and Mr. Feit told him there was a lady wanted to talk to you, and he said, "all right, in just a minute," and when he got through using the phone I laid both the envelopes down and said, "what are these for?" . . . and he said, "you know what it is for, because you are fired, because you tried to take matters, you girls tried to take matters in your own hands, as you are going around telling people that was for Christmas. cards when all the time they were for the damned Union, said if you had wanted the names of the girls that you had on this piece of paper, said you ought to come in the office and get them from the office or either ask your Supervisor or Floorlady if it would be all right for you to go around and do that without taking matters in your own hands. . . . So I went on to tell him I had quit a good job to come out to work for him and then that is the way that the results I got, I had got fired, and that I needed to work, so I told him and he kept on talking and Mr. Feit kept on saying "Mr Rab, you are talking too much," he said that three times. . I told him they were for Christmas cards. . He said "Christmas cards baloney," said "that is what the girl got fired for yesterday," said "she went around claiming she was getting them for Christmas cards, and all the time they were for the Union," and I told him "this list of names is not for the Union," I said "I am for the Union, and I will do every- thing I can to help to bring the Union out here," is all I said, I walked out. Cora Mae Hagler testified that "right after Daisy [Earnhardt] was laid off" she had a conversation with Bost. Hagler testified credibly, "I was put back on a machine back there beside of where Daisy was at work, and she was not at work, and I asked Doris where she was, and she said she got laid off, and I asked what for, was it due to the Union . . . starting up out there, and she said she could not say direct, but she thought so. . And she asked me if I knew anything about the Union, and I told her no, it had never been discussed with me, and she asked me if I found out or heard anything would I tell her, and I told her I would." 21 It is found that Bost's interrogation of Hagler concerning the Union constitutes interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion. Bost testified, in substance, that she was hired by the Respondent on October 27; that she was made floorlady over the pants line after about 2 weeks; that during her first week in the job of floorlady she twice asked Earnhard "to please sew the pocket placket on the right side of the pocket, the side that was not notched"; that during the weeks of November 11 and 23 she had "a great deal of difficulty" with Earnhardt because she failed to mark with chalk on top of the bundles the size and shade of the material; that as a result of Earnhardt's failure to mark the top pocket on 19 As related above, Johnston was discharged on December 3. The record shows that she also circulated a notebook in order to get names and addresses for Christmas cards. 20 Earnhardt testified that she made a copy of the paper and gave it to Smith. Bost denied the above statements attributed to her by Earnhardt. She testified that she did not ask Earnhardt for the paper; that Earnhardt offered her the paper; and that she told Earnhardt that she did not want it because she knew of the custom of sending Christmas cards 21 Bost denied the above statements attributed to her by Hagler, and testified, " I never had such a conversation with Cora Mae Hagler " LEISURE LADS, INC. 207 the bundle she (Bost) several times had to go through the bundle, examining some 288 plackets, in order to find the one with the chalk mark showing the size and shade; that she "pleaded" with Earnhardt to mark the bundles correctly; and that "after this continued, I spoke to Mr. Rab about it, and he told me to give her a final warning and tell her if she didn't do her work better, she would be discharged, and I did, and during the next week, she continued to turn out work as she had before, so I told him, and he told me to discharge her on Friday, the following Friday.22 Concerning Earnhardt's discharge on December 4, Bost testified, "... I gave her the [pay] envelopes, and I told her that she had been warned, and that Mr. Rab said he could not use her any more, wasting material and time with her.23 She said `you are firing me on account of the Union, aren't you,' and I said `Daisy, no one said anything about the Union,' she said 'I want to speak to Mr. Rab.' I said . . 'I will take you to Mr. Rab' and I did." Bost also testified that when she took Earnhardt to the office, Feit was present with Rab in the reception room; but that she did not remain during the conversation. The testimony of Mildred Meyers and Eula Safrit supports Bost's version of Earnhardt's discharge. Meyers testified, "Well, the evening she was discharged, we were fixing to go home, I was gathering up my jackets and she and Doris came by my machine and I heard Doris say she was letting her go, she could not keep her any longer, she had been messing up the material." Safrit testified, ". . . Doris was giving out the money, she had just handed me mine, and Daisy walked up and asked Doris for her money, and Doris handed Daisy her money, and Doris said `Daisy, I am sorry, I am going to have to let you go', Daisy said `why, because of the Union,' and Doris said 'no, your work is not satisfactory.' " Kate Smith testified that "a good many times" she heard Bost talk to Earnhardt about marking the shade letter on the top of the bundle; that she saw Bost take bundles apart in order to find the size and shade; that she also heard Bost talk to Earnhardt about not sewing pocket plackets properly; that Bost had to rip the plackets off the pockets and sew them again ; and that she never did hear Bost threaten to discharge Earnhardt. Concerning Earnhardt's discharge, Rab was questioned and testified as follows: Q. Do you know why she was discharged? A. Yes, sir, the latter part of November, 1953 Doris Bost, the floorlady in the pants department, complained to me about her work, that she put the plackets on the pocket wrong, she is not putting them closely to the notches which have to meet with the notches on the pants; and also our work runs with a lot of sections, we might have some time five sections in one bundle, or six sections, and they are made out according to the alphabetical form A, B, C and D, and when she has finished the form the section is not marked on it, and she has to go through the whole thing and find the sections, and it takes away most of her time, and it don't give her much time to provide the other girls with work. I told her, you go over to Daisy and give her a warning that she has got to do better work, we cannot use that work, and if she don't we will have to discharge her. Q. Throughout this case there has been testimony