Latex Industries, Inc.

Latex Industries, Incorporated and Ellen Buehler Latex Industries, Incorporated and Mayme Hess. Cases Nos. 8-CA-2282-1 and 8-CA-FJ82-P2. Judy 7, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On February 24, 1961, Trial Examiner John F. Funke 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tion of the Trial Examiner with the following alterations and modifications. 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent dis- charged employees Hess, Ruder, Buehler, Rozell, and Blough because they engaged in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a),(1) of the Act.' As the order requiring reinstatement of the discharged em- ployees and making them whole is fully supported by the finding of a Section 8(a) (1) violation, Members Rodgers and Leedom deem it unnecessary to consider whether the Respondent's conduct also vio- lated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.' Chairman McCulloch agrees with the Trial Examiner that the ad hoc gathering together of the Re- spondent's employees to present wage and other demands consti- 3 We do not adopt the broad statement in footnote 6 of the Intermediate Report as to certain alleged characteristics and attitudes of the ethnic group of one of the witnesses 9 See Gordon-Ladley Plywood Products Company, 118 NLRB 1, 14; compare Gullett Gin Company, Inc. v. N.L R.B ., 179' F. 2d 499 , 502 (C.A. 5 ) ; and N L .R B. v. Bnzza-Cardozo, 205 F 2d 889, 891 (CA 9) 132 NLRB No. 3. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tuted a "labor organization" within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and would, in accordance with well-established Board and court precedent, find that the Respondent also violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act 3 2. The remedy: Although finding that the Respondent discharged five employees .because of their protected concerted activities, the Trial Examiner did not recommend the customary remedy of ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from interfering in any other manner with the legitimate concerted and union activities of its employees, protected by Section 7 of the Act. The discharge of five employees, following promptly on the heels of the employees' first effort to act concertedly for the purposes of mutual aid and protection, was clearly -designed to nip such activities in the bud. This conduct of the Re- spondent presents a threat of similar violations in the future and goes to the very heart of the Act. Accordingly, we shall enter a broad cease-and-desist order.' 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, Latex Industries, Incorporated, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discharging its employees for engaging in concerted activities for the purposes of their mutual aid or protection. (b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en- gage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activi- ties except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act : (a) Offer to Mayme Hess, Ellen Buehler, Vera Ruder, Ruth Rozell, and Grace Blough immediate and full reinstatement each to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make a Brown Survey Corporation, 119 NLRB , 1240 , 1255-1256 ; N.L.R.B . v. Rugerofters of Puerto Rico, Inc, 213 F 2d 537 (C.A. 1) ; Smith Victory Corporation, 90 NLRB, 2089, enfd. N.L R B. v. Smith Vactoi y Corporation, 190 F 2d 56 (C.A. 2) ; N.L.R B v Kenna- metal, I+ac, 182 F. 2d 817 (C A. 3), enfg. 80 NLRB, 1481 ' See N.L.R .B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 437; N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfq Co, 120 F. 2d 532 (C A. 4). LATEX INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 3 each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate 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 se- curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Chippewa Lake, Ohio, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eight Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there- after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, in writ- ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. _ 5 In 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 State 's 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, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because they engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of their mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 614913-62-vol 132-2 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer Mayme Hess, Ellen Buehler, Vera Ruder, Ruth Rozell, and Grace Blough immediate and full reinstatement each to her former or substantially equivalent position, without preju- dice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make each whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be- coming or remaining members of any labor organization. LATEX INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Employer. Dated-- -------------- By-------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, with the General Counsel and Respondent represented, came on to be heard before Trial Examiner John F. Funke at Medina, Ohio, on January 10 and 11, 1961, upon an order consolidating the cases , the complaint of the General Counsel, and the answer of Latex Industries, Incorporated , herein called Latex or the Respondent. The complaint alleged that on or about October 28, 1960, the Respondent dis- charged five employees named in the complaint because they engaged in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act and to discourage membership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The answer admitted the discharges but denied violations of the Act. General Counsel submitted oral argument at the conclusion of the case . Respond- ent waived oral argument and both General Counsel and counsel for Respondent waived the filing of briefs. