National Garment Co.

NATIONAL GARMENT COMPANY National Garment Company and Southwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases 17-CA- 7616, 17-CA 7670, 17-CA-7791, and 17-RC-8276 April 3, 1979 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS PFNEFI.O, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On December 27, 1978, Administrative Law Judge James T. Youngblood issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or- ders that Respondent, National Garment Company, Fayette, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, except that the attached notice shall be substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held at Fayette, Missouri, on June 30, 1977, in Case 17-RC- 8276 be, and it hereby is, set aside, and that Case 17- RC-8276 be, and it hereby is, severed from Cases 17- CA-7616, 17-CA-7670, and 17-CA-7791 and re- manded to the Regional Director for Region 17 for the purpose of conducting a new election. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made b the Ad- ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dn, Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con- cerning their union and other protected activi- ties, including their interest in and support for the Union. WE WILL NOT solicit employees to engage in surveillance of union meetings of our employees, and WE WILL Nor request these employees to re- turn and report to us. WE VWILL. NOT confer benefits upon our em- ployees by repairing air-conditioning systems at the Fayette facility to influence our employees' selection of a bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT confer benefits upon our em- ployees by increasing their holiday pay to influ- ence their selection of a bargaining representa- tive. WE VWIll.l NOT discourage our employees' membership in Southwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO, CLC, or any other labor or- ganization, by discharging or in any other man- ner discriminating against our employees with respect to their hire, tenure of employment, or any other term or condition of employment. WE WIILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILl, offer John Blackwell immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his se- niority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination. NATIONAL GARMENT COMPANY DECISION STATEME'NT OF THE CASE JAMES T. YOUNGBLOOD. Administrative Law Judge: The several complaints issued herein, and consolidated for hear- ing, allege that National Garment Company (herein called Respondent or the Company) engaged in various acts and conduct in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the National La- bor Relations Act, as amended, and discharged John W. Blackwell because of his membership in or activities on be- half of Southwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated 241 NLRB No. 109 703 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (herein called the Union), or because of said employee's other protected concerted activity. Additionally, Case 17- RC-8276 was connsolidated for hearing with the complaint cases because certain objections raised to the election held on June 30, 1977, encompass acts and conduct also alleged as unfair labor practices in the complaints. These matters were referred to me for determination and decision. All par- ties being present, this matter was heard before me in Boon- ville, Missouri, in December 1977. Following the hearing Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and the briefs filed herein I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Missouri corporation engaged in the manufacture of children's clothing and related products at various facilities located in the State of Missouri, including a facility located at East Elm Street, Fayette, Missouri. In the course and conduct of its business operations within the State of Missouri, Respondent annually pur- chases goods and materials in excess of $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Missouri. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is now and has been at all times material herein an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and engaged in com- merce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is now and at all times material herein has been a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ItI. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Alleged Unlawful Discharge of John W. Blackwell Blackwell was first hired by the Respondent in February 1974. In September 1974 he left the Respondent's employ and was rehired as a markermaker in the cutting depart- ment around July 6, 1976. He was discharged on March 23, 1977, allegedly for economic reasons because of an overall cost-cutting program. Prior to 1974, for approximately 5 years, Blackwell was employed as a cutter at Salisbury Manufacturing Company in Salisbury, Missouri, about 25 miles from Respondent's Fayette plant. During his employ- ment at Salisbury Manufacturing, Blackwell was required to belong to a union, and he was a steward in the cutting department from 1970 through 1974. Blackwell testified that the Salisbury Manufacturing plant is about 25 miles from the Fayette plant and that when he applied for work at National Garment, he filled out a job application indicat- ing that he had worked at the Salisbury plant.' After the Union began its organizational campaign at the Fayette facility, Blackwell secured authorization cards and distrib- uted them to the other employees. He also collected a few of these cards after they had been signed and talked to his coworkers about the Union. He said these conversations would occur in the parking lot and sometimes in the break- room. Blackwell also testified