relating to the work that Daisy Earnhardt, and the word shading was mentioned a number of times. Now, how does that relate to her? A. It is the same thing. Q. You are using section and shading- A. As the same thing. Some will say shading and some will say section. Q. Now, the testimony is that, from Doris Bost, floor lady on that pants line, that Daisy Earnhardt was discharged by you because her work was unsatis- factory, and after you had told Doris Bost to give her a warning and that she would be discharged. Did Doris Bost talk to you again after that? A. Yes, sir, she did. Q. And did she tell you that she had warned Daisy Earnhardt? A. That is right, she did. 21Earnhardt denied that Bost complained to her for sewing the pockets wrong. She admitted that Bost on many occasions had to rip the plackets off, but testified that four other employees at times made pockets, and that she did not know of Bost ever having to rip any pockets that she had sewed She also denied that she had failed to chalk the size and shade on top of the bundle, and that Bost warned her before December 4. 2z Earnhardt denied that she was told that her work was unsatisfactory by either Bost or Rab. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. And did she say how Daisy Earnhardt's work was then? A. She told me that her work has not improved at all, and she is still having the same trouble with her, and I told her to let her finish the week and discharge her. Rab denied the statements attributed to him by Earnhardt. Contrary to Bost's testimony, Feit denied that he was present when Rab spoke to Earnhardt. He also denied the statement attributed to him by Earnhardt. Earnhardt, Meyers, Safrit, and Smith all impressed me favorably as witnesses. Bost did not. Heretofore, Bost, Rab, and Feit have been discredited. I believe and find that the General Counsel has sustained the burden of proving that the Respondent discharged Earnhardt on December 4 because of her union membership and activities . In so finding, I credit Earnhardt's versions of her first conversation with Bost on December 4 and of her later conversation with Rab and Feit. In view of the conflicts between the testimony of Earnhardt , Meyers, Safrit, and Smith, I make no findings with respect to the quality of Earnhardt's work or her conversation with Bost at the time of her discharge. Even if the Respondent's witnesses were to be credited in this connection, I am convinced that the Respondent raised the defense as a pretext for Earnhardt's discharge. The evidence shows that the plant did not open until October 27; that the employees were new to the work and had to be instructed; and that the quality and quantity of the work of many of them was poor during this period of time. As to the quality of the work during November, Rab himself testified that a "substantial part" of the employees were not doing their work properly. Further, Smith was not questioned and did not testify concerning the times when she heard Bost talking to Earnhardt. Smith did testify that she was present "just about every time" when Bost talked to Earn- hardt; and that, contrary to Bost, she did not hear Bost warn Earnhardt that she would be discharged if her work did not improve. For the above reasons, and in view of the discrepancies between the testimony of Respondent 's witnesses, I believe that the substantial and credible evidence preponderates in favor of the General Counsel's case. 4. Frances Wise Wise was employed by the Respondent on October 27 as a sewing machine operator under Floorlady Sullivan. After 2 days her job was changed to clipping and turning collars. In this job she turned collars for Chapman's and Ingram's units, in addition to Sullivan's. Wise joined the Union on November 23 when solicited by employee Susanne Howard in the ladies' restroom. Immediately thereafter, Wise distributed union authorization cards to other employees. She attended the union meeting on Novem- ber 25 and was selected for the committee. Wise testified that on or about December 3 Floorlady Chapman came to her machine and asked her if it was her "thing" that was being "passed around"; that without looking to see what Chapman had she replied that she did not know; that Chapman then left but returned a few minutes later; and that Chapman "told me that this note book that Sybil Johnston was passing around to get names to send Christmas cards . she thought it was mine, that my name was on top of the list." 24 Wise testified that she also had a conversation with Floorlady Ingram at about the same time .25 In this connection she testified credibly and without contradiction, "We were discussing about so many girls being fired and laid off, coming in and going out , that is what brought the conversation up, and then she said that Mr. Rab had asked her . . . why there were so many girls going out of other units . because of the union, and there were not any going out of her unit, and she told me that she didn 't stand around and listen to see what her girls had to say. . . She told me that she had told him" From all the evidence it is clear that "going out . . . because of the Union" meant dis- charge or layoff for union membership and activity. Accordingly, it is found that Ingram's statement is violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act since it contains a threat of reprisal. Concerning her termination of employment on December 10, Wise testified as follows: Well, when I went in there that morning Mr. Rab was out of town , I went to my table and I called Frances [Sullivan] over and I told her that I didn't have 24 Chapman denied that she had the above conversation with Wise. 25 Ingram did not appear as a witness at the hearing. LEISURE LADS, INC. 209 too much work there, . she said, "well, I am going to keep you busy until lunch time"; so it seems that I did have plenty of work and as I went to Mrs. Chapman's unit and found she had two girls making collars for the jackets, which kept me pretty busy, . I had plenty of work all that morning ; at one time I went over into Frances' unit, that was about a quarter after eleven , . . . And as I came back, I looked up at the time clock and I thought I missed my time card out of the rack, . So, I was waiting for her to come to tell me and about 5 minutes to 12 she came to my table, her husband Dorsey Sullivan came up and stood behind her,26 and she told me that Mr. Rab had left word for me to be laid off, for me to go by the office and pick up my check whenever the whistle blowed. . . . I asked hei , I told her my card was gone out of the rack, I asked was they going to pay me in full? She said , "I guess so," and I said, "well, I had never been paid in full before in my life and laid off , I call that fired. . . . She told me . . . that I would be called back to work." Wise testified further that she called Sullivan at her home about a week after she was laid off; that she asked Sullivan when she would be called back to work; that Sullivan replied that she did not know; and that Sullivan admitted that Patricia Ward had taken over her job.27 Wise returned to the plant on December 14 and obtained a separation slip from Fisher. As related above, the slip shows, "no work available" as the reason for termination of employment . The slip also contains the notation , "no wages in lieu of notice." 