Schwob Manufacturing Co.

SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 815 not order, but only ask, them to work. Since, generally the respective foremen come around on the job during the day, or in any event can usually be contacted by telephone, unit operators are required to com- municate with them to obtain permission or clearance for their crews to work more than 30 minutes overtime because of very stringent company regulations requiring justification of such work. Each gangpusher has a crew of from one to four men under him. Their duties are to repair and maintain the surface equipment, such as derricks, pumps, and trunklines. When a gangpusher reports for work in the morning, he is given orders by his supervisor and told where to go and what to do. Like unit operators, gangpushers are re- quired to work physically with their men. One pusher testified that he had never been told that he was a supervisor and had never dis- ciplined or discharged anyone nor recommended any such action. Neither had he ever recommended anyone for hiring. He had never attended, nor been asked to attend, the supervisory meetings held every 2 months. Most of his men had worked so long that they knew the job as well as he did. Permission to leave the job because of sick- ness had to be obtained from their common supervisor. Again like unit operators, the gangpushers have no authority, without clearance from a supervisor, to finish a job if it requires more than just a few minutes of overtime work. We find that whatever leadership responsibilities may be exercised by the unit operators and gangpushers described herein, they are very minor at best. Their direction of the work of the men under them is routine in nature and does not require the use of their independent judgment inasmuch as the jobs are planned in advance for them and they all work under common supervision. In view of the foregoing, we find that the unit operators and gangpushers do not possess super- visory authority within the meaning of the Act and should remain included in the previously certified unit.4 Accordingly, we shall deny the instant motion to remove them from the bargaining unit because they are supervisors. [The Board denied the motion.] * Solar Blectric Corporation, 128 NLRB 35; Lampcraft Industries, Inc., et al., 127 NLRB 92 West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738, 739, 744-747, 753-756., Schwob Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4169, 10- CA-4309, and 10-CA-4343. November 30, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On April 28, 1960, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- 129 NLRB No. 101. 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, and further finding that the Respond- ent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint with respect thereto be dismissed, all as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record' in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications, amendments, and additions noted herein. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's section girls were supervisors within the meaning the the Act and therefore their con- duct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act was attributable to the Respondent. We disagree. We find that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence on the record before us that the section girls regularly have or exercise any of the specific indicia of supervisory authority set forth in Section 2 (11) of the Act or that Respondent was otherwise responsible for their conduct. Ac- cordingly, we dismiss those allegations of the complaint which involve Section 8 (a) (1) by reason of conduct of the section girls described. The Trial Examiner found further that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by the discharge of employee Jean Armstead for her union activity. We agree with him that the alleged work violation by her was a mere pretext for her discharge for union activity. We find it unnecessary, however, in making a finding as to Respondent's knowledge of Armstead's union activity, to rely in part, as did the Trial Examiner, on the interest of the section girls in Armstead's union activity and their opposition to the Union. It is 1 The Respondent 's motion for oral argument is denied as the record, including the exceptions and briefs , adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of the parties 2 The record is hereby corrected to incorporate changes stipulated therein. 3 As the corrected record does not support the Trial Examiner 's finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) by Mrs. Margie Thompson's Interrogation of Averitt as to Averitt's own union activities , we do not rely on such finding. We also find it unnecessary to rely on the Trial Examiner's finding that Thompson was held out as a supervisor over em- ployees in the shop. SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 817 clear Armstead had disclosed her adherence to the Union to Super- visor Thompson before the discharge.' ORDER Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Schwob Manufacturing Company, Columbus, Georgia, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees as to their membership in or activi- ties on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. (b) Threatening reprisals against its employees because of their union sympathies or activities or promising benefits to its employees if they will abandon the Union. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual air or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities. (d) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its em- ployees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : A Member Fanning dissents from his colleagues ' refusal to adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that section girls are supervisors and therefore their threats and interrogation of employees violated Section 8 ( a) (1), and his further finding that the section girls' knowledge of Armstead 's union activity and their opposition thereto is attributable to Respondent In his opinion , the Board 's decision in hfid-South Manufacturing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 230, 243, in which it was found that the duties , functions, and authority of a forelady made her a supervisor whose misconduct was attributable to her employer, is factually indistinguishable from the instant case In view of this clear precedent, Member Fanning would adopt the Trial Examiner 's findings in this connection Chairman Leedom and Member Jenkins , however, find the cases to be distinguishable. In the Mtid-South case, as expressly noted by the Board, the record was clear that the floorlady found to be a supervisor exercised independent judgment in responsibly directing employees. On the other hand, the record in the instant case falls to establish that the section girls' direction of employees requires the exercise of independent judgment neces- sary to establish responsible direction within the meaning of the Act 586439-61-vol. 129 53 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offer to Jean Armstead immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against her, in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter- mediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right of employment under the terms of this Decision and Order. (c) Post at its plant at Columbus, Georgia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that except as otherwise found herein the allegations of the complaint be, and they hereby, are, dismissed. 6In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their membership in, or activities on behalf of, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in vio- lation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals against our employees because of their union sympathies or activities or promise them benefits if they will abandon the Union. SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 819 WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any other manner discrimi- nate as to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL offer to Jean Armstead immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or a substantially equivalent position, with- out prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against her. All of our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. SonwoB MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- Ly------------------------------------- (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 charges duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued three separate complaints alleging that Schwob Manufacturing Company, herein called the Respondent, had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The answers of Respondent admitted certain allegations of the complaints but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner at Columbus, Georgia, on February 23, 24, and 25, 1960. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to, present oral arguments, and to file briefs. Respondent and General Counsel argued orally at the hearing and filed briefs on April 4, 1960, which I have considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observations of the witnesses,. I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Schwob Manufacturing Company is, and has been at all times material herein, a Georgia corporation with its principal office and place of business in Columbus, 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture of men's clothing. Respondent, during the past 12 months, which period is representative of all times material herein, sold and shipped products valued at more than $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Georgia. These facts are admitted by Respondent and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The supervisory status of section girls and Payroll Clerk Mrs. Margie Thompson Since support for the allegations of independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act depends wholly on evidence relating to the activities of section girls and Payroll Clerk Margie Thompson who Respondent denies are supervisors, that issue is crucial and will be disposed of first. 1. Section girls The operations of the Respondent, a manufacturer of men's clothing, are carried on in a two-story building at the corner of Broadway and Ninth Street, Columbus, Georgia, and in a building at the corner of Broadway and Tenth Street, the latter building being known as the Schwob Building. The Schwob Building contains a retail store on the first floor and above it the Respondent's general offices. The building at Broadway and Ninth Street, called the plant, includes a pants department on the first floor and a coat department located primarily on the second floor with some operations on the first floor. Respondent's manufacturing operations are under the charge of James Russell, superintendent of the plant. Under him are Henry Bernhard, foreman of the pants department, and George Webb, foreman of the coat department. There are approx- imately 100 production employees in the pants department and 174 in the coat department. Between the production employees and the two foremen are the section girls in question of which there are three in each department. Numerous operations are performed in the manufacture of pants and coats and Respondent has arranged its production in such a way that related operations are grouped together in order to maintain a smooth flow of work. Assigned to groups of operations and employees are six section girls. In regard to the supervisory duties of the section girls the General Counsel pro- duced evidence upon which I find as follows: Section girls decide which work to give the operator and distribute it to them. If