Albertdon Mfg., Co.

Al BERTSON MANUtFACTURING COMPANY Albertson Manufacturing Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFIL-CIO. Cases 15-CA 6211 and 15 CA 6211 2 June 1. 1978 DECISION AND ORI)ER BY CI. RMI sN FANNIN(i AND) Mi 111tRS Jt SKINS ANI) m[ ! PMl' On January 10, 1978, Administrative L.aw Judge James M. Fitzpatrick issued the attached Dlecision in this proceeding. Thereafter. the Respondent filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief: the General ('ounsel filed limited exceptions and a brief in support of ex- ceptions as well as a brief in support of the Decision: and the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings. findings., and conclusions of the Administrative I.ax Judge. as modified herein, and to adopt his recommended O()r- der. We agree with the Administrative I aw Judge that it is highly improbable that a fair election could be conducted among the Respondent's cmplo\ees in view of the Respondent's serious unfair labor prac- tices which included extensive conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1 I) and discrimination against five em- ployees in violation of Section 8( a )(3). In the circum- stances, union authorization cards are the most reli- able indication of the desires of the Respondent's employees concerning representation. As the Admin- istrative Law Judge found, the l'nion had secured authorization cards from a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit by the time it dermanded rec- ognition on July 27. 1976. The Respondent. which had embarked upon a course of unfair labor prac- tices on May 28. 1976, refused the Union's demand. We agree with the Administrative l.aw Judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(S) by its refusal to recognize the Union on and after July 27, 1976. NWe disagree, however, with his view that the Respon- dent's bargaining obligation arose on June 3. 1976. when the Union first acquired majority status. As the Union did not request recognition until Julv 27. 1976, and the Respondent's other unfair labor prac- tices are remedied by our Order herein. we find that the Respondent's bargaining obligation arose as of that dcate. rtadling Port, hr.. 219 NL.RB 298 (1975) (Membher Fanning concurring). See also John G. .Ahr;Ae/I &d, Sons, Inc.. 232 NLRB 140 (1977): ,ood1l- line, Inc.' lars.hall/ H1'od an Individual. Marshall W ood d b a Fort Smith (Cartaie 'Conpany and Carter Iruck Line, Inc.. 231 NL.RB 863 (1977);: rTalor Bros., Inc.. 230 NL RB 861 (1977): Farah Supermarket.l Inc , d h a lleal Processors of Green Bar, 228 NL RB 984 (1977): Drug Packar(te ( om/tanr, Inh., 228 NLRB 108 (1977) (Members Fanning and Jenkins concur- ring in part and dissenting in part).2 ORDER PurIsuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative l.aw Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent. Albertson Manufactur- ing (Company, Bunkie. ILouisiana. its officers agents. successors, and assigns. shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I , \ ie' 1 hl t Fil . in illt .ianmger )urnmil, ll coniduct lino erlipliee (i.]cn i.l i)LD lO.i thr ilnpres.wl he h.d. unio.n itollltCs itllie r surt.ill.n.ce OC- ctill rd hrll hc th eek of .l luI, 19 76. rather Ihan onri Jine I a , i s;ited in the D)ct'll nll Ill IIitel l i C)t I , H. I. "Sullli,,ar, ,I I nallr Labhor Pratio es ( nparc [the foJll'o.ilo i ,.n s nhlch did nol ifin..c ,1ioltiolns .f Set. 8S t >t (,,lr~ ,tl hm a nd t1n , hae/ I4 i16 , 1 r a/1, t ( h tI/ t rtall I ,lnllid Pall n, 11/ i d h a lhl tt,.lbhn: I -pan. 211i Ni R B 8 t I 19'77 : BiHanagq, 1,-r NI RB I52 { Ii 77) and Htp' t't,,wr', I/n. , 1, , BeaA,,, Run ( ,a/ ( wipa n 1)h;, ,ho,,,n i1. 22S Ni Ri ', i4197'1 I \ICe hIl I .an le ,nom urring in palt D): ('ISION S I \1 I IMt % I ( 1 O I iI( ASF JAI'i.is M' FlIIZPAIRI(( Administrative L.aw Judge: This case is ahout a pajama factory where the plant manager admittedly interfered with employees during a union orga- nizing campaign. The disputed issues are whether he and his assistant further interfered with employees and also dis- criminated against four of them and one applicant for em- ployment for the purpose of discouraging interest in the tInion. As set out in greater detail below, I find Respon- dent did engage in these unfair labor practices and also unlaswfulls refused to bargain with the C'harging Part:. The case arises from charges filed September 13 and December 2. 1976 b h International Ladies' Garment NWorkers' I nion. AFI. CIO (herein the Union) against Al- bertson Mlanufacturing Company (herein Respondent). Based thereon a complaint issued on December 23 aIlleging that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and 15) of the National l.abor Relations Act. as amended (the Act. Re- II ,l iita htrtin aIre it ] Iq'? unl¢er ' f lhe riale Indlic.l.ted 236 NLRB No. 67 663 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent answered, admitting the jurisdictional allega- tions, the identity of the Union, the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, the Union's request for recognition and bargaining and Respondent's refusal thereof, its refusal to hire one applicant for employment, and its discharge of four employees. Respondent denied specific allegations of interference with employee rights, the allegations of dis- crimination respecting the applicant for employment and the four discharged employees. and the allegation that the Union was the designated representative of a majority of the employees. The issues posed were heard before me at Marksville, Louisiana, on February 28 and March 7 through 11, 1977. On May 13, 1977, the General Counsel moved to reopen the record, consolidate the matter with another complaint, and schedule further hearing. By Order of June 21, 1977, the motion was denied. On May 23, 1977, Respondent re- quested a 6-month moratorium in the present matter. That request was denied on August 17, 1977. Based on the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, the arguments of counsel, and consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Union, I make the following: FINI)IN(iS oi FA(r I [HE FMPIOYER Respondent, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sullcraft Manufacturing Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania corpora- tion, is engaged at Bunkie, Louisiana, in the manufacture and sale of pajamas and other garments. During the 12 months preceding issuance of the instant complaint, a pe- riod representative of its operations, Respondent pur- chased and received at its plant in Bunkie directly from points outside Louisiana goods and materials valued in ex- cess of $50,000 and shipped from that plant directly to points outside Louisiana goods valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent's plant at Bunkie is managed by Plant Man- ager Charles Dummit assisted by Assistant Plant Manager Ozro Hatten and Floor Supervisor Carolyn Marcotte. Re- spondent's executive vice president, Max Pinhas, is inter- mittently at the plant. II THE LABOR ORGANIZAtION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III liti AL.E ;EI) UNFAIR LA BOR PRAC TIC(ES A. The Organizing Campaign Respondent has operated its Bunkie plant since 1969. t1 has always been a nonunion operation. For the purpose of the present proceeding, the parties agree, and I find, that all employees at the Bunkie plant, excluding office cleri- cals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. In earl) May, the Union commenced organizing among Respondent's employees. The first activity was in the form of house calls by Union Representative Mason London to employees Ella Jenkins and Doris Peterson. 