Newland Knitting Mills

788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Newland Knitting Mills and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 11-CA-3156 and 11-CA-3216. June 22,1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On April 24, 1967, Trial Examiner David S. Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's 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,2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 Respondent, Newland Knitting Mills, Newland, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. and the other subpenaed employees for permission to attend the Board's representation hearing were made to Duckworth, and when Hicks and Johnson were required to testify at that hearing, he ordered them to leave work and appear there It is significant that despite prior refusals to allow them to leave work to be present at that hearing, there was no question raised concerning the validity of Duckworth's instruction to them to go there. Furthermore, it appears that Duckworth regularly transmitted information concerning employee conduct to management, pursuant to which he informed management that after the heanng closed Johnson had returned to the plant and had left again without working until the regular quitting time Under all the circumstances, it seems clear that Duckworth was viewed by the employees as a supervisor TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON , Trial Examiner : Upon charges filed October 21, 1966 , and January 6, 1967, by Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, referred to herein as the Union, the General Counsel issued and consolidated complaints against Respondent New and Knitting Mills. The complaints allege that Respondent discharged McDonald Burleson , Jr., on September 20, 1966, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, discharged Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson on December 16, 1966, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, and committed several independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Thi proceeding was heard before me in Newland, North Carolina, on February 14 and 15, 1967. At the close of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument and the filing of briefs. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent engages in the manufacture of knitted products at its Newland, North Carolina, plant, where it annually purchases goods and materials from outside the State of North Carolina valued in excess of $50,000 and sells and ships finished goods to points outside the State of North Carolina valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED i The Respondent's exceptions related almost solely to the Trial Examiner's credibility findings upon which he predicated his recommendations On the basis of our own careful review of the record, we conclude that these credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evience Accordingly, we find no reason for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc v N.L R B , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3) ' On the record as a whole, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Duckworth was a supervisor at all relevant times. In addition, we note that Duckworth served as the conduit for communication between employees and management. Thus, requests for time off were made through Duckworth, and he transmitted the responses to such requests and inquiries All the requests of Hicks, Johnson, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Alleged Interrogation of Charles English The complaint in Case 11-CA-3156 alleges that Respondent's Plant Manager Bruce Buchanan and Plant Superintendent R. L. Brooks interrogated employees concerning their union membership , activities, and sympathies on September 8 and 16 , 1966. In support of this allegation employee Charles English testified for the 165 NLRB No. 104 NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS General Counsel to three almost identical incidents during September 1966. According to English, on one occasion Buchanan and on two occasions Brooks approached him and asked him if he had heard anything new. He testified that twice he replied no and once yes. He also testified that on each occasion he added immediately thereafter there had been a union meeting the previous night. According to him, he was then asked how many were at the meeting, and twice replied that there was a good group there, and once, on the last occasion, that he was not going to say.' On his direct examination English gave two different versions of the conclusion of his conversation with Buchanan. On his cross-examination English displayed considerable vagueness and confusion, particularly as to the timing of these incidents in relation to one another and in relation to union meetings. Buchanan and Brooks both testified and denied the occurrence of these incidents. On the record as it stands, I find it implausible that three almost identical conversations would have ensued as testified by English, particularly in the absence of any background to explain why English would have responded as he testified to what appeared to have been routine greetings by Buchanan and Brooks. In the light of the implausibility of his testimony, and the other weaknesses noted above, which appear on the face of his testimony and which were also reflected in his demeanor while he testified, I do not credit English as to these incidents. Accordingly, I conclude that the allegations of interrogation should be dismissed. B. The Alleged Violations Attributed to Duckworth 1. Duckworth's statements to Hicks The complaint in Case 11-CA-3216 alleges that on September 8, 1966, Wayne Duckworth, whose supervisory status is in dispute, gave employees the impression that their union meetings and activities were being kept under surveillance and threatened employees with discharge because of their union membership, activities, and sympathies. In support of these allegations Geraldine Hicks testified that around September 1 Duckworth came to her and asked her where her car was parked the previous night. According to Hicks, Duckworth said that he knew something "on" her, and she asked him what. She testified that Duckworth replied that he saw her car parked the night before. She replied that her husband parked it there, and Duckworth said "he knew something on me that could get my job." Hicks' car had been parked at the Hughes Building in Newland, where there was a union meeting on the night in question. Duckworth testified that he had a conversation with Hicks about her car at the time the Union was having meetings , but his version bore little similarity to Hicks'. He testified that Hicks came in the mill one morning and asked him if he saw her car parked the previous night. ' He testified that on this occasion before asking him how many were there, Brooks said "You know that I'm not supposed to be asking you this, but I can listen to you " 2 Wright who was not otherwise identified did not testify I In resolving the credibility issue as to this incident I have considered the fact that on cross- examination Hicks initially stated that she had told Duckworth that she was at a union meeting, and then, when reference was made to her affidavit given to the General Counsel during the investigation of this case, she indicated uncertainty as to whether she told Duckworth she had been at a union meeting Subsequently, she conceded that she