Gaby Hosiery Mills, Inc,

GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 531 Gaby Hosiery Mills, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO Gaby Hosiery Mills, Inc. and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Not. 10-CA-4952 and 10-CA-5004. January 9, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On September 10, 1962, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman 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 attached Inter- mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs.' 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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifica- tions noted. (1) The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondent engaged in certain conduct, set forth in detail in the Intermediate Report, which was violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that Respondent further violated Section 8(a) (1) by other acts not set out in the Intermediate Report. In this connection the record shows that Respondent's president, Gaby, promised to reward employee Alma Lindsay with $20 if she would help him keep the Union out of Re- spondent's mill. Further, during this same conversation, Gaby pro- mised to match 2 percent union dues deduction with an equal amount and distribute this as a Christmas bonus. We agree with the General Counsel that by these promises of benefits Respondent further violated Section 8(a) (1). (2) While finding that Respondent had engaged in various acts constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of See- 1 Respondent has requested an oral hearing. This request is hereby denied because the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 140 NLRB No. 46. 681-492-63-vol. 140-35 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion 8(a) (1), the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and notice do not refer to these various unlawful acts. In our Order and notice herein, we shall direct that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such conduct. (3) We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent dis- criminated against employees Lindsay, Brown, Chambers, and Ed- monds in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. In light of Respondent's demonstrated hostility to the Union, the fact that these employees were active on behalf of the Union, the fact that Respondent knew of their union adherence, and the lack of any credi- ble explanation for the action taken by Respondent against them, we are convinced that Respondent's conduct with respect to these four employees was in retaliation for their union adherence and was de- signed to discourage membership in the Union. In finding that each of these employees suffered unlawful discrimination, we agree with the Trial Examiner that employees Lindsay and Brown were unlawfully laid off, and that employee Edmonds was unlawfully dis- charged. As to Chambers, however, contrary to the Trial Examiner who found that this employee, too, was unlawfully laid off in April 1962, we find that the discrimination practiced against Chambers was the Respondent's refusal to recall him and that this violation occurred on May 10, 1962. In so holding, we note that the General Counsel in his complaint did not allege that the April layoff of Chambers was unlawful; rather, the General Counsel alleged, as we are finding, that Chambers suffered discrimination on May 10 when Respondent refused to hire him. 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, Gaby Hosiery Mills, Inc., Dandridge, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership of its employees in American Fed- eration of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion, by discriminating against its employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning the identity of members or supporters of the above-named or any other labor organization in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in viola- tion of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. (c) Threatening employees with discharge because of their activities on behalf of American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 533 (d) Promising its employees rewards if they help keep the Ameri- can Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, out of the plant. (e) Threatening its employees that it will close the mill for the purpose of defeating union activities among its employees. (f) Engaging in surveillance of employees' union or other con- certed activities. (g) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist said labor organizations, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Kathleen Edmonds 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 discrim- ination against her, in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter- mediate Report entitled "The Remedy," 2 as modified by this Order. (b) Make whole Alma Lindsay, Addie Sue Brown, and Robert A. Chambers for any loss of earnings she or he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her or him, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," as modified by this Order. (c) 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 or appropriate to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right of employment under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its plant at Dandridge, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall betaken by the Respondent 2 The amount of backpay shall include an allowance for interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in isas Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716. Member Rodgers, for the reasons stated in his dissent therein, would not award interest. I 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 States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 534 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) 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. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effecuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees in American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or in any manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self organization, to form, join, or assist said labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning the identity of members or supporters of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge because of their union activities on behalf of American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT promise our employees rewards if they keep the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, out of the plant. WE WILL I NOT threaten to close the mill for the purpose of de- feating union activities among our employees. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees' union or other concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Kathleen Edmonds immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former or substantially equivalent position without GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 535 prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. AVE WILL make whole Alma Lindsay, Addie Sue Brown, and Robert A. Chambers for any loss of pay she or he may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against her or him. GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC., Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street NE., At- lanta 23, Georgia, Telephone No. Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C Sec. 151 et seq., herein called the Act. The American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO (herein sometimes called the Union) on March 20, 1962, filed a charge against Gaby Hosiery Mills, Inc., the Respondent herein, and on March 30, 1962, filed a first amended charge against the .said Respondent, in which it was asserted that the Employer (the Respondent) in order to discourage membership in a labor organization, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of the employment of certain named employees and therefore had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. (Case No. 10-CA-4952.) The same Union, on May 8, 1962, filed a charge and on June 13, 1962, filed an amended charge against the Respondent containing the same allegations as con- tained in the charges filed in Case No. 10-CA-4952 except other employees were named by name. (Case No. 10-CA-5004.) Upon the basis of the charges and the amended charges so filed, the General Coun- sel of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, on May 21, 1962, issued a complaint and notice of hearing against the Respondent in Case No. 10-CA-4952, the complaint asserting that the Respondent on certain dates had threatened its employees that it would close its plant "if the Union came in"; that it had interrogated its employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires, and the union membership, activities, and desires of other employees; had promised its employees monetary rewards on condition they withdraw their support of and assistance to the Union, or solicit other employees to withdraw their support of and assistance to the Union; had threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they joined or retained member- ship in, or engaged in activities on behalf of, the Union; had spied upon and kept 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under surveillance the union meetings and activities of its employees; had, on or about March 5, 1962, laid off and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate its em- ployees, Alma Lindsay and Sue Brown, because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protec- tion; and had on or about March 6, 1962, discharged and thereafter failed and re- fused to reinstate its employee, Kathleen Edmonds, because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union and because she engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. The acts complained of are alleged to constitute unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent filed timely answer to the complaint in this case, No. 10-CA-4952, effectively denying the alleged violations of the Act as set forth. Upon the basis of the charge and amended charge filed in Case No. 10-CA-5004, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, on June 18, 1962, issued an amend- ment to complaint, order consolidating cases, and complaint and notice of hearing alleging the discharge by the Respondent of employee R. A. Chambers in order to discourage his membership in the Union, in contravention of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent filed timely answer, denying the alleged violations. On the issues framed by the complaint and the amendment to complaint and the answers of the Respondent thereto, these consolidated cases came on to be heard before Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman at Dandridge, Tennessee, on July 16, 1962, and the hearing was closed on the following day. Each party was represented by counsel and was afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, and to present oral argument on the record. Briefs have been submitted on behalf of the General Counsel and the Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. Gaby Hosiery Mills, Inc., Respondent herein, is, and has been at all material times, a Tennessee corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business at Dandridge, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture of men's full-fashioned hosiery. During the 12 months immediately preceding the issuance of the complaints and the amendment to the complaint, which period is representative of all times material herein, the Respondent purchased and received raw materials valued in ex- cess of $400,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of Tennessee. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Union began its efforts to organize the employees of the Respondent's mill at Dandridge on or about December 15, 1961. William W. Rainey, a union organizer, was in charge of the campaign. Two meetings of employees of the Respondent were held at the Oakland Community Center, one on February 18, and one on March 4, 1962. Each of these days fell on a Sunday. Other than the holding of these two meetings, union literature was passed out at or near the mill, employees were called upon at their homes, and signed authorization cards were obtained from some em.ployees.1 The acts complained of involve principally those engaged in by Walter Gaby, president of the Respondent, Tom Webb, vice president, and Grover Hall, described 1 The Oakland Community Center Is located 3 to 4 miles from Dandridge GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 537 as chief mechanic. Their alleged unlawful interrogation and other acts of inter- ference are said to have occurred subsequent to December 15, 1961, when organiza- tional activities began, and principally on January 10 and 17 and March 4 and 15, 1962. Gaby and Webb admittedly are officers, supervisors, and agents of the Respondent. The dispute between the General Counsel and the Respondent as to whether Grover Hall was and is a supervisor should be resolved at the outset to determine whether the acts alleged regarding his activities were or are binding on the Respondent. Hall has been employed continuously by the Respondent since July 1959, and his present job is described as head mechanic. According to his own description he supervises the mechanics who are responsible for the maintenance of knitting ma- chines and on occasion, if trouble arises during the course of the work, he will work with knitters and instruct them where and how corrections on the 'automatic ma- chines should be made. There are 10 mechanics or maintenance men employed in the mi11.2 Hall does not have authority to hire or to discharge; however, accord- ing to his testimony, if during the course of his work, he observes a knitter doing in- ferior or unacceptable work, he will call it to the attention of Gaby or Webb. He has from time to time excused employees from work. He is responsible for the assignment of employees from one set of machines to another in the event of changes in production schedules, such changes being made in usual course upon instruction either of Gaby or Webb. His compensation is on a salary rather than on an hourly rated basis and he receives a paid vacation while other employees do not. It seems clear enough from the testimony of other witnesses that he is regarded, as he is some- times called, as the knitting