2 More collec- tive activity occurred on the evening of Thursday, May 27, when nine employees gathered at the home of employee Savannah Roberts to meet with Mason London. The meet- ing on Thursday at Roberts' house was followed by a larger gathering on Sunday, May 30. at St. Anthony's Gym in Cottonport, Louisiana. Approximately 19 or 20 employ- ees attended this meeting. Thereafter numerous additional meetings were held at St. Anthony's Gym. At these meetings, and beginning with the small collec- tion at the home of Savannah Roberts on May 27, the subject of union representation was discussed and blank union authorization cards were passed out and signed by those interested. Additional cards were taken by some em- ployees for the purpose of soliciting signatures of others. This further solicitation occurred at the plant, in the plant parking lot, in automobiles while traveling to and from work, and at employees' homes. On July 26. the Union, having garnered what it believed to be authorizations from a majority of the employees, in- formed Respondent that it represented a majority and re- quested a meeting for the purpose of collective bargaining. Respondent refused and since has persisted in that refusal, claiming a good-faith doubt that the Union represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. B. The Impression of Surveillance on May 28 It is undisputed that, sometime after the gathering at Roberts' house, Respondent's plant manager, Charles Dummit, stopped by Roberts' machine while she was working at the plant and, according to him, grinned at her and said, "Savannah. I understand that you had a nice party the other night?" She replied, "I sure did." He then walked on. The General Counsel contends this brief conversation occurred the day after the gathering at Roberts' home. I so find based on the testimony, of Roberts corroborated by the testimony of Catherine Woods whose work station was about 3 feet away from Roberts. The meeting at Roberts' home would have been a significant event for her which she likely would recall accurately. She related her conver- sation with Dummit to that meeting and placed it as occur- ring the following morning at 7 a.m. Woods' corroborative testimony to the effect that the conversation occurred the day after the gathering at Roberts' house is somewhat weakened by her written pretrial statement given to a union business representative to the effect that the conver- sation with Dummit occurred on May 31 which was the following Monday. However, her best recollection at the time of the hearing was that it was the day after the meet- ing. Dummit testified that his earliest knowledge of any union activity was on the evening of Friday, May 28, and that he did not learn of the meeting at Roberts' house until Broth Jenkins and Peterson are alleged In the complaint to have later been the victims (of discrimination 664 ALBERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY or about Wednesday the second of June when so informed by employee Jean Pugier. Pugier did not testify. I do not credit Dummit's recollection principally because I think he had a lot more on his mind during the general period in question and many more events to recall than did Roberts. Accordingly, her testimony seems the more credible. In ad- dition, she was positive regarding the time :vhen the con- versation occurred while Dummit could only approximate the time when he first learned about the meeting at her house. The General Counsel contends that, in engaging in this conversation with Roberts. Dummit created the impression of surveillance of union activity and thereby committed an unfair labor practice forbidden by Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. I agree and so find. I also find Dummit unlawfully interrogated her. The evidence does not indicate any strong intent on Dummit's part to coerce Roberts, the brief ex- change appearing to have been in good humor. Neverthe- less, it was none of his business whether employees had gathered at her home to discuss union representation. and his inquiry to her at her work station within hearing of her fellow workers necessarily interfered with her rights and those of other employees which are guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Such an interference was an unfair labor prac- tice proscribed byv Section 8(a}( I) of the Act. C. The MaIl .31 Speech As already noted, a small group of employees met with a union representative at Roberts' house on the night of Thursday, May 27, which was followed by a meeting of a somewhat larger group at St. Anthony's G\ym in (otton- port on Sunday, May 30. According to plant manager Dummit, he received an anonymous telephone call on the evening of Friday. May 28, to the effect that union authori- zation cards were being solicited in the plant. I'he follow- ing Monday morning. May 31. a few minutes before start- ing time, he observed clusters of employees talking on the plant floor. At starting time they did not immediately sit down and begin to work. Dummit then went to his office where, instead of directing employees to start work, he in- structed the receptionist to call all employees into the fin- ishing department. In the meantime he made some notes on a sheet of paper. When all were assembled, D)ummit addressed them while holding the sheet of paper in his hand. He testified that his purpose in calling the meeting was because the employees had not commenced to work at the normal time. However. he did not refer to this in his remarks. His testi- mony as to what he said is as follows: I stressed the point that their production had been up, I was very well pleased with that. I made reference to our quality, to the satisfactory. I stressed all these points. I covered the normal things that I normally would, and at this point I said that I understand there is possibly some activity going on in this building and I stressed very emphatically that I did not want a union. I was not going to tolerate it. I stated that if anybody is not satisfied with the working conditions here now, leave at once, or words to that effect. I defi- nitels said that you can leave anytime that you want to. . . I proceeded on, possibly I used my hands occa- sionally, put my hands up, I said I could probably name all the people involved in this, and [sic] both