had said in her affidavit that she had not mentioned the Union 789 When he replied that he did not, she said "Well, I was parked alongside the road and I thought you might have seen it," and added that she had gone courting or dating and had parked on the side of the road where she thought he might have seen it . Duckworth again said that he had not, and Hicks then asked Ronald Wright the same question.2 According to Duckworth, he went to Plant Superintendent Brooks and Plant Manager Buchanan after this conversation and told them what had been said. On cross-examination Duckworth testified that he did not know that the employees were holding union meetings at the time and did not know that there had been a union meeting the night before. He did not think anything about the fact that Hicks was married and explained that she might have been with her husband and he did not ask her whom she was with. Later Duckworth testified that this conversation occurred around 7:30 in the morning and he did not think anything about it until later in the day when he heard that there had been a union meeting and figured that possibly Hicks was trying to trick him into something. He did not talk to Hicks again about it but sometime during the day went to Buchanan and Brooks and told them what she had said. He then stated that he could not remember whether he spoke to them before or after learning that there was a union meeting, but that he went to Buchanan and Brooks "just a little bit after Geraldine talked and I told them" because "I was just curious about what she had said and I didn't know why she was asking me so I just-they told me to forget about it." I find that Hicks' version of her conversation with Duckworth about her car is to be credited rather than Duckworth's. Concededly, there was a conversation about the parking of Hicks' car. Duckworth's version, that Hicks, a married woman, came in and made a point of asking if Duckworth had seen her car the previous night and then, even after Duckworth replied negatively, volunteered that she had been courting or dating, is lacking in plausibility. His testimony as to when and why he reported the incident to his superiors and when he gained knowledge of the union meetings is shifting and unconvincing as was his manner in testifying.3 2. Respondent's responsibility for Duckworth's conduct a. The facts It remains to be decided whether Duckworth is a supervisor or agent of Respondent for whose acts Respondent is responsible. Duckworth works as a fixer in the preboarding department at the mill. The preboarding department is located on the first floor or basement of the plant. About 40 percent of the employees at the plant are located on that floor and the remainder on the floor above. Brooks, the plant superintendent , is in charge of the preboarding department and the greige department. There are approximately 24 employees in the preboarding to Duckworth and that the Union and the union meeting were not mentioned in the conversation However, Hicks had not testified otherwise on her direct examination and she was not otherwise cross-examined as to this conversation with Duckworth. In the light of the independent reasons for discrediting Duckworth's version of the conversation about her car, which concededly took place, I do not regard this aspect of her cross- examination as sufficient to cast doubt on the credibility of her direct testimony Nor do I find cause to discredit her as to this incident in the fact that I reject below her testimony with respect to the time of her departure from the hearing room on the day before her discharge. 299-352 0-70-51 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department and 95 in the greige department. Duckworth spends all his time in the preboarding department and Brooks spends most of his time in the greige department on the upper floor.4 Duckworth engaged in manual work approximately 95 percent of the time, repairing, maintaining, and setting up the preboarding machines and carrying materials to the preboarding machine operators for them to work on. If a machine breaks down, Duckworth reassigns the operators to a vacant machine if available without consulting with Brooks. If a machine becomes vacant permanently, he asks the operators if they wish to transfer to it, but he does not order an operator to transfer over her objection. If a machine breakdown causes operators to be idle, they are paid at the rate of their average incentive earnings. Duckworth records the time that the machine is down for purposes of determining down-time pay. If it appears likely that a machine will be down for repairs for a substantial period of time and there is no vacant machine available for its operators to run, Duckworth may instruct them to clock out for the remainder of the shift. Normally, Duckworth determines how long a machine is likely to be down and whether its operators should be sent home. Duckworth and one other knitting fixer attend quality meetings which are otherwise attended by supervisors. At these meetings , quality standards are discussed and asp result of the discussions Duckworth may be required to talk to preboarding machine operators to correct the quality of their work.5 Duckworth also attempts to correct work of employees if he observes that it is not according to specifications.6 Duckworth does not attend meetings which are attended by department heads at which company policy is discussed. Duckworth is hourly paid and punches a timeclock. He is paid time and a half for any overtime worked by him. He receives the same fringe benefits as rank-and-file employees which differ from those of acknowledged supervisors. Machine fixers who are not supervisors and some other nonsupervisory employees in the plant are paid substantially more than Duckworth. Some of the employees in the preboarding department who are paid on a piecework basis have higher earnings than Duckworth receives on his straight hourly rate. Duckworth carries a key to the pk„nt gate as do several other employees. He distributes paychecks to the employees in the preboarding department. Hicks testified without contradiction that she asked Duckworth once for permission to leave the plant to tell her mother about a death in her family. Duckworth granted the permission without checking with anyone else. Later that week she asked Duckworth for time off to go to the funeral. Duckworth replied that he would have to ask Brooks. While he was gone, Brooks passed by where Hicks was working, and Hicks asked him if she could be ' According to Hicks, whose testimony in this regard was not contradicted, Brooks comes to the preboarding department only in the mornings and stays for approximately 10 minutes According to the testimony of Carolyn Reed, a preboarding department employee, elicited on cross-examination by the General Counsel with respect to another matter, she is supervised by Charles Pittman who works both upstairs and downstairs and reports to Brooks Although Buchanan, Brooks, and Duckworth testified, no other witness mentioned Pittman and there is no other indication in the record that Pittman has any responsibility in the preboarding department In these circumstances, I do not find Reed's testimony of sufficient substance to establish that there is a level of supervision between Brooks and Duckworth, particularly in the light of the other evidence which indicates that excused for the funeral. Brooks asked her why she did not ask Duckworth, who was her supervisor, but he then granted the permission she requested. On other occasions, Duckworth gave her permission to go to the dentist or other places during working hours without seeking prior approval from anyone else. Johnson also testified that when she wanted to take time off to visit her dentist, she asked Duckworth, who granted her permission without consulting anyone else. I credit Hicks and Johnson in this regard. 