Guilford Mills, Inc.

GUILFORD MILLS Guilford Mills, Inc., and Oak Ridge Textiles, Inc. and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 11-CA-3085. May 16,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On February 16, 1967, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Decision in the above- entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications: 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that Respondents discharged employee Mack Essick in reprisal for having engaged in union organizing activity and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Essick was hired as a hatcher operator by Respondent Guilford in 1963. There is little doubt that up to the time of the events leading to Essick's discharge on July 22, 1966, Essick was regarded as a satisfactory employee. In 1965, Respondent Guilford selected Essick for training as a supervisor and installed him in such a position in Respondents' newly opened Oak Ridge plant. About a year later in May 1966, Essick informed Plant Manager Bernie Fleisher that he was quitting because he had an offer of a better job. Fleisher responded, "You can't quit. You have been with us too long." Fleisher thereupon gave Essick a 10-cent raise and Essick agreed to stay. Essick nonetheless quit on June 27. He thereafter refused an offer of his former supervisory job, but indicated that he was willing to return as a hatcher ' In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's dismissal of alleged 8(a)O violations based on interrogation of Essick, after his discharge, by Supervisors Moody and Sharpe 2 In finding that Respondents had knowledge of Essick's union activities, we do not rely on, or adopt, the Trial Examiner's 613 operator on the second shift. Some 2 or 3 days later, he began work as a hatcher operator at Oak Ridge at the same wage he had received as a supervisor. On July 22, Essick, who 3 or 4 days earlier had been transferred to the Guilford plant, was discharged by Respondents' assistant plant manager, Lee Moore. Essick was told he was being discharged because on the preceding day he had allegedly run some 350 yards of cloth, valued at $180, with "ends out." Running cloth with "ends out" meant that Essick had failed to detect an existing flaw in the cloth and thus had not taken the proper measures to prevent the flaw running the full length of the cloth. Although Essick denied that he had run the cloth with "ends out" and insisted that he was being discharged for his union activities, Moore merely laughed and said, "If there is any way I can ever help you, let me know." Moore did not deny Essick's charge that he was being discharged for his union activities. When on this occasion Essick asked to see the damaged cloth, Moore told him that it had been wrapped and put away. There is no question that Essick became the prime mover in organizing Respondents' employees and that his activities came to the attention of the Respondents before his discharge.' Thus, the credited evidence shows that in early July 1966 Essick contacted the Union. As a result, a meeting was arranged for July 17 at the union hall which Essick and nine other employees attended. At this meeting it was decided that Essick and one other employee would distribute union cards and solicit employees to sign them. On the following day, July 18, Essick talked to employees at the Oak Ridge plant and distributed 24 union cards. Some employees signed cards. According to the credited testimony of Essick, while distributing cards in the plant's coffee shop, he observed Supervisor George Honeycutt no more than 10 feet away looking directly at him. On the night of July 19, Essick solicited some 10 or 12 other employees at the Oak Ridge plant and succeeded in signing up some of the employees. On July 20, Essick met Supervisor Ed Moody at a drive-in restaurant. In an ensuing conversation, Moody asked Essick how many cards had been signed by Oak Ridge plant employees and whether supervisors at the Guilford plant had mentioned the Union. Essick replied that about 24 employees had signed up. Moody then wanted to know whether employees Lucas, Bottos, and other employees, whom he named, had signed cards, but Essick refused to tell him. findings that Jerry Smith, Larry Potete, David Lane, John Best, and J Oxendine were supervisors within the meaning of the Act, or rely on any finding that the knowledge of these individuals as to Essick's union activities is to be imputed to the Respondent. In our opinion, the evidence falls short of showing that the named individuals exercised supervisory authority 164 NLRB No. 86 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As indicated, Essick was discharged July 22. On July 23, Supervisor Moody who again encountered Essick at a drive-in restaurant wanted to know why Essick had been fired and, when informed of the reason , commented that Essick was too good a hatcher operator to make a mistake like that. Furthermore, according to Essick's credited testimony, Moody told Essick that Respondent Guilford's President Hornday had commented that it was a mistake to fire Essick because he was a good operator. Moody then asked that Essick see Hornday because Hornday wanted to know why the Union was trying to get in or why the employees wanted a union . Although Essick agreed to meet Hornday, the meeting apparently was not arranged. It also appears that a few days after July 22 Supervisor Jimmy Sharpe telephoned Essick to tell him that Plant Manager Murray Fishman wanted to talk to Essick about some "union cards." The Respondents contend that they could not have unlawfully discharged Essick since, on July 22, the date of his discharge, Respondents had no knowledge of Essick's union activities. However, Essick's testimony is quite clear that he had been observed by Supervisor Honeycutt while distributing cards on July 18 in the plant coffee shop, that on July 20 Supervisor Moody interrogated him about his union activities and the activities of other employees, that about July 23 Moody mentioned that President Hornday wanted to speak to him about the Union, and that about several days after July 22 Supervisor Sharpe informed him that Plant Manager Fishman wanted to speak to him about union cards. Although Respondents' witnesses denied Essick's testimony in material respects, the conflict in testimony was resolved by the Trial Examiner who had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and to judge their credibility. The Trial Examiner credited Essick and discredited Respondents' witnesses. On the record before us, we see no reason for rejecting the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions . We find nothing inherently implausible in Essick's testimony. In finding that Respondents had violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Trial Examiner also relied on certain fact findings and inferences which we find are not supported by the evidence in the record and which we do not adopt or rely on.3 Nevertheless, a finding of a discriminatory discharge is warranted on the basis of the record as a whole. Thus, it was established that Essick openly espoused the Union's 3 In rejecting Respondents ' stated reason for discharging Essick, the Trial Examiner referred to the Respondents ' failure to have the dyer, the employee who, according to Respondents, would next process the cloth after Essick , testify to the existence of damage in the particular piece of cloth It is clear, however, in view of the nature of the dyeing process and the procedures therefor, that the damage would not have been visible to the dyer Assistant Plant Manager Moore testified that the procedures taken for dyeing the cloth would leave just one layer on the outside visible . It appears that the next person to handle the cloth cause and that the Respondent had knowledge of his activities. Moreover, Supervisor Moody's interroga- tion of Essick in an attempt to learn which employees may have signed up for the Union, President Hornday's interest in learning why the employees wanted a union, and Plant Manager Fishman's desire to talk to Essick about the cards in his possession, and his conversation with him thereafter, reveal opposition on the Respondents' part to union organization. Additionally, there is the Respondents' failure to show Essick the alleged defective cloth when Essick asked to see it at the time of his discharge. While Respondents' failure to exhibit the physical evidence would not in all circumstances be considered as casting doubt on its assertions that the defects existed, yet its failure to exhibit the damaged cloth when it apparently was not beyond its ability to do so, in the face of a categorical denial by the employee, who had a good record of performance, that he had been responsible for any damage and a charge that he was being punished for his union activities, presented a situation where sufficient doubt was engendered as to the truth of Respondents' assertions to warrant the Trial Examiner discrediting Respondents' testimony and crediting Essick's denials. Respondents presented no evidence to show that Essick had ever before been criticized for the quality of his work or that he had ever run a piece of material with "ends out," even though, as Moore admitted, it was not unusual to run cloth with "ends out." Nor did Respondents offer testimony to show that Essick had ever on a previous occasion been warned about carelessness in that regard. When all circumstances are considered, the sudden and precipitate discharge of an experienced and competent employee only 4 days after he had begun a campaign to organize Respondents' employees persuades us that the reason assigned for Essick's discharge was not the true reason, and that in fact Essick was discharged because of his union activity. 2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the interrogation of Essick by Supervisor Moody on July 20, 1966, discussed above, was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, in view of our disavowal of the Trial Examiner's findings that Smith and Oxendine were supervisors, we do not adopt his conclusions that Jerry Smith's would not be the dyer but a person who wraps the roll of material for dyeing. No explanation was offered as to why this individual would not be in a position to see damage if present although it is apparent that only a small area at any one time would be visible. Also, in view of the General Counsel's concession that no significance was to be attached to Essick's transfer on July 19 from the Oak Ridge plant to the Guilford plant, we, unlike the Trial Examiner, do not rely on that fact as an element in evaluating Respondents' conduct GUILFORD MILLS interrogation of Essick and J . Oxendine's interrogation of employee Phillips were violative of Section 8(a)(1). ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondents, Guilford Mills, Inc., and Oak Ridge Textiles, Inc., their officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES V. CONSTANTINE , Trial Examiner : This is an unfair labor practice case brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(b), pursuant to a complaint issued on September 30, 1966.' That complaint is based on a charge and an amended charge filed on July 27 and September 26, respectively , by Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Guilford Mills, Inc., and Oak Ridge Textiles, Inc., are named as Respondents in the complaint . In essence the complaint alleges that Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and that such conduct affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondents have answered , admitting some facts but denying that they committed any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice this cause came on to be heard on November 21 and 22, at Greensboro , North Carolina. All parties except the Union were represented at and participated in the hearing and were granted full opportunity to adduce evidence , examine and cross- examine witnesses , submit briefs, and present oral argument . Respondents' motions to dismiss were denied at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel argued orally . A brief has been received from Respondents. Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. AS TO JURISDICTION Guilford Mills, Inc., a New York corporation , is engaged at Greensboro, North Carolina, in manufacturing , dyeing, and finishing textile products. Oak Ridge Textiles, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, is engaged at Oak Ridge, North Carolina, in dyeing and finishing textile products. Guilford and Oak Ridge are affiliated businesses with common officers, ownership , directors, and operators, said directors and operators formulating and administering a common labor policy for said companies . I find that said Respondents constitute a single, integrated business enterprise. ' All dates mentioned herein refer to the year 1966 except where otherwise specified 615 During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint , Respondents shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to, and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from , points outside the State of North Carolina. I find that thereby Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over them in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondents are accused of violating Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act. More particularly , the issues are: A. Whether Respondents discriminatorily discharged employee Mack Essick; B. Whether Respondents unlawfully interrogated employees regarding their union sympathies , activities, and desires; and C. Whether Respondents unlawfully interrogated employees regarding the number and identity of employees who had signed union authorization cards. A. General Counsel's Evidence Essick was hired by Respondent Guilford Mills , Inc., in 1963 as a hatcher operator. About March 1965, Bernie Fleisher, Oak Ridge's plant manager, invited Essick to take a 12-week training course for supervisors at company expense. Essick agreed to pursue such studies, which were held at Guilford Dairy. However, Essick completed only 11 sessions because he was assigned to the newly opened Oak Ridge plant and became too busy there to attend the last session. At Oak Ridge , Essick started work early in July as a supervisor over the