that he first learned about the Union in mid-March 1977,2 when Brenda Nelson discussed it with him. Blackwell also testified that during his conver- sations with Brenda Nelson and other employees, to his knowledge no management official observed these conver- sations. On March 23 Larry Glidewell, the assistant man- ager of the cutting department, told Blackwell to report to Ray Darden's office. Ray Darden is the floor manager of the cutting department. When Blackwell entered the office, Darden told him that he would no longer be the mark- ermaker because Larry Glidewell would be taking over the job. Blackwell asked what would happen to him, and Dar- den responded that he was terminated. Darden told Black- well that the decision was made higher up, but he did not identify anyone. Blackwell was the only markermaker em- ployed by the Company at the time. Respondent offered testimony from various company of- ficials to the effect that in September 1976 the Company began considering ways to cut cost and that one of the items considered by the officials, including the plant man- ager at the Fayette plant, was the elimination of certain jobs by total elimination of the job or by consolidating it with another job. Respondent argues that Blackwell was discharged solely because his job was eliminated. This record clearly establishes that the job was not elimi- nated, but that Darden and Glidewell performed the job functions at least for several weeks, until it was handed over to another employee, who did it along with his other duties. Respondent contends that Blackwell was discharged for economic reasons and not because he was engaged in union activities. In fact Respondent takes the position that it was not even aware at the time of his discharge that Blackwell had engaged in any form of union activities. James McCleery, a former employee of Respondent, tes- tified that he worked for Respondent between December 1975 and April 1977 in the cutting department and that the last job he had was as an expeditor in the cutting room, and Ray Darden was his immediate supervisor. McCleery testi- fied that on March 23 he learned that Blackwell had been discharged. Because he had some trouble with the employ- ees in this department about his being an expeditor, he de- cided to contact Darden to see if his job was in jeopardy. He testified that on March 24 he went to Darden's office, and they discussed the John Blackwell situation. Darden told him that Blackwell was fired because he, Darden, had been called up front and told to fire John Blackwell because of his participation in the Union. He testified further that Darden asked him if he had been participating in the I assume that this evidence as put in by the General Counsel so that I might draw an inference that Respondent had knowledge of Blackwell's past union activities, as it must have known that the Salisbury plant was union and that all employees had to join the union at that plant. I Unless otherwise specified, all dates refer to 1977. 704 NATIONAL GARMENT COMPANY Union, and when McCleery told him no, Darden stated that he had nothing to worry about. McCleery also told Darden that he had heard that the Union was just about six votes short of having a majority of the employees signed up. According to McCleery, Darden told him that Wilma Blackwell, John Blackwell's wife, was also involved with the union solicitation, but they could not prove that on her; therefore she was not fired. McCleery also testified that Darden told him that Blackwell had approached someone on the other side of the plant, and from that person that he had approached they had gone up the administrative line, and that was the reason Blackwell was discharged. McCleery stated that Darden did not name that individual.' Ray Darden testified that he was the manager of the cut- ting department at the Fayette plant and that he left the employ of National Garment in September and went to work for Dover Mills, a division of Andover Togs, in Pis- gah, Alabama. While he worked at the Fayette plant of Respondent, he supervised John Blackwell. He stated that the decision to eliminate the job of markermaker was made 2 weeks before the actual termination of Blackwell and that the decision was made at a meeting between Larry Martin, the director of manufacturing; Loyd Blalock, plant man- ager: and himself. He stated that he told Blackwell that his job had been eliminated and that he was terminated. Darden testified that he did not recall a conversation with McCleery the day following Blackwell's termination. However, he testified that he had a conversation with McCleery practically every day. He did recall a conversa- tion where Blackwell was mentioned and in which McCleery informed him that he did not think I day's notice was a sufficient notice for termination. He does not recall whether he made any comment or not. He denied asking McCleery if he was in favor of the Union. He denied men- tioning Wilma Blackwell's name at all in the conversation and also denied telling McCleery that he knew that Wilma Blackwell was involved with the Union. He further denied telling McCleery that Blackwell was discharged because of his participation in the Union. Darden also denied asking any employees about their sympathies for or activities on behalf of the Union. He said that he talked to the employ- ees about the Union, but that he only told them of his personal feelings. He did not recall making any more spe- cific statement than that. Discussion and Conclusions As indicated previously, Respondent contends that John Blackwell was terminated purely for economic reasons. The I McCleery testified that he left the employment of Respondent in April 1977 of his own volition. He