7 Duckworth has no authority to discharge, hire, transfer, discipline, or reprimand employees or to raise or lower wages. He is not consulted about such matters and he has no access to personnel records. He has no role in the setting of employee or piecework rates in the plant. b. Concludingfindings Although it is clear that Duckworth is at most a minor supervisor, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to establish that Duckworth is a supervisor. Thus, there is no higher representative of management present in the preboarding department for most of the day. Hicks' testimony was uncontradicted that Brooks told Hicks that Duckworth was her supervisor whom she should ask for time off. Duckworth has in fact granted employees time off for personal reasons. Duckworth attends quality meetings and corrects the work of the preboarding operators as a result of the discussions at the quality meetings and his own observations in the department. When a machine breaks down, Duckworth reassigns the operators to another machine. If none is available, Duckworth determines whether the operators should remain in the plant and wait for the completion of repairs or should go home for the balance of the shift. Although Buchanan testified in conclusionary fashion that Duckworth cannot make discretionary decisions as to how to handle a particular situation in Brooks' absence, I conclude from these facts which are basically uncontested that Duckworth responsibly directs the work of the employees in the preboarding department and that at the very least, from the point of view of the employees in the preboarding department who receive instructions from him, he represents management in that department. Accordingly, I find that Duckworth's statements to Hicks about her car are attributable to the Respondent. I find further, in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident, that Duckworth's remarks created the impression that Hicks' union activities were under surveillance and that her job was placed in jeopardy by virtue of Duckworth's having observed her car parked outside where the union meeting was taking place. Accordingly, I find that the allegations of violation of the Act based upon this incident have been sustained. Duckworth reports directly to Brooks According to Plant Manager Buchanan, Duckworth does so under the direction of Brooks ', According to Buchanan, in an abnormal case Duckworth would report such work to Brooks. ' Duckworth testified that his instructions were to grant employees time off in case of illness, death in the family, or an emergency and then to inform Brooks, but according to Duckworth. if an employee sought time off to go to the dentist, lie was required to consult Brooks before granting it Duckworth did not deny, however, that he had granted Hicks and Johnson permission to leave the plant, as they testified , without consulting Brooks, and their testimony in this regard is essentially uncontradicted C. The Discharge of Burleson 1. The facts NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS 791 McDonald Burleson , Jr., was employed by Respondent for approximately 12 years. At the time of his discharge on September 21, 1966, he was employed as a line fixer on the second shift from 3 to 11 p. m. He worked on job 7, a line containing 52 knitting machines to which he was transferred in April 1966, at his request. He was supervised by Ben Wise, the second -shift supervisor. In a prior organizational campaign at the plant , Burleson was chairman of the organizing committee . He continued to serve in that capacity after an election was conducted at the culmination of that campaign and as a new organizational campaign got under way around September 1966. Burleson's union activities were conducted openly and were well known to Respondent. From the time that Burleson went on job 7 until the time of his discharge , there was considerable difficulty with the machines on that job. The record is inconclusive as to whether the problems were inherent in the machines or were caused by Burleson 's work performance or resulted from a combination of both . During that period Wise and Buchanan talked to Burleson about his work a number of times and criticized his work.8 On Saturday, September 17, Burleson worked his regular shift . At the conclusion of that shift , the plant shut down for 24 hours, reopening at the start of the third shift on Sunday , September 18, at 11 p.m. On Saturday night between 10 and 10 :30, the two checkers assigned to Burleson 's line checked the line and found no machines operating improperly .9 At around 10:30 on Saturday evening, Burleson began to prepare the machines on his line for the shutdown . According to Burleson , when he prepared each machine for the shutdown, all but two were operating properly, and he set them to complete one additional cycle and then to shut themselves off. The two exceptions were machines which Burleson was unable to repair. Burleson called the two machines to Wise's attention . One had been tagged by the day shift, and Wise tagged the other, as all machines left inoperative at the end of the shift were required to be tagged as such to put the fixer on the next shift on notice of their inoperative state and the nature of the defect. Burleson testified that he left at the end of his shift in the belief that all but the two tagged machines were in good operating condition. " After Burleson was discharged , the efficiency of the machines on job 7 increased Efficiency is computed on a three -shift basis However, the fixers on the first and third shifts remained unchanged after Burleson 's discharge " It is the responsibility of the checkers to make a periodic check of the stockings produced by the machines If a machine is producing imperfect stockings or otherwise operating improperly, the checkers flag the machine by placing a stocking on top of the machine and turn the machine off The fixer then must fix the machine and restart it is When operating , the heads are bolted down They are usually raised by fixers and not by checkers , and they are never left up when a machine is in operating condition ii Clark so testified and I credit him in this regard Phillips testified that Clark discovered that they were inoperative by checking them before attempting to turn them on Phillips was not present at the time and clearly had no direct knowledge 12 Clark testified that the machines with dull knives had not produced any bad work However , it is not clear whether his testimony referred to both machines or only one of them which lie On Sunday night at 11 the third shift reported and reactivated the plant under the supervision of Billy Phillips. Paul Clark, the fixer assigned to job 7 on this shift, went down his line and started to turn on the vacuum motors on the machines , preparatory to starting production . As he went down the line, he noted three machines with their heads raised indicating that they were inoperative . 