preparation department which then had five employees. Soon 15 employees were under Essick's supervision , as he was in charge of three 8-hour shifts. About May 1966, Essick told Bernie Fleisher, manager of the Oak Ridge plant, that he was going to quit because he had been offered a better job elsewhere. Fleisher replied, "You can't quit." Later in the day Murray Fishman, manager of the Guilford plant, spoke to Essick in the presence of Fleisher. When Fishman asked why Essick was leaving, the latter replied that he had an offer of a better job. Fishman insisted, "You can't quit. You have been with the Company too long. You are part of the Company now." Thereupon, Fishman granted Essick a raise of 10 cents and Essick agreed to remain. Nevertheless, Essick quit about June 27. Thereafter, Essick's duties were assigned to Jerry Smith . The next day, when Essick returned to Oak Ridge to pick up his check, Plant Manager Fleisher reoffered Essick the job which he had just vacated. Although he refused this, Essick expressed a willingness to return as a hatcher operator on the second shift , a nonsupervisory job. Fleisher agreed to this. A day later Essick called upon Guilford's Plant Manager Fishman to request a transfer from the Oak Ridge plant to the Guilford plant. Fishman denied this request, but promised to "straighten everything out." Within the next 2 or 3 days, i.e., early in July, Essick started working at the Oak Ridge plant as a 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hatcher operator on the second shift. His wages were the same as those he previously received as a supervisor. About the first or second week of July, Essick contacted the Union. As a result Essick met a union representative on July 17 at the union hall. Nine other employees also attended. At this meeting it was decided that Essick and one other employee would distribute union cards and solicit employees to sign them. The following day, July 18, Essick talked to employees at the Oak Ridge plant, distributed about 24 union cards to them, and succeeded in inducing some of them to sign such cards. George Honeycutt, whom I find to be supervisor of Respondent's Oak Ridge plant under Section 2(11) of the Act, was about 10 feet away when Essick distributed cards in the plant's coffee shop. Later on the same day, i.e., July 18, Oak Ridge Plant Manager Fleisher notified Essick that Essick was being transferred to the first shift at the Guilford plant on the ground it was "better for all concerned." Sometime during July 18, Jerry Smith, whom I find to be a supervisor' under the Act. asked Essick if Essick was trying to organize a union. Replying in the affirmative, Essick also invited Smith to sign a card, but without success. On July 19, Essick reported for work on the first shift at the Guilford plant. That night Essick solicited about 10 or 12 employees at the Oak Ridge plant to sign union cards and succeeded as to some. One of those to whom Essick gave a card that night is Supervisor Larry Potete. About July 20, Essick encountered Ed Moody, head dyer at the Oak Ridge plant, at a drive-in restaurant. In the ensuing conversation Moody, among other things, asked how many cards had been signed by the Oak Ridge plant employees and if the supervisors at the Guilford plant mentioned the Union. Essick replied that about 24 had signed up. Then Moody wanted to know if Lucas, Bottos, and some other employees whom he named had signed cards; but Essick declined to answer. On July 22, Lee Moore, the Guilford plant assistant manager, whom I find to be a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, fired Essick, giving as a reason that Essick, the day before, had run about 300 yards of cloth with the ends out. Running cloth with ends out means knitting a fabric which contains a weak place caused by a broken thread or a broken needle, so that the knitting is not as closely stitched as in other parts of the cloth. Essick denied that he had done this and insisted that he was being discharged "for organizing the Union at the Oak Ridge plant." To this Moore merely laughed and said, "If there is anyway I can ever help you, let me know." When Essick asked where this damaged cloth was, Moore replied that it had been packed; i.e., wrapped and placed in boxes. A hatcher operator prepares cloth for the dyeing room by operating a machine which puts the cloth on a "beam." He works closely with his supervisor. Admittedly, Essick ran two pieces of cloth each for about 25 yeards with a hole in each. But he testified his supervisor was told about this and approved it with the statement that nothing could be done about it. Essick denies that he ever ran any cloth with the ends out. After Moore left, Essick spoke to Dave Staats, the new manager of the Oak Ridge plant, whom I find to be a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act. When Staats told Essick that Essick had run some cloth with the ends out the day before, Essick denied it. Also on July 22, Essick asked David Lane, the supervisor of the preparation department at the Guilford plant and Essick's immediate supervisor, whether Lane had observed any ends out in the cloth on the previous day. Lane answered that he had not, although he was present "practically all the time" while the cloth was being run, and that there was nothing wrong with the cloth. Actually, according to Essick, when damaged cloth is being run it is customary to write on the dye order the words "tear out" when ends are out, or "seam out" when a hole is in the cloth so as to alert the "frame" operator. Such defects are common. In this case Essick wrote "seam out" on the cloth on July 21, when he observed a rip in the seam. On the 21st Essick also called Supervisor Lane's attention to the ripped seam, but Lane merely remarked that nothing could be done about it. No official of the Company ever showed Essick the cloth which was run with ends out. Nor was he given a layoff slip for this alleged shortcoming. About July 23, Essick again encountered Supervisor Ed Moody in a drive-in restaurant. When Moody asked Essick why Essick had been fired, Essick replied that he was told it was for running cloth with the ends out. Moody replied that Essick had been running the hatcher too long to make a mistake like that. Continuing, Moody said that President Hornday of Guilford Mills, earlier that day, had commented that it was a mistake to fire Essick because Essick was a good operator. Moody also asked Essick to see Hornday because Hornday wanted to know why the Union was trying to get in or why the employees wanted a union. Essick replied a union was desirable to protest "bad management." Moody promised to arrange a meeting with Hornday. Although Essick agreed to see Hornday, as requested above, Moody never went through with his proposal to have Essick meet Hornday. A few days after July 22, Jimmy Sharpe, the head dyer at the Guilford plant (whom I find to be a supervisor), telephoned Essick that Guilford's Plant Manager Fishman wanted to talk to Essick about some "union cards" in Essick's possession. Essick replied that if Fishman wanted the names of the signers, Fishman was wasting his time, for Essick would