28 As of the date of the hearing herein , Wise had not been recalled to work. Susanne Howard testified that on December 11 Ruby Brown took Wise's place at the collar turning machine. Rab testified, in substance, that "Wise quit ; she was not discharged"; that on December 9 "sometime in the afternoon " he noticed that there were no collars on Wise's table ; that he brought her a bundle of jackets and asked her to turn them; that she said, "Mr. Rab I am not going to turn jackets and collars"; 29 that he replied, "well, you have no collars, . . . you are the first girl in 25 years that ever turned me down"; that Wise later came to him and said she wanted her "time"; that "I says I have no money now, and she walked away"; that later that same day Sullivan told him that there were not many collars being made; that he said, "I know that, . you know that Frances Wise used to turn jackets"; that Sullivan asked him what she should do when the collars ran out ; that he told her, "let her turn all the collars you have, and when you have no more collars for her just lay her off" ; that he phoned the plant on December 10 at about 10 a. in. and spoke to Sullivan; that she told him that she had no more collars and asked him what she should do with Wise; and that he told Sullivan , "if you have no collars just lay her off." Concerning Wise's termination , Sullivan testified to the following: Well, on December 9th Mr. Rab came to me and he told me about the incident where he had taken a bundle of coats to Frances Wise and she refused to turn them, and I told him, I said "well, he had planned to leave that night," I said "well, we are going to be out of collars tomorrow , what am I going to do with Frances Wise since she don 't want to turn coats," and he told me, said "well, you will have to lay her off for a few days," so she came to work on December 10th, that morning, and about the middle of the morning , she came to me and she said "Frances, what am I going to do now," said "I am almost finished with my collars," and I told her, I said "I am going to try to find you something to do," and I then went around to the girls' machines that were sewing collars and I gathered up all they had, and asked them did they have any more, and they said no, and I told them well, that was all. . . . Well, then, we had enough collars to keep her busy, she was not real busy up until lunch time, and I went over to her a few minutes , about ten minutes before lunch , and I told her that we had no more collars and I was going to have to lay her off for a few days until it was some more cut, she told me, said "Frances, you are not laying me off, you are firing me"; I said "no, Frances , I am laying you off, I am not firing "Dorsey Sullivan was employed in the cutting department. He did not appear as a witness at the hearing. a' Sullivan denied that she had the above conversation with Wise 28 The separation slip of Susanne Howard, whose case is discussed hereinafter, also contained the above remark 21 Wise admitted that she had refused to turn jackets for Rab, but testified that the incident took place about November 17, and not on December 9. Wise also testified that she turned jackets "practically every day," and that she turned jackets after her refusal about Novembei 17. 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD you"; and she said "you are, and I want all my money"; . Well, I told Frances, I told her I would see if Sara had enough money, and if she thought I was firing her, that she could have it her way, if she wanted it like that, but I was laying her off; and so she went on into the office at lunch time and she never did call me, she never came back to the plant. Sullivan further testified that Ruby Brown after Wise's termination "could have had to cut a few extra collars, and maybe she turned say a half dozen collars that were missing out of a cut"; that otherwise the turning machine was not operated for "a period of three or four days, until they got the next cut out"; and that employee Pat Ward was then assigned to operate the machine. Sara Fisher testified that Rab called the office at 10 a. in. on December 10 and spoke to Sullivan; that after the conversation Sullivan told her to have Wise's pay at lunch time as there were no more collars to turn; and that "just before lunch time" Sullivan came back to the office and asked her to prepare Wise's pay in full since "Wise demanded all of her money, that she was quitting." Annie Shoe testified that on December 9 she overheard a conversation between Rab and Wise; that "Mr. Rab asked Frances to turn coats and she flatly refused, said she would not turn coats and collars too", that Wise then told her and Doris Grahm that she would "not turn coats and collars too"; and that she later heard Wise tell Rab, "If you will give me my time, I will go home." Betty Holhauser testified that on December 9 she had the following conversation with Wise: ... she said "Mr. Rab asked me to turn coats, and I told him I would not turn coats and collars both, and I also asked him to give me my whole time, and he said he would not." 30 Holhauser testified further that on December 10 she was making collars; that she ran out of collars at lunch time, and that Wise "came to my table that morning and kept rushing me, told me to hurry and get up some collars, that she was out and she was going home at lunch time." Elsie Barrier testified, in substance, that on December 10 she was making collars; that "by the middle of the morning" she started to run out of collars; that Wise then took parts of a bundle from her; and that Wise "said she was wondering what she would have to do when she got caught up, because she didn't want to turn any coats." Mary Rattz testified that on December 10 she was making collars, that at about 10.30 or 11 a. in. Sullivan came to her machine and picked up some bundles to take to Wise; that "she [Sullivan] asked me if that was all the collars I had, I said `that is all the collars I have on my machine to sew,' and she said `that is all there is up at the cutting table' "; and that Pat Ward took Wise's place at the collar turning machine. In this case, as in the above cases of Hartman and Howard, I find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving that the Respondent laid off or discharged Wise discriminatorily. From my observations at the hearing, Wise, Sullivan, Fisher, Shoe, Holhauser, Barrier, and