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Ohio corporation maintaining its principal place of business at Chippewa Lake, Ohio. It is engaged in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of catheters and other latex products . Annually it sells, delivers, and transports prod- ucts valued in excess of $50,000 in interstate commerce throughout the United States and to points outside the State of Ohio. Respondent concedes and I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. IL THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The facts Latex is a small company employing about 13 employees , all female, at its plant at Chippewa Lake. Catheters are delicate surgical instruments made by hand, re- quiring skill and attention to detail . Defective catheters are dangerous to patients and care is required that they not be shipped to hospitals unless perfect . Perfection in workmanship was, according to the testimony, one of Respondent's major problems. The events which brought this case to hearing occurred on October 27 and 28, 1960. According to the testimony of the employees themselves , which I credit in substance, there had been dissatisfaction with respect to pay raises, which the em- ployees thought were overdue, and bonuses, which had been discontinued. On the morning of October 27 Mayme Hess, one of the Charging Parties, went upstairs to take her break with three other employees , Grace Blough, Marlon Dickinson, and LATEX INDUSTRIES , INCORPORATED 5 Gladys Barum. Two other girls, Vera Ruder and Ellen Buehler, were working upstairs and one of them called to Hess and asked when they were going to see Mr. Allen about their raises and the bonuses . (Dwight L. Allen is vice president of Latex and in overall charge of its operations .) Hess said she would speak to him at any time but that she would speak to the girls downstairs first. About 2 p.m. on that day Hess saw Allen enter his office and sent word up to Buehler that he was in. After they checked out at 4:30 the girls waited to see Allen. There were 11 girls (2 were absent that day) and they waited outside his office . When Allen was free Buehler called to him and said the girls wanted to see him. He came out, asked that one of them act as spokesman , and Hess told him they wanted to discuss their raises. Summarizing the testimony , Allen told them that he was going to New Jersey to see 80 men and that if the girls waited until December he would make it worth their while. Allen told them they had been doing good work. Hess then asked for a raise for Grace Blough who worked with her as a dipper and Blough stated that if she could not have a raise she wanted to return to her former job as stripper. Allen's reply was that an employee was supposed to work on the job to which she was assigned. Vera Ruder asked about vacations-why the bosses got 3 weeks and she had been there 2 years and received only 1 week.' Allen's reply was that the bosses had been employed in the latex business for 20 years. Buehler stated that she had been gypped of her vacation in 1959 . Allen replied that they had been over that argument before . Buehler then mentioned the overhead at Latex, the fact that the bosses were driving new cars and told Allen that if the employees had a union they would get their raises and their bonus. Ruth Rozell asked Allen what she should do when she was told by a supervisor to do a catheter one way and she knew it was wrong.2 Allen's reply was that accidents happen in all shops. Allen testified that in addition to Rozell , Hess and Ruder complained that the foremen did not know what they were doing. Marion Dickinson complained that she had asked Plant Manager Kerley for 4 days off at Christmas and could not get an answer from him. Allen thought this request was reasonable and could be taken care of at that time. At the end of the meeting, according to the employees , Allen again told them they had been doing a good job. Allen characterized the meeting as disorderly , stating that several employees were talking at once. Grable testified that he overheard some of the meeting and, in re- sponse to leading questions , characterized it as uproarious . The employees testified that the meeting was not loud or disorderly and that no one shouted . It is un- disputed that only six of the employees spoke up at this meeting and I cannot find that it was uproarious . When 11 women congregate to express their dissatisfaction and to voice their demands it is inevitable that more than 1 will be talking at the same time. This does not suggest either disorder or uproar to me. Following the meeting Allen discussed it with Ellis, Grable , and Chilcott. (Kerley was in Akron.) Allen testified that he