my hands. This the terminology that I used. I don't recall too much anything else I did, I did it off the top of my hat . . . I don't know what else I said, decided to stress, but I didn't want, I do, yes. I definitely said before I'll let a union come in here and try to run this factor). I will close it. I further find that in the course of his speech Dummit indicated that 19 employees and 2 leaders were trying to organize the Union in the plant. He held the paper in his hand in such a way as to convey to his listeners the impres- sion that he knew the identity of those persons. He also used the term "troublemakers" in reference to the union leaders. And he also indicated that everyone would learn the identity of those persons because within 2 weeks they)' would be all gone: that management "was going to live on their backs'." I find that by this threatening and coercive speech Dum- mit violated Section 8(a)( 1 ) in a number of ways. His state- ment that he would not tolerate a union was a generalized threat of future interference and coercion of employees for exercising their rights. His invitation to union supporters to resign was likewise calculated to interfere with and coerce employees with respect to their protected rights as was his threat to close the plant, his equating union leaders with troublemakers, his threat to constructively discharge union supporters by living on their backs, and his conveying the impression that he knew who attended the union meetings. D. The Talk With Dobroc on June I Glenda Dubroc. employed by Respondent as a bundle girl, testified credibly, and I find, that on June 1, the day following Dummit's first speech to employees, he called her into his office for a conversation lasting 20 to 30 min- utes. According to Dubroc the following occurred: He asked me if I had signed a card and I told him yes. fie asked me who I had gotten the cards from and I told him that I couldn't tell him that. He asked me who else had signed the cards and I told him Darlene Armand. He told me my job could be in jeopardy for signing that card. * . , $ * He told me that bundle girls were being trained to be supervisors but that I could forget about that. [)ubroc also testified that later that same week Dummit told her he had gotten information that she had been a head of the union pushers to get into the plant. Still later in June. Dubroc was called to Dummit's office a third time. On this occasion he told her that the NAACP was behind the ladies pushing for the Union and indicated in sub- stance that the black employees were pushing to have a I)uminit did not admit It these hisl comments, I base mS findings on a tomposilc If the credited ceslinns ,f I)orls Calbert, Willie Lee Reynolds. Joce Briadle. . Meriln [ lnieno.. Dojris Pcterson. Doris Hurts. and Ella Jen- kinl., all cnmplil.ccs aho ,. cice present. 665 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD black supervisor appointed but that he was not about to give them one. Dummit himself testified that he asked Dubroc to talk with him and that in the conversation he told her he under- stood she was soliciting union cards. According to him, she explained that all she did was sign a card but had since changed her mind. Dummit told her he had always had the highest respect for her and that this would jeopardize her future, her getting to be a supervisor. He denied accus- ing her of starting the Union. Both Dummit and Dubroc agree that she told him she had been accused by other employees of talking to him about union activity. Accord- ing to him, he asked the names of those who had accused her but she refused to say. Insofar as Dummit's version of their talks differs from Dubroc, I credit her because he had talks with 25 to 35 employees and I think her particular conversations would be more firmly impressed in her memory than in his. I find that, in talking with Dubroc, Dummit violated Section 8(a)( 1) by interrogating her about her union activi- ties and the activities of others, by warning her that her job and her promotion prospects were jeopardized by her hav- ing signed a union card, by accusing her of being a union pusher, and by giving her the impression that union activi- ties were under surveillance as well as the activities of an- other organization supporting the Union and the aspira- tions of black employees. E. Ihe June 2 Speech On Wednesday, June 2, Dummit again called the em- ployees together for a second speech, this one involving the ladies' restroom. Management seems to have had mixed motives in calling this assembly. Assistant Plant Manager Ozro Hatten testified that, based on his years of experience in the garment industry, he suspected that union authoriza- tion cards were being signed in the ladies' restroom. Plant Manager Dummit testified that he had received complaints about the filthy condition of the ladies' restroom and the inability of some employees to get into the restroom. His inspection as a result of the complaints revealed that there was no toilet tissue available and that the place was indeed filthy, in part because of a failure by some to use contain- ers provided for disposal of sanitary napkins. According to Duniummit, he told the assembled employees in his June 2 speech that there was too much visiting in the ladies' restroom, that it was messy and filthy, that in 3 days they had used up 2 months supply of toilet tissue which would require rationing of that item, and that if all this activity did not cease during working time he would put a microphone in the restroom and tell everybody what was going on.4 He also announced the fact that police were outside the plant. In one of his speeches (I find it was the June 2 speech) Dummit announced there would be no further solicitation of any type in the plant. Historically, various types of soli- 4 According to his listeners, whomn I credit. he did not merels threaten to put a nmicrophone in the ladies' restroornm in the future. Rather, he indicated one had already been installed. thus indicating thes already were under surseillance. I hase this finding on the credited testirnons of Josce Hradles. Merlin F ontenot. Dorls Peterson, and Ella Jenkins. citing had gone on during nonworking time. Dummit him- self often had sold various items including clothing and old school desks. Others sold Avon products, Sarah Coventry jewelry, and even garden produce. Collections were taken up for various worthy causes. All of these were banned in this speech. After a time, however, the exact point being unclear in the record, solicitations of various sorts recom- menced. No word issued, however, that solicitation for union purposes would be allowed, and, in view of the ob- vious managerial animosity toward unionism, the no-solici- tation rule respecting union solicitations appeared to con- tinue in effect. Based on the foregoing, I find that the no-solicitation rule announced about June 2 was instituted for the purpose of thwarting union organizing efforts. It