Rattz appeared to be reliable and credible witnesses. If credited, the testimony of Shoe and Holhauser would dis- credit that of Wise in material respects. Although the Respondent does not contend that Wise was laid off or discharged because of her insurbordination, it does contend, in effect, that she was laid off because there were no more collars for her to turn and she had refused to turn jackets. In my opinion, the time of her refusal is important. According to Wise, the refusal took place on about November 17, and thereafter she turned jackets. If this testimony is credited, the incident becomes irrelevant and immaterial; and my finding herein would be otherwise. On the other hand, if her refusal took place on the day before her layoff, as testified to by Rab, Shoe, and Holhauser, the Respondent's action appears reasonable. The evidence conclusively shows that collars were running out during the morning of December 10. This is apparent from the testimony of Wise herself. If she had refused to turn jackets the day before, the Respondent had no alternative but to lay her off. It is undisputed that Wise was not recalled to work and that she was replaced at the collar turning machine. However, if Wise refused to turn jackets on December 9 and if Sullivan's version of the conversation at the time of the layoff is credited, the Respondent's failure to recall her to work also appears reasonable. For these reasons I make no findings as to the above conversations between Wise, Chapman, and Sullivan, and will recommend that Wise's case be dismissed. 20 Wise denied making the above remarks to Holhauser. LEISURE LADS, INC. 5. Susanne Howard 211 Howard was hired by the Respondent on October 28. She joined linings to jackets in Sullivan's unit. She attended the meeting at Hartman's home on November 20 and signed a union card at that time. On November 23 she distributed union cards to other employees while in the ladies' restroom before work. She attended the union meeting on November 25 and was selected for the committee. Howard testified that during the morning of December 10 her job was changed by Sullivan to sewing crinoline into the jackets, that Sullivan told her at the time that the change was made "because the girls would not have any jackets to turn." 31 Concerning a conversation with Sullivan at the time of her discharge on De- cember 11, Howard testified to the following: I noticed her husband was standing right behind her, or about three feet from us, she went and got her husband at the other end of the room. . She said "Susie, I am going to have to let you go," she handed me two envelopes, I said "what is that," she said "I am going to have to let you go," I said "why," she said "Mr. Rab said you are too slow," I said "what do you mean, too slow, you just put me on this job yesterday," I said "wasn't I getting along fine on the other," she said "yes," and I say "what do you want to change me for," she didn't answer, I said "you know I was making around thirty five or forty dozen a day then," I was keeping two women busy all the time, then there was some bundles aside waiting on them, and I said I-or she said "I don't know nothing about it, you will have to see Mr. Rab Monday, he is not here now." Howard also testified that she never had received any complaints about her work either from Sullivan or Rab, and that both Sullivan and Rab had told her that her work was all right when she was joining linings.32 With respect to the reasons for Howard's discharge, Sullivan testified, in substance, that on her first job Howard at times put linings of the wrong size in the jackets; that "about three weeks before she was laid off, . . . she had just gotten where she put more and more wrong size linings in them, . and I would tell her . . . and help her take them out"; that in ripping out the lining the material sometimes tore and had to be discarded, that the next week Howard put wrong sizes in "several bundles"; that she told Howard at the time "that we could not have any more of that, that if she kept on, I would have to let her go, that it was costing a lot of money to do that"; that she told Rab that she thought that Howard should be discharged be- cause she made so many mistakes; that Rab said, "well, since she is an elderly woman, why don't you give her another job"; that she then changed Howard's job to stitching crinoline in jackets as "no sizes were involved", that on her second job Howard did not sew a "straight seam"; that as a result the crinoline had to be ripped out and dis- carded; that Howard performed this unsatisfactory work "just about every day" for about a week before her discharge; that she again talked to Rab about Howard; that he told her to discharge Howard if she was unable to do her work properly, and that she herself decided to discharge Howard without consulting with Rab again 33 Sulli- van denied Howard's testimony concerning the conversation at the time of discharge. Sullivan testified that the following conversation took place: Well, I told her that I had tried and tried to work with her, and she had made so many mistakes, that we could not just keep on, it was costing the Company a lot of money, and I would have to let her go, and she then said to me that would be all right with her, that is what she had been wanting for a long time. Rab testified substantially the same as Sullivan with respect to Howard's discharge Employee Willene Carrell worked two machines in back of Howard on the same line She testified, "The first of December . Frances Sullivan was sitting on the table at Susanne Howard's, . she was ripping the lining from the jackets and I asked what she was doing, and she said Susanne had put the wrong size lining in the sleeve of the jackets. . . . She [Howard] didn't deny it; she was as near to Frances as I was." "a Sullivan testified that Ho«ard's job was changed "about a week" before her discharge She denied the above conversation sa Sullivan and Rab denied telling Howard that her work was satisfactory Howard denied that she sewed linings of the wrong size into jackets. She testified that "three or four times" Ploorlady- Ruby Biown brought her jackets which had linings of the wrong size , and that she told Brown that she had not performed the work. Howard denied that Sullivan complained to her about her work on the second job. 369028-56-vol. 112-15 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While Howard joined linings, Vonnie Bonds worked at a machine which was sepa- rated from hers by a table. Bonds testified that "at least twice" she heard Sullivan complain to Howard about sewing a wrong lining into a jacket; that on another oc- casion when Sullivan brought a jacket to Howard for mending, she (Bonds) told Sulli- van that it was her jacket and mended it herself; 34 that during November Howard told her that she wanted to be discharged as she was