was particularly concerned with the attitude of the employees toward their supervisors and stated that he had the impression the employees thought they could run the business better themselves . He asked the foremen to review the individual performances of the girls and speak to Kerley the next morning. Grable testified that in this discussion (with Allen ) it was agreed by the foremen that they had never heard anything like the meeting between the girls and Allen as far as confusion and denunciation of management personnel. Allen summarized the expressions of the employees as an "ultimatum" and told the fore- men the plant could not operate with such an attitude toward management. At 4:30 p.m. the next day Kerley called all the girls to a meeting which was also attended by Grable, Ellis, and Chilcott. Summarizing the testimony , which I credit, Kerley told them it would not do them any good to go over his head and that he would run the plant 100 percent . (Kerley resented the fact that they had gone to Allen with their complaints when he was out of town.) He told the girls that there would be another meeting on Monday for those still employed and he then excused all but Hess, Buehler, Ruder, Rozell , and Blough. He told them they had worked their last day-"that there was too much resentment and things going on behind his back." Kerley told Blough she was discharged because she did not like her work and had asked to go back to stripping. Hess, Buehler, Ruder, and Rozell were told I There were four other supervisory employees at Chippewa besides Allen. Oscar Kerley was plant manager ; Glenn Grable was technical superintendent ; Nelson Ellis was quality control superintendent ; George Chilcott's title was not given . ( Chilcott did not appear as a witness since his testimony would have been merely cumulative.) a Rozell was the first employee employed at Latex . She had been there longer than Kerley, Ellis, Chilcott, and Grable. 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD they were discharged because they were not following instructions and for their belligerent attitude. Between Friday afternoon and Monday morning Kerley met Marlon Dickinson, who was not discharged , at a grocery store. According to Dickinson, Kerley told her it was a terrible thing he had done and that he hated doing it. Dickinson asked him why she had not been fired (Dickinson was the only employee who spoke at the meeting who had not been fired ) and he said that she had only asked for time off and that "was a different thing." Kerley's version of the conversation is not sub- stantially different and I find that it took place as. described by Dickinson. At the meeting on Monday morning with the remaining employees Kerley stated that he had gotten rid of the trouble (or troublemakers ) and that he expected the employees to cooperate 100 percent and that if they did not want to cooperate they could get their hats and coats and leave. Respondent's defense is that the employees were discharged for cause and since the reasons assigned vary with the individual it will be necessary to review the full' and frequently redundant testimony respecting each. According to Allen, Hess was discharged "for her failure to follow operating pro- cedures, for her refusal to work with personnel to whom she might be assigned, and for her attitude toward management ." Hess was Respondent's most experienced' dipper and was qualified as group leader of the dippers for which she received an additional 10 cents per hour. She had been employed since June 8, 1957, and her immediate supervisor at the time she was fired was Glenn Grable . Hess worked with Ruder 3 and two other dippers and written instructions had been prepared by Latex .for the dippers. According to Grable neither Hess nor Ruder followed these in- structions. In the middle of July rejection of catheters (rejects were classified as scrap) approximated 39 percent. While there is no evidence that this was exclusively the fault of the dippers 4 it was decided to reduce the workload of the dippers. The purpose was to get the dippers to work more slowly and more carefully but Grable testified the reduction did not have the desired effect since the dippers worked as fast as before and simply took more break time . Grable then took over the super- vision of the dippers, told them he was disappointed in results , that they were taking excessive break periods , and threatened disciplinary action . It was Grable's testi- mony that Hess and Ruder took as many as six breaks in the course of the day in addition to two authorized breaks. This criticism was not directed to the other two dippers, only to Hess and Ruder . Allen testified that he was concerned about the dipping and instructed Grable to watch them every .minute for a 2-week period to, prevent speeding up the process . Ruder admitted that a month or two before they were discharged Kerley had called each of the dippers in separately and told each she would be discharged if she did not cooperate , but both she and Hess denied that they had been consistently criticized for their work, although Hess admitted they took more breaks than were authorized . Kerley testified that Hess had complained to him about girls assigned to the dipping operations , saying they could not work the tables because