was overly broad in that it banned all solicitations, even during nonworking time, and it was disparately applied against union activity from the time that other solicitations were allowed. In sum, on June 2 Dummit violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression of surveillance of union activity in the ladies' restroom and by announcing an ille- gally broad no-solicitation rule which subsequently was discriminatorily left in effect. I do not find that the an- nouncement of local police presence outside the plant was unlawful because the record is inadequate to establish the reason for their presence or whether Respondent was re- sponsible for their presence. I also find insufficient evi- dence to sustain the complaint's allegation that in his June 2 speech Dummit told employees to forget the Union as it would not be allowed in the plant. F. The Arresr of June 2 [)oris Peterson and her daughter Doris Hurts were both employed at the plant. On June 2, the same day Dummit made his second speech, Mack Arthur Hurts, the husband of Doris Hurts, drove to the plant just prior to the end of the afternoon shift for the purpose of picking up his moth- er-in-law, Doris Peterson. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hurts and Peterson are black. During that week and the week that followed, police for the city of Bunkie were parked at the plant on company property. After arriving in the plant parking lot, Mack Arthur Hurts waited a few minutes in his automobile and then entered the front lobby where he told the receptionist he would like to speak with "Mr. Dummy." After determining that he meant the plant manager, the receptionist went for Dummit who came out to the lobby to talk with him. There is some dispute as to what was said in the conversation, but Dummit testified without contradiction, and I find, that starting from the door of the secretary's office into the lob- by he and Hurts moved across the lobby to a desk on which Dummit sat while they conversed. He then proceed- ed back to the door to the secretary's office with Hurts following him, then reversed his direction and went to the outside door of the lobby exiting to the front parking lot where he held the door opened while he and tlurts went out. As the conversation began, Dummit asked Hurts what he could do for him and whether he wished to file an appli- cation. According to Hurts, he said "No." that he had a job 666 Al.BERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY already, and that he had come in to ask about some sup- posed vandalism and the presence of the police. 5 I infer that at this point the two were either across the lobby or walking across the lobby and were beyond earshot of the receptionist or the office secretary. Hurts testified further: He (Dummit) told me no. that ain't the reason whN they are down here. He said he wanted to the son-of- a-bitches that are trying to get the Union in here and he told me-I told him, you've got me all wrong. I ain't down here about no union. lie said, but I've heard you've been having those meetings at your house and stuff. And he said that before this hap- pened I thought very highly of your wife and I thought she was one of the nicest persons I have ever met. But now she is nothing but a troublemaker. I told him that I had nothing to do with the meeting. I had a job and I am in a Union . . . he says you and your wife are going to be sorry that you ever tried to get the union in here. He said that he was going to get my wife. He was going to get her. And so I told him I didn't come down here for no union or nothing like that I just come down to ask you about the vandalism. He asked me. he knew that me and my wife were one of the son-of- a-bitches that were trying to get the Union in here and said that I am going to get you both and he asked me to please leave. I got up and was walking out of the door, I told him. I said, really you've got me all wrong. I came out here, I didn't come out here to ask you about no union I just came down here about vandal- ism. He told me then that he had been involved in the Union before and that he was from Missouri and that you have to show him. By then he called the two po- lice-he pushed the door open wide and called the two policemen and he said arrest him. He told the police to arrest me for trespassing. I credit Hurts until his second reference to "son-of-a- bitches." The testimony of the office girls indicates the, heard loud talking but heard no profanity. Hurts' account seems to eliminate any conversation near the secretary's office and in this regard it is inconsistent with the office girls' testimony. Both Hurts and Dummit agree that early in the conversation Hurts inquired about vandalism and the police presence. That would have been a logical time for Dummit to explain why the police were there. Earlier that day he had told the assembled employees that they were present. Other evidence in the record indicates that the police presence coincided with the initial 2 weeks' of the Union's organizing campaign. With these circumstanc- es I credit Hurts' account of Dummit's denial that the po- lice were present because of vandalism, but there is still no satisfactory evidence of how they happened to be at the plant or who was responsible for their presence. Dummit testified that he only told Hurts that vandalism and the presence of the police were none of his concern, but of course they obviously were of concern to him as a relative of two employees. In his account Dummit also Hurts also testified that his wife had pre.iousls told hin abhout alleged vandalism and the presence of the police ai the plant. and he w.as ioncerned about her parking in the lot under those Ircumnstances seemed to be broad brushing. As he explained: I was tired, and worn out after a day . . . . I don't recall exactly what he [Hurtsl said, but he kept refer- ring back, wondering what the police was doing up there, and I said this was none of his concern. In the circumstances I find Hurts' recollection to be the more accurate insofar as Dummit's references to the Union and union supporters are concerned. Such remarks are also consistent with the content of his first speech to employees 2 days earlier. According to Dummit, whom I credit in this respect be- cause he is corroborated by the testimony of the two office clericals," he was talking with Hurts at the desk on the far side of the lobby. He got up from the desk and walked over toward the entrance to the secretary's office with Hurts following and asking him: You are from Missouri aren't you? And I said yes. He says, you don't understand the problems in the south, and proceeding on he said, to the fact, that I'm a union member. He says, I see nothing wrong with it. I said, Mr. Hurts, I don't care to discuss it with you, in fact, I wasn't discussing the situation with you, and I took a step or two away and he says, you really don't understand how much good can be done for the black people down