also testified that, in the summer of 1977, he was electrocuted, resulting in a cerebral concussion and a broken right clavicle. As a result of this injury, he cannot remember anything for the months of July, August, September, and part of October 1977. He testified that he had given an affidavit to the Board and that he recalled everything that he had stated in that affidavit, which was given prior to his accident. Those events were clear in his mind, and he could remember them. He also testified that the injury had very little effect on his memory concerning events that oc- curred prior to the accident. The affidavit was dated May 18, 1977, and supports the testimony of McCleery. The affidavit was offered into evidence but was rejected, because the witness was available and testified. Addition- ally, the General Counsel's motion, which he renewed in his brief, that the affidavit be considered as the testimony of the witness is also denied, as I am satisfied that the witness testified to his best recollection. record reflects that the Union began handbilling around March 2, 1977, and that shortly thereafter John Blackwell began helping out the Union by getting employees to sign authorization cards and talking to employees about the Union. He testified that to his knowledge he was never ob- served by any company officials in this union activity. Thus, it would seem that the Company had no knowledge of Blackwell's activities and that therefore it could not have discharged him for such activities. Darden, the man who actually terminated Blackwell, testified that he told him that his job had been eliminated. Darden also testified that, to the best of his recollection, he never mentioned anything to Blackwell about his union activities. Darden's entire tes- timony was evasive and vague, and he admitted that his memory was very poor about the entire incident, including his conversation with McCleery on March 24. 1 was not impressed with Darden's testimony, particularly as much of it was in response to leading questions, and in my view it did not have a ring of truth. In contrast, James McCleery, a former employee of the Company and an uninterested witness, testified that on March 24, the day following the termination of Blackwell, he had a conversation with Darden. He testified that in this conversation Darden told him that Blackwell had ap- proached some employees at the plant concerning the Union, and through that contact Blackwell's union activi- ties became known to management. McCleery also testified that Darden told him that Blackwell was terminated be- cause of his participation in the Union. McCleery stated that Darden asked him if he had been participating in the Union, and when he responded, "No," Darden told him that he had nothing to worry about so long as he was not participating in the Union and that his role as expeditor was safe. McCleery testified that he had an injury in the summer of 1977 which resulted in a cerebral concussion and which affected his memory. However, prior to the hearing, he read his affidavit, which was given on May 18, 1977, and this had completely refreshed his recollection. He testified to the events contained in the affidavit and again reiterated that the events as set forth in the affidavit were in fact true. I have credited the testimony of McCleery because he was an uninterested witness; he had no apparent grudge against the Company because he testified that he quit the Company in April of his own volition, and his testimony was forth- right and sounded truthful. Therefore, it is my finding that Respondent discharged John Blackwell because of his union activities in an attempt to discourage membership in the Union, in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)() and (3) of the Act. Additionally, I find that Darden interrogated James McCleery about his union sym- pathies and activities on March 24, in violation of Section 8(a)( l) of the Act. B. The 8(a)(1) Allegations The complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in var- ious violations of Section 8(a)(1) during the period from March 24 until the election on June 30. Wilma Blackwell testified that on the morning of April 27 she, Emma Rita Gannaway, Dana Strodtman, and 705 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carol Ann Gerding were at their work station talking about how they will never get rich working at National Garment, when Cappie Akeman, an admitted supervisor, approached them and said, "Well, would a union help?" Blackwell said they explained to her that they could not talk about the Union on company time. Akeman said she knew that, but "[W]ell, we want to get it out in the open. We want to know what is going on." They explained to her again that they really should not talk about the Union, and Akeman said, "Well, if the Union gets in, and Mr. Rothbart [the owner] does not sit down and negotiate, what are you going to do then?" They informed her that they did not know. Cappie Akeman testified that she did have a conversation with Blackwell and the other employees in which the topic of unions was discussed. She testified, however, that this was in June and that she never asked any of the employees how they felt about the Union. She said the only thing that was discussed was that they asked her something about wages and she said, "[W]ages could be lower or higher." She testified that during this conversation, Pat Smith, a su- pervisor, also joined in the conversation and commented that wages could be either lower or higher or they could stay the same. Pat Smith, an admitted supervisor, testified that he remembers the conversation in question with the employees and that it was in mid-June of 1977. He testified that he was