an employee runs out of work she requests the section girl for more and the section girl decides which work to give her. A section girl inspects the work produced and, if in her opinion, it is unsatisfactory, she brings it back to the operator and has her to do it over. The employee is not paid for the time spent in redoing or repairing the defective work. On occasion section girls have, without consulting with higher authority, permitted employees to leave the plant on personal business. When a machine breaks down the section girl calls for a mechanic and if it appears that the repairs will take some time she assigns the operator to a different machine or operation. In at least one instance when an employee was being transferred from one section to another by a foreman, the foreman was accompanied by a section girl and the employee was advised that the section girl was her section girl and to report to her in the morning. Another employee was told when hired that if there was anything she wanted to know to consult the section girl Section girls have also been present when foremen reprimanded employees, moved them to different operations, or consulted with them about their work or personal problems. Section. girls have been on some occasions consulted about the progress of new employees and reported to higher authority whether the employees were satisfactory operators. Section girls have also checked on special orders to see that they got out of the shop. One employee, Lillian Phillips, who was formerly a section girl, testified, and I credit her, that her supervisor told her that, as a section girl, she was responsible for the girls in her section, that she should keep them busy, not let them sit down, and move them to different operations to keep them busy. She was told further that she would be responsible for the department when her supervisor was not there. SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 821 The Respondent called its section girls, Superintendent Russell, Foremen Webb and Bernhard, and a group of rank-and-file employees who testified, among other things, about the duties and responsibilities of section girls. Most of the evidence offered through these witnesses was uncontradicted. On the basis of such evidence it is clear, and I find, that section girls have no power to hire and fire or to effectively recommend such action. Neither can they suspend, layoff, recall, promote, reward, or discipline other employees. The record also shows, and I find, that section girls physically distribute work to the girls in their sections and inspect their work. As found above, if the work is not done properly the section girl brings it back to the employee and has it done over but if there is a substantial amount of bad work the section girl must report it to the foreman. She has no right to reprimand the girl in question for the bad work and if an employee should refuse to do defective work over, that too must be reported to the foreman. Section girls are not consulted about pay raises for employees and they have never adjusted a serious grievance for an employee so far as the record shows. They are paid on an hourly basis, punch a timeclock like other employees, and do not get paid for time lost. They do not set production quotas and cannot tell a girl how much to produce. Section girls frequently do production work such as repairing defective work and in emergencies have worked on ordinary operations. There is conflict in the record about the right of section girls to let employees off from work, transfer them from machine to machine or section to section, or re- sponsibily direct them. As indicated previously, there is some evidence that the section girls have on occasion given employees permission to leave the shop. The Respondent's witnesses testified that section girls must consult the foreman before letting an employee off but that in an emergency, and in the absence of the foreman, you "can't hold a girl back." I find that the practice and rule is to get the foreman's permission and that deviations are sporadic and only in emergencies such as illness. With respect to transferring from section to section there is no substantial evidence in the record that section girls have such authority without getting the foreman's permission or that such is the practice. Respondent adequately explained the ap- parent moving of girls without permission by evidence that the section girl would call the foreman first or the foreman call her and tell her to move an employee to another section. I find, on the other hand, that employees are sometimes moved within the sections by the section girl without higher authorization in order to keep the work flowing smoothly. There is no question that such takes place in case of machine breakdown but I also find that it takes place when a girl runs out of work and the foreman is not present. The Respondent admits to only one supervisor in the pants department and one in the coat department supervising 100 and 174 employees, respectively. This high ratio of rank-and-file to supervision raises serious doubt about the testimony of Re- spondent's witnesses concerning the almost complete lack of authority in the section girls. Much of the testimony, however, with respect to the more important indicia of supervision, such as, the right to hire and fire or otherwise seriously affect the status of employees or to effectively recommend such action is, as stated above, uncontradicted and, in many instances, admitted by General Counsel's witnesses. If Respondent chooses to restrict the authority it gives to its section girls that is properly Respondent's business judgment which cannot be questioned and I find, therefore, that section girls have no authority to hire, suspend, layoff, promote, dis- charge, reward, or discipline other employees or to adjust their grievances or to effectively recommend