they were too fat or too short and worked too slowly. Hess and Ruder, together with the other employees who were discharged, were subject to the general charge of insubordinate attitude . When she was discharged by Kerley, Hess was told that she had done things which the Respondent did not like but she was not told what they were. Allen testified that Buehler was discharged for insubordination , failure to follow operating procedures, and her attitude toward management . Respecting her attitude, Kerley testified that when she was introduced to him when he came to the plant in, August she told him she did not think she was going to like him. From time to time he heard Buehler criticize the supervisors for purchasing new cars and the manage- ment for purchasing new office equipment. Ellis, Grable, and Chilcott all com- plained to him about her belligerency. She was one of the six girls whose attitude was considered undesirable by management.5 Grable testified that Buehler criticized the work of the dippers when she found defective catheters , that Rozell complained (once) because she had to listen to Buehler all day long, that Buehler lost her temper two or three times a week, and that he once heard her say Ellis did not know what he was doing. Employees Barum and Birmingham were called by Respondent to testify that Buehler was loud, that she had a quick temper, and that she was critical of management. 8 Ruder was also a veteran employee, having been employed since April 19, 1957 ' In fact there is evidence that some of it was the fault of the eye buffer and some of it could have resulted from poor inspection. 3 The others were Hess, Ruder , Rozell , Blougb, and Fern Birmingham. LATEX INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED 7 Ellis testified to two instances which presumably established that she was in- subordinate and did not follow operating procedures . At one time she refused to, pass catheters which she said were defective unless he signed the scrap sheet. In the second instance he told her to put catheters in production and then could not find them. She refused or at least did not tell him where they were and he never did find them. On one or the other of these occasions (the times are not precisely fixed in the testimony) she pushed her table toward him and said she was going home. She left at noon and was suspended for 5 days . Ellis, however, did testify that she was a good inspector when she did her work. Rozell was the first employee hired at Chippewa Lake, starting on March 21, 1957. At the time of her discharge she was an eye buffer. According to Allen she, too, was discharged for failure to follow operating procedures and for her attitude toward management. As to the first charge, Ellis testified that he suggested to Rozell that she wash the catheters individually instead of in bunches but that she did not follow his instructions. Kerley testified that he had twice spoken to her about catheters with bad eyes which had been shipped out but that he never threatened her with dis- charge. As to the second allegation, Ellis made the general statement that "you just hated to go up and ask her to do anything." Rozell herself testified that she had been suspended for 3 days for calling her,foreman a liar in either July or August of 1960. Blough was employed on July 17, 1960. According to Allen she was discharged because she refused to work at the job to which she was assigned. She was first employed as a stripper and then put to dipping, working with Hess and Ruder. She received $1.20 per hour and, according to her own testimony , she asked Grable, on the morning of October 27, how long she would have to continue dipping for that amount. Grable told her that she received a 5-cent raise periodically and that she would have to wait for an increase. He told her she was doing good work, offered to have Kerley talk to her, and she said she was willing to talk to Kerley. She did tell him that if an opportunity to make more money arose she would take it for she had two small sons to support. Blough also testified that she had had trouble with her hands when stripping but whether this was the reason for her transfer to the dipping process is not clear. Prior to October 27 she had discussed her financial problem with Hess, Grable, and Chilcott and again at the meeting she told Allen .that she preferred stripping to dipping if the pay was equal. Her objection to dipping was that she was not getting the money the other dippers received and that she ruined her slacks and her blouses on the job, which she conceded was a more re- sponsible and challenging one. Although Kerley testified that Blough's absenteeism was excessive, this was not established by company records nor was it alleged as a reason for discharge by Allen. I do not find any support in the record for the allega- tion that Blough either threatened to quit or refused to work if she was not trans- ferred to the stripping operation . All I find is that she made an alternative request for either promotion or transfer. B. Conclusions From the abundant testimony and extensive examination of the witnesses in this case one fact stands out, stark and salient. That is the fact that of the six employees who spoke at the meeting between the employees and Respondent's vice president