not disclose them. However, complying with the request, Essick went to the plant's front office where he met Fishman and Bernie Fleisher, plant manager of the Oak Ridge plant. When Fishman asked if Essick wanted to talk to him, Essick replied that he did not, that he came because Sharpe had told Essick that Fishman wanted to talk to him. Thereupon, Fishman invited Essick and Fleisher to Fishman's office. Arriving in Fishman's office, he asked Essick if Essick had "the union cards," how many had been signed, and what Essick was going to do with them. When Essick answered that he had 24 and would turn them in at the union hall, Fishman replied that the union representative did not need them to obtain an election. Fishman then asked what the Union had promised "these people," and Essick replied "better working conditions at the Oak Ridge plant." Although Essick asked to be put back on his job, Fishman replied that he would not promise anything at the time. 2 Smith replaced Essick when Essick quit his supervisor's job well as to responsibly direct employees in the preparation and assumed the duties of that job They included authority to department . N L.R B v Gary Aircraft Corp , 368 F 2d 223 effectively recommend promotions , raises in pay, and hiring , as (C A 5) GUILFORD MILLS John Best, a supervisor, observed Essick on July 18 distributing union cards outside the Oak Ridge plant and in the coffee room inside the plant. The next day Best also noticed that Essick gave out union cards, one of them to Supervisor Potete. Arthur Randall Phillips was employed at the Oak Ridge plant from July 5, 1965, to late October 1966. About July 19, 1966, Supervisor J. Oxendine asked Phillips if Phillips and employee Mack Essick were for the Union. Phillips answered in the affirmative, adding that he hoped the Union got in. Thereupon, Oxendine said that "they" probably padded Mack's account to get the Union started at the plant. Phillips is a nephew of Essick. Sometime after Essick's discharge, Phillips had occasion to mention to Oak Ridge Plant Manager Fleisher that Essick was the uncle of Phillips. This prompted Fleisher to remark that, if he had known that, he would have fired Phillips when he, Fleisher, fired Essick. Phillips and Fleisher both laughed at this last statement. I attach no significance to it as I consider Fleisher to have been jesting, and have disregarded it completely in arriving at any findings made in this case. Sarkes Tarzian, Inc., 157 NLRB 1193. B. Respondents ' Defense When George Honeycutt testified on November 22, he was then third-shift superintendent of the preparation, hatching, and finishing departments. After Essick was discharged Honeycutt saw him between 1 and 2 a.m. speaking to employees in the Oak Ridge plant's preparation department. Since Essick was not an employee, Honeycutt asked him to leave the premises, and he did. As he went out Essick distributed union literature in the parking lot. Honeycutt denies that he saw Essick passing out union cards or literature at the Oak Ridge plant before his discharge, including the occasion at the canteen referred to by Essick in his testimony. In fact, Honeycutt claims he had no knowledge of any of Essick's union activities until after Essick's discharge. In mid-July, Lee Moore was plant superintendent at the Guilford plant but at the time of the hearing was employed at Oak Ridge Textiles. About July 19, Essick was transferred from Oak Ridge to Guilford's first shift because a hatcher operator at the latter plant had undergone a hernia operation. A hatcher operator rolls cloth upon a beam or metal tube at the proper tension and fit to prepare it for dyeing. While still on the roll, it is then dyed. This latter is the dyer's function. Following this it moves onto a heat frame where the final width of the cloth is set. This is another nonbatchmg function. When a hatcher places cloth on the beam, it is his responsibility to examine the condition of the cloth at the time and, if he detects flaws, such as holes or ends out, to do something about it. On ends out, he should cut behind them to prevent continuance of the defect for the entire length of the piece of cloth. Soon after Essick was transferred to the Guilford plant on July 20, he allowed about 350 yards of 15 denier cloth, valued at $180, to go through with ends out . An end out means a needle broke in knitting the cloth . Essick failed to cut behind the end out, thus, causing the defect to run the length of the piece . This particular end out was called to Moore's attention from the heat set frame operator on July 21, by a document dated July 22. Thereupon, Moore ascertained what hatcher had failed to cut behind the end 617 out by checking the dye order and work sheet. Essick had signed the dye order for that particular lot. Thereupon, Moore discussed this with Plant Manager Staats and the quality control department. After this Moore told Essick that Essick had let a 350 -yard end out go through, that he was a better hatcher operator than that , and that Essick "had to be more careful." Essick took 4 or 5 minutes of running time to complete this job. In addition , Moore testified that Essick on another occasion ruined a piece of 15 denier cloth about 1,200 yards long by running a dye order with too much tension. The plant's quality control department sent an interplant communication on July 22, to Moore to this effect. Since the heat had set the width of this cloth at specifications contrary to those requested by the customer ordering it, the customer refused the cloth; and, since it was made to measure, it could not be sold as a good piece; hence, it was sold as a second . This batch took about 45 minutes to complete. Essick as batch operator was responsible for setting the tension on the batch machine. As a result Moore had Essick sent to Moore's office and immediately fired Essick after showing Essick the letter from the quality control department. Such mistakes are unusual for an experienced operator like Essick , who at that time had 3 years' experience; in fact, no other operator had let an end out get through for so long a distance. A hatcher, according to Moore, notes on a production sheet the tension at which each piece of cloth is run. However, Essick did not do so for the second piece he damaged, and this caused said cloth to be ruined. On cross-examination Moore stated that failure to fill out a report did not necessarily reflect that the work had been erroneously performed. Moore finally testified that he had no knowledge of Essick 's union activities. On cross-examination Moore testified that he often gives the personnel office a slip reciting the employee's derelictions of duty at the time of layoff, but did not give any to Essick. Further, on cross, Moore testified that the man who replaced Essick was a second-shift man who worked two shifts, i.e., both the second and Essick's first shift, instead of the one which he worked prior to Essick's discharge. It is not uncommon to run cloth with ends out, according to Moore. Guilford's Plant Manager Lee Moore further testified that one of the duties of the supervisor over the batchers is to "check the cloth and