10 Two of these machines were those that had been left tagged by Burleson on Saturday night . The third was untagged . Phillips passed by the line while Clark was preparing to start the machines in production , and Clark reported to him that there were three machines with their heads up. Phillips told Clark to start the rest of the machines and that he would help him or get him help to get the three inoperative machines started . Phillips went back to his office and then returned to the line to make notes of the condition of the three machines . Clark continued to start the remaining machines . In the process he discovered two additional machines that would not operate. When he turned their switches on, indicator lights revealed that the machines had stopped automatically.[' On investigating the cause, Clark discovered that both machines had dull knives which had caused yarn to accumulate in their dials and caused the machines to turn themselves off. 12 After starting the remaining operative machines , Clark began to make repairs and was later joined by Ray Carswell, Charles Blaylock, and Phillips who also worked on the inoperative machines. 13 On the following morning, Phillips gave a written report of the state of the machines on job 7 to Plant Manager Buchanan , and Buchanan asked Supervisor Wise to check the matter out that night . Buchanan left town sometime during the day on company business and did not return until sometime after Burleson was discharged. After the start of the second shift on Monday Wise asked Burleson how many machines he had left down the previous Saturday. Burleson replied that he had only left the two tagged machines inoperative . Wise told Burleson of Phillips' report and said that he would check further with Phillips at the beginning of the third shift. At the start of the third shift after Phillips arrived at the plant, Burleson approached Phillips at the supervisors' office door and asked him , "What is this s-about all these damn machines being left off last night ?" Phillips replied that all the machines were off because it was Sunday night. Burleson said he was not talking about that but was talking about those that were down. Phillips replied that there were five or six of them. Burleson asked which ones testified that lie repaired Phillips testified that one of the machines with dull knives had a stocking in it that was one-third to one -half knit when the machine had turned itself off because of the dull knives 13 Although Clark and Phillips in their testimony disagreed as to the cause of the breakdown of the untagged Fidelity machine, I do not find cause in this disagreement to discredit their testimony that Clark found an untagged Fidelity machine in inoperative condition at the start of the shift Phillips testified t at s ort y after the shift started a sixth machine became inoperative for the cause assigned by Clark to the machine he found untagged at the start of the shift As Clark's testimony was at variance with a statement he gave the General Counsel during the investigation of the case with respect to the repairs he made, as Clark's testimony describing the repairs made that night accounts for the repair of six machines , and as Phillips made notes of the condition of the machines at the time , I conclude that Clark was mistaken in his recollection and that Phillips is to be credited as to the cause of the breakdown of the untagged , inoperative Fidelity machine 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had their heads up. Phillips replied that there were three of them. Burleson stated that there were not any and added there was one which he had tagged and one which the day shift had tagged. Phillips told Burleson that he had it on the record and there was no point in arguing about it. He then asked Burleson to go with him to job 7 and see Paul Clark who started the machines. Phillips and Burleson went to job 7 and met Clark. Burleson asked Clark how the machines started the previous night. Clark replied that they started rough. Phillips then asked Clark to explain the condition he found the line in, and Burleson said he wanted to know how many machines had their heads up. Clark said that three had their heads up. Clark then walked away. Burleson said that they would see about this and also walked away. Phillips started to return to his office with Wise who had arrived at the scene while Phillips and Burleson were talking to Clark. As they were walking away , Burleson called Phillips by name. Phillips turned and asked Burleson what he wanted. Burleson said, "I'll see you outside the gate in the morning. I'll be waiting when you get off and we'll continue this." Phillips replied that if Burleson had anything to talk to him about concerning the knitting mill they would talk about it then and there. Burleson responded, "No, I'll settle with you in the morning." Burleson then turned and went off. Burleson's face was red, and his voice was raised and trembled as he spoke.14 Wise and Phillips went back to their office, and Phillips made a note of the final exchange between him and Burleson. On Tuesday morning Douglas Clark arrived at the plant at or about 6:45 a.m. Clark was in charge of quality control at the plant and was acting manager in the absence of Buchanan . Clark observed Burleson sitting in his car parked outside the plant gate close to the plant with his car facing the plant. Clark observed that Burleson sat there until about 7 a.m. Then, as the third-shift employees began to leave the plant , Burleson turned his car around and drove away from the mill. When Burleson reached a driveway to a gymnasium about 300 yards from the plant, 14 Phillips so testified as to his encounter with Burleson and was corroborated by Wise as to that portion of the incident which Wise observed Burleson 's version of this incident varied in several respects He testified that he did not go to Phillips' office to inquire about the machines and did not initiate the conversation in the manner that Phillips testified . He conceded that as Phillips was walking away he called to Phillips and said that he had something he wished to discuss with Phillips outside the gate the following morning However , he testified further that when Phillips replied that anything pertaining to the knitting department they would discuss in the plant , Burleson responded that what he wanted to discuss with Phillips did not pertain to the knitting department According to Burleson , he then left Burleson did not speak to Phillips again after that night and he was not asked what it was that he wished to discuss with Phillips outside the plant He also testified that the discussion with Phillips was friendly and not angry , although he was possibly hurt by Phillips ' report In the absence of any evidence that Burleson had anything else to discuss with Phillips that night and in view of my findings below with respect to the events of the next morning, I have concluded that Phillips and Wise rather than Burleson are to be credited as to this incident 15 Douglas Clark testified that he remained outside the plant and observed Burleson during the entire period Employee Kathryn Cornett testified that she saw Burleson sitting in his parked car outside the plant that morning when she arrived at work at or about 2 minutes before 7 Paul Clark testified that as he left the plant that morning he saw Burleson sitting in his car near the gymnasium According to Burleson , he lost a hubcap from his he stopped and backed into the driveway. Burleson then waited there