such action. On the other hand, I do not believe that the power of the section girls to transfer or direct the employees in their sections is routine and does not require the exercise of independent judgment The section girls distribute the work and decide which work to give an operator and thus can indirectly affect the earnings of operators who are on piecework. Section girls must also decide what work is defective and must be done over by the employee without pay and whether the defective work is of sufficient quantity that it must be reported to the foreman. A substantial amount of defective work reported to the foreman might very well result in a reprimand being put in the employees' personnel file and result in a discharge of that employee if repeated. Through these assignments of work and decisions with respect to bad work section girls exercise important functions affecting the employees. Furthermore, I do not believe it likely that sec- tion girls are able to consult the foreman in every case of bad work, assignment to machines, or distribution of work when it runs out and that they therefore, must exercise independent judgment in such cases and cannot "save" the problems, as one section girl stated, for the foreman. This conclusion is strengthened by the 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fact that during Foreman Bernhard's absence from the plant for a substantial period of time because of illness the superintendent claimed to supervise all factory opera- tions including Bernhard's department with only Foreman Webb's help. This could not have been done efficiently if the section girls did not have the right and duty to exercise independent judgment in the direction of the employees in their sections. Although a high ratio of admitted supervisors to rank-and-file employees is not conclusive in determining the supervisory authority of alleged, but disputed, minor supervisors it is very significant with respect to their function of responsibly directing the rank-and-file. I find, therefore, that the section girls have authority to responsibly direct employees. Since one of the factors in the definition of super- visors under the Act is present the section girls are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. This conclusion, in my opinion, is compelled by the Board's decision in Midwest Manufacturing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 230, 231, 243, where the floor- lady in question, whose responsibility was certainly no greater than that of the section girls in the instant case, was held to be a supervisor. See also Jolly Kids Togs, 117 NLRB 393, and Brunswick Quick Freezer, Inc., 117 NLRB 662, 664. 2. Mrs. Margie Thompson Mrs. Thompson has worked for Respondent for 34 years and for about 33 years has been in charge of all factory office work such as timekeeping, the piece-rate payroll, absenteeism, and related clerical duties. There are five payroll clerks under Mrs. Thompson and although she has no authority to hire and fire it is clear that she is in complete charge of and responsibly directs the employees in her depart- ment. I find that Mrs. Thompson is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The activities of Mrs. Thompson for which Respondent is charged with unfair labor practices did not generally occur in the factory office or in relation to office employees but generally did occur on the floor of the factory and with respect to production employees. Any supervisory authority Mrs. Thompson has with respect to those factory employees is of added significance in judging Respondent's responsi- bility for her actions and in weighing her activities. The payroll office is on the second floor of the factory in the coat department. Three girls occupy a small space on the floor with Mrs. Thompson. The foreman of the department also has a desk in the space occupied by the girls. The other two girls under Thompson are on the first floor in the pants department. Because of the nature of Mrs. Thompson's work-payroll and timekeeping-she is often out in the plant talking to employees and they frequently come to see her in her office to dis- cuss their problems. Mrs. Thompson is also used by the superintendent and the foremen to carry messages to employees and to section girls. There was evidence that she had transferred girls from one machine to another or one department to another. She denied that such action was taken without permission of the foreman and asserted that because there was a telephone in her office or because of her proximity to the foreman she would get a message from him to move a girl. I can- not find on the record that Thompson made assignments on her own but do find that when acting for the foreman, she, in view of her general supervisory authority in the office, assumed a higher status than that of a mere errand girl or message carrier. There is other evidence in the record to support a finding that Mrs. Thompson has been permitted at least, if not authorized, to perform acts normally performed by a supervisor and from which the employees in the shop could reasonably assume her to be a supervisor. For example, on one occasion about 5 minutes before lunch- time the power was shut off in the departments and Mrs. Thompson made an an- nouncement to the employees that from that time forward only the superintendent could grant the girls time off. Respondent's entrusting Mrs. Thompson with authority and responsibility for such an announcement is some evidence of the trust and authority granted her which taken with other incidents makes me believe that in addition to her office responsibilities Mrs. Thompson has been permitted to exer- cise some supervisory functions in the factory. In addition to the above, there is the following in the record. At one time when employee Lora Brooks confided in Mrs Thompson the latter stated she was there to help the