by his office, and he saw Akeman with the employees, and he walked over to see what was going on. And he said that they were talking about the Union and wages. Smith said that he remembers that Cappie Akeman stated that if the Union should come in, the wages could go up, they could go down, or they might stay the same. He said he took part in the conversation, and his comments were the same as Akeman's. Like Akeman, he testified that he knew very little about unions but that members of his family were union members and that he had been told that wages could go up or down or they could stay the same, and he so informed the employees. He was asked how the conversation ended, and he stated it was a stalemate. Smith also testified that he spent about 35 percent of his time talking to the employees about the Union. He stated that the supervisors were instructed to circulate and to discuss the Union with the employees and to answer any questions they could about the Union. Dana Strodtman testified to the conversation with Super- visors Pat Smith and Cappie Akeman. She said she did not do any talking; she only listened. She also thought that this conversation occurred around the middle of May. What- ever the date, it appears to be the same conversation that Wilma Blackwell testified about. Strodtman says that Carol Ann Gerding, Wilma Blackwell, and Emma Rita Ganna- way were present during this conversation. She testified that Akeman asked why they wanted a union and what they thought a union could do for them. She said the employees did not say much in response, and then Pat Smith joined and wanted to know why they could not take their prob- lems to them instead of bringing in a third party. From my observations of the witnesses I credit the testi- mony of both Blackwell and Strodtman, who seemed to be very sincere employees and whose testimony was straight- forward and had a ring of truth. The testimony of both Akeman and Smith, however, was too pat and unimpres- sive. Additionally, Akeman, when first asked if she was in favor of the Union, testified that she did not know because she did not know anything about the Union. On further examination, she testified that she worked for the Company and she was in favor of the Company and that she was definitely against the Union. Therefore, it is my conclusion that Akeman and Smith did interrogate these employees regarding their sympathies and support for the Union. Respondent argues that since the conversation took place in the natural work location, with all parties involved ex- pressing their opinions and beliefs without inhibitions, threats, or coercion, the conversation could not logically have been designed to force the employees to reveal their union sentiments, since they were open and vocal union supporters as evidenced by their comments that initiated the conversations. I do not agree. As I understand the testi- mony, these employees were talking about whether they would get rich working for National Garment. They were not discussing unions. It was Akeman who first raised the question of unions by asking whether a union would help. Moreover, from the testimony of both Strodtman and Blackwell, this was the only time that they ever discussed the Union with any supervisors, and it was apparent from their testimony that they did not want to discuss the Union with their supervisors. It is my conclusion that this is un- lawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find. Employee Sandra Moore testified that she worked in the cutting department of the Respondent and that her supervi- sor was Ray Darden. She further testified that on April 18 she had a conversation with Ray Darden in the cutting department. She said that her sister Kay Moore and Brenda Nelson were also present. She testified that they were sitting around their cutting table, and Mr. Darden came around and asked them if they were hoping to be with the Union in a couple of weeks. They told him they did not know. Dar- den then said "[t]hat the Union can promise you anything." ' he employees replied that Mr. Rothbart had promised them some things but that he never kept the promises. Dar- den then told the employees that all the supervisors were to go around and ask each employee the same question that he did. Darden testified that he was sure that he had a conversa- tion with Sandra Moore in which unions were discussed and that, while he did not remember, he could have had a conversation with her where Kay Moore and Brenda Nel- son were also present. Darden was not clear as to when the conversation took place because he said he had several con- versations with her. He places the conversation around the last of March. Darden was asked if, during that conversa- tion, he ever questioned the employee about what promises the Union might have made to them. He said that he did not recall questioning them but that he made some state- ments that any promises the Union made should be evalu- ated before decision was reached. He denied ever question- ing any employee about his or her union sympathies or activities. As I credit the testimony of Sandra Moore over that of Darden, it is my conclusion that Respondent did interro- gate its employees regarding their sympathies and support for the Union on April 18, in violation of Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. 706 NATIONAL GARMENT COMPANY Employee Diana Holmes testified that on or about May 3. 