here. I said, Mr. Hurts, I have done more good for Blacks than you'll ever know. You'll never realize what I've done, and probably . .. I said prob- ably there's a lot of other things I've done but that you, for Blacks, that you will never know, but this is a fact, and he says, what are the police doing out there. I said Mr. Hurts, please leave the building. He made no attempt to. I said, I would like you to leave the building. I turned around, took another two or three steps, took a couple of steps into the main office, and he walked in behind me, and he still wanted to contin- ue the conversation. So, I turned around, and he was almost in the actual door itself and I walked in, walked back out towards the door and I said, Mr. Hurts, please leave the building .... As this was happening the two were walking back across the lobby to the front door. Dummit opened the front door and they both went out. At that point a policeman was coming across the lawn. According to Dummit, The policeman said to Mr. Hurts, he says, leave the property. I said, no, I want him arrested. He said, what for? And I said, for creating a disturbance, be- cause I felt that he was in my own mind creating a disturbance plus this union activity just commenced. I didn't want husbands coming up there trying to create problems every time something might come up, and this is the way I felt in my own mind.7 The complaint alleges that Dummit committed an 8(a)(1) violation by causing the arrest of Hurts in order to discourage the union activity of employees. Dummit's own testimony, in addition to the other credited testimony re- IThe receptlonisl. (ora Ann Kennedy, and the secretary. Judy Moreau. Hurts was booked for trespassing He In turn filed a complaint against Dummlt for false arrest They were tried together and both were acquItted 667 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD specting the contents of his conversation with Hurts, and the whole context of events adequately establish the allega- tion, and I so find. If Dummit only wanted Hurts to leave as he claims, the police could and would have accom- plished that without an arrest; but Dummit intervened to cause an unnecessary arrest to be made. Although Hurts did not leave when first asked to, his conduct did not indi- cate he would oppose leaving. He followed Dummit all around the lobby and eventually to, and out, the front door. He was then out and did not try to get back in. The complaint also alleges that Dummit committed 8(a)(1) violations by accusing Hurts of supporting the Union, indicating that his wife was suspected of supporting the Union, that he was going to get her, and that they both would be sorry they supported the Union. I so find. There is no doubt that, in making the statements he did to a close relative of two employees, Dummit threatened, coerced. and restrained employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. G. The June 4 Speech On Thursday, June 3, Dummit belatedly obtained legal advice regarding the union campaign. On Friday, June 4, he again assembled the employees and this time read his speech to them. The complaint alleges that in this third speech he committed further unfair labor practices in that he stated he had already made his position clear on the union issue and thereby reaffirmed illegal threats and statements previously made. The portion of his speech to which this allegation relates is as follows: Now. I think I've made my point absolutely clear about the Union. But, so there's no doubt in anybody's mind, let me repeat it. WE DO NOT WANI T[IE UN[ON iN TiIS PL.ANI WE A Ri 1,(X' PI R CENi AGAINST Tlh UNION GETtIN(G IN IIERE While it is true that this statement asserts that he had already made his point about the Union clear and was repeating it, the complete statement does not amount to a reaffirmation or readoption of prior unlawful statements because Dummit went on then to state the Company's po- sition. That statement was a general one of strong opposi- tion to the Union which on its face is not unlawful; and, although Dummit did not withdraw any of the specific and unlawful statements he had earlier made, neither did he reaffirm them by this antiunion generalization so that it can be said he was reasserting them by reference. The General Counsel does not contend that any other part of the speech was unlawful. As already noted, Dum- mit read the speech, his only ad-lib occurring at the conclu- sion when he said the Company would not close the plant or leave Bunkie. With respect to the June 4 speech, I find that a prepon- derance of the evidence does not sustain the allegation of the complaint involved, and it should be dismissed accord- ingly. H. The Termination of Loraine Meche on June 10 Loraine Meche was first hired on May 4. She was termi- nated June 10. The General Counsel contends she was ter- minated, and thereafter refused reemployment, because she supported the Union. Respondent denies this. Its posi- tion is that she was terminated because there was no work for her and was not rehired thereafter because she worked too sloswly. When first hired, she was employed on a trial basis to do heat transfer: that is, apply decorative decals to the back of garments by the use of heat. It was understood that be- cause she had sight in only one eve she would not he as- signed work involving sewing. The heat transfer work was for a special order, and Assistant Plant Manager Ozro Hat- ten told her that the assignment was not permanent. but he also told her there were other odd jobs around the plant to which she could be assigned and that she would be staning on. For the first 4 days after her hiring she worked at heat transfer. This was followed by 2 days on the button sewing machine, a job in the sewing department which was more or less automatic and placed no great strain on the eyes. After that, she was reassigned to heat transfer for 3 days and then back to the button sewing machine for a day. This was followed by a day divided between button sewing and heat transfer. The day following that, she was assigned for the first time to the job of turning. I'his involved taking the garments, which had been sewn while inside out, and turning them right-side-out using a blowing machine. This was followed by 2 days in the shipping department: then 4 days back on the button sewing maching: then a day divid- ed between button sewing and turning: another day divid- ed between inspection work, heat transfer, and turning: a day pressing, a day divided between pressing. heat transfer. and turning; another full day on heat transfer: and 4 full days on turning. At the end of this last dav, she was termi- nated. She obviously demonstrated a capacitN to perform a wide variety of nonsewing jobs. TIhe fact that she was reas- signed to several jobs more than once is persuasive evi- dence of adequate performance. About 2 weeks prior to June 10, Hatten had told her it looked as if he would have to let her go because jobs to which he could