employee and that if the employee had any problems to come and see Mrs. Thompson. On at least one occasion an employee found a note on her machine from Mrs. Thompson telling her what to do. On another occasion an employee has reported a substantial amount of repair work to Mrs. Thompson. There is also evidence that at a meeting of new section girls and other supervisors Thompson was present and gave instructions to the section girls about their relationship to the employees in their sections. Lillian Phillips, formerly a section girl at Respondent, testified to that effect and I credit SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 823 her testimony, as I do her testimony that Mrs. Thompson inquired of her occa- sionally how new employees were doing. I find on the basis of all the evidence that Mrs. Margie Thompson is not only a supervisor within the meaning of the Act in respect to her functions as head clerk in the payroll office but that she has assumed, with Respondent's knowledge, or has been permitted to assume, over the years certain supervisory functions. Whether this has been because of her many years of experience or because it is convenient for Respondent and its supervisors to allow it because of her proximity to the em- ployees I am unable to say. It is sufficient that she has been permitted by Re- spondent to act like a supervisor to fix Respondent's responsibility for her actions. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The activities of the section girls The record does not clearly disclose the inception, duration, or intensity of the Union's attempt to organize Respondent's employees but it is clear that a certain amount of union activity occurred at Respondent from March through November 1959. This activity was met with a certain amount of opposition in the plant and Respondent's responsibility for it is the issue here. The complaint in Case No. 10-CA-4169 alleged that Respondent by Section Girls Marie Vaughn and Beulah Lammon solicited employees and demanded that they sign one of two books which were entitled "For the Union" and "For the Com- pany." The uncontradicted testimony shows and I find that sometime in June 1959 Vaughn, Lammon, and a. nonsupervisory employee by ,the name of Slaughter, with Vaughn and Lammon's knowledge and cooperation, did distribute the books in question and insist that employees sign them. Vaughn told employee Vinson that the books were to be turned over to an official of Respondent. The activity took place in the plant and during working hours and employees were urged in no un- certain terms to sign or else they would be noted as for the Union. Thus Marie Vaughn told employee Henderson, after Henderson had twice resisted invitations to sign, "For God's sake, sign it" and "... if you don't sign the book, you will be put down that you are for the union." Section Girls Vaughn and Lammon also improperly and persistently interrogated employees about their union membership and the membership of others as the com- plaints in Cases Nos. 10-CA-4169 and 10-CA-4309 allege and I so find. Examples of such interrogation are Vaughn's inquiry of Vinson in April as to whether the union representatives had been to see her, Vaughn's use of employee Henderson to check on Vinson's denial, Vaughn's inquiry of Henderson about the union sympathies of employees Sanders and Lenore and the repetition of that inquiry with regard to Lenore, Lammon's questioning of employee Armstead, and her repeated inquiries to employee Hawthorne about whether the Union had been to see them. Section girls also engaged in other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion. Vaughn, for example, stated on two occasions to employees that the plant would close before a union would be permitted to come in. She also stated to employees that their jobs were in danger if they did not sign the books-for or against the Union-as described above, and clearly implied that one employee had been fired because she had not signed the book for the Union. Section Girl Lammon advised employee Keeble to sign the book for or against the Union and that she had been told that it might mean the employee's job if she did not Vaughn also told em- ployee Averritt that employee Vinson was the union ringleader and asked Averritt to talk to Vinson and have her go see Margie Thompson and get "straightened out." I find and conclude that Respondent, through its section girls, by the acts set forth in the subsection interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of -their rights under the Act. Insistence that employees openly declare their po- sition in respect to the Union, interrogation of employees in the circumstances herein described, and threats both expressed and implied with respect to job security have long been held to be violations of the Act.' 2. The activities of Mrs. Margie Thompson The complaint also alleged and I find that Mrs. Thompson interrogated employees, threatened them with loss of benefits , and promised other benefits if they would { Petroleum Carrier Corporation, 126 NLRB 1041; Mid-South Manufacturing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 230; Nibco. Inc., 119 NLRB 277, 284; The Juvenile Manufacturing Company, Inc., 117 NLRB 1513; Nebraska Bar Company and Robert H Silver, et al., d/b/a Nebraska Bag Processing Company, 122 NLRB 654; KTRH Broadcasting Company, 113 'NLRB 125. 