superintendent, working directly under Gaby and Webb. Gaby and Webb place sufficient reliance upon him and extend sufficient authority to him, I believe, to qualify him as a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act; certainly he effectively directs the work of other employees and the ex- ercise of authority by him is of a nature that requires the use of independent judg- ment. Employee Sue Brown testified that when she was laid off on March 5, 1962, Hall gave her her separation papers and said that when the machine started again she would be called back; Kathleen Edmonds said that she telephoned either to Hall, Gaby, or Webb in connection with asking for time off; Mildred Harbin testified that Hall was regarded by her as a supervisor; Jody Simpson testified that she customarily called Hall if she wanted time off and that he in the past has reprimanded her for bad work; Sally Trent described Hall's duties as those of supervising the knitters as well as the mechanics or fixers, Vice President Webb testified that Hall called his attention to defective work from Alma Lindsay's machine and suggested her discharge; and President Gaby, in addition to his testimony mentioned above, testified that he called upon Hall to assist him in working out costs ("costing") on orders. Gaby said that on one occasion he investigated and found that Hall was giving the impression to employees that he made or could make decisions which in fact he did not have the authority to make, that he told Hall to stop such practices or he would "send him home," and posted the following notice under date of April 30, 1962: For some reason unbeknownst to me the knitters, loopers, and inspectors think they should get their orders, accommodations, and also problems solved by contact with Grover Hall This notice is to inform you that all separation notices will be approved by me. All hiring and discharging will be done by me, all accommodations and problems will come before me and I will decide their merits. Grover has been and will continue to be in charge of fixers. He will be per- mitted to tell knitters when they are off and also to call knitters in for work 2 At the hearing, the following stipulation was entered into between counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent: The hosiery mill involved in this case is one that has an entire employee comple- ment over-all of 70 and has three working shifts. The day shift is from 6 a.m to 2:30 which rs comprised of approximately 50 employees. Presently 6 are knitting, and 35 are looping, and presently 4 are in a maintenance section And then they have a second shift that runs from 2:30 to 10 pm Ten employees at the present ; six in the knitting, and two in looping, and two in maintenance. And then a third shift from 10.30 p.m. to about 6:30 a.m. with a complement presently of 10 over-all ; 6 knitting, and 4 on maintenance. 538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He will be permitted to carry bad work back to knitters and report to me their reactions. Notice No. 25, sixth paragraph, knitters are asked to take minor problems to Inez and in turn she will confer with me. To continue conversation about the above problems among each other and fail to bring problems concerning the Company and your job will result in discharge as all other requests in past notices. Within the next thirty days we will have a form stating you have read and understand this notice thoroughly. This will go into your personal file, so be sure you understand or let us explain personally to you its contents. I therefore find Hall to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Gaby also denied that he had given Hall authority to post a notice regarding absenteeism. Although, as testified, Hall was accustomed to help out in the adjustment of automatic knitting machines at times when the regular fixer or mechanic was unable to cope with the problem, it seems clear enough that the major part of his duties consisted of supervising the proper running of the machines and the production of properly manufactured material. Volume of Orders-How Run According to President Gaby, the mill carries an inventory of greige goods and, more recently, also carries a quantity of finished goods not exceeding a certain number of dozens, so that inventory can fluctuate as a type of finished goods becomes more in demand on the market, or less in demand. Generally, he said, the mill knits toward standing orders He said that when there are numbers of standing orders the machines run to capacity or more or less to capacity whereas they may be shut down from time to time through lack of standing orders which in turn necessitates the laying off of some employees. Generally speaking, the mill is in operation at all times and maintains a fairly consistent number of employees which, as noted above, number about 70 covering the 3-shift operation of the mill. Alma Lindsay Mrs. Lindsay has been employed by the Respondent for a period of approximately 2 years beginning in the month of April 1960. She has been and is employed as a knitter, an employee, as she describes it, who "yarns up the machines, takes out the socks, cut the socks apart and inspect them the best we can " She customarily worked on 12 Komet machines Her customary shift was the 2.30 until 10:30 p.m. assign- ment. During the first year of her employment she was laid off for 2 or 3 weeks because of lack of work and again laid off on March 5, 1962, at which time she was given a layoff slip by Hall, in the presence of Mildred Harbin, another employee, who told them that the machines were shut down because of overproduction and that when they started work again these two persons would be called back to work. Prior to the layoff of March 5, she was laid off at the instance of Hall for a period from February 15 through the 26th on the basis that she needed rest because the quality of her work was poor. She said that Hall called to her attention that she had spoiled some $25 worth of yarn, that she was "having too many menders," menders meaning socks that had been run but finished with defects. This conversation with Hall was by telephone on February 15-Lindsay did not return to the plant until the return of President Gaby from Florida who, on February 26, told her she should not have been fired or laid off and put her back to work. Regarding the layoff of March 5 the following testimony was developed: Lindsay had signed a union authorization card and was engaged in furthering the purposes of the Union from January until a meeting with Gaby in his office im- mediately prior to the union meeting of March 4 This was on March 2. According to her she went to Gaby's office to take some socks in to see if they were good socks, Gaby looked at them and told her that the socks were all right, asked her if her machines were running, and when she told him they were he told her to go and cut them off, that he wanted to talk with her Accordingly she cut off her machines, went back to the office where she engaged in a conversation with Gaby which lasted from approximately 5.55 p.m. until about 8:25 p.m. At this meeting, she said, Gaby asked her to take no part in the union organization campaign, that he wanted her to tell all the girls