to discuss wages and working conditions, five were peremptorily discharged the follow- ing day. Circumstances giving rise to a stronger inference of discrimination directed toward concerted activity could scarcely be conceived. Only a direct admission of -discriminatory motive would present a more impervious prima facie case. For that reason I have given close scrutiny to the asserted reasons for discharge and the facts which allegedly support those reasons lest it be assumed that reliance has been placed on that inference alone. Hess and Ruder, who worked together, were allegedly discharged for failure to follow written instructions as to operating procedures and for their attitude toward management. Hess was additionally charged with a refusal to work with employees assigned to her. The complaint of their immediate supervisors, however, was that they took more than the allowed number of breaks each day and that after a slow- down had been ordered they contiuued to work at their usual speed to have the advantage of break time. To a certain extent this was admitted by the employees themselves. But in spite of the warnings admittedly given to the dippers (and I credit the testimony of Hess that all the dippers were warned by Kerley) I find nothing to suggest that the discharge of Hess and Ruder was contemplated until they spoke at the meeting on October 27. Kerley, when he discharged them, did not mention unauthorized breaks as a reason, nor did he mention the failure to follow 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the slowdown procedure. Yet Allen had instructed Grable, Ellis, and Chilcott to. review the record of each girl and I can only assume that if the taking of un- authorized breaks had been as serious as alleged and had Hess and Ruder been the only two dippers guilty of the practice it would have been specifically asserted as a reason. While Hess was told she did things that management did not like these were not specified. She was told that she refused to work with people assigned to her but the evidence does not sustain this charge. On the basis of testimony which I credit I can only find that Hess complained when employees were assigned to her whom she did not believe physically capable of performing the work. As group leader of the dippers holding some responsibility for their performance the com- plaints were not beyond the scope of her limited authority. While all the dippers were warned, only Hess and Ruder, the two most experienced, were fired. The asserted defense is confronted by the coincidence so striking as to all the dischargees, Hess and Ruder were the only dippers who spoke on October 27. While an em- ployer is not bound to justify the discharge of an employee until a prima facie case of discrimination has been established, he cannot, by mere retrospective assertion of general dissatisfaction with workmanship and a general characterization of attitude as insubordinate, escape the consequences of unlawful conduct. When so strong an inference of discrimination is created as is found here such assertions and characteri- zations must be examined with care and the facts which are urged to support the presumption of legality must balance in strength and persuasiveness those which support the inference of discrimination. Where the same facts give rise to reason- ably equal inferences, one of lawful and one of unlawful motivation, then I do not believe the General Counsel has met his burden. But here the facts upon which Respondent relies fall short of that meager requirement. I find that Hess and Ruder were discharged for activity protected by Section 7. Buehler presents a different case since the only serious charge against her was directed toward her temperament. She was conceded to be a good inspector and her difficulties with management arose from her outspoken criticism of the work of other employees when she found it deficient, of her supervisors when she thought they were at fault, and of management policy in general.6 (It is anomalous that a man- agement which expressed such concern for workmanship should object when one of its inspectors was intolerant of imperfection but this was a major criticism of Buehler.) Other employees testified that Buehler was loud and lost her temper on occasion and that her criticism of management encompassed the purchase of new cars by supervisors and expenditures for furniture for the plant, a criticism which she repeated at the meeting on October 27. Her record also showed a 5-day suspen- sion for unauthorized quitting of work following a dispute with Ellis in July or August of 1960. Again, however, there is no evidence that Buehler was in any danger of discharge until after the October meeting when she renewed her criticism of management and suggested that a union could obtain pay raises and bonuses for the employees. I find her discharge was attributable not to her prior criticisms or- her previous display of temper but to her conduct at the meeting, conduct which I find protected by the Act. Rozell was the senior employee at Latex. While there is testimony that she failed to follow Ellis' suggestion that she wash catheters individually instead of in bunches the testimony stops there. There is no evidence that her instructions called for following such a procedure and nothing