assign her were giving out: but, after that, he put her on the turning machine, indicating that assign- ment would be permanent. Until then another employee had been assigned to turning but had left, leaving that spot available.R The decision to lay off Meche apparently was jointly made by Hatten and Dummit. According to Dummit. they had run out of jobs for her to do. and he instructed Hatten to terminate her and to explain to her the reason why. Hatten also testified that the reason for terminating her was that they had no work for her in view of her limita- tions. There is no explanation in the record, however. why she could not have continued to have performed the turn- ingjob to which she was assigned during her last 4 days of work. At or about 2:45 in the afternoon of June 10, she was called into the office to talk with Hatten who told her that H;larten testified the permanenlt cnmplo!ee on turning ;cas Rlta Scalhrn. and he had been told she wuis awi temporarils and would return the fol- Ilowing , eek ]he recor d does not reeIl %hcther she reluined or Tnot 1 Iter. a new emplo,)ee. Mart Ann Nl)lauit. ai hired for turning Insledd of Meche ( onidecring that altten told Mleche her assignnicnl oii turning as pcrma- riel.t I do not credit his testailin, indicating he expecied Scalllnn To return 668 ALBERTSON MANUFACI URING COMPANY he was sorry. but there was no work left for her to do and he had to lay her off. In August, one of Meche's neighbors who worked in the shipping department talked to Hatten about rehiring her. indicating she needed the work. During the conversation, Hatten referred to her handicap and the fact that he could not assign her to all types of work. He told the neighbor that, if Meche talked with Dummit. Dummit might work it out. The neighbor thereafter talked with Meche, and on August 23 she appeared in the plant lobby seeking reem- ployment. At the same time, another girl, Mary Ann Dauz- it, was in the lobby being newly hired for the turning job. Meche also encountered Hatten in the lobb,, who con- firmed that she was being recalled for the turning job. In the mean time, the receptionist had asked Dummit if Meche was supposed to return to work. He came out of his office and asked her if she had been told to report for work. to which she replied she had. According to him, he knew nothing about it and went out into the plant to ask Hatten if he had told Meche to report for work. According to Dummit, Hatten indicated he had not called her, so Dummit returned to the lobby and told Meche there was some misun- derstanding, that no one had sent for her. but she could check back later. She then left. The General Counsel shows that Meche was a union supporter, having signed a union authorization card on May 27 at the meeting at Savannah Roberts' house. There- after, she herself obtained signatures from at least two other employees on union authorization cards. She was also one of the 19 or 20 employees present at the second meeting at St. Anthony's Gym on May 30. Both Dummit and Hatten denied that they knew she was a union supporter at the time she was terminated. I do not credit these denials. Management's attitude was verv an- tiunion and considerable effort had been made to find out who was involved with the union. Thus, Dummit knew of the meeting at Roberts' house attended b, only 9 employ- ees, including Meche: and in the course of his first speech to the employees on the topic of unionism he indicated that he knew of the May 30 meeting at ('ottonport, which Meche had attended. and knew that about 19 emploxces were present. In addition, the record shows he had numer- ous conversations with employees, many of which amount- ed to unlawful interrogations in which the union campaign and those who were involved in it were discussed. Consid- ering these facts, together with the numerous incidents in which Dummit violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, the in- ference is warranted, and I find, that he knew Meche was a union supporter at the time she was terminated on June 10. Respondent contends it had valid reason to terminate her in that it had no work for her to do, but the record is inadequate to establish firmly there was no work for her. Apparently she could have continued on, or have been re- called to, the turning job. Thus. Respondent's claimed rea- son for terminating her is not established. On the other hand, the strong antiunion position of the Company, the numerous other unfair labor practices committed, and the knowledge that Meche was a supporter warrant the infer- ence, and I find, that her union activity motivated manage- ment to terminate her on June 10. Subsequent to her termination. Respondent hired a number of additional employees. Most of these appear to have been hired for sewing jobs for which Meche was not qualified. tHowever. she was qualified for the turning job as well as a number of others. Even allowing for the fact that she was in need of work and undoubtedly eager for a job, it is established that some sort of message was conveyed to her through her neighbor which caused her to report to the lobby on August 23. Hatten admits talking to the neighbor and. although his testimony does not indicate that a clear-cut message was sent to Meche, nothing in his testimony about theconversation indicates that hegave the neighbora message of rejection. Assuming, therefore, that the neighbor gave Meche at least the idea that there might be work available. it seems reasonable for her to have reported on August 23 with at least the hope of being hired. But instead a new applicant without experience was hired to perform the turning job. According to Hatten, Meche was not even considered because her production when she had worked the job had not been adequate. I do not credit his testimony in this respect. Prior to June 10, she had been put on the turning job several times, which would not have occurred had her production been unsatis- factory. Respondent's evidence, aimed at showing that by comparison with others her work was inadequate, is not persuasive because it relates to two longtime employees and to work done at a different period of time. In any case. the statistics respecting the performance of Meche seem to be fairl, within the ballpark. Moreover, poor production was not a motivating factor in her June 10 layoff. The sequence of events respecting Meche's effort to be reemployed shows that she came in responding to informa- tion indirectly obtained from Hatten and then was denied reemployment by Dummit on the grounds there had been a misunderstanding. while at the time he was hiring a new and inexperienced employee for turning. These circum- stances are just too suspicious. In view of management's antiunion attitude and its other unfair labor practices. a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the reason Meche was not considered for the turning job, and a new unknown quantity employee was hired instead, was be- cause Dummit wished to gamble the new applicant would not be a union supporter. Accordingly. I find that both on the occasion of her termination on June 10 and on the occasion of her refusal for reemployment on August 23 Respondent discriminated against Meche in order to dis- courage union activity and in so doing violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. 