until about two-thirds of the third-shift employees had passed by in their cars. At or about 7:10 he pulled out behind them and drove off. Clark did not see Burleson leave his car during the entire period.15 Clark entered the plant after Burleson drove off. Shortly thereafter, Phillips came to his office and gave him the written memorandum setting forth Burleson 's parting statements to Phillips the night before which Phillips had prepared at the time.16 Phillips asked Clark to give the reports to Buchanan. Phillips then returned to the knitting room to put his tools away and he left the plant at or about 7:35 a.m.17 Clark telephoned Wise who verified Phillips' version of the incident the night before. At or about 7:45 Clark telephoned Buchanan, who was in Reading, Pennsylvania, and told Buchanan what Phillips had reported to him and what he had observed outside the plant that morning. Buchanan instructed Clark to direct Wise to discharge Burleson. A separation slip was prepared for Burleson stating that he was discharged because he left the machines inoperative and because he had threatened and was insubordinate to a supervisor. When Burleson reported for work that afternoon, Wise called him to his office where he handed Burleson the, separation slip. Burleson asked Wise why he was being discharged and Wise replied that it was because of the machines that Phillips said he left down and because he threatened a supervisor . Burleson told Wise that he had never threatened any one in his life. Wise replied that they thought it was best for the Company to terminate him Wise told him that he could come in and talk further to the plant personnel manager about it if he wished. Wise then checked out Burleson's toolbox, and Burleson left the plant shortly thereafter. Burleson did not come back to talk to the personnel manager thereafter. 2. Concluding findings The General Counsel contends that Burleson was discharged because of his union activities and not for the car about 200 yards from the plant near a shrubbery packingshed the previous night as he was driving home He testified that he stopped and looked for it for a few minutes at the time but then drove on without it because he did not want to make his rider late getting home He testified that he returned again at night to look for it but still failed to find it According to Burleson, the next morning between 6.50 and 7 10 he drove up to the main gate of the plant , made a U-turn , and drove back to the packingshed where he stopped, found the hubcap, and immediately left to return home Burleson's rider did not testify to corroborate his testimony concerning the loss of the hubcap on Monday night If Burleson's version of the events of the night before were to be believed, there was no reason why he should not have been at the plant to carry out his conceded statement of intention to see Phillips outside the gate in the morning In these circumstances , in the light of the timing of his return to coincide with the end of the third shift and his admitted statement of his intention to return to see Phillips at that time, I credit Douglas Clark, Paul Clark, and Elizabeth Cornett and do not credit Burleson 1" According to Clark, Phillips handed him a second report at this time setting forth the state of the machines on job 7 at the beginning of the third shift on Sunday night Phillips testified that he handed this report in to Buchanan on Monday morning, and Buchanan 's testimony indicates that he received this report on Monday morning before he left town I credit Phillips and Buchanan in this regard , but I do not find this discrepancy sufficient to cast doubt on Clark's testimony otherwise 1' Phillips testified that he usually left the plant between 7-15 and 7-20 NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS 793 reasons assigned by Respondent. Respondent contends that Burleson was discharged because he threatened Phillips and followed up his threat by coming back to the plant on the next morning. There is, to be sure, some ambiguity and uncertainty as to the import to be given to Burleson's remarks to Phillips as they sound on repetition and appear in cold print on the record. Whether or not they were fairly taken as a threat by Phillips and Wise depends much on the manner in which they were made. From the testimony of both Phillips and Wise, whom I have credited, I infer that they were made in anger. Although Burleson testified that he made no threat, he did not reveal at the hearing or at any other time for what innocent purpose he wanted to see Phillips outside the gate in the morning which did not relate to the knitting department, and I am convinced that in his testimony he deliberately sought to conceal the fact that he returned to the plant and waited at the gate in the morning, suggesting that there was cause in the events of the previous night for Burleson to conceal his activities the next morning In these circumstances, I must conclude that Respondent's construction of Burleson's statements and conduct was not unreasonable, and that the asserted cause for Burleson's discharge finds support in the record. The question to be decided, of course, is not whether Respondent had cause to discharge Burleson, but whether the General Counsel has established that Burleson was discharged because of his union activities and not for cause. I find that evidence in support of the complaint too slight to sustain that burden. Although Burleson was concededly a known leading supporter of the Union, there is only slight evidence of union animus on the part of Respondent.is Although Burleson was an employee with 12 years' service before his discharge and his performance on job 7 was tolerated for several months, from this one can at most infer that his job performance was not the cause of his discharge, and Respondent concedes as much. It is true that this ground was stated as a cause of his discharge along with the threat to Phillips at the time of the discharge, although Respondent now argues and Buchanan ultimately testified that Burleson would not have been discharged on account of the machines alone and that the threat was the triggering cause of the discharge. However, unlike a case in which an employer relies on totally different grounds than those stated at the time of discharge or later adds new grounds to bolster an insubstantial ground, the abandoned ground in this case was stated along with one on which Respondent continues to rely and which was factually related to it. In these circumstances, I do not infer from the statement of both grounds at the time of the discharge that the reasons stated for the discharge were pretextuous or contrived. As the General Counsel has not shown that Respondent lacked reasonable grounds to construe Burleson's statements to Phillips and his subsequent conduct as a threat, one may only speculate whether Burleson's statements and conduct were in fact the true cause of his discharge. I conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that Burleson's union activities were the i There is evidence that a disciplinary suspension of Burleson was set aside in settlement of a prior unfair labor practice charge However, Respondent did not admit commission of any unfair labor practices thereby, and no inference of animus may be drawn from the settlement of that charge 14 The record does not make clear the circumstances under which Hicks and Johnson separately received permission to go, but there is no dispute that they had received it motivating force behind the discharge. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the allegations of the complaint in Case 11-CA-3156 relating to Burleson's discharge be dismissed. D. The Alleged Threat of Reprisal for Participating in Board Proceedings 1. The facts Sometime before December 13, 1966, the Union filed a representation petition in Case 11-RC-2467 seeking to represent Respondent's employees. A hearing was scheduled for December 13, and the Union subpenaed a number of employees to attend, including Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson, both of whom worked in the preboarding department. On December 13, Hicks and Johnson asked Wayne Duckworth if they could leave work to attend the hearing because they had been subpenaed. Duckworth said he would check with Brooks about it. Shortly thereafter, Hicks and Johnson were told that they were wanted in the plant conference room. Hicks and Johnson went to the conference room where 12 to 15 employees were gathered, all of whom had been subpenaed to appear at the representation hearing. Also present were Buchanan, Brooks, and Garland, a supervisor. Buchanan told them that he was sorry that he could not let all of them go to the hearing because he needed them at the mill to get production out. He stated, however, that he could let five of them go and told them to choose among themselves the five that wanted to go and to write their names on a paper that was on the table. He said that if anyone left other than the five whose names were on the paper, he would be discharged. Buchanan then stated that he, Brooks, and Garland would leave the room and the employees could decide among themselves who should go. The company representatives left the room, and the employees decided that no one would sign the paper, as it was not up to them to decide who should go. As they left the conference room, they decided that Hicks and Johnson should go tell Rainey, the union representative, what had happened because they had gotten permission to go to the hearing on the previous day from Brooks.19 Hicks and Johnson went to the courthouse where the hearing was scheduled to take place. Soon after arriving they discovered that the hearing was postponed because of bad weather and illness. They were informed that the hearing was rescheduled for December 15. They left and returned to work after an absence of approximately one-half hour. They were not disciplined for having left the plant to go to the hearing that day. 20 2. Concluding findings Employees have the right to participate in proceedings before the Board, and the Board has the power to compel their attendance when the issuance of subpenas has been requested. While the right to participate absent a subpena may be balanced against production needs or other considerations, when subpenas have been issued an employer may not interfere with fulfillment of the obligation to attend by threatening reprisal for honoring a subpena.21 - 21 The findings as to this incident are based on the composite testimony of Hicks and Johnson, which is not contradicted 21 Winn-Dixze Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc , 128 NLRB 574, Duralite Co , Inc , 128 NLRB 648, East Tennessee Undergarment Company, 139 NLRB 1129, enfd 53 LRRM 2461 (C A 6), Cf Standard Packaging Corporation, Royal Lace Paper Division, 140 NLRB 628 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Here there is no evidence that Respondent sought to contact the Union or the Board to explain the production problem caused by the subpenas and to seek to determine whether the Union would be willing to release some of the employees from their subpenas or to arrange for some employees to be called from the plant as they were needed at the hearing. Insofar as the record shows the employer dealt directly with the employees and required all but five of them to choose between their jobs and honoring their obligation to appear at the hearing. In these circumstances, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its threat to discharge any employees who attended the hearing other than the five to be selected by the subpenaed employees from among themselves. E. The Discharges of Hicks and Johnson 1. The facts On December 15, Hicks and Johnson again asked Duckworth if they could leave to go to the hearing. Duckworth said that he would ask Brooks and a few minutes later he told them that Brooks would be around shortly to talk to them. Brooks did not come, and after a while Johnson went to talk to him. She asked Brooks if she and Hicks would be allowed to go to the hearing. Brooks told her that if their names were on the list they could go but that otherwise they could not. She went back down to the preboarding department, told Hicks what Brooks had said, and decided with Hicks not to go to the hearing. At or about 12:30 Duckworth came to Hicks and Johnson and told them that they were wanted at the hearing in a hurry. Duckworth said nothing to them about returning to work. They filled out timecards, cleaned up their machines, and left. They arrived at the hearing room which was located in the courthouse a few hundred yards from the plant at or about 12:40. Hicks was called to testify shortly after their arrival. Hicks testified briefly and the hearing closed at approximately 1 p.m.22 After the hearing closed, Hicks and Johnson were asked by Rainey, the union representative, to wait in the hearing room and talk to him. Rainey took their names, addresses, and social security numbers so that they could be reimbursed for their time lost from work. He advised them that he did not believe it necessary for them to return to work that day. They left the courtroom. Hicks did not return to the plant, but Johnson went to the plant to advise 22 The transcript of the hearing indicates that it closed at 1 p m However, Harry Willis, director of personnel for Respondent, testified that he was present at the hearing and left after it closed with Arthur Rogers, who stopped at a nearby bank before the bank closed The bank's statutory closing time is 1 p m In my view of the case, it is not critical to determine to the minute when the hearing closed, but it would appear that it closed a few minutes before 1 21 Hicks and Johnson testified that it was approximately 2 o'clock when they finished talking to Rainey and left the courthouse According to them, before talking to them, Rainey talked to a Board agent and to J R Buchanan and Burleson for a substantial time Burleson testified that he remained in the courtroom to talk to Rainey for about 20 minSites after the hearing and saw Hicks and Johnson there between 1 and 1 30 The cross- examination of Hicks and Johnson left substantial doubt as to the accuracy of their time estimates, and Johnson conceded that when she arrived at the plant, the employees in the preboarding department were sitting around the break table and were not at work. Two employees testified that they saw Johnson come into the preboarding department during the break period that afternoon, and there was no circumstance established which would explain why the employees were sitting at the break table another employee who normally rode home with her that she would have to make other transportation arrangements for that afternoon. Johnson arrived at the plant during the break period in the preboarding department, which usually begins at 1 and ends at 1:10. She delivered her message and left23 