1977. she had a conversation with her supervisor, Pat Crowley. She testified that Crowley asked her if she was going to a union meeting that afternoon. She responded that she did not know, and Crowley said. "Well, if you do go, will you mind letting me know what is said?" Diana responded that she did not think she was going and sug- gested that Crowley go. Crowley said that she could not attend. Diana Holmes responded, "Well, I cannot go ei- ther." Supervisor Crowley testified that she never had a conversation with Diana Htolmes regarding the subject of union meetings and that she did not have a conversation with Diana Holmes on May 3 about the Union. Crowley testified that while in the quality lab one day., she heard Judy Cole, Diana Holmes. and Cathy Boley discussing whether they were going to a union meeting. She said that she did not take part in the conversation. Crowley testified that she was a personal friend of Judy Cole. but she was not friendly with Diana Holmes. Crowley testified that several employees did ask her about the Union, and she told them that she was not in favor of the Union. She testified that she may have talked to about three dozen people about the Union, but only if they asked her questions. Judy Cole testified that she was present when there was a conversation about unions in the presence of Diana Holmes and Supervisor Crowley. She says that she does not know the exact date, but it was probably around May 3. This conversation took place in the quality control lab. She testi- fied that they were sitting around in the lab, and Diana Holmes came in, and she asked Diana if she was going to the union meeting and how she was going to vote. Diana told her that she did not know which way she was going to vote and that she did not know for sure if she was going to the meeting. She said that Pat Crowley was there but that she did not say anything. Cole testified that she was an inspector in the quality control lab and that she considered herself a friend of Su- pervisor Pat Crowley. Cole testified that she is doing the job that Pat Crowley was doing at the time of the incident but that she is not a supervisor. Cole further testified that she was not a supporter of the Union during the organizational campaign, and in fact she was against the Union and at one time (on the day of the election) wore a "vote no" sign on her clothing. She stated that she was allowed to attend sev- eral union meetings and that she attended a meeting just before the election. Cole testified that after the first union meeting someone called her a spy. and she was not allowed at any more meetings except for those near the election. Cole admitted she worked quite closely with Pat Crowley on a daily basis, and she did discuss with Crowley what happened in all of the union meetings and the comments by individuals at these meetings. She was asked if Pat Crowley had ever asked her questions about the union meetings, and she said. "No. she didn't have to," apparently meaning that she freely divulged everything she knew to Crowley. Diana Holmes struck me as a straightforward witness. Her testimony was to the point and was not equivocal. She stated what she considered to be the truth, and her testi- mony had a ring of truth. In contrast. Pat Crowley testified that she had talked to possibly three dozen employees in the plant about the Union. But she testified that she sat through this entire conversation between Diana Holmes and the other employee and did nt at any time ask any questions. She stated that it was one of the employees who was asking about going to the union meeting, She was corroborated by Cole. Cole testified that the entire conversation consisted of' employees discussing among themselves whether they were going to the union meeting and whether they were going to vote for the Union. She testified that Pat Crowley. the su- pervisor, never spoke one word during this entire conversa- tion. I do not accept the testimony of either Crowley or Cole on this point. I credit the testimony of Diana Holmes. I do this because Pat Crowley did not in any way impress me as a reliable witness. Likewise, neither did Cole. Cole freely testified that she was barred from some otf the union meetings because they thought she was a spy. She freely' testified that she did attend union meetings and reported all the conversations to Pat ( rowley, the supervisor. She testi- fied that she was friends with Pat Crowley, but she was not friends with Diana Holmes. Under these circumstances, it is my view that Cole's testimony was certainly bias. Further- more, it is my view that by her attendance at meetings and her reporting back to the supervisor demonstrate also that she was not trustworthy. and apparently her fellow employ- ees felt the same way. Under these circumstances. I do not credit her testimony. Accordingly. it is my conclusion that Supervisor Pat Crowley did advise an employee to attend union meetings, to engage in surveillance of said meetings. and to report to Respondent the events that transpired at those meetings, in violation of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. Employee Brenda Noll testified that in the afternoon of June 22 she had a conversation with Supervisor Nadine Cherrington. Noll testified that Cherrington came to her machine and asked her why she was so dissatisfied with the Company and why the Company does not do what the Union could do for them. She also said that once a union is in, the supervisor would not be able to sit and talk with the employees like they had before. She said that if they ran out of work, she would not be able to be switched to another job. she would be sent home. Employee Glenda Gerding testified that on June 23 she had a conversation with Supervisor Nadine Cherrington. She testified that this conversation took place at her ma- chine, and there was no one else present. She testified that Supervisor Cherrington asked her what she thought of Mr. Martin's4 speech that day and asked her what she had learned from