1. 17C lTermination of Merlin Fontenot on June 16 Merlin Fontenot was hired in May 1970 as a sewing machine operator. Her last day of work was June 16. Her sister Doris Calbert was also a longtime employee of Respondent. Both were active in the union campaign, Fon- tenot having signed a union authorization card on May 28 and having attended union organizing meetings including the meeting at St. Anthony's Gym on May 30 about which Dummit spoke in his first speech. In that speech Dummit indicated that he had the names of 19 employees and 2 leaders who attended the meeting. f ontenot testified without contradiction that on her last 669 DECISIONS OF NATIONAl LABOR RELATIONS BOARD day at work, June 16, shortly after 7 a.m., Dummit came by her machine and offered to inform her about a meeting held the night before. Shortly after 10 a.m., while Calbert was in the office being reprimanded for causing a disturbance, Carolyn Marcotte, floor supervisor in the sewing department, passed by Fontenot's machine. Fontenot asked her what her sister was doing in the office. Marcotte told her that it was no concern of hers. The two exchanged sharp words. As a result, after Calbert left the office, Marcotte went in to complain to Dummit about their verbal exchange. In the meantime, Calbert, having left the office after a session with Dummit lasting about 45 minutes, came by Fontenot's work station to tell her something about what had transpired. In the process, she gave Fontenot the idea that she was next. In the office, Dummit, in the company of Executive Vice President Max Pinhas, heard the complaints of Marcotte about Fontenot. He had the receptionist call Fontenot to come to the office over the plant intercom. She heard the message while still at her machine but did not respond. 1 find she was upset by the knowledge that her sister had been on the carpet in the office for an extended time, by her interchange with Marcotte, and by her reasonable ap- prehension that she too would be reprimanded. Instead of immediately reporting to the office, she went to the ladies' restroom where she took some medication to settle her nerves. While she was in the restroom (according to Pinhas about 2 to 3 minutes after she was first called to the office), Dummit had her paged again. I find she did not hear this second call. A few minutes after the second call. Fontenot still not having reported to the office, Dummit himself went out to the plant floor to find out why. He met her as she emerged from the restroom and complained to her about not report- ing to the office when paged. She pleaded she was too nervous and upset to talk with him. They proceeded to- ward her work station at the front of the plant floor. lie repeated his direction to come to the office. Instead, she sat down at her machine. Pinhas then joined Dummit, and they both told her to go to the office, but she did nothing. Pinhas then inquired if she would talk with him at her machine, and she indicated she would. At that point Dum- mit intervened, telling her to either report to the office or leave the building. Without further interchange, she picked up her personal belongings and left the plant. Fontenot considered herself discharged. She made no further efforts to report to work or to inquire when she could return. The Company sent her her final paycheck 3 days later. Pinhas, on the other hand, testified that she was not fired. Dummit denied any intention to take action against her other than to find out from her what the proh- lem was. I find she was discharged at that time. In addition to the fact that she considered herself discharged, the evidence shows that Dummit in fact found out why she had not responded to his call to the office. She told him she was too nervous and upset. The testimony of Pinhas and his move to talk to her at her machine confirm this. In spite of this, Dummit pressed the matter by issuing his ultimatum. which in effect was to go to the office immediately or to get out. Considering that a short delay might have allowed her to settle down enough so management could proceed in a normal manner. Dummit's ultimatum can only be under- stood as an intentional move to get her out of the plant. This was done in such a manner that the employee reason- ably understood her employment was over, an under- standing which Respondent thereafter confirmed by send- ing her final check. Dummit and Pinhas denied any knowledge of Fontenot's support of the Union, hut I do not credit these denials because these events occurred in the context of strong employer hostility toward the Union and numerous and serious unfair labor practices aimed at thwarting em- ployee organizing efforts. On a number of occasions, Dum- mit equated union proponents with troublemakers. Fontenot's sister, Doris ('albert, who was very active in the organizing, was considered by Dummit to be one of two who started the union movement in the plant. A month after Fontenot's termination, in a conversation with em- ployee Darlene Ponthier in which the Union was the sole topic of conversation, Dummit referred to Calbert and Fontenot as troublemakers. A reasonable inference from these circumstances is that the union activity of Fontenot and of her sister, C('albert, substantially motivated Dummit in ordering Fontenot out of the plant. Even though her refusal to report to the office may also have played a part in his precipitous decision, the strong antiunion animus was one of the motivating factors and supports the conclu- sion that his action was unlawful. Gatewav Press, Inc., 220 NL RB 676. 682 (1975). Based on the foregoing, I find that as of June 16, Respondent terminated Fontenot in order to discourage membership in the Union. Even assuming. arwucndo, that management did not know of Fontenot's involvement with the Union, the rec- ord is clear that l)ummit knew of Calbert's as well as that of other employees. The circumstances shown in this rec- ord justify the conclusion that Fontenot was terminated because of emplohee union activity even if not her own. 71he Colonial Press, Inc.. 204 NLRB 852, 858 (1973); Vanel- Ia Buick Opcel Inc., 191 NLRB 805, 815 (1971). Moreover. all of the surrounding circumstances, particu- larly the sudden turning out of Fontenot, a longtime em- ployee. because of a minor problem, Respondent's hostility to the Union, and its antiunion campaign, including the many violations of Section 8(a)(1), make it apparent that Respondent's conduct respecting Fontenot was one of many steps in a campaign to discourage membership in the U'nion. Rosen Sanitarl Wiping Cloth Co., Inc., 154 NLRB 1185, 1187 (1965). N. R.B. v. C(ameo, Inc., 340 F.2d 803. 