that she had been laid off and had not been fired; after he asked her about her union activities and those of her fellow employees, he asked her to assist him in keeping the Union out of the mill and not to discuss the conversation with anyone else. She told him that she felt that she had been fired because of a list GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 539 posted by Hall indicating which one of the knitters was to work on the several shifts and on which days they were to work.3 Lindsay told Gaby that since her name (Alma) did not appear on the list that she felt she had been fired. Lindsay testified further: Yes; he asked me what I knew about the Union And I asked him why he should think that I knew anything about it. And he said that he just asked me. And he said that he had always told us girls that if we had problems to come to him. And he couldn't understand why we wanted to turn to strangers. And I told him when I brought my problem to him that-I had to talk in front of Grover. And he said that Grover did not fire me; that he only laid me off. And he wanted me to call the girls and tell the girls that I wasn't fired, and that for me to, you know not have anything else to do with [the Union] . and to help him keep it out. He said he wasn't able to give what the Union thought that us work hands should get.... he told me that he wanted me not to take no part in it and not to attend the union meetings. And he said that he wanted me to call the girls on the phone. He said, "do you have to work tomorrow?" And I told him I did. And he said, "you come on in and clock in and use your phone and get the girls to not attend the union meeting and have nothing else to do with it yourself." She said that Gaby wanted to know how Mayford Harbin and his wife Mildred "stood on the Union" to which she replied she did not know, that Gaby asked her to find out and let him know the next day, that: Mayford had worked the inspector's department out there and had got them to sign cards, and that Mayford was going to leave from there and hunt him another job, that he wasn't going to let him work there; he was going to fire him or discharge him . He said strangers weren't going to come in and tell him what he could do and couldn't do, that the place was his, and he would run it the way he seen fit, to run it.... I told him I guess I had better go 'and run some socks, and he said, "I want to talk more to you " And he warned me not to say anything else outside of the office that we had talked about, because, he said, if I did, it wouldn't hurt him; I would be the one .to pay for it. That I needed a job, and he wanted to help me He said I was a good knitter, and he wanted to help me, and I could have the job if I would help him keep the Union out. The recollection of President Gaby, who was present at the hearing, was somewhat different. He said he did not express any apprehension at all about the Union coming in; that he had never talked to Mrs. Lindsay about the Union; did not remember how long he and Alma Lindsay discussed the matters brought up, but said: Alma hadn't been well for quite a while before this happened, and when Alma came back to see me she was terribly upset. And if she will recall, I tried my best to console her and tell her there was no need of it. She talked about her husband being sick and she had to work. And I said, "well you are going to work." She was upset this other time. She was so upset, I asked her to shut her machines off and take a break, because she wasn't able to work. Q. We are talking about March 2. A. I don't know what the dates are. Which was March 2? 3 This notice read as follows: First week Second week Third week ending ending ending Feb. 24 Mar 3 Mar 10 Days off Monday-------------------------------------------- Sally-------- Sue--------- Ruby Tuesday------------------------------------------ Sue--------- Sally-------- Sally Wednesday---------------------------------------- Ruby------- Ruby------- Sue Thursday------------------------------------------- Katherine--- Katherine_-- Betty Friday--------------------------- --- Betty ------ Mildred_--- Mildred Saturday-------------------------------------------- Mildred ----- Betty------- Katherine Start all over again and rotate in this fashion each week so everyone will have a long weekend, and under no circumstances, unless in case of an emergency, will there be any changes made in this schedule. (S) GROVER HALL 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. That's the time she testified she came to the office to talk to you about whether some socks were satisfactory, and she testified that she stayed in your office from 5:55 p.m. until 8:20 p.m. and that you insisted that she stay there and that she be clocked in. Is that true? A. No. Q. Well, did she stay there that long? A. I doubt that Q. Well, what you are asking her is how long she was there? A. I wouldn't have any idea. I didn't know that something like this was coming up but I know she didn't stay that long. But I did tell her to shut her machines off and pull herself together before she went back to work, because she wasn't in physical and emotional condition- Q. Can you address yourself to my question which is your very best estimate of the time? A. Gee, I just couldn't make a guess on it. I am sorry. I just can't. He denied under questioning by other counsel that he had in any way suggested to Lindsay that she assist him in dissuading other employees from joining or assisting the Union. Addie Sue Brown Addie Sue Brown, employed by Respondent for a period of approximately 6 years, was laid off on March 5, 1962, at which time Hall handed her her layoff slip and told her the machines were being shut down and when they were started up again she would be called back to work. The reason given for the layoff was lack of work. Mrs. Brown attended the February 18 and March 4 meetings of the Union at the Oakland Community Center. She testified that on or about February 27, Vice President Webb asked her to call at his office and there asked her what was wrong or what she wanted to which she replied that, along with others that she had talked to, they wanted better working conditions, paid holidays, vacations, and better supervision. She said that: Webb mentioned the proposed union meeting to be held on the following Sunday, March 4; she asked him how he knew she was for the Union; he replied that he had heard that she and Sally Trent and Kathleen Edmonds were working for the Union; she then told Webb she had signed a union card and had two union cards signed by others and requested that she be allowed to return to her machine; and Webb wanted to know who else he could talk to in the mill about the Union. Subsequently she called Webb and asked if she had been laid off because of the conversation in his office of the few days before and he said no that it was not on that account but that the girl then running the machine was an older Komet knitter. She subsequently was called back to work on May 1, 1962. On the day of her layoff, March 5, she had been working the first shift. When she was recalled she was told that all that was available to offer her was work on the third shift and that was the shift to which she was returned on