it or if she had learned anything from it. Ger- ding told her that she had not learned anything that she did not already know. Cherrington then asked her if she thought things would get better after-all this. Cierding re- sponded that she thought so. On cross-examination. Ger- ding testified that she told Cherrington that she was in favor of the Union when Cherrington said to her. "Well. I have my side," and Gerding said, "Well, I guess you know I have my side too." Employee Betty McGuire testified that on the afternoon of June 28, she had a conversation with Supervisor Cher- rington. She said that this conversation took place at her sewing machine, and she does not think that anyone else was present during the conversation. She stated that Cher- ' arrN Martin is director of manufacturing for Respondent 707 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rington came up and sat down in a chair and asked her how she felt about the Union. She told Cherrington that she thought it would be a good idea, a good deal for the em- ployees, and that it would help improve the working condi- tions and that she was in favor of the Union. Cherrington said, "Well we would like to know." Cherrington then asked if she knew anything about this Union in particular. Cherrington informed her that she thought that these little textile unions were not nearly as powerful as the larger unions. Nor were they able to get the benefits that the Plumbers and Pipefitters union could. Cherrington went on to discuss the various unions and also asked McGuire if the place that she had worked before was union, because she knew that it had gone bankrupt. McGuire told her no that it was not union. Supervisor Nadine Cherrington testified that she did have a conversation on June 22 with Brenda Noll, but that the only thing that she ever told employees was how she felt about the Union. She said she would tell them that they had a vote and they could vote the way they pleased. She testified that she could not remember the conversation di- rectly. She could not remember the time of day this conver- sation occurred, and she could not say whether it was morning or afternoon. She did not remember any com- ments that were made during the conversation. She testified that the Union was discussed very little in her department, as it was a very quiet, secret thing. She said she was sure that the topic of the Union was discussed in that conversa- tion with Noll. She remembered being at Noll's machine, and she remembered that something was brought up about the Union, but she did not recall the exact words that were said. She said that, to her knowledge, she did not at any time question Noll about the Union. Cherrington also testi- fied that she did not at any time ask Gerding about the Union or activities on behalf of the Union. She specifically denied that she ever asked Gerding if she had learned any- thing from Mr. Martin's speech. She said that she remem- bered having conversations with Betty McGuire and that these conversations involved the subject of the Union. She stated that one conversation took place at a time when she was out on the floor urging the people to vote for the Union, and she said to McGuire, "I know how I feel about the Union, but you have your vote, and you vote the way you please." Again, she did not know when that conversa- tion took place. She did not remember the day or the month. But she said she thought it was within a week or so of the election. She said she told McGuire that in her opin- ion they were better off without a union. I credit the testimony of Brenda Noll, Glenda Gerding, and Betty McGuire over that of Supervisor Cherrington. These employees testified straightforwardly, and their testi- mony definitely had a ring of truth. Cherrington, in con- trast, was evasive and uncertain and could not remember the dates of any of the particular conversations. She did remember that the topic of unions was discussed, but she could not remember specifically what was discussed. She testified generally that she never interrogated any employee about his or her sympathies on behalf of the Union. She also testified that she never asked Glenda Gerding if she had learned anything from Larry Martin's speeches. As in- dicated, I have credited the testimony of the employees over that of Supervisor Cherrington, and I find that by questioning Brenda Noll about why she was unhappy with the Company, Cherrington engaged in interrogation of Noll concerning her interest in and support for the Union. I also find that by questioning Betty McGuire about how she felt about the Union, she engaged in interrogation of Betty McGuire regarding her interest in and support for the Union. Additionally. it is my conclusion that Cherrington's questioning of Glenda Gerding about what she thought of Larry Martin's speech given that day also constituted inter- rogation of Gerding regarding her interest in and support for the Union. In view of the several other incidents of interrogation of employees about their union sympathies, it is reasonable to assume that Cherrington intended to learn from Gerding her union sympathies by her response to the inflammatory antiunion speech by Larry Martin. It is my conclusion that the question was intended to elicit from Gerding her sympathies either for the Company or for the Union. Therefore I find this to be interrogation concerning her interest in and support for the Union and violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Several supervisors testified that they were instructed and did in fact go among the employees and discuss the Union. However, their testimony was that they never asked ques- tions about the Union or the employees' sympathies for the