dissatisfied with the work, and that "I won't say it was a week, but it was several days" when Howard was changed to another job. Imogene McClenny worked at a machine which was located directly behind that of Howard's. She testified that on December 11 she heard the conversation between Sullivan and Howard when the latter was discharged; that Sullivan told Howard that her work was unsatisfactory, and that Howard said, "that is what I have been wanting a long time." McClenny testified further that on "several occasions" she heard Sullivan tell Howard that she had put the wrong size lining in a jacket; that on another occasion "just before" Howard's job was changed, Sullivan "brought a whole bundle back, I will say approximately between three to five dozen coats in it . . to Susanne and told her she had the wrong size lining"; that Howard made no reply; that Sulli- van ripped out the linings from the jackets; that "several times" she (McClenny) heard Howard say that she wanted to be discharged, that on one occasion she suggested to Howard that she should quit, and that Howard replied, "If I quit, I can't draw my un- employment money." Employee Mary Cable testified, in substance, that Howard told that she was dis- satisfied with her work and wanted to be discharged in order to draw unemployment compensation; that on the day of her discharge Howard told her that she was going to ask Sullivan for "her time that day" as she did not like to sew on crinoline; and that on December 11 Howard sewed her work improperly even after Sullivan com- plained that the jackets were "puckering" and showed her how to sew them correctly 35 Employee Eloise Miller testified that "a week or so" before December I1 Howard told her that she wanted to be discharged, and that Howard said, "I could draw more unemployment than I can working up here." Susanne Howard did not impress me favorably as a witness. Accordingly, I credit Sullivan's version of the conversation at the time of discharge, and find that the Respondent discharged Howard for cause. It conclusively appears from the testi- mony of the Respondent's witnesses, whom I credit in this connection, that Howard was an unsatisfactory employee who was dissatisfied with her work and wanted to be discharged in order to obtain unemployment benefits. 6. Vivian Gobbles and Ruby Parris Parris and Gobbles were hired by the Respondent on November 16 and Decem- ber 1, 1953, respectively. Both worked as pressers in the pressing and finishing de- partment under Floorlady Mildred Murdock. Parris attended the union meeting on November 25. At that meeting she joined the Union and was selected for the committee to organize the plant. Thereafter, she distributed union authorization cards and solicited employees to join the Union at their homes and at the plant "during lunch time, before and after work." She also attended union meetings which were held on December 8 and January 1. At the meeting held on January 1, the only employees attending who still worked at the plant were Parris, Gobbles, and Mina Zimmerman.36 Gobbles also attended the union meeting held on December 8 and joined the Union at that time. Concerning an incident on January 4, Gobbles testified credibly, "Well, on Mon- day morning when I went in to work, as I was crossing the room, Mr. Rab was standing back at one of the cutting tables, which is right close to the inspector's table, and Mrs. Lina [sic] Zimmerman, and she passed by Mr. Rab, she said some- thing to him, I do not know what it was because I was not close enough to hear, but the minute she said it, Mr. Rab looked right straight at me, and he didn't say anything, and all day long, he watched me." 34 Howard testified to the effect that Bonds was the one who made the mistake in sewing linings of the «rong size into the jackets Bonds' testimony is contradictory in the above connection At first she testified that she told Sullivan that it was her jacket on one of the two occasions when she brought jackets back to Howard. Later Bonds testified that this occurred at a different time Howard admitted that on December 10 or 11 she told Cable, "if I had to do this kind of work, I ought to go hone," but denied telling any employee that she wanted to be dis- charged in order to collect unemployment compensation benefits. 36 Zimmerman did not appear as a witness at the hearing LEISURE LADS, INC. 213 Parris testified to the effect that she was watched closely starting on January 4. In this connection she testified, "I noticed Mi. Rab and Mrs. Murdock constantly watching me, just walking around the tables watching me constantly all day, and this went on for three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday . . . and this was Wednesday, which would be January 6th, I was engaged in a conversation with Ruby Rusher and Evelyn Morris; . and Mrs. Murdock came to me and said "girls, cut out the picnic"; I says "all right"; the other two girls kept on talk- ing, but I stopped, that afternoon after lunch I was engaged in a conversation with Annette Wise, who sits directly in front of me; Mrs. Murdock came to me and asked me not to talk, or to quit talking , I didn't talk any more at work; she didn't say anything to the other girl." 37 Gobbles testified that she called Murdock at her home on Wednesday night, Janu- ary 6. In this connection she testified as follows: I asked Mrs. Murdock if Mr. Rab had been watching me more than usual from the Monday on up until Wednesday , and she said yes, that he was watch- ing, she said watching us, . . . And so I told her that I had gone down to the Union Hall on Friday night out of curiosity to see what was going on, because I had heard so much, and I didn't know what it was all about, and I had gone down there for that reason , and she said, well, that she knew I had been down to the Union Hall that Friday night; I said "who told you" and she said this girl told her at lunch time that this other girl, we were still not calling any names, were down at the Union Hall Friday night, and she said "Vivian, were any of the other of my girls down there" and I said "no, they were not." She said "could you tell me whether or not this girl had signed a card, would you tell me," and I told her I could not tell her, because I did not know whether she had signed a card or not, and she said that Mr Rab was going to call her that night on the telephone and she would talk to him and see if she could not, I guess, talk him into letting me stay on , because-she said she could not do anything for the other girl. Murdock admitted having a conversation with Gobbles on January 6, but denied the statements attributed to her by Gobbles Concerning the conversation, Mur- dock testified , . she called me and told me that she had gone with Ruby [Parris] to this Union meeting, and that she knew she should not have gone, but out of curiosity, she went anyway. . And