Stein-Way Clothing Co., Inc.

132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD both the avionics and rockets divisions. There is no basis, therefore, for establishing the separate bargaining units for the technicians, as contended. by the Employer and the Association.' We find that a single unit of all the technicians is appropriate, consistent with the scope of the existing units. Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's Niagara Frontier facilities (Erie and Niagara counties in the State of New York) constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act : All technical employees in the avionics and rockets divisions of the Employer, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors' as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 It is well established that the Board will find inappropriate a technical unit which does not comprise all the Employer's technical employees . See Westinghouse Air Brake Company, Union Switch & Signal Divtision, 119 NLRB 1391 ; The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243. 7 Subsequent to the filing of the petition 24 technicians received promotions as a re- sult of an organizational change by the Employer. The Employer 's witnesses testified that these 24 individuals effectively recommend the hiring and discharge, and responsibly direct the work of, the employees under their supervision As there is no evidence to the contrary, we shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4528. April 19, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On January 10, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermedi- ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified below.2 i Member Rodgers would not rely on the Trial Examiner's inference that because of the small size of its plant the Respondent knew or suspected that Agnes Garland was engaging in union activity. a The Respondent has excepted, inter alia, to the Trial Examiner's recommended remedy awarding reinstatement and backpay to Agnes Garland. The record reveals that a few ,131 NLRB No. 27. STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. ORDER 133 Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc., Johnson City, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating against the employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment. (b) Threatening employees with loss of employment because of their union activities or support. (c) Stating to employees that it knows who the union adherents are or otherwise suggesting that their union activities are under surveillance. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant at Johnson City, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's official representatives, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. minutes after she had been discharged in the office, Garland returned to her work station in the plant , where she had been forbidden to go, and physically attacked Virginia Bailey, a fellow employee , who Garland suspected had informed the employer of her union activity. Although Garland's action does not affect the illegality of her discharge, the Board, Member Fanning dissenting , does not believe that the purposes of the Act will be effectuated by granting Garland reinstatement and backpay . Carthage Fabrics Corpora- tion, 101 NLRB 541 , 555; Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 122 NLRB 929. Member Fanning affirms the Trial Examiner in this matter. 3In 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." 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee for the purpose of discouraging membership in United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment because of their union activities or support. WE WILL NOT state to our employees that their union affiliation is known to the Company or otherwise suggest that the employees' union activities or affiliation is under surveillance. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection and to refrain from any or all of such activities. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members in good standing in the above-named Union or any other labor organization. STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act , was heard at Johnson City, Tennessee, on November 9, 1960, pursuant to due notice with all parties represented by counsel. The complaint issued by the General Counsel for the National Labor STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. 135 Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board), on October 13, 1960, and based upon charges duly filed and served, alleged in substance that Re- spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminating against its employee, Agnes Garland, because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and by engaging in various specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion against its employees in connec- tion with their union activities. In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS Respondent is and at all times material herein has been a Tennessee corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business at Johnson City, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture of men's pants under a Government contract. During the calendar year 1959, which is a representative period, Respondent sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000, from its Johnson City plant directly to points outside the State of Tennessee. I find that Respondent is and at all times material herein has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is and at all times material herein has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The supervisory status of the foreladies The General Counsel contends that the foreladies (and specifically Fleda Merritt and Mildred Lewis) are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Respondent claims that "not one shred of evidence was produced which would justify