Union, but they merely answered the employees' questions about the Union. The supervisors testified that they did in fact tell the employees how they felt about the Union. It is incredible to believe that these conversations sought by the supervisors with the employees, and in which the supervi- sors advised the employees of their feelings about the Union, were designed for any other reason than to elicit from the employees their union sympathies and their sup- port for the Union. The complaint which issued on September 6, 1977, al- leged that during the week of May 30, 1977, Respondent conferred benefits on its employees by repairing an air-con- ditioner and installing a new air-conditioner at the facility, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In support of this allegation, the General Counsel offered the testimony of Mrs. Blackwell, who testified that during the last week of May 1977, she had a conversation with Mr. Blalock, the plant manager. She testified that it was very hot in the area where she was working, and she asked Bla- lock if they could bring their own fans and have them put over their tables where they were working. She testified that Blalock refused. He told her that they were going to get a new air-conditioner in by June 13, but since the Union came by they will probably say we are trying to bribe you. She testified that Blalock indicated that he did not know for sure if they were going to put the air-conditioning in or not. She testified that she had complained about the heat in her area on various occasions. Plant Manager Blalock testified that he never referred to the air-conditioning system as a possible bribe as indicated by the testimony of Blackwell. Respondent admits that there was a repair of an old air- conditioner and that a new air-conditioner was installed. However, Respondent's witnesses testified that the repair of the old air-conditioning system and the installation of the new system were first discussed in November of 1976. The documentary evidence submitted by Respondent to support the conclusion that the air-conditioning repair and the new air-conditioning system were not considered as a 708 NATIONAL GARMENT COMPANY result of the Union do not bear out that contention. All of the documents are dated after February 25 and some as late as March and April 1977. long after the Union had started its organizational campaign and long after the employer knew that the Union was engaging in a campaign at the plant. In fact Ray Darden testified that he first learned that there was a union on the scene in January 1977. It is my conclusion that the attempt to fix the old air-conditioner and the addition of the new air-conditioner in the plant, as admitted by Respondent, were done solely for the purpose of influencing the employees' selection of a collective-bar- gaining representative and that this conferring of benefits was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. According to Mr. Martin, on March 16 he prepared a memo and circulated it to the various plant managers throughout the National Garment Company, including the Fayette plant, in which it was stated that, effective April I, all employees paid on piece rate would receive their average hourly rate for the holiday. The memo further explained that prior to April 1., holiday pay for employees paid on piece rate was paid at the minimum wage. The memo fur- ther stated that the improved benefits were made possible by the cooperation and dedication of the employees. Martin testified that this was sent to the various managers and was to be posted on the bulletin boards. Martin testified that he saw the document was posted, but he was not sure whether it was posted during the organizational campaign. Em- ployee Brenda Noll testified that she received holiday pay for Memorial Day, and she did in fact receive their hour average for 8 hours, rather than 8 hours at the minimum wage. She testified that prior to Memorial Day, they had always been paid on 8 hours' minimum wage. She testified that prior to Memorial Day, no one had informed her that there would be a change in the way the pay was computed. Whether the change in holiday pay was communicated to the employees, in my view, is of no importance. The impor- tant thing is that there was a change after the advent of the Union. And this granting of a benefit was done to interfere with the employees' Section 7 rights and to dissuade them from selecting the Union as their collective-bargaining rep- resentative, in violation of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.5 Paragraph 5(c) of the complaint alleges that on or about April 20 Respondent discontinued its previous practice of allowing its employees to sell newspapers, cosmetics, and other merchandise at the facility. In support of this allega- tion, employee Brenda Noll testified that prior to the ad- vent of the Union she was able to purchase newspapers and I Larry Martin testified that during the Christmas season of 1976 he be- came aware that the company policy was to pay holiday pay on the basis of minimum wage. When he became aware of this policy, he discussed it with Rothbart, who instructed Martin to study the matter and determine the feasibility of paying employees on the basis of their average rate of pay. Even though Martin may have become aware of the practice in the Christ- mas season of 1976, he does not indicate when he discussed the problem with Rothbart. But it is clear that is was not until March, after the advent of the Union, that the Company changed its policy with regard to holiday pay. In my view such benevolence on the part of this antiunion employer was only for the purpose of influencing its employees in their selection