824 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD abandon their activities on behalf of the Union. The record shows that Mrs. Thomp- son in March 1959 interrogated employee Averritt about her union activities and the activities of others. Thompson suggested to Averritt that it could be arranged with the foreman for Averitt to talk against the Union. Thompson also asked employee Vinson in April how other employees felt about the Union. In a conversation with Vinson, Thompson told her that if the girls wanted a union it was their privilege but that they did not need a union and that they should stick together and ask for what they wanted. In that context she mentioned the possibility of free insurance and a pension plan and dropped the names of high officials of the Respondent. In the same conversation Thompson also stated that if the Union came in the welfare association, a company benefit plan, would be cut out. She also told Vinson that if Mr. Schwab were alive he would not keep the plant open if the Union came in. Respondent vigorously attacked the credibility of Averritt and Vinson. The Trial Examiner carefully observed the demeanor of both employees and that of Mrs. Thompson. Where the testimony conflicts I credit the employees. I find, there- fore, that by her interrogation of employees about the Union and by the implied threats of loss of benefits because of the Union and implications of future benefits if the Union were abandoned, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees an the exercise of their rights under the Act. C. The alleged discriminatory discharges 1. Betty Anderson The complaint in Case No 10-CA-4343 alleged that Mrs Anderson was dis- charged because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. Re- spondent's position is that Anderson quit because she was unwilling or unable to work on material containing mohair because of her asserted allergy to that material. Anderson worked for Respondent from February 23 to November 23, 1959, in the pants shop under Foreman Henry Bernhard. After a short training period Anderson was put sewing back pockets on pants with a group of other employees. After about 4 months Anderson was assigned to sewing back pockets part time and facing back pockets the rest of the day. About half of her time was spent on each operation About 3 weeks before Anderson's employment was terminated she reported to Section Girl Marie Vaughn that she had an attack of asthma caused by mohair which was being used in her operation at the time. Andersonhad had asthma for 10 years but has no medical information as to its cause. About a week later pants containing mohair were again distributed and Anderson reminded Vaughn of her asthma and told her that she would rather go home than work on the material since she knew it caused her to have asthma Vaughn told her she had no authority to tell her not to work on mohair. Anderson started work on the material in question and according to her had an attack of asthma Mrs. Thompson came by at that time with the pay- checks and Anderson told her she was going home because of her illness. Thompson asked Anderson if the reason she was allergic to mohair was because it was sewn with silk thread. It appears, and I find, that it is more difficult to work on mohair because it is sewn with silk thread which knots and breaks thereby slowing down production. On November 13 Anderson talked to Superintendent Russell about time off for personal business and Russell questioned her about her mohair problem and asthma. She told him she was allergic to mohair. According to Anderson, Russell told her that she would have to work on the mohair until she got a doctor's certificate, but that after she got it she would not, and be would find something else for her to do. Russell denied that he told Anderson that she would not have to work on mohair if she obtained a doctor's certificate and that something else would be found for An- derson. He stated that he told her to get a certificate because he had no knowledge of allergies and, in effect, suspected that Anderson might have been faking. I credit his explanation. Anderson claims that her asthma bothered her only when working on back pockets and not on pocket facing work even though mohair is involved in both operations, her explanation -being that there is more mohair in one than the other. In making back pockets the employee used .the whole part of the back part of the pants; when facing pockets a piece of material about 3 by 5 inches is used. On Friday, November 20, and Monday. November 23, Anderson again refused to work on mohair. Anderson got her doctor's certificate on November 19, 1959, but did not turn it in to the Respondent until November 23, 1959, because James Russell, superintendent, was out of town. The certificate, Anderson received from SCUWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 825 the doctor was not made on the 'basis of tests given Anderson but on her statement to the doctor that she was allergic to mohair. Anderson gave the certificate to Mrs. Thompson who forwarded it to Russell. When Anderson gave the certificate to Thompson she told her that she had joined the Union a few days before. This state- ment took place about 10 a.m. About 4:30 p.m., November 23, Russell sent for Anderson. According to Ander- son, Russell referred to the doctor's certificate and told her that if she would not work on mohair he would have to let her go. She replied that it was not a matter of "won't" work but that she could not because of the asthma and the doctor's certificate. Russell's version of the conversation is different and I credit it He testified that prior to seeing Anderson on November 23 he had received complaints from some of the other operators about the unfairness of Anderson not having to work on mohair which is sewn with silk threads and attendant difficulties as described above. He called Anderson, after getting the certificate, and told her he was sorry but that he could not make an exception in her case because he would then have to make ex- ceptions for the other girls, and that, therefore, Anderson would have to do her share of the work. Anderson left Russell, went back to her machine, and did not report for work subsequently. On the basis of the whole record I find that Betty Anderson quit her employment and was not discharged. As stated above, Russell's version of his