this po- sition" and contends that foreladies are merely "group leaders." I disagree. While it is true that they have no authority to hire or fire and that like the rank-and-file they are hourly paid and punch timeclocks, the preponderance of the evidence shows their identity with management within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Thus it appears that the foreladies train girls, check their work, correct girls if they do improper work, give out production sheets, take up production and see generally that the work gets out on schedule. They have authority to trans- fer employees from job to job or place them where most needed. They do no pro- duction work themselves but, unlike the rank-and-file, they attend production meet- ings. According to the testimony of Joe Wood, Respondent's treasurer and service manager, the foreladies take such disciplinary action as is necessary "to see that the work is performed properly and see that the girls are at their work places on time and that the work is generally coming through satisfactorily. . . Although they do not have the authority to hire or fire, it is clear from both the testimony of Wood and Ted Odum, supervisor of the cutting department, that their recom- mendations in these respects "would carry a lot of weight." And while they are hourly paid, unlike the rank-and-file their remuneration is not geared to production quotas. In these circumstances and considering that there are 7 foreladies plus only Wood and Odom to supervise some 350 to 375 production workers distributed in several different rooms or work areas, I have no difficulty in concluding that the foreladies are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. I so find. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion Agnes Garland, the alleged discriminatee herein, testified about a conversation she had with Forelady Fleda Merritt 3 days before her discharge. Garland asked Merritt how she felt about a union coming in the plant. Merritt replied that since she did not have to work it made no difference to her but added that it would "make it easier on the girls." Merritt also said that an attempt had been made to get a union in before "and they closed it down, and they would close it down before they would have one in there." On the following day, according to Garland's further testimony, Merritt came to her and said, "Agnes, be careful who you talk to in here about union because some of them will squeal on you . anybody that talks to you, will be fired. They will fire anybody who talks about it." 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In her testimony Merritt admitted having the first conversation some 2 or 3 days before Garland's discharge. According to her version Garland had asked her what she thought about the Union and she gave Garland her "own personal opinion about a union"-which opinion she explained on the stand was that she "couldn't see any advantage in it really." When pressed for details as to what she actually told Garland her answer was, "I don't remember what I told her. I don't recall-I can't recall what I told her. It wasn't important to me, I didn 't think anything about it. She just asked me and I just gave her my personal opinion ; and she made a few remarks. I can't even tell you what she said because I didn 't even think any- thing about it." Nevertheless , she further testified with the aid of a leading question about going into detail concerning another plant and its union which eventually closed down because of strikes and which she pointed out could happen here. She denied, however, having had the second conversation with Garland and when she was specifically asked if she had told Garland to be careful who she talked to about the Union her reply was , "I told Agnes not to cause us any trouble and that's when I referred to the local plant and went into details about the trouble that they had when the Union went in." Merritt further testified that she never told anybody in management about this conversation . On cross-examination Merritt at first testi- fied that she did not know the name of the plant to which she had referred in her conversation with Garland. Pressed further for the name she replied, "I believe it was Miller Brothers ; I am just not sure it was." In view of Merritt's uncertainty and vagueness as to various details of her admitted conversation with Garland and her admission that she could not remember what she told Garland , I credit Garland here. Wilma Presnell, an employee of some 15 years' tenure and a former forelady, called by the General Counsel , testified as to a conversation she had with Phil Scharfstein, Respondent's president, on September 15 in the plant kitchen . Accord- ing to Presnell, right after lunch Forelady Mildred Lewis told her that Scharfstein said to bring a pair of pants to the kitchen , that he wanted to talk to her. There Scharfstein told her that he had found out that she was a leader in the Union. Pres- nell asked who had told him that . He said that a number of girls had told both him and General Manager Wood. He further said that Wood "wanted to dismiss [her] for the same reason he did Agnes and Genevieve ." But Scharfstein wanted to talk to her because she had been with the Company so long and had never been for a union before. He further told her that "Agnes and Genevieve had been dis- missed-on account of the Union ." He further said that "he never had been under a union, they had always closed down to get rid of them ." When he asked her to cooperate with them she replied that "money couldn 't hire [her]" to do anything against the others . He told her to think about it and "get a pair of pants and come in there and talk it over with him." She asked him if he wanted to fire her and he told her that he did not, that it would look bad because she had been with the Com- pany so many years . He also told her that he had the names of all the girls