May 1. It was brought out on cross-examination of Brown that she had previously, during the course of her employment over a period of years, been laid off at times for lack of work Webb understood from his conversation with Brown that she could work only the first shift and that Betty Rimmer said she would rotate on the third shift providing she could have her machines back when the third shift was discontinued. This apparently is what happened because Brown was laid off and Rimmer continued at work after March 5. During her conversation with Webb and his offer of em- ployment to her on the third shift, she testified, Webb promised her that when a new building now being erected was completed she would stay on the same set of machines she had been on if she would stay out of the Union. As will be shown below, Brown was known to have been one of the employees in attendance at the union meeting of Sunday, March 4, and was of course laid off on the following day for the reasons given to her by Hall and later by Webb. Kathleen Edmonds Kathleen Edmonds was first employed by the Respondent as a knitter on July 20, 1957, for work on the third shift. She was from time to time laid off for lack of work, was absent on maternity leave for a period until December 26, 1961, and was discharged as of Tuesday, March 6, having been notified by telephone by Hall on the evening before not to report to work that night; that he had someone else training to run her set of machines. She had been absent several times during late February and, as stated, on March 1, 1962, and each time had reported in by telephone according to company rule or policy. Upon request, she furnished a GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 541 doctor's certificate showing illness for a day she was absent in February. According to President Gaby and such records as were produced at the hearing, she was the only employee permanently discharged from the Company during a period of at least 5 years. She attended the February 18 meeting of the Union and solicited signatures of employees to union authorization cards. There is no question in my mind that Edmonds called in to report her inability to work when she said she did, or that Hall telephoned her on March 6 to tell her not to come in to work. Apparently, according to a timecard offered in evidence, she worked 111/2 hours during the last week of her employment, 2 days of which she was not on duty and 1 day of which she called in to be excused from work. On certain mornings when she left before the end of the shift at some time after 5 a.m., she left with the permission of John Morie, the person in charge of that shift.4 Robert A. Chambers Robert A. Chambers was employed by the Respondent for a period of approxi- mately 2 years He was interested in the Union, attended one union meeting, and assisted in soliciting union authorization cards from other employees. At the beginning of the year 1962 he was working on the third shift and subsequently was transferred to the second shift to run the machines then being operated by Alma Lindsay, his mother-in-law, after she was laid off because of lack of work. Chambers worked on the second shift until April 13, when he was released to allow Lindsay to return. The charge in the case covering Chambers (No. 10-CA-5004) alleges discrimination against him on and after May 10, 1962, the day Chambers asked Webb when he could be put back to work. According to the testimony of Chambers, Webb replied that as soon as his mother-in-law was kicked out; Chambers then asked him about coming back to machines he ran on the third shift to which, he said, Webb again answered the only way he could get back to work was to get rid of his mother-in-law. Thus, he was working on the third shift when he was put on the second shift up until March 6 and was discharged on April 13, 1962. He returned to work on June 25 to third-shift operation. According to the testimony of Vice President Webb he, on May 10, told Chambers that he had to be laid off because the Respondent had been informed by a representa- tive of the National Labor Relations Board that Alma Lindsay should be returned to work, so that when she was returned to work, Chambers necessarily was laid off.5 The General Counsel contends that the Respondent received definite knowledge of union interest and activities of Chambers when the May 8, 1962, charge was served upon it, and that previous events show that the Respondent knew Alma Lindsay was an active if not the most active of the union adherents. It first occurred to me that the filing of the charge and the issuance of the com- plaint in Case No. 10-CA-5004, involving Chambers, was an afterthought on the part of the General Counsel and was brought only to add color to the allegations of violations of the Act set forth in Case No. l0-CA-4952. Counsel for the General Counsel argues in his brief: Furthermore, the 8(a)(1) conduct attributed to the Respondent shows that it was engaging in a program of destroying the union movement in its mill by removing the leaders from each shift Here we have evidence that reveals Respondent's desire to rid itself of all union adherents The statement by Webb [regarding getting rid of Mrs Lindsay] drips with retaliation and clearly reveals Respondent's animus to the union activity in the mill. By not recalling Cham- bers or putting him back on the third shift from whence he was transferred when Lindsay was laid off, Respondent is attempting to do by indirection what cannot be done directly. That is, picking off union adherents. Chambers was 4It appears that Edmonds was absent because of illness several times during the week preceding the one in which she secured the doctor's certificate ; however, having procured the certificate, she did not present it to the company management because she was fired before she had a chance to do so According to her, she informed Hall that she had ob- tained the doctor's certificate, as requested and he told her "I can't help it if you have been sick We have the orders to get out " 6 Thaddeus Sobieski, an attorney attached to the office of the General Counsel, during the course of the investigation and preparation of the cases herein, interviewed ashy at the mill and suggested to him that several of the employees laid off on March 5 and 6 should be reinstated since they obviously had been laid off because of their interest in and activities on behalf of the Union. Because of this, it is said by the Respondent, Chambers was laid off for lack of work and Alma Lindsay was put back to work. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONz, BOARD recalled on June 25, 1962, to the third shift, but new employees were hired as knitters during the period of time between Chambers' layoff and recall. Viewing Chambers' case and the context of Respondent's overt efforts to rid itself of employees engaged in union activity, and the lack of testimony showing un- equivocally that Chambers' recall prevented the alleged economic reasons, com- pels conclusion that he was not recalled on account of his union activities. In essence then we have presently a showing by the Respondent, or at least the Respondent's contentions, that Kathleen Edmonds was discharged for excessive absen- teeism, that Lindsay and Brown were laid off for lack of work, and that Chambers was laid off because there was no machine in operation on which be was qualified to work The testimony shows that Alma Lindsay was called back the last time on April 16; Addie Sue Brown was called back on May 1, Robert Chambers was called back on June 25, and Kathleen Edmonds has not as yet been recalled.6 Other Interference Mayford Harbin, employed by the Respondent or Dandridge Finishing Company for approximately 8 years, testified that he had signed an authorization card in favor of the Union, had attended the first meeting in February, and was questioned by Vice President Webb concerning whether or not he had attended the meeting, why he wanted to bring the Union in and further, in discussing the discharge of Mrs. Harbin in the presence of Webb, Gaby, and Hall, he asked Hall if he knew of anybody making a statement that they would have to get rid of three or four more before they "get shed" of Mrs. Lindsay. Mildred Harbin, the wife of Mayford, employed by the Respondent for approxi- mately 5 years as a knitter on the second shift, testified that she had signed an authorization card in favor of the Union, had attended the February meeting and the March meeting; that prior thereto at around Christmas time, 1961, Gaby remarked in her presence that he was worried about the Union and that before the Union came in he would lock the door and throw the key away. She had been discharged or laid off on March 5 or 7, apparently for lack of work, and her husband was ques- tioning Gaby or Webb concerning the notation on her slip at a time when, according to Mayford, her husband, Gaby had said, "Before I would ever let a Union come in here, I would lock the door and throw the key away." And then, according to Mayford Harbin, Gaby asked him, "Do you, personally, know what a vacation would cost me?" Both of the Harbins said that Gaby remarked he would lock the door and throw the key away before he would let the Union come into the mill. Jody Simpson, a knitter employed on the second shift, attended the first meeting of the Union and testified that she saw Grover Hall drive by in his automobile around 4:30 in the afternoon as the meeting was breaking up; Sally Trent, a knitter employed since about the year 1958, testified that she had attended both meetings of the Union; that Hall had asked her on Saturday as to whether she was going to attend the union meeting set for the following day; that she saw John Morie, whom she identified as the foreman on the third shift, at the March 4 meeting. She was laid off on March 5 and returned to work 9 days later, March 14, and worked until March 23 when she was injured and hospitalized She returned to work on April 2 and has worked there continuously since that time. Edward Chambers, a yarnboy, testified that both Hall and Webb had asked him as to whether or not he had at- tended the union meetings and in each case he told them that he had. He said that as the second meeting (March 4) was breaking up he observed Grover Hall drive by the meeting place; that sometime after that Hall told him, "I want you to show your colors here. You are liked by Tom and Mr. Gaby," and that Hall also told him "there are several people that are going to lose their jobs." He testified further I In his brief filed on behalf of the Respondent, it is said that the layoff of March 5 Involving Alma Lindsay and Addle Sue Brown was because of the decrease in production. and that this fact should be accepted because of the uncontradicted testimony given by Webb, Gaby, and Hall ; and it is urged further that "certainly the records of the Company would definitely prove whether or not there had been a decrease in production during this particular time. These records were available to the complainant by subpena, but no effort was made to obtain the said records and, therefore, the legal inference is that they would substantiate Respondent's position " I disagree with this contention It seems to me that the General Counsel has made out, in each of these four cases , a prima facie case in support of the allegations of the complaint and was under no burden at the trial to undertake by the Company's own records to prove what the Company asserted or asserts as a defense GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 543 that around March 8, 1962, Webb asked him to show his colors for or against the Union to which he replied, "Everybody has got their rights." According to testimony of Webb, it was decided in January 1962 to increase machine operations to three shifts and in so doing they needed one girl as a rotator, that is, one girl to work on a different shift on different days so that the regular girl on a particular shift could have a day off. Betty Rimmer, who had been working on the first shift, consented to be taken from that shift and act as rotator on condi- tion that when the third shift operation and the rotator job was discontinued she be returned to her old job on the first shift. Sue Brown had indicated that she could not work as a rotator. The operations with the rotator continued until the March 5 layoff which included Mildred Harbin, Alma Lindsay, Sue Brown, and Sally Trent. This layoff was attributed by the Company to decreases in orders for March. As noted above Lindsay was transferred from one job on automatic machines to another, and the work done by her was thereupon performed by her son-in-law, Robert Cham- bers. General Counsel contends and apparently is correct when he says that when Robert Chambers took over the machine operated by Alma Lindsay on or about March 6 Lindsay's machines were not shut down when she was laid off on March 5, and that Lindsay was recalled on April 16 and put back on the same set of machines she was working on on the second shift at the time Chambers took over that operation. Further, as pointed out by counsel for the General Counsel, the lack of work as- serted as the reason for the layoff of Lindsay occurred at a time when Edmonds was discharged for "absenteeism" and the mill needed work on the machines in order to keep up with production. President Gaby testified during the course of the hearing that he well knew what was going on in the plant through various sources of information. He proved to be a loquacious but not a reliable witness. He testified concerning a meeting in his office on Sunday, March 4 in late afternoon. He said that he had telephoned Hall to come to the plant to do some work in connection with estimates of cost on a particular order ("costing") and that Hall brought John Morie, the third-shift fixer or foreman, and his wife, Pauline, with him; that later Lorraine Arwood, an employee, and Ruby Grant, another employee, met in Gaby's office; that Hall was present and that there was considerable discussion concerning the meeting of the Union held that afternoon 7 Mrs. Morie expressed herself as being humiliated because she had been put out of the meeting, she at that time being employed by Gaby in his office. At the time she testified in this hearing she was employed elsewhere. She had worked for Gaby for approximately 3 years before resigning in March 1962. Hall claims that he was in and out of the room while the others