it was going to cause any trouble, or cause me any trouble at the Plant, she would just quit, and I told her it was not going to cause me any trouble , not to worry about it." Employee Margarie Call testified that she overheard a conversation between Felt and Floorlady Roxie Ingram on January 8 . In this connection Call testified credi- bly, "I was at my machine . . . and I heard Mr. Feit ask Roxie which two girls, and Roxie said the girl in the grey dress and the one with the red hair, and they turned and looked toward the pressers , and naturally I looked too , and I saw that . . . the outstanding girl in the grey dress was Ruby Parris and the red headed girl was Vivian Gobble. . I also heard him ask Roxie was there any girls on her line that she thought she could trust , and she told him she thought she could trust all her girls; and then he asked her which other girls were concerned, and she said the girl at the back, the third from the back ; I looked back and saw a girl Mina Zimmerman . . I heard Mr. Feit ask Roxie did she think that deserved a raise and they went off and I didn 't heard any more." 38 With respect to her termination of employment on January 8, 1954, Parris testified, in substance, that Murdock came to her at about 4:20 p. m. and said, "Ruby, I hate to do this worse than anything I have ever done in my life, but Mr. Rab said for me to lay you off. . . I have been worrying about it all day"; that when she asked her why she was being laid off, Murdock replied, "you will have to see Mr. Rab about that"; that Murdock said , "I am not firing you, I am just laying you off . . . that is not your time, there is only one week's pay there": 34 Murdock denied that she told Parris not to talk on January 6, and testified to the effect that thei e was no rule against talking in the pressing department ss Call testified that to the best of her knowledge the conversation took place on January 8 Parris testified credibly that she saw Felt in the plant on January 8 Felt denied having any conversation such as the above with Ingram , and testified that he was sick at home on January 8 and did not go to the plant that day. His denial is not c redited As related above, Ingram did not appear as a witness at the hearing 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and that Murdock told her that her work was all right and that she was keeping up with the other employees on production." 39 Concerning the conversation with Murdock when her employment was ter- minated on January 8, Gobbles testified, ". . . Mildred came by and gave me my money, and she said `Vivian, I am sorry I am going to have to do what I said over the telephone on Wednesday night,' and I said, `it is all right with me.' ... She said she had talked to Mr. Rab, but it didn't do any good." 40 Parris and Gobbles returned to the plant on January 11 and talked to Rab. As to this conversation, Parris testified in part, "I asked him why I was laid- off. . He said he told Mildred that she was hiring too many pressers, there were 29 pressers and there should be only 8 for the work the machine operators were putting out ... and he said 'we are going on production Monday, and there would not be enough work'; and I said `well, why did you hire the two new girls Tuesday and there would not be enough work for me, if there was enough work for them, there would be enough for me'; he said `what is the difference, it makes no difference."' 41 As of the date of the hearing herein, Parris and Gobbles had not been recalled to work. Concerning his reasons for the termination of employment of Parris and Gobbles, Rab was questioned and testified as follows: Q. Will you explain to the Court what happened? A. On January 4, which I believe was on a Monday, and I was in the factory there, I looked around over the departments, checked the finished work, and I went over to the pressing at that time, and I looked over the work there, and I took Mable, who is the floor lady of that department- Q. Who is the floor lady? A. Mildred, I mean Murdock, I made a mistake, and I told her that the, all the sewing units have been on piece rates system, and there was no reason why the pressing department should not go on the same piece rate system, they had enough time, and she says, "well, when do you want me to go"; I says, "well, you finish off the week and starting the next week they all are going to go on piece rate system, and let them earn their money." I also told her we have too many pressers, and we will have to cut down three or four pressers, she said to me "do you want me to cut them down this week"; I says "no, cut down two pressers this week and cut down one or two pressers the next week"; she said "when do you want me to do that," I says, "well, I will let you know later on." On Tuesday, the next day, let me see, the same day one of the inspectors and folders were out, and so I went in the office and I asked the girl in the office, Mrs. Sara Fisher, to give me one of the applica- tions from the inspectors and folders, and she gave me one and I looked it over, and I told her to call that girl in to work. Q. Do you remember the girl's name? A. I don't remember exactly. Q. Well, was it Nellie Carter? A. I think it was; she came in that morning and there was not too much work available for the folders and inspector, and the floor lady asked me what to do with her, and I told her, "Well the girl is in, we got to find some work, give her some work," so I said "Well, we have pressing, put her on pressing," she put her on pressing, and in a few hours I passed by down there, which I spent a little time down there and I noticed that she is doing a good job, I called over Mildred and I told her that; she says that is very nice; I said she is doing a brilliant job; the same day I called in Mildred in the office, and 31 Murdock testified that she told Parris, "I hated to do this Ruby, but Mr Rab told me to." Otherwise she denied the statements attributed to her by Parris On about February 15, 1954, Murdock gave Parris the following letter of reference : Ruby Parris, worked under my supervision for about 2 months I was pleased with her work, she was always willing to do anything I asked her to do She was also nice and very courteous to me as supervisor The reason for leaving, not enough work. (FLOORLADY) MILDRED MURDOCK Leisure Lads Co. Murdock denied the above statements attributed to her by Gobbles 41 Gobbles testified substantially the same as the above Parris testified that to the best of her knowledge Hazel Webb, an inspector, and Nellie Carter, a presser, were hired for the pressing and finishing department on January 5. The evidence shows that Carter was hired on January 4. LEISURE LADS, INC. 215 I told her to lay off two pressers; she said "Which ones do you want me to lay off"; I said, "Well, I tell you, I don't know their names, but if you will come over