who had signed union cards. In her testimony she denied that anything was said about work except that Scharfstein mentioned that if the girls rejected the Union, there would be plenty of work for all. Paradoxically she also testified that Scharfstein told her that he wanted the Union held off until the Company had finished both of its contracts and that after they were finished they would "close down." Scharfstein had a stroke in 1955 which apparently resulted in considerable cur- tailment of his physical activity. He appeared on the stand with the aid of a cane and explained that when he finds it impossible to make a personal inspection in the plant he gets the foreladies to "bring certain things" to him which he can inspect while sitting. He admitted having had a conversation with Presnell on September 15, having asked Forelady Lewis to send Presnell to him "with a pair of pants." According to his testimony he told Presnell that he had had complaints about her work, that she had been careless "passing trousers with holes and damages and things that need .repairing and you've got to be more careful and see that you please do the right thing and be careful and do your work." According to Scharfstein's direct testimony that was the entire conversation he had with Presnell. He spe- cifically denied any reference to the Union or that he had accused her of being a union leader. He also denied that he told her he would close down the plant when the Government contracts were finished . He further denied that he ever men- tioned Garland's name to Presnell in this conversation or in any conversation. The tenor of Scharfstein's cross-examination was that the pants brought to him by Presnell had been passed by her even though they contained defects. It seems incredible to me that an experienced employee would voluntarily carry her own STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. 137 negligent work to her superior for his inspection. For this and other reasons i I am inclined to and do credit Presnell here. Presnell further testified about a conversation she had with Forelady Mildred Lewis on August 26, a few hours after the discharge of Agnes Garland . According to Presnell , Lewis came up to her and told her, "Wilma, I want to tell you some- thing. Joe [Wood, Respondent's general manager ] . .. is going to have the police search all the girls at quitting time for union cards." In her testimony Lewis flatly denied making the statement to Presnell. She also denied any knowledge of union activity in the plant until after Garland 's discharge. She did admit, however, that sometime between the discharge and the time Re- spondent began preparation for the hearing herein, she talked to Wood regarding some "rumors" about the Union. As she put it, she "mentioned something about it one time but I can't recall . . . some little old something about it but I don't know what it was . it wasn't anything that amounted to anything and not enough to even remember. . There wasn't anything that concerned her because we didn't know anything definitely . I hadn't seen any cards , it was just a rumor." There are two significant aspects of Lewis' testimony about her "some little old something" that she claimed did not amount to anything : ( 1) It was important enough for her to go to Wood about ; ( 2) it is interesting to note that in the con- text of testimony concerning the discharge of Garland she maintained that her re- marks did not concern a "her" (who can only be interpreted as being Garland) because Respondent did not "know anything definitely"-that they had not "seen any cards, it was just a rumor." In view of Lewis' obvious attempt to mitigate the effect of her having talked to Wood about the Union , together with my comparative reaction to the two witnesses as they testified , I credit Presnell here. The foregoing reveals the following acts of interference , restraint, and coercion by Respondent against its employees which I find violate Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act: Merritt's statements to Garland that Respondent would close the plant before it would have a union and that Respondent would discharge anyone who talked about the Union. Scharfstein's remarks to Presnell that Respondent had never been under a union and "had always closed down to get out of them," and that he had the names of all the girls who had signed union cards, thus giving the impression that employees' union activities were under Respondent 's surveillance. Lewis' remarks to Presnell that Wood was going to have police search the girls at quitting time for union cards. C. Discrimination Agnes Garland began working for Respondent October 9, 1952. During this time she clipped bands, pressed, inspected a little , top pressed pants; but her essential work was as a presser. At the time of her discharge on August 26, 1960, she was making $11.20 per day which was production ceiling There were seven pressers besides herself, some were leg pressers and others top pressers as was she. Most of them also made production most of the time Garland testified that she had never been criticized about her work and that she had been complimented more than once, the last time being a week before her discharge when General Manager Joe Wood came by and told her that her work "was looking good, to keep it up " About 2 weeks before her discharge Garland became interested in the Union and signed a union card. Sometime during this 2-week period she attended a union meeting at which three others from the plant were present. At the plant she talked to the girls about the Union and got them to sign cards. In all she passed out about 50 to 60 cards several at a time to different girls . She herself got 12 cards signed. On the morning of August 26, when she went to punch in, her card was not in the rack as usual She asked the office girl if she knew anything about it. The latter tried to find it but could not and told Garland to come back to the office at 8 o'clock. Garland went to the office and was sitting there when General Manager Wood appeared at the door and said, "Agnes, come out here." She went out and Wood said, "Agnes, I found some bad work of yours We'll have to let you go." Garland said, "That suits me. Just give me my separation slip. I want to tell you it's not my work. I have not had no complaints about my work and you've not showed me any bad work and I know it's not that Why don't you be honest for one time and tell me what it's about " Wood wheeled around and said. "Well, what else is it?" When Garland told the office girl she was going into the plant to i Schnrfstein's denial of recognition up to the time of the hearing of union activity in the plant is patently incredible as was his claim that he had talked to no one about his testimony. 