conversation with Anderson on her last day of work is credited . It coincides with other facts and is corroborated indirectly by the testimony of other witnesses . Anderson was not sent to the personnel office for her time on her last day which is the usual procedure in the case of a discharge . Russell did not notify the personnel office that Anderson was terminated and her card was not taken from the timecard rack. Mohair, which is blended with wool or rayon or both, is used frequently in some quantity in the manufacture of Respondent's products. When it is used all material in production will contain it and it is impossible to work on the material without having some contact with the mohair . The record also shows that employees did not like to work on mohair because of the silk thread problem . Russell's awareness of this problem might very well make him suspect the honesty of Anderson's story that she could not work on the material because of an allergy. The industrial neces- sity of the product and the inconvenience of special treatment of employees, par- ticularly when their excuses are suspect , lends credence to Russell 's version that he granted no special dispensation to Anderson in this case . Furthermore, Russell was corroborated by the testimony of two employees that they had made complaints about Betty Anderson refusing to work on mohair when they were required to do it. 2. Jean Armstead Armstead worked for Respondent as a machine operator from January 1958 to July 28, 1959. She was last employed in the pants department under the super- vision of Foreman Henry Bernhard and Section Girl Beulah Lammon . Respondent asserts Armstead was discharged because of her bad work but General Counsel takes the position that Respondent 's reliance on defective work as a reason for discharge is a mere pretext and that Armstead was really discharged because of her membership and activity in the Union. Sometime about the first of May 1959 Armstead signed an application card in the Union and solicited other employees on behalf of the Union. Armstead was solicited to sign the book for or against the Union but did not choose to reveal her position. Her union sympathy became known to management , however, and dis- approval was expressed of it. Thus, Section Girl Marie Vaughn warned employee Nealie Meadows about walking to work with Armstead since "there might be things happen to her." On another occasion employee Bradley told Armstead that "they" thought she was in the Union and she might be let go. Bradley suggested that Armstead talk to employee Grace Anthony. Armstead, instead of talking to Anthony as suggested, called Supervisor Margie Thompson to her machine and told Mrs, Thompson about the suggestion and reason that Armstead see Anthony. Thompson concurred in the recommendation that Armstead see Anthony. Armstead did so and was told by Anthony that if Armstead had signed a union card she, Anthony, could help her get out of it. The next morning Armstead saw Anthony again at Anthony's request and was asked by her to find out which girls were for the Union and to tell Anthony or have those girls come and see her, It must be noted that Grace Anthony is the same employee that Mrs. Margie Thompson brought employee Averitt to see in the plant. In the conversation which ensued Anthony told Averitt that all the girls believed she was in the Union and that Anthony had a paper which Averritt could sign to get out of the Union. I find that Thompson knew the kind of antiunion activity Anthony was engaged in. 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Armstead's union activity was of interest to other representatives of management. About June 26, 1959, Mrs. Thompson asked her to let her know if she "heard anything" during vacation. In the context this meant anything in reference to the Union . Section Girl Beulah Lammon also asked Armstead if the union people had been to see her. Armstead told Eunice Redmond , an instructor, who Bernhard testified assisted him in instructing and inspecting , that the union people had been to see her. On July 15, 1959, Armstead was interviewed by an employee of the National Labor Relations Board and gave him a signed statement. Between that date and the date of her discharge she was interviewed by Respondent's counsel about alleged acts of interference charged to Respondent by the Union. Armstead told counsel for Respondent that she would tell him what she had told the Board agent but that she would not tell him if she was for the Union if he asked her. Armstead was fired by Foreman Bernhard on July 28 allegedly for turning out a substantial amount of bad work repeatedly. A certain amount of defective work is not questioned by the General Counsel but the quantity, as well as the real reason for the discharge, is. Armstead testified that the events immediately preceding and surrounding her discharge happened as follows and I credit her version. About a week before her discharge Bernhard returned three pairs of pants to Armstead which she had to do over. About 4 or 5 days later, on the day immediately prior to her discharge , Bernhard inspected a bundle of pants she had completed and showed Armstead certain work which was defective. Armstead said she would redo the work if Bernhard would lay the pants on her machine. Bernhard then selected three pairs of pants out of the bundle to be redone. A bundle contains about 10 or 12 pairs of pants. Eunice Redmond , the inspector, looked at the pants and commented that they were not very bad but to redo them. Armstead did the work over and it went on to the next operation. On July 28 about 9 a.m. Armstead saw Bernhard near the machines across the aisle from her operation looking at the job tickets on certain finished goods, which contain the employees clock number. Bernhard picked out a bundle of pants, took it to a machine , and called Inspector Redmond . The two of