see that it's being run right" and "he's responsible " for this. Such supervisor "now and then ... checks the quality while it's being run." But the next man to work on the batch , i.e., the dyer, cannot detect running flaws because the cloth is rolled on a beam or tube when he works on it, so that only a small area is exposed at any one time. Maurice Fishman, vice president and technical director of Guilford Mills, whom I find to be a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, testified that Supervisor Ed Moody of the Oak Ridge plant told him that Essick desired to see Fishman shortly after Essick's discharge. As Fishman was agreeable to this, he told Ed Sharpe to communicate this to Essick. When Essick came he asked Fishman if the latter desired to see him. Replying in the negative , Fishman added that Moody had told him that Essick desired to see Fishman . During the ensuing conversation , Essick stated that he had "cards" in his possession which he had not turned in to "the union people," and that he wanted to return to work at the Guilford plant. Fishman replied that he promised nothing. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Further, Fishman denies that during the foregoing talk he asked Essick about the Union, or union activities, or the identity of those who signed cards; that he made no threats or promises to Essick "with respect to union membership ," or that he inquired as to what Essick was going to do with the cards . Fishman finally testified that Oak Ridge Plant Manager Fleisher was present during this conversation with Essick. Bernard Fleisher is the plant manager of Oak Ridge Textiles. Fleisher testified that, in July, Larry Potete served as leadman on the heat setting frame but had no authority to exercise any of the functions of a supervisor. However, Potete was consulted either by Fleisher or Frame Superintendent Tew as to recommendations with respect to such matters as laying off , suspending, promoting, recalling, hiring, transferring , or "rewarding" employees; but Tew or Fleisher rendered the "final judgment." Although an hourly paid worker, Potete received higher wages than the four or five other men working on frames because he had more experience and "more than responsibility." Potete's duties included instructing the other frame workers or "seeing to it" that the cloth was set "right " as to tension, width , and speed as to the particular style and type of fabric involved. Fleisher further testified that Oxendine was a leadman on the heat setting frame on another shift and that his duties were substantially equivalent to Potete's. According to Fleisher, Jerry Smith was a batcher operator devoid of any supervisory capacity. However, Smith could make recommendations , but the final decision thereon belonged to Fleisher or Plant Superintendent Tew. Further, Fleisher denied asking Essick how many signed cards Essick had, or about the Union , or union activity, or who had signed cards. Fleisher also testified that Jerry Smith did not replace Essick in all of the latter's duties but only in a portion thereof; and that Essick was not invested with any supervisory authority while employed at Oak Ridge. Nevertheless, Essick made some recommendations regarding employees while at Oak Ridge. Finally, Fleisher denied having knowledge of any union activity by Essick prior to the latter's discharge. David Staats is Guilford Mills' plant manager. At one time Lee Moore, Guilford's assistant plant manager, called to the attention of Staats "350 yards as it was being run on the heat set frame." Upon checking, Staats ascertained that the "work" was done by Essick. Thereupon, Staats spoke to Essick about the damage to the cloth, telling him "what it meant to the Company both financially and by putting new goods out which [Guilford] had to try to get." At no time did Staats warn Essick that Essick's job was in danger because of the seriousness of the alleged damage. Ed Moody, the head dyer at Oak Ridge Textiles, denies that, prior to Essick's discharge, he had any conversation with Essick concerning a union or union cards. However, Moody talked to Essick in the Deluxe Cafe some time following Essick's termination . Complaining that he was not treated right at Guilford Mills and would like to talk to President Hornday and Plant Manager Fishman, Essick requested Moody to obtain an appointment for Essick with Hornday. In this conversation Essick mentioned that, although he had not signed a card , he had 21 or 24 union cards in his glove compartment , and that he wanted to talk to Hornday and Fishman before he turned in the cards. Moody relayed Essick's request to Fishman. Moody further testified that he did not ask Essick as to whether anyone signed a union card or as to the identity of any signer of such a card; in fact, Moody denies he had any knowledge that Essick had engaged in any union activity. Finally, Moody testified that President Hornday considered Essick a good employee and that Hornday told Moody that neither Hornday nor Fleisher knew about Essick's discharge until a later date. David H. Lane, another witness for Respondents, denies that he ever set the tension of Essick's batching machine, or that he ever told Essick there was nothing wrong with the cloth being processed by Essick's machine, or that he had any authority over Essick. Respondents' witness J. Oxendine denied ever talking to General Counsel's witness Randy Phillips about the Union in the canteen on July 19. According to Oxendine, he was asked by a group of employees, as he walked into the canteen on a day subsequent to July 22, for his opinion about the Union. Replying to them, Oxendine said that everyone has his own opinion about the Union and that "if Mack Essick is in this thing, I don't want any part of it." Further, Oxendine testified that he was asked by Essick to sign a union card in the presence of Moody "about the time Ed Moody had talked to Mack Essick" in a car "concerning the cards." When asked to pinpoint this occasion , Oxendine fixed it as "some time after" Essick's discharge. During this last conversation , according to Oxendine, Essick was talking about the Union and union cards, but Moody did not ask Essick any questions about the Union. Respondents ' final witness , Jerry Smith , denied that he took over Essick's job at Oak Ridge; rather, Smith claims he is employed at Oak Ridge as a batcher operator. Further, Smith testified that when Essick approached him, Essick asked him "something about the Union-I forgot what it was." To which Smith replied, "Are you behind this Union?" Answering "yes," Essick invited Smith to sign a union card , but Smith declined. C. Concluding Findings and Discussion The burden of proof is upon the General Counsel to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that Respondents committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Citation of authority upon this branch of the case would be supererogatory. 1. As to the discharge of Mack Essick An employer will rarely admit to violating the law when discharging an employee . N.L.R.B. v. Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse, Co., Inc., 396 F.2d 859 (C.A. 5), N.L.R.B. v. Putnam Tool Company, 290 F.2d 663, 665 (C.A. 6). Instead , he will point to real or imaginary shortcomings of the employee as the reason for a termination of employment . So it becomes necessary to ascertain, as a matter of reasonable inferences from an assessment of the entire record , whether such employee deficiencies or union hostility led to the release of the employee. Inferences are permissible. Radio Officers' Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL (A.H. Bull Steamship Co.) v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 50. It is my opinion, and I find, that Mack Essick was discharged for his union activity and that the purported reason assigned therefore , i.e., destruction or damage of two pieces of cloth, is a pretext or cloak to mask or disguise the real GUILFORD MILLS 619 reason. This ultimate finding is derived from an evaluation of the whole record and the following subsidiary findings, which I find as facts: a. Essick openly espoused the Union and was the prime mover of the union movement at the plant . Of course, this does not safeguard him from discharge for cause. Radio Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., supra at 42-43; N.L.R.B. v. Dixie Terminal Co., 210 F.2d 538, 540 (C.A. 6). Nor does the fact that Essick was engaged in union activity shield him from being lawfully disciplined by his employer. Wellington Mill Division, West Point Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 330 F.2d 579, 586-587 (C.A. 4); Metals Engineering Corporation, 148 NLRB 88, 90. However, Essick's union activity and the extent thereof are relevant in ascertaining the true motive prompting his discharge. "Obviously the discharge of a leading union advocate is a most effective method of undermining a union." N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer Service, 346 F.2d 1003, 1006 (C.A. 5). b. Respondents were aware of Essick' s union activity. In this connection I find that on or about July 18, Supervisor George Honeycutt observed Essick distributing cards to employees in the canteen or coffee shop at Oak Ridge. Honeycutt's denial thereof is not credited. It is also significant that, although Essick had shortly before this been denied a transfer from the Oak Ridge plant to the Guilford plant, he was abruptly so transferred on July 18, following the above incident. On the issue of knowledge, I also find that Supervisor Jerry Smith asked Essick if the latter - -as trying to organize a union and not only received an affirmative reply but also was invited by Essick to sign a card. Smith's contrary evidence is not credited.3 Further, I find that on or about July 20, Supervisor Ed Moody asked Essick how many union cards had been signed by employees, to which Essick replied about 24. Moody further asked Essick, but without success, whether certain named employees had signed. Moody's and Oxendine's testimony inconsistent with such findings is not credited. While I realize that Respondents' witness, Oxendine, confirms Moody in many respects, I am nevertheless persuaded that their version of the time and content of this conversation does not accurately reflect the facts. In addition, I find that about July 23, Supervisor Ed Moody, among other things, told Essick that it was a mistake to fire Essick because Essick was a good operator, and also told Essick that President Hornday wanted to see Essick because Hornday desired to find out why a union was trying to get in. Respondents' contrary evidence is not credited. Although this occurred 1 day after Essick's discharge, I find that it implies knowledge by Respondents of Essick's union activity on or before July 22, the day he was terminated. Then again , Supervisor Sharpe called Essick a few days after July 22, to request Essick to call on Plant Manager Fishman about some union cards and Essick did go. Fishman asked Essick about the union cards. Respondents' evidence, inconsistent with these findings, is not credited. While Sharpe and Fishman spoke to Essick after July 22, I find that it occurred so freshly after that date I am warranted in inferring-and I do so-that Sharpe and Fishman were aware of Essick 's union activity on or before July 22. Also, about July 19, Supervisor Oxendine indicated to employee Phillips that Oxendine was aware of Essick's union activities. I am unable to accept Oxendine's denial, as I am of the opinion that Phillips should be credited. Finally, Supervisor John Best, about July 18 and 19, observed Essick distributing union cards at the Oak Ridge plant. Although the evidence as to Best's duties is controverted, I credit him. Upon his credited testimony I find he is a supervisor. c. Respondents displayed union hostility. Thus, I find that Respondents coercively interrogated Essick regarding union activity at the plant, as more fully depicted in the preceding subsection (a) dealing with knowledge of Essick's union activity. Of course, I recognize that union hostility in itself is not an unfair labor practice, for Section 8(c) of the Act vouchsafes the right to express a dislike for labor organizations . N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 8 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Audio Industries, Inc., 313 F.2d 858 (C.A.7). And I am not unmindful that union animus does not per se render a discharge illegal. N.L.R.B. v. Covington Motor Co., 344 F.2d 136, 138 (C.A. 4); Lasko Metal Products, Inc., 148 NLRB 976, 978; N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., 368 F.2d 975 (C.A. 8). There must be a proximate connection between this animus and the discharge. Nevertheless, hostility to unions is a factor which may be weighed in arriving at the motivation behind an employee's discharge. N.L.R.B. v. Georgia Rug Mill, 308 F.2d 89, 91 (C.A. 5); Maphis Chapman Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 368 F.2d 298, 304 (C.A. 4). However, I find a casual link between this animus and the discharge of Essick as more fully recited herein. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Ace Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841, 847 (C.A. 8); McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc., 155 NLRB 577; Maphis Chapman Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra at 304. It is true, and I find, that Respondents' union animus is confined to coercive interrogation. But this does not detract from the ultimate finding of a discriminatory discharge . It is the motivation , regardless of its intensity, behind the discharge which renders the dismissal unlawful. N.L.R.B. v. D'Armigene, 353 F.2d 406 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Longhorn Transfer, supra at 1006-1007. d. Timing is consequential and significant. I find that Essick was terminated not long after Respondents became aware that he openly and actively engaged in union activities. It has been held that a discharge simultaneously with the peak of an organizational movement may be considered in ascertaining the reasons leading to an employee's discharge. Arkansas-Lousiana Gas Company, 142 NLRB 1083, 1085; Texas Industries, Inc., 156 NLRB 423, 425; N.L.R.B. v. Mira-Pak, Inc., 354 F.2d 525, 527 (C.A. 5). e. Further, I find that the manner of discharge cannot be disregarded. N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Incorporated, 369 F.2d 125 (C.A. 5) (employee Hughes). Thus, I find that Essick was discharged precipitately without warning. Cf. Levinson's Owl Rexall Drugs, Inc., 161 NLRB 1531, 1533. "The abruptness of a discharge and its timing are persuasive evidence as to motivation." N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 242 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 355 U.S. 829; N.L.R.B. v. L. E. Farrell Company, Inc., 62 LRRM 2130, 360 F.2d 205, 208 (C.A. 2); N.L.R.B. v. Mira-Pak, supra. 