were talking and consequently did not know how Mrs. Arwood got to the plant, did not know if she read names from a list she had prepared of employees present at the union meeting of that day, did not remember hearing any discussion concerning teams or team captains; however, he did remember that he had driven John and Pauline Morie to the plant after the telephone call to him from Gaby and that there was a considerably long discussion between Gaby and the others present at that meeting concerning who was at the union meeting and what was discussed there. In connection with the gathering in President Gaby's office on this Sunday, March 4, late in the afternoon, Mrs. Morie related the following facts- She and her husband were at the home of Grover Hall when he received a telephone call from Gaby who asked that she, Mrs. Morie, come to his office; she and her husband together with Ruby Grant acceded to Gaby's request to come down and talk to him. Before going down to Gaby's office, Mrs. Morie said they engaged in conversation at Hall's house concerning where they had been that day, what they had been doing, "and things like that." They recounted having been to a union meeting, told Hall that Mrs. Morie was not allowed to stay, answered Hall's request to name those persons she knew who were present, and named Sue Brown and Alma Lindsay, Mildred Harbin and her husband, Eddie Chambers, and some others. When they arrived at Gaby's office, Gaby asked if she had been to the meeting; she said she had gone but did not stay; in answer to Gaby's request she named the persons she knew who were there- that is, Alma Lindsay, Mildred Harbin, Mayford Harbin, Eddie Chambers, Lorraine Arwood, her husband, John Morie, Pat Morie, and Ruby Grant. She said that after Lorraine Arwood and her husband arrived (Mrs. Morie called for Mrs. Harbin in her car and brought her to Gaby's office), Gaby asked Mrs. Harbin if she remem- bered who was there and Mrs. Harbin gave him about the same names that Mrs. Morie had given to him. 7 Gaby said that he had just received a cancellation of orders from a customer he named as Burlington Mills, which impelled him to call Hall in to refigure orders and costs of orders. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mrs. Morie related that at another time Hall suggested they ride around and go over by the community center, so they did ride over, observed that there was a union meeting in progress, saw one or two persons including Jody Simpson standing outside the community hall by her automobile; that Mrs Arwood had a list of names with her showing the persons who attended the meeting, said that she had written the names of the people that were there so she would not forget them, and furnished the list of names to Gaby. Mrs. Morie said that Mrs. Arwood related that at the meeting women had been divided into groups to talk to other people and try to get them to join the Union; that the women were divided into teams, two women to a team-for ex- ample, Ruby Grant was supposed to be with Sally Trent and Pat Morie was supposed to team up with Lorraine Arwood. Mrs Mone testified that prior to March 1962 Gaby had inquired of her if she knew of anyone who was in favor of the Union to which she replied that two of the girls had said that they were but that was all that she knew about it. At this time, Mrs. Morie was employed in Gaby's office and seems to have been excluded from joining or attempting to join the Union, although the testimony is clear that she was well acquainted with a number of employees of the Respondent who were not employed in the office or in any supervisory capacity. With respect to the meeting at his office on March 4, President Gaby was not too precise as to what was said by him or anyone else. In essence, his testimony was to the effect that he was curious to know only what the employees were interested in in the way of improved conditions and what their complaints might be against management and that his interest was pointed in that direction because he wanted to correct anything within his power to make working conditions more pleasant or more agreeable to the employees. He explained that he had called Hall on the telephone on that day to ask Hall to assist him in costing some projected work. He denied talking to Pauline Morie over the telephone; he denied Mrs Morse's testimony that he had asked her if she stayed long enough at the meeting to see who was there; he ad- mitted that Mrs. Morie gave him the names of people who were at the meeting; he denied Mrs. Morie's testimony to the effect that he had asked Hall to call Lorraine Arwood and Ruby Grant to his office; he denied that it was at his instructions that Mrs. Morie called Mrs. Harbin and picked her up and brought her down to the mill office that afternoon. During the month of April 1962, Gaby had posted notices in the plant in con- nection with excessive conversation, loafing, loss of production, bad work, and similar matters and explained that in connection with the posting of notices "I thought it was time that I cut out whatever the conversation was and to this day I don't know what the conversation was." In answer to a question as to how he obtained information regarding what his employees were talking about or doing at work, President Gaby testified as follows: A. Well, I can get something that has gone through half a dozen different people. So you don't know where it came from to start with. Q. But you do find out about what people think in a mill; don't you? A. Well, I can't hear what they think. Q. You thought it was important enough to advise your employees to get legal advice on whatever is funny or not. A. Yes. And I got legal advice when I wrote that. Q. And you wanted them to go out and get values on it, too. A. No; I didn't do it. If they think it's funny, to go out and get legal advice. TRIAL EXAMINER: Is that what that notice says? Mr. GOLDBERG. "It has been called to my attention that some people think these notices are funny. I hope you will get legal advice on the matter, because I have, and I know what I am doing. Please do not let those who do not think them funny get the last laugh.... . TRIAL EXAMINER: I suppose you prepared the notice, Mr. Gaby. WITNESS: I prepared each one. Webb testified concerning his conversations with Mayford Harbin, particularly one at a time when they were working on certain installations in the new building being constructed near the mill. Webb testified as follows: Well, we were working in the new building which was being constructed at that time, and Mr. Harbin was helping myself and Mr. Price do some electrical work-hanging conduits and stuff for lighting on the basement floor. The con- versation came up about the Union, and I asked him what gripe he had with the Company that they would want a union. And he went on about working condi- tions and what have you and wanted to know if they voted the Union in if they would get vacations, time and a half for Saturdays, and paid holidays, and a lot of things like that. And I told him that he wouldn't get them. If the Union made them believe that they would get them just because they voted it in, he was wrong. GABY HOSIERY MILLS, INC. That the only way that those things could come