After the break period, two of the girls in the preboarding department told Duckworth that Johnson had come in to the department during the break, talked to one of the girls, and then left. Duckworth relayed this report to Brooks, and Brooks in turn reported it to Buchanan who determined that Hicks and Johnson should be discharged because they failed to return to work after the hearing was over. On December 16, Hicks and Johnson reported to work at the regular starting time. Brooks came to them and told them that Buchanan wanted to talk to them in his office at 10:30. Brooks asked them why they had not returned to work the previous afternoon. They replied that they did not think that there was any use in returning24 and that the union representative had agreed and was paying them for the time they were off. Later at around 11 o'clock as they were waiting to talk to Buchanan, Brooks told them that he would talk to them in place of Buchanan and they went into Brooks' office Brooks told them that he was discharging them because they did not return to work the previous day and they were needed. They asked whether they would be coming back to work, and Brooks replied that they would not 25 After some discussion about their pay, Hicks and Johnson left. Buchanan testified that it is company practice to discharge any employee who leaves work without permission and that he could see no difference between the failure of Hicks and Johnson to return after the hearing and leaving work without permission. He testified also that it is a frequent occurrence for employees to take time off during a shift for various personal reasons and that the employees are supposed to return to work when their business is completed. He also testified that he knew of no other instance when an employee had failed to return to work after completing his business before the end of his shift. 2. Concluding findings "Clearly inherent in the employees' statutory rights is the right to seek their vindication in Board proceedings."26 other than that Johnson arrived at the plant during the regular breaktime As breaks are governed by the clock on the wall, it is possible that it may have been a few minutes later than 1 10 when Johnson arrived at the plant, but not later than that I do not credit the testimony of Hicks, Johnson, or Burleson that it was substantially later than 1 10 when Hicks and Johnson left the hearing room 24 Although Hicks testified that it would have taken until almost 3 o'clock for them to get their machine back in production based on her estimate of the time they left the courthouse, her testimony otherwise makes it clear that little more was required than is normally required to start production in the morning and that they could have resumed production within 10 minutes after returning to work 2s Hicks testified that she then told Brooks that another employee had done the same thing and was coming back to work and that Brooks replied that he did not know anything about that There is no evidence otherwise to establish that any other employees were treated differently from Hicks and Johnson under similar circumstances 26 Better Monkey Grip Company, 115 NLRB 1170, enfd 243 F 2d 836 (C A 5), cert denied 353 U S 864 NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS Conduct which conveys to employees the idea that they may be penalized for honoring Board subpenas interferes "with the right of employees to participate in proceedings before the Board" and further tends "to impede the Board in the exercise of its power to compel the attendance of witnesses at its proceedings and to obstruct the Board in its investigation," in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.27 As the Board stated in Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers (Charles S. Skura), 148 NLRB 679, 681, "Not only does the Board have the authority to protect employees who participate in the Board's processes, but it has been held that the Board has an affirmative duty to exercise that authority to its outermost limits to protect such employees," citing Eugen Pedersen v. N.L.R.B. [Modern Linen & Laundry Service], 234 F.2d 417 (C.A. 2). Moreover, "[A]ny conduct on the part of a party to a Board proceeding which interferes with, or prevents the Board from carrying out, [its] responsibility, including threats to discharge employees for honoring subpenas issued by the Board, constitutes an abuse of Board processes, and, as such, is independently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' 28 The interests expressed in these quotations from Board decisions in protecting employee rights to participate in Board proceedings to secure fulfillment of statutory rights and the Board's processes require that whenever disciplinary action arises out of the appearance of employees at a Board hearing, particularly where under subpena, that discipline must be carefully scrutinized. Here it is true that Respondent asserts that Hicks and Johnson were disciplined not because of their attendance at the hearing but because of their failure to return to work and complete their shift after the hearing ended. And I have found that Hicks and Johnson could have been back at work approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes before the end of their regular shift. However, there are a number of factors present in this case that persuade me that whatever Respondent's motivation, protection of employee rights and the Board's processes requires that the discharges of Hicks and Johnson must be found to have violated Section 8(a)(1). As I have found above, on December 13 when the hearing was originally scheduled, Respondent denied the subpenaed employees permission to leave work to attend the hearing and required that if any of them were to attend, they must choose among themselves no more than five to go. Respondent warned that anyone else who left to go to the hearing would be discharged. As a result, all but Hicks and Johnson chose not to honor their subpenas. Again on December 15, when Johnson sought permission to leave the plant to attend the hearing with Hicks, she was told by Brooks that they could go if their names were on the list but that they could not leave the plant otherwise. Brooks must have known that at that time there were no names on the list and that his response effectively denied them permission to leave. They chose not to leave. Thus, at the time that Hicks and Johnson were called to the hearing, there had been substantial interference with employee rights and Board processes.