of a bargaining representative. In addition to the 8(aX I) and (3) conduct which I have al- ready found, which demonstrates union animus on the part of this employer, the speeches given by Martin to the assembled employees prior to the elec- tion clearly indicate that this employer is antiunion and in m) view would go to great lengths to influence employees in their selection of a bargaining representative. Avon and Tupperware products in the plant at any time, even on company time. She testified that after the advent of the Union this practice stopped. She further testified, how- ever, that there was no restriction on the sale of any prod- ucts of any kind during breaktime or lunchtime or before or after work. She testified also that no management employee or supervisor ever told her she could not purchase or sell products on company time. She testified that she thought this came from one of the employees. Because I am not sure of what the practice was prior to the advent of the Union, and I am not sure that there ever was a change, in view of Noll's testimony that no supervisor or management em- ployee ever told her that she could not purchase products on company time, it is my conclusion that the evidence submitted by the General Counsel on this allegation of the complaint is insufficient, and I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed. C. The Objections to the Elections Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 30 among the employees of Respondent in the agreed- upon appropriate unit at the Fayette, Missouri, facility. A majority of the valid votes were not cast for the Union. Thereafter, on July 8, the Union filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election, serving a copy thereof upon the Employer. There were approximately 20 allegations of objectionable conduct, many of which are encompassed by the allegations of the present complaints. And, as I indicated earlier, these allegations of objection- able conduct were referred to an Administrative Law Judge for hearing and decision. The violations of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act as found herein do, in my view, create a general atmosphere of fear and coercion, and they pre- cluded the holding of a free election, and therefore it is my conclusion that Respondent did engage in election interfer- ence and that the Union's objections to this conduct affect- ing the results of the election should be sustained. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged John Blackwell in violation of Section 8(a)( I) and (3) of the Act, I recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer him rein- statement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge by payment to 709 DE('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages and other benefits from the date of his discharge to the date on which reinstatement is offered, less net earnings during that period. The amount of backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to he computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6 CONC'LUSIONS ()F LAW I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union and other protected activities, including their interest in and support for the Union. (b) Soliciting employees to engage in surveillance of union meetings of Respondent's employees and requesting these employees to return and report to Respondent. (c) Conferring benefits upon its employees by repairing an air-conditioner and installing a new air-conditioner at the Fayette facility to influence the employees' selection of a bargaining representative. (d) Conferring benefits upon its employees by increasing their holiday pay to influence their selection of a bargaining representative. 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by discharging John Blackwell because of his union activi- ties. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act. I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER7 The Respondent, National Garment Company, Fayette, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union and other protected activities, including their interest in and support for the Union. (b) Soliciting employees to engage in surveillance of union meetings of Respondent's employees and requesting these employees to return and report to Respondent. I See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962). ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (c) Conferring benefits upon its employees by repairing its air-conditioning system at the Fayette facility to influ- ence its employees' selection of a bargaining representative. (d) Conferring benefits upon its employees by increasing their holiday pay to influence their selection of a bargaining representative. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- teed them in Section 7 of the Act. (f) Discouraging membership in Southwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, AFL CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against its employees with respect to their hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of their em- ployment. 2. Take the following affirmative action, designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer John Blackwell immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Fayette, Missouri, plant copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by its authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to commply herewith. IT IS FURT'HER ORDERED) that the objections to the election conducted on June 30 be sustained, that the election be set aside and that the Regional Director for Region 7 at his discretion set a date for a new election. I In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. 710