8 Essentially, Smith corroborates Essick on this aspect of the case. Respondents claim Smith is not a supervisor But I find that he is, crediting the General Counsel's evidence in support thereof and rejecting Respondents' evidence not consonant therewith 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In this connection, I find that Essick, on July 21, did not damage 350 yards of cloth by failing to detect an end out. Rather, on that date Essick found a hole or rip in two pieces of cloth and, pursuant to established practice, alerted the next operator to it by writing the word "seam out" on the order. I further find that this hole ran for about 25 yards in each piece, that Essick called it to the attention of Lane, his supervisor, and that Lane said nothing could be done about it. Also, I credit Essick that on July 22, he asked Lane if Lane observed anything wrong on July 21, and Lane said he did not.'Respondents' contrary evidence is not credited. In rejecting Respondents' version of the foregoing damage I am impressed by (a) the fact that Respondents, on their evidence, packed the cloth without showing the alleged defect to Essick, (b) the operator next processing the cloth (called a dyer) did not testify,' (c) no business record was offered to show that such damage as Respondents assert did occur, and (d) no adequate warning was given to Essick, for, at most, on Respondents' own evidence, Essick was told by Supervisor Moore that he had to be more careful. Further, I find that Essick did not damage or destroy a piece of cloth 1200 yards long on July 22. In this respect, I am unable to credit Respondents' version and, instead, accept the General Counsel's testimony thereon. In rejecting Respondents' testimony I have taken into consideration Respondents' own evidence that the cloth was first packed without showing the defects or even demonstrating them to Essick, that no business records were offered to establish the defect although Respondents' witnesses testified they ascertained from such records that the damage was traced to Essick, and that the next employee to work on the cloth did not testify at all. In fact, no one from quality control testified although Respondents' evidence shows that quality control detected the flaws and reported them to the appropriate operating officials. Even if, contrary to fact, Essick seriously and extensively damaged cloth on July 21 and 22, I find that this was not a substantial or motivating reason for his discharge. It is true that an employee may be discharged for cause (N.L.R.B. v. Covington Motor, Co., Inc.,344 F.2d 136, 138 (C.A. 4); Klate Holt Co., 161 NLRB 1606, 1611), and that the severity, harshness, or injustice of such action is not subject to review in this proceeding. N.L.R.B. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 317 F.2d 912, 914 (C.A. 1); N.L.R.B. v. Ace Comb Co., supra; Interboro Contractors, Inc., 157 NLRB 1295, 1301. But "the fact that a lawful cause for discharge is available is no defense where the employee is actually discharged because of his union activities." N.L.R.B. v. Ace Comb Co., supra at 847; N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing Co.,328 F.2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7). Nor is it necessary to show that the only reason for the discharge is Essick's union activity. It is sufficient if union activity "is a substantial or motivating reason, despite the fact that other reasons may exist." N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883, 885 (C.A. 1). In my opinion the Covington Motor case does not demand a different result. And Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. N.L.R.B., 371 F.2d 573 (C.A. 6), and N.L.R.B. v. Clearwater Finishing Co., 216 F.2d 608 (C.A. 4), are distinguishable. ' It is true that Respondents' evidence shows that the dyer would not detect a flaw because any point on the cloth, being on a revolving cylinder, was exposed only for a short time But this is f. Although not of critical significance, it is desirable to point out, and I find, that Respondents did not consult Essick's immediate supervisor prior to discharging him. This has some probative value. Virginia Metalcrafters, Incorporated, 158 NLRB 958; Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 161 NLRB 789 g. Finally, I find that Respondents did not adequately investigate the alleged damage to ascertain the employee responsible therefor. Failure to conduct a fair investigation of an employee's alleged derelictions is evidence of a discriminatory intent in discharging him. Illinois Tool Works, 61 NLRB 1129, 1132; Shell Oil Company v. N.L.R.B., 128 F.2d 206, 207 (C.A. 5); Norfolk Tallow Co., Inc., 154 NLRB 1052, 1059. Hence, Fort Smith Broadcasting Co. v. N.L.R.B., 341 F 2d 874,878 (C.A. 8), is distinguishable because a proper investigation was there made. 2. Concluding findings and discussion as to interrogation It is well to bear in mind that interrogation of employees regarding protected activities is not per se unlawful. Bourne Co . v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 74 (C.A. 2), N.L.R.B. v. Mid-West Towel and Linen Service, Inc., 339 F.2d 958 (C.A. 7); Blue Flash Express, 109 NLRB 591, 593. The "test [of illegality] is whether , under all the circumstances , the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act." Blue Flash Express, supra at 593. Gauged by this standard , I am of the opinion, and I find, that some of Respondents ' interrogation , enumerated below, is coercive and, therefore , is proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, while the remainder set forth infra is lawful. a. About July 18, Supervisor Smith asked Essick if Essick was trying to organize a union. In my opinion this question has a coercive impact as it indicates the employer prying into a matter not shown to be a proper subject of inquiry. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 775. I do not construe this as a casual or perfunctory remark. The fact that the answer was truthful minimizes the coercive effect , and I so find. Cf. Blue Flash Express , Inc., supra, where it is held that a false answer is relevant ; Bourne v. N.L.R.B., supra, where truthfulness of a reply is said to counteract fear which may be inspired by the question. b. About July 20, Supervisor Ed Moody asked Essick how many union cards had been signed and whether specific employees whom he named had subscribed to such cards. I find that the natural reaction of employees to such questioning is a reasonable apprehension that reprisals against union adherents will follow, and, consequently , the inquiry is coercive . N.L.R.B. v. National Plastic Products Company, 175 F.2d 755, 760 (C.A.4); Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 103 NLRB 377, 380, affd. 209 F.2d 596 (C.A. 2). c. About July 23, i.e., after Essick's discharge, Supervisor Ed Moody spoke to Essick and asked some questions . Although I have credited Essick 's account of this conversation , I find that Moody's questions , although coercive, do not transcend the Act. This is because Essick was not an employee of Respondents ' at the time. See Kopp-Evans Construction Company, 143 NLRB 690; Max Silver & Sons, 123 NLRB 269, 276. Cf. Section 2 (3) of the true also of the cloth when Essick worked on it Hence, I find that the dyer had the same opportunity as Essick to notice any defects in the cloth GUILFORD MILLS Act. In my opinion, H. C. Ladd and Son, Inc., 148 NLRB 30, does not require a contrary result. Nor do I look upon cases holding that illegally discharged employees remain employees for the purpose of determining a Union's majority as controlling upon the issue of whether Essick was an employee after July 22. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Sifers Candy Company, 171 F.2d 63, 66 (C.A. 10); N.L.R.B. v. Hunter Engineering Company, 215 F.2d 916, 918 (C.A. 8). And Section 2(3) of the Act considers discharged employees as employees for purposes of reinstatement, but not for other purposes. See Section 10(c) of the Act. d. A few days after July 22, Supervisor Sharpe telephoned Essick. As a result thereof Essick spoke to Supervisors Fishman and Fleisher at the Guilford plant. Although Fishman asked questions which I find would be coercive if propounded to an employee, I find no violation of the Act because Essick at that time had already been discharged and did not enjoy the status of an employee. e. About July 19, J. Oxendine, whom I find to be a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Act, asked employee Phillips if Phillips and Mack Essick favored the Union. I find this is coercive, as it is not a casual or perfunctory remark and it pertains to matters which employees are not required to disclose. No different conclusion is compelled because Phillips answered truthfully in the affirmative. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents found to constitute unfair labor practices in section III, 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 Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take specific affirmative action, described below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it had been found that Respondents discriminated with respect to the tenure of employment of Mack Essick, it will be recommended that they offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or one substantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. It will further be recommended that Essick be made whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. In making Essick whole, Respondents shall pay to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of such discrimination to the date of reinstatement or a proper offer of reinstatement, as the case may be, less his net earnings during such period. Such backpay, if any, is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent calculated by the formula established in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that Respondents preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon reasonable request, all pertinent records and data necessary to aid in analyzing and ascertaining whatever backpay may be due. In my opinion, Respondents' conduct does not portray a general hostility to the Act, so that an extensively broad 621 remedy is not warranted. The relief adopted should be commensurate with the violations found and should not cover situations unrelated to the sections of the Act involved. It may not reasonably be anticipated that Respondents will violate other sections of the Act. Hence, I find that an order is appropriate which is limited to proscribing the conduct found to transgress the Act and similar or related conduct. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondents are employers as defined in Section 2(2) and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By coercively interrogating employees as to their union sympathies , activities , and desires , and as to the names of employees who had signed union authorization cards, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Mack Essick , thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices as defined in Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. Respondents have not committed any other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that Respondents, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating in any manner in respect to their tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Coercively interrogating employees as to their union sympathies, activities, and desires, or as to the names of employees who have signed union authorization cards. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights safeguarded to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Mack Essick immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or one substantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent. (b) Notify Mack Essick if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon reasonable request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports and all other 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL records necessary to ascertain the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at their Oak Ridge and Greensboro, North Carolina, plants, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. `5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by a duly authorized representative of Respondents, shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith!' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects. 5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director , 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 the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other organization , by discharging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against any of our employees in regard to their hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition of their employment. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT ask employees questions about their union sympathies, activities, or desires, nor will we ask employees to give us the names of employees who have signed union authorization cards. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Mack Essick immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or one substantially equivalent thereto, and make him whole for any loss of pay incurred by him as a result of his discharge by us, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named Textile Workers Union or any other labor organization. GUILFORD MILLS, INC., AND OAK RIDGE TEXTILES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify Mack Essick if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 723 2911, Extension 392.