`' When Hicks and Johnson ultimately left the mill to attend the hearing, they did not go at their own request. L7 Wtnn-Dixie Stores, Inc , 128 NLRB 574, 579 = Duralite Co , Inc , 128 NLRB 648, 652. t" Insofar as the record shows , apart from Hicks , Johnson, and company representatives , the only other persons who attended 795 Rather after they had abandoned their efforts to attend the hearing, they were told by Duckworth to leave work in a hurry and go immediately to the courthouse. Before leaving the plant, they cleaned their machines and left it in readiness for the next shift. Nothing was said at the time by Duckworth about returning, and nothing was said to them after the hearing was over by any other management official about going back to work. In these circumstances, it is necessary to balance the rights of the employees to respond to subpenas and the public interest in the protection of Board processes against the interests of the Respondent advanced in support of the discharges. In this case, the nature of the employee and public rights to be protected, as well as the prior interference with the rights not only of Hicks and Johnson but of a number of other subpenaed employees, require that a particularly strong case be made before they may be deemed to be outweighed. For the prior interference leaves it likely that the discharges of Hicks and Johnson will appear to the other subpenaed employees as an extension of the interference with their rights to attend the hearing and will further inhibit them in future exercise of their statutory rights. On the facts as they appear from the record, I do not find that Respondent's interests were such as to outweigh the rights to be protected Buchanan testified that he considered Hicks' and Johnson's failure to return to work as equivalent to walking off the job, for which Respondent discharged employees. Whether or not Buchanan so viewed their conduct, contrary to Buchanan's stated view, there is a difference between a failure to return after an excused departure and walking out of the plant without permission. In the latter case, management has no notice of the departure and is given no opportunity to make necessary arrangements to compensate for the absence of the missing employee at his unattended work station. Such an absence may result in leaving equipment operating but unattended. In the case of failure to return from an excused absence, however, management has had notice of an employee's departure and may plan accordingly. In a case such as this where the duration of the temporary business cannot be anticipated, there is notice at the time the absence starts that it may be for the remainder of the shift. The indefiniteness of the anticipated length of absence was accentuated in this case by the circumstances under which Hicks and Johnson left. Indeed, the circumstances of this case leave in substantial doubt whether Hicks' and Johnson's conduct may be validly compared with failure to return from temporary leave granted at an employee's request. For here Hicks and Johnson did not leave at their own request but upon instruction from Duckworth which contained no stated limitations as to duration. The failure of Hicks and Johnson to return to the plant, if at all improper, is at worst more akin to common absenteeism than to any other breach of discipline. It is not analogous to any serious disciplinary breach which in ordinary industrial practice would be readily accepted as cause for the maximum disciplinary penalty on the basis of a single offense 30 Moreover, even assuming that Respondent had good economic cause to seek to prevent more than five employees from leaving to attend the hearing on the hearing were Rainey , the international representative of the Union, Burleson, who had previously been discharged, and Joe Ray Buchanan , who was not otherwise identified on the record 311 Cf Marshall Maintenance Corp , 145 NLRB 538, 545-546. 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December 13, there is no evidence to show that any serious consequences ensued from the loss of less than 2 hours' production on the machines operated by Hicks and Johnson. Accordingly, under all the circumstances of this case, including particularly Respondent's prior interference with Board processes and the rights of employees to attend the hearing pursuant to subpena, as well as the absence of any explicit instruction to Hicks and Johnson to return to work after the hearing, I conclude that the rights to be protected by the Act outweigh any interests of Respondent served by the discharges of Hicks and Johnson and that the discharges therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, I find it unnecessary to decide whether, as the complaint in Case 11-CA-3216 also alleges, their discharges additionally violated Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. 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 its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Respondent violated the Act by discharging Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson on December 16, 1966, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and to make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their discharges by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages from December 16, 1966, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings, to which is to be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accordance with the formula set forth inF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent , Newland Knitting Mills, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3' 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 3. By creating the impression that the union activities of employees were under surveillance by Respondent, by threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals for participating in Board proceedings or engaging in union activities, and by interfering with employee rights by discharging employees Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson, as found above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that Respondent, Newland Knitting Mills, Newland, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Conveying to employees the impression that their union activities are under surveillance. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals for participating in Board proceedings or engaging in union activities. (c) Discharging employees under circumstances which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to participate in Board proceedings. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson- immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make them whole for any loss they may have suffered by reason of their discharges in the manner set forth in the section of the above Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the above-named employees if 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 the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Newland, North Carolina, place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. -31 Copies of said notice, to be furnished 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 " NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.32 I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaints otherwise be dismissed insofar as they allege violations of the Act not heretofore remedied by the Recommended Order. '2 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 you that: WE WILL NOT convey to employees the impression that their union activities are under surveillance. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or other reprisals for participating in Board proceedings or eng Bing in union activities. WE WILL offer to Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without 797 prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and WE WILL make them whole for any loss they may have suffered as a result of their discharges. WE WILL NOT discharge employees under circumstances which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to participate in Board proceedings. 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 Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities. Dated By NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify the above-named employees if 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 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.