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD get her pocketbook, the office girl said, "honey, I don't think Joe will let you. I've got to go after it." Wood had told the other office girl to make out Garland 's time and give her her slip. While she was doing this Garland went out the front door and into the back of the plant. There Garland got in a fight with Virginia Bailey. According to Garland's cross-examination Bailey "was always snitching , and she blamed [Gar- land] for all the pranks and jokes that had been pulled.. . " Garland started the fight with Bailey "because [Garland] thought she had told on [Garland] getting the union card signed and because she knew about it." 2 Ted Odom separated the two women and took them to the office from where Garland was taken "to town and let . out, and that was it." Garland further testified that Wood did not tell her when he had found this bad work and did not offer to show her what bad work it was that he claimed to have found. According to Garland's further testi- mony that afternoon she called the plant and asked to talk to Wood. When Wood got on the telephone she told him that she knew why she had been fired that morn- ing. He asked her why and she said that it was because she was trying to get a union in the plant. She further said, "You've not got the leader yet because they are still down there." He said, "Well, tell me who it is, then." She said, "You don't think I'd tell you that, do you?" and he said, "I appreciate your calling." The Respondent's evidence regarding Garland's discharge is as follows: General Manager Wood testified that prior to Garland's discharge he had "an overall abund- ance" of complaints from the Government inspector about poor workmanship. Al- though he admitted that he may have on occasion complimented Garland about her work he claimed to have "talked" to her a week or two before her discharge about work that was "not up to par." On cross-examination he was not able to recall the exact nature of the complaint against Garland at this time . His specific reason for discharging Garland was "for bad work." This bad work he described as "the pressing around the tops of the waistbands, the pockets not being smoothed out, the fly not being properly pressed, just around the top part of the trousers, which was her operation." According to his testimony they were not pressed in an acceptable man- ner for the Government . Although no details as to the exact mechanics of the dis- charge were given by him on direct examination he testified on cross-examination that after quitting time on August 25, he found the bad work by Garland-some six or eight pairs of pants with just the tops pressed. Although he claimed to have told Garland at the time he discharged her that he found the bad work the night before, he admits that he did not show them to her and in effect admitted that he did not tell her what was bad, his complaint to her being that it was "just in general bad pressing." He further admitted on cross-examination that he possibly found some other pressers' work that was bad at the same time. He also admitted that he did not discuss the discharge with either Odom or Garland's forelady and he could not say that he had had any complaints from those sources about Garland 's work. As to other discharges Wood testified that if he continually gets bad work and after warning sees that there is no improvement with the help being furnished by Odom and the foreladies, then he will discharge people "on the spot " Even in such cases, however, he testified that later and presumably when he has calmed down, he often gives the people he discharged a chance to come back to work again. In this vein he testified that he would have considered giving Garland her job back but that he had decided against this course because of the fight which occurred after she was discharged. Garland's separation notice on the Tennessee Department of Employment Security form had indicated the reason for her dis- charge as "bad work, misconduct on job." Wood testified that misconduct on the job was not one of the causes of her discharge. He explained the addition of that reason thereon because he "felt like that was to preclude taking her back at all . . and it also precluded her right to go and get compensation." According to Foreman Ted Odom's testimony, Wood was the impetuous type who fires or discharges people on the spur of the moment. Odom named two people who were thus fired by Wood and both rehired. He testified that not only do they generally give girls "a second chance," they give them several warnings. Odom further testified that he did not have to warn Garland individually about her work and more than any of the other pressers. Forelady Mildred Lewis testified that she had had bad work by Garland brought to her attention but added "they all had bad work. . Wood denied knowledge of any union activity whatsoever in the plant prior to Garland's discharge. He claimed to have first learned of it when Garland called him 2 Bailey testified that she had no knowledge of Garland's union activity. Whether she knew or not of course is immaterial. STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. 