to the door I will point them out to you," which I did, and she told me the names, and I said , "Well, those girls you lay off Friday." Q. Why did you pick those girls? A. Well, the last couple of days I had been around the pressing depart- ment and I looked every body's work over and I noticed that their work was not as good as the others... . Q. . What do you mean by not as good? A. Their pressing was not as good as the others, the others were doing a better job in pressing. Q. All right, I will ask you in what respect was their work not as good? A. In the quality. Q. What was wrong with their quality? A. They were not pressed too good. Q. Did you say anything to Mildred after that? A. She did to me, I told her that those two girls had enough time, they worked here about eight or ten weeks, and they had enough time to be good pressers, and lay them off, we had to cut down our pressing force and we may as well keep those that are the best pressers and cut the others down and lay them off. Q. . Why did. you not terminate the girl that you hired only one day before that time? A. Well, she was doing exceptionally good work and I knew that she will be one of the best pressers, and as a matter of fact she is today one of the best pressers that we have there. Q. You mean best presser in regard to her quality? A. That is right. Q. Now, I think it was Ruby Parris who testified that she noticed that you were for the first time spending a great deal of time in the pressing department watching her work on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the week in which she was terminated; is that true? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, did you only watch her work9 A. I watched everybody's work, the whole department. Q. And is this the occasion on which you testified that you were examining the quality and the other conditions of work in the pressing department? A. That is right. Q. Then I gather from your testimony that you chose Ruby Parris and Vivian Gobbles for termination in accordance with your plan to reduce the pressers because of the quality of their work was poor? A. That is right. Murdock testified, in substance, that on January 4 Rab told her that the pressing department was going on production and that the force would have to be reduced "by at least three or four girls within about two weeks", that he also told her that he would let her know later which employees she should let go; that Rab watched the pressers for "several days", that on January 6 Rab told her to terminate the employ- ment of Parris and Gobbles on Friday, January 8; that employee Georgia Albright "was terminated the next week" in accordance with Rab's instructions, 42 that em- ployees Ruby Hislop and Geneva Gilbert were transferred to inspecting on February 8 and March 5, respectively; that she at times had to take work back to the pressers to be done over; that Parris and Gobbles were not "outstanding" in that respect; that there were 15 pressers on January 8; that as of the date of the hearing herein there were 10 pressers; and that the pressers have not worked full time since Janu- ary 8. The Respondent contends, in effect, that it was necessary to lay off several pressers on January 8 for economic reasons, and that it chose Gobbles and Parris because the quality of their work was not as good as that of the other pressers. Rab testified that on January 4 he told Murdock that it would be necessary to "cut down two pressers this week and cut down one or two pressers the next week." However, the evidence discloses that that same day Carter was hired and put to work as a presser; and Parris' testimony to the effect that Webb was hired on about January 5 as an inspector stands uncontradicted in the record. Since pressing and inspecting are in the same unit or department under Murdock and since two pressers later were 42 The evidence shows that Albright was terminated on January 19. 216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD transferred to inspecting, the need for discharging or laying off pressers is not clear. If, as contended, the Respondent had too many pressers on January 8, it could have transferred 2 pressers to inspecting immediately, rather than hire 2 new employees, 1 a presser and the other an inspector. Further, the testimony of Murdock indicates that the work of Gobbles and Parris, insofar as quality and quantity were concerned, was as good or better than that of the other pressers. I credit the testimony of Gobbles and Parris in connection with the conduct and statements of Rab and Murdock, related above. Murdock did not impress me as reliable or credible from her demeanor as a witness. Accordingly, the credited evidence shows that Gobbles, Parris, and Zimmerman were the only employees still working at the plant who attended the union meeting held on Friday, January 1; that immediately after talking to Zimmerman on Monday morning, January 4, Rab watched Gobbles and Parris closely for 3 days, that on January 6 Murdock twice cautioned Parris about talking to other employees, although there was no rule against talking, that Murdock told Gobbles on January 6 that she knew that Gobbles had attended the union meeting; and that on January 8 Floorlady Ingram, after pointing out Gobbles and Parris to Feit, indicated Zimmerman as the other girl "con- cerned." Although circumstantial, this evidence strongly indicates that Zimmer- man was the person who was informing the Respondent concerning the union activi- ties of its employees. As noted above, Zimmerman was not called as a witness. In any event, Murdock's statement to Gobbles, and Floorlady Chapman's statement to Williams on December 4, heretofore related and found, conclusively show that some employee was an informant. Rab admitted that he watched the pressers for about 3 days. His testimony con- cerning the reason for this action is incredible. The Respondent had employees who inspected the work of the pressers. If it was not done properly, it was rejected; and Murdock brought it back to the presser involved to do over. Clearly she was the most qualified person in a position to know the quality and quantity of the work of each presser in her unit. Nevertheless, Rab did not consult with Murdock for her opinion. Further, although the pressers were scheduled to go on "production" the following Monday, Rab was concerned only with the quality of the work. Under the circumstances, it would seem that he would have been concerned with the quantity of the work, at least to some extent. However, since quality is somewhat intangible, obviously it was the safer ground. It is noteworthy that in the case of Johnston, above, Rab allegedly chose seniority as the guiding principle in selecting the employee to be laid off. This could not be applied in the cases of Gobbles and Parris, since the evidence discloses that three pressers were hired after them. From all of the evidence it is apparent that Rab was looking for a pretext in order to discharge Parris and Gobbles. This is indicated by Murdock's warning to Parris about talking. Not being able to find the needed excuse, Rab apparently decided that a reduction in force was in order. For reasons set forth above, I have found that this defense does not have merit. In conclusion, it is my opinion that the General Counsel proved a prima facie case; and that the Respondent was not sustained in its defense by reliable and sub- stantial evidence. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent discharged Gobbles and Parris on January 8, 1954, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. C. Interference, restraint, and coercion Cora Mae Hagler testified that Hartman, Wise, and Johnston came to her home during the night of December 17 and solicited her to join the Union; that she re- fused to join; and that she had conversations on December 18 with Floorlady Bost and Rab in this connection. Concerning the conversations, Hagler testified as fol- lows: I called Doris and told her if she heard anything about me having any visitors the night before, to give me a chance to explain, because I didn't want to lose my job, because I needed it too bad, and I said "you know what I mean," and she said "yes, I do" and so I went to work at twenty minutes to twelve and she come back to the table and talked to me, and I told her everything that was said and done at my house the night before. . . . So she asked me if I wanted to talk with Mr. Rab and I told her I would, and she went and got Mr. Rab and brought him to the table and I talked to him about it, and he asked me if I signed the card and I told him I didn't; and he told me, he said, "Mrs. Hagler, if you do your work well, which you are a good worker, and if you do your work well and be nice," he said, "I will see that you have a job and won't get laid off" . . . and said they would not go union there, said they close the place or the plant before they would go union. LEISURE LADS, INC. 217 Bost denied that the above conversations occurred , and denied the statements at- tributed to her and Rab by Hagler. Rab also denied the statements attributed to him by Hagler. Their denials are not credited . I credit Hagler's testimony in this con- nection and find that Rab's interrogation of Hagler and threat to close the plant constitute interference, restraint, and coercion. Margarie Call testified without contradiction that Roxie Ingram was her floorlady; that her machine was next to that of employee Ruth Rickard, that on about January 15 she had conversation with Rickard and Ingram, that Rickard asked Ingram which four employees were going to be discharged ; that Ingram said , "not off of this line, thank goodness"; that "Ruth spoke up and said `well, I was just wondering if it was going to be me,' and I spoke up and said me too", and that Ingram replied, "not unless you are one of those Union dogs." 43 Ingram's remark is found to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act since it contains a threat of reprisal. 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 set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent discharged and failed and refused to re- instate the following employees on the dates set forth opposite their names because of their adherence to the Union: Sybil Johnston--------------------------------------- December 3, 1953 Daisy Earnhardt_____________________________________ December 4, 1953 Vivian Gobbles________________________________________ January 8, 1954 Ruby Parris_______________ ;___________________________ January 8, 1954 It will be recommended that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges. It further will be recommended that the Respondent make whole said employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination by payment of a sum of money equal to that which they would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings during said period. Said loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter, or por- tion thereof, during the period from Respondent 's discriminatory action to the date .of the offer or reinstatement . The quarterly periods, herein called "quarter" shall begin with the first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be de- termined by deducting from a sum equal to that which the employee would nor- mally have earned for each such quarter or portion thereof , his net earnings , if any, in other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other quarter. In order to ensure compliance with the foregoing back pay and reinstatement provisions , it is recom- mended that Respondent be required upon reasonable request, to make all pertinent records available to the Board and its agents. 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. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, 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 the em- ployees named above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) of the Act. 937iagler also testified without contradiction that she had conversations with Ingram concerning the Union This testimony is not set forth since it is not clear from the record if Ingram was a floorlady at the time 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged and is en- gaging 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.] Texas City Chemicals, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers. International Union, CIO and Advisory Council of Texas City Chemicals, Inc. Case No. 39-CA-396. April 18, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On December 27, 1954, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act 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. Exceptions were thereafter filed only by the Re- spondent, not by the Advisory Council, the Union, or the General Counsel. The Respondent also filed a brief. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case 1 and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below. ORDER Upon the entire record in the 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, Texas City Chem- icals, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Initiating, forming, assisting, dominating, contributing finan- cial or other support to, or interfering with the administration of the Advisory Council or any other labor organization. (b) Otherwise interfering with the representation of its employees through a labor organization of their own choosing. (c) Recognizing the Advisory Council, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment. i The record consists of a stipulation of facts and certain other documentary material A hearing was waived We note that Appendix B attached to the Intermediate Report is an incomplete copy of the stipulation , omitting the attachments thereto 112 NLRB No. 40.