about would be through a con- tract we would negotiate and once the contract was negotiated they would get them, if then. At another time, Webb said , in connection with the conversation with Harbin: Well, he came in and wanted to know why a certain date that was on the separation slip-that he was afraid it would cause his wife not to draw her un- employment compensation . And I told him that I didn't know right at that time why the particular date was on there, but that it would not have any effect on her drawing her unemployment compensation . The date was far enough back that she would be entitled to it. Q. Was or was there not any discussion as to the Union at that particular time? A Yes. He came into the office . I don't know what type of attitude you would call it. But I told him-Mayford and me, we've always been able to work out any problems that we had-"I can see now that you are under the di- rection of Mr. Rainey here or someone from outside sources that's brought you in, because you have never come in and talked like this before." Webb testified , in connection with a conversation with Attorney Sobieski , that the latter had come to the mill to get a statement and told them that in his opinion they would probably have to take Alma Lindsay back as well as Sue Brown and Kathleen Edmonds; that Sobieski was told that as soon as they had places available they would put Alma Lindsay and Sue Brown back to work but that they did not plan to reemploy Kathleen Edmonds. As a result of Sobieski's visit, he said, Mrs. Lindsay was put to work on the machines then operated by Chambers .8 At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party each stated that the union organization campaign still was in progress. No claim was made by either of these parties that the Union represented a majority of the employees in any claimed or described appropriate unit nor does it appear that a petition for designation of representative has at any time been filed. The Respondent by counsel takes the general position that incidents mentioned of conversations , including interrogation concerning union membership and attend- ance at union meetings, simply demonstrate the interest of the employer in the wel- fare of its employees and implies a desire to correct any justified grievances the employees may have concerning their conditions of employment. The matters concerning the employees of the Respondent here were matters of sole concern to them and not of concern to the Employer . Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees the right to take concerted action without interference from the employer and interrogation and surveillance , even under the guise of asserted interest in the welfare of employees by the employer which is no justification for the interference of the employer in the activities of employees in regard to their wages, hours, and other conditions of employment .9 I conclude and find that the knowledge of the representatives of the Respondent concerning the meetings of February 18 and March 4, 1962, and the more or less casual surveillance thereof by Hall, the interrogation by Hall , Webb, and Gaby of certain employees concerning their interest in and activities on behalf of the Union, the layoffs of Alma Lindsay, Sue Brown, and Robert Chambers and the discharge of Kathleen Edmonds, considered in connection with the intense interest displayed by Gaby in his meeting with employees in his office on the afternoon of Sunday, March 4, after the union meeting , shows conclusively an intent and purpose on the part of the Respondent to deliberately interfere with the rights of the employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Such activities are unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1) and (3). Questions of credibility have been considered, some more apparent than real. I find no difficulty in determining that the greater part of the testimony of Gaby was too vague, too evasive, and too ambiguous concerning his decisions to run a 8 Chambers claimed that he could have worked on another machine called an ETR knit- ting machine, which Webb said he was not qualified to run. Chambers claimed he could have operated a Banner Cushion-sole type of machine, but said that he had never operated such a machine which, at the time of his layoff, was being run by one Lois McAims It was also shown that employee Sherry Messer was working at the time Chambers was laid off, although there is no claim that Chambers had any superior claim to her job. 9 Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358, 1360, 1363 Cf Monarch Foundry Company, 106 NLRB 377, 378 Statements in and of themselves might possibly be lawful and noncoercive, but viewed in its entirety, there is sufficient evidence of a background of union hostility in context with the statements made to bring them within the prosciiption of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. See Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591. 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD third shift and then lay off employees for lack of work, in regard to his dealing with Alma Lindsay, and with respect to his meeting with employees in his office on the afternoon of Sunday, March 4. I simply do not believe what he said he remembered about these matters which he conceded were of importance to him. I particularly credit the testimony of Alma Lindsay, Pauline Morie, and Mildred Harbin, each a forthright witness. The testimony of other employee witnesses supports the charges of interrogation and other interference with the interest of employees in the Union. The testimony of Webb and Hall, in whole part, in no essential respect refutes the facts as related by employees who appeared as witnesses. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection 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 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 Kathleen Edmonds im- mediate 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 policies set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. It further will be recommended that employees Alma Lindsay, Addie Sue Brown, and Robert A. Chambers be retained in employment in ordinary course without prejudice to her or his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings she or he may have suffered by reason of being laid off from regular employment because of her or his activities for and on behalf of the Union or for other concerted mutual aid or protection until the date each was rehired, by payment to her or him of a sum of money equal to that which she or he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against her or him to the date of rehire, 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 man- ner 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. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 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 Kathleen Edmonds, Alma Lindsay, Addie Sue Brown, and Robert A. Chambers, thereby dis- couraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged 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, above, Respondent in- terfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees and 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.]