139 that afternoon on the telephone.' Respondent's president , Scharfstein , also denied on cross-examination knowledge of any union activity in the plant "at any time" up to the time of the hearing. As is apparent, there is no substantial conflict between the General Counsel's and Respondent's evidence as to the discharge with the possible exception of whether or not she had been "talked to" regarding below-par work. In view of Wood's vague- ness regarding the time and nature of his complaint to her, I find that if he did in fact talk to her about her work it was no more than routine and passing observation with no adverse significance regarding the overall caliber of her work. I do not believe Respondent 's explanation of the discharge., Wood may be im- petuous as Respondent claims, but the circumstances here in my opinion are not such as would have triggered one of his on -the-spot discharges . His alleged reason for the discharge conflicts with Respondent's self-described method of giving re- peated warnings and several chances to marginal employees . And Garland was no marginal employee but an efficient operator of long tenure. Considering these facts and the additional facts that Garland 's coworker testified without denial that she was was not called upon to repress any faulty work and that Respondent offered no evi- dence as to having Garland's alleged faulty work redone, I conclude and find that Garland was discharged not for faulty work but because Respondent knew of her union activity and inclinations or•surmised it. In this connection there remains to be disposed of Respondent 's contention that it had no knowledge of Garland's union activities prior to her discharge . I believe that the overall circumstances reflected in the record as a whole show this contention to be without merit and require a finding that Respondent had knowledge of Gar- land's union activity or believed or suspected her to be so engaged . In reaching this conclusion, I rely in part on the following : (1) The nature of that activity itself (in a relatively small plant) with its apex the solicition of 12 union authorization cards; (2) the two conversations with Forelady Merritt about the Union culminating in the warning Merritt gave her 2 days before her discharge about discussing the Union ; (3) Forelady Lewis ' comment to Presnell a few hours after the discharge about the police search for union cards; (4) Scharfstein's statement to Presnell that Garland had been dismissed because of union activity ; (5) Lewis' testimony putting union cards and Garland in the same context together with the implication that Re- spondent had information about Garland's union activity but that it had not yet been "definitely" verified. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with its operations described in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the 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 in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent on August 26, 1960, discriminatorily discharged employee Agnes Garland and has since failed to reinstate her, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer -her immediate 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 she may have suffered because of the discrimination against her by payment of a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the dis- crimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less net earnings during said period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289. The Respondent shall, upon re- quest, make available to the Board or its agents payroll and other records to facili- tate the checking of the amount of backpay. In recommending the customary remedy of reinstatement and backpay here I am cognizant that there is some evidence of reluctance on Respondent 's part to reinstate Garland because of the fight in which she engaged immediately after her discharge. While I do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to deny her reinstatement here, I do not want to be understood as condoning her conduct or as being unmindful of it . Certainly no one need retain an employee who engages in physical aggression against his fellow employees and Respondent should feel free to 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharge or otherwise discipline Garland should there be any repetition of the type of conduct she engaged in against Bailey. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated . I shall therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS of LAw 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily discharging Agnes Garland the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. 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.] Anchor Manufacturing Company, a division of Basic Products Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 12-CA-1563 and 12-CA-1647. April 19, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, on October 7, 1960, issued a complaint alleging that Anchor Manufacturing Company, a division of Basic Products Corpo- ration, herein called the Respondent,' had engaged in and was en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hear- ing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that the Union was and is the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent in an appropriate unit, and that the Respondent unlawfully refused to bar- gain collectively with the Union. The Respondent's answer admits certain jurisdictional and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission of unfair labor practices. 1 The name of the Respondent has been amended in accordance with the stipulation of facts entered into by all the parties. The parties agreed in this stipulation to the dismissal of the allegations of the com- plaint in Case No. 12-CA-1563. 131 NLRB No. 22.