them conversed for awhile and then Inspector Redmond came back for Armstead. Armstead met with Bernhard who told her the entire bundle of pants had been done improperly, that Armstead should have done them all over. Armstead protested to Bernhard that her understanding was that she was to redo only those pairs that Bernhard had taken out from the bundle on the previous day. Bernhard denied this and sent the employee back to her machine even though she offered to do the whole bundle over if Bernhard wished. At 11 a.m. Bernhard told Armstead that he wanted to see her at 4:30 p.m. At 1.15 p.m., however, Armstead went to see Bernhard in his office and told him she was willing to correct her mistakes and re-do the work. She also told Bernhard that she had signed a union card and that the trouble she was in and the pressure on her by Respondent was caused by that fact. Bernhard disavowed any interest in the union activities of Armstead. Armstead then went back to work and at 4:30 p.m Bernhard told her she was "let go." According to Bernhard he had been told prior to July 27, by a section girl, that Armstead had repeatedly let bad work through and that he also had given bad work back to Armstead and warned her. Respondent placed in evidence three prior "warnings" that Bernhard had placed in Armstead's personnel file. Bernhard also testified that three bundles of bad work were involved on July 27, a majority of the pants in each being defective and that three or four were found on the 28th involv- ing the same defective work, one of which, however, could have been a duplicate of the previous day's count. Bernhard also insisted that he told Armstead to do all the work over. I do not credit Bernhard's version of the facts surrounding Arm- stead's defective work. As stated above, I credit Armstead and I also find the following defects in Bernhard's testimony . Armstead's union activity was a matter of interest to Lammon, Vaughn, and Margie Thompson but Bernhard disclaimed any knowledge of or interest in her union sympathies. I do not believe that Bernhard was unaware of these matters even though he personally engaged in no interrogation or threats or was instructed by top management to keep aloof of such matters. Bern- hard's account of the number of bundles and pairs of pants found defective on the 2 crucial days seemed to the Trial Examiner to be confused or grossly exaggerated. Redmond. the instructor who observed the defective work and who told Armstead that it did not look too bad, was not called as a witness. On the other hand, Lammon had a hazy recollection of who first found the work, how much it involved, where it was found , and what was said. In addition Lammon did not deny that she SCHWOB MANUFACTURING COMPANY 827 had earlier in Armstead's employment history told her that she was doing well and got less defective work back than others. Neither can Respondent find much sup- port in the prior "warnings" deposited in Armstead's file. These so-called warnings are not communicated to the employee nor are they given in all instances of bad work. The employee may never know that such a "warning" is in the file. No fair comparison of employees with respect to the number of prior warnings can be made in these circumstances particularly when it is recalled that if the section girl does not report bad work to the foreman in the first instance the foreman may never know of it. Bernhard's account of what happened to the alleged bundles of bad work was unsatisfactory. I believe and find that the work was never removed from produc- tion but the one bundle, which I find was all that possibly could have been involved, was permitted to go through to completion. On the basis of the whole record, including the demeanor of Lammon and Bernhard, I find that an insignificant amount of defective work was produced by Armstead on the day before her discharge which work would have normally been given back to her by her section girl without further incident but that such minor variation from standards was used by Respondent as a pretext for Armstead's dis- charge which was actually motivated by her membership and activity in the Union. This finding is supported by Section Girls Lammon and Vaughn's untoward interest in Armstead's union activity in the light of their own opposition to the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec- tion with the operations of Respondent as described in section I, above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and, such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that Respondent offer employee Jean Armstead immedi- ate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of offer of reinstatement, and in a manner consistent with Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay. It will also be recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices the Respondent has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Jean Armstead, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By engaging in the conduct set forth under section III, B, 1 and 2, above, en- titled "Interference, restraint, and coercion," Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act. ,828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act with respect to Betty Anderson as alleged in the complaint in Case No. lO-CA-4343. 6. 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.] Transitron Electronic Corporation and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3104. November 30, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On June 30,1960, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Kimball]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Transitron Elec- tronic Corporation, Wakefield, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening to discharge employees because of their union activities, discharging supervisors for refusing to commit unfair labor 129 NLRB No. 103.