to show that it was a suggestion and nothing more. The record does not establish that her work was not satisfactory by Respond- ent's standards. As to her attitude, it is true that she was suspended some months prior to discharge for calling her foreman a liar but the penalty was paid and apparently the offense forgotten. I cannot accept the statement of Ellis that "you just hated to go up and ask her to do anything" as sufficient to rebut the evidence- that the motive was discriminatory. Rozell was openly critical of management at_ the meeting on the 27th and it was this phase of the meeting which disturbed Allen most of all,7 and it is implicit in his instructions to the supervisors to review the " Buehler was obviously if not ostentatiously Irish and neither deference to authority nor restraint of language is characteristic of the Irish temper. 7 The questioning on the part of Respondent of the witnesses seems to indicate that concerted activities, to be protected, must be confined to wages and working conditions and that criticism of management or its methods of operation does not fall within the protection of Section 7. I do not agree with any such limited interpretation of the statute A most important working condition of employees is their relations with super- vision, and freedom of discussion of their working relations with supervisors is essential to a solution of their mutual problems LATEX INDUSTRIES , INCORPORATED 9 record of each girl with Kerley that "attitude" was to be the decisive factor, and attitude, as the record shows, was largely determined by whether an employee spoke at the meeting on October 27. As to Blough the record is clear. She was discharged for one reason and one reason only-at the meeting on the 27th she requested that she be given an increase in pay or be returned to stripping. This request, submitted at a meeting between employees and their employer to discuss working conditions, was a proper exercise of her right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. Corre- spondingly, the discharge was unlawful. I find nothing in the record or in testimony which I credit to support the contention that she threatened to quit if she was not returned to stripping, assuming, arguendo, that such a threat would constitute cause for discharge. I do not think the General Counsel' s case needs further support. I do not, how- ever, find it without some significance that the one employee who spoke at the 27th meeting and who was not discharged was informed by Kerley that her request for a few days' leave at Christmas was "a different thing." The plain and only implication of that statement was that requests for increases in pay and for bonuses, and criticism of management and company policy were good and sufficient cause for discharge. Her request, which was both minor and personal, was not. A second factor which should not pass entirely without notice is the retention of Fern Birmingham. Of the six employees whom management considered most in- subordinate and rebellious, Birmingham was the only one not discharged. She was also the only one who did not speak on October 27. I therefore find that Hess, Ruder, Buehler, Rozell, and Blough were discharged because they engaged in activity protected by Section 7 of the Act and for no other reason. Their discharge was in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Relying on Smith Victory Corporation, 90 NLRB 2089, enfd. 190 F. 2d 56 (C.A. 2), and N.L.R.B. v. Kennametal, Inc., 182 F. 2d 817 (C.A. 3), cited by the General Counsel in his oral argument, I find that the employees constituted themselves a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and that their discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. III. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Having found that Respondent discharged Hess, Buehler, Ruder, Rozell, and Blough because they engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection and discriminated against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment to dis- courage membership in a labor organization, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges. I shall also recommend that Respondent make each of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered because of said discharges and discrimination, by payment to each of them of a sum of money she would normally have earned from October 28, 1960, to the date of the offer of reinstatement less her net earnings during said period. The backpay will be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab- lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Because the record herein does not disclose any previous unfair labor practices on the part of Respondent nor does it establish that any others may reasonably be anticipated the recommended order will be limited accordingly. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7). 2. The employees of Respondent at its Chippewa Lake plant constitute a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By discharging Mayme Hess, Ellen Buehler, Grace Blough, Vera Ruder, and Ruth Rozell on October 28, 1960, because they engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection and to discourage membership in a labor organiza- tion the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.]