811 812 (( .A. 5, 196)., cert. denied 382 U.S. 926. J. The June (Convcrsation Kwith Deanna Jeansonne Deanna Jeansonne, employed by Respondent for 7 years and still employed at the time of the hearing, testified that sometime during the third or fourth week of June while she was working at her machine Assistant Plant Manager Hat- ten, who was at her machine checking her work, asked her if there had been any excitement that day. She responded, "No." Hatten then said that was not what he meant, and she inquired whether he was talking about the Union. He 670 ALBERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY indicated he was. She then informed him she was not aware of any activity. Hatten followed this with a sugges- tion that she was free to go to Dummit's office at any time and discuss it with him. In his testimony, Hatten repeatedly contradicted Jean- sonne. According to him, she was the one who brought up the Union, but he refused to discuss it with her, telling her instead to go see Dummit. He denied having any discus- sions with her regarding the Union, denied asking whether there was any union activity going on, and denied telling her Dummit wished to talk with her about the Union. His version of their interchange was that Jeansonne told him of some union activities and wanted to know what to do about it. He said he could not tell her what to do; that if she wanted information she should ask Dummit. On this conflict I credit Jeansonne because she testified in a forthright manner, she had long been an employee of Respondent, and she continued as an employee at the time of the hearing. It is unlikely she would have fabricated the essence of the conversation. Hatten, on the other hand, as assistant plant manager. would logically fall in step with the antiunion campaign spearheaded by the plant manager. Throughout the sum- mer Dummit made frequent efforts to collect intelligence about union activity. Jeansonne's version of the conversa- tion with Hatten fits in with that management pattern. She was a longtime employee, she was white," and management more likely would have sought assistance and intelligence from such an employee. The General Counsel contends, and I agree. that in his interchange with Jeansonne, Hatten violated Section 8(a)(1) by inquiring as to whether any union activity was going on and further by immediately following this inquiry with the suggestion that she could speak with the manager about it at any time, thereby in effect soliciting her to re- port information about union activity to the plant manag- er. K. The Conversation With Gail Marie Rot in Late June Gail Marie Roy testified without contradiction that in the last part of June another employee named Ruth Ann Green, who had signed a union authorization card then later regretted it and had gone to talk with Dummit about it, advised Roy that she too should talk with Dummit. Roy agreed she would, although she testified she really did not want to. Apparently the word got back to Dummit that Roy was willing to speak with him because Hatten then came out to her machine to tell her Dummit would see her in the office.' ° Notwithstanding any reservations she may have had, Roy went in to see Dummit. He talked to her about the Union, asking whether she had signed a union authorization card. She replied she had. He asked who had given it to her. She told him Savannah Roberts. He then said that he could not be for or against the Union and that 9 The record indicates D)ummit was not a.hoe fomenting racial strife in his efforts to stop the Union I0 During this same general period of time. aicordin Ito Rov mrans olher employees were called into the office. including almroqs all sho, had signed union authorization cards he was not mad at those who had signed cards; it was the ones that had passed them out. I find that on that occasion Dummit unlawfully interro- gated Roy about whether she had signed a union card and also about who had given it to her. I further find he also committed an unfair labor practice by indicating anger with those employees who passed out union authorization cards. To solicit others to join a union is a protected right under the Act. To, in effect, inform an employee that the exercise of that right angered management inevitably would inhibit the listening employee and anyone she might tell about the conversation in the exercise of that protected activity. Such conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It is no defense that Dummit may have believed that Roy desired, or at least was willing, to talk with him about the Union. Even an employee willingly discussing the sub- ject is entitled to the law's protection from interference and coercion by the employer with respect to her protected rights. Such statutory rights are not waived merely by the voluntary presence of an employee in the manager's office. Moreover, where, as here, the manager conducted an ex- tended program of employee interviews geared to combat- ting interest in collective bargaining, during many of which interviews he indulged in unlawful interference and coer- cion, true voluntariness of the employee's presence is hard to believe. In the circumstances, all employees, including Roy, necessarily understood that Dummit wanted to talk to them and that they risked his displeasure if they failed to make themselves available. L. The Conversation With Darlene Ponthier in June or July Darlene Ponthier had signed a union authorization card on May 28. As the organizing campaign warmed up. she became apprehensive over a growing division of opinion among the employees. not wanting as she said to be caught in the middle. She apparently changed her mind about wanting union representation and sometime in June or July voluntarily, or so she testified, went to see Dummit in his office intending to find out how she could revoke her authorization to the Union. However, she did not tell him why she had come but, according to his testimony, which I credit, she told him she had signed a card, that she did not want to, but was afraid not to. He told her she did not have to answer any questions he might put to her and that if she did not answer, she would not be fired. Then in the course of their conversation he asked who gave her the union card and where had she signed it. Ponthier told him Dorella Goheman had given her the card. Dummit wrote the name down. The name of Doris Peterson also came up and, ac- cording to Dummit, he received the impression that Pon- thier was afraid of Peterson. Ponthier credibly testified, and I find, that, in addition to Peterson, Dummit also men- tioned the names of others active in union organizing, in- cluding Hazel Knott, Mary Socia, and Savannah Roberts. As to Knott and Socia, he stated they were being paid by the Union to put it into the plant. He further added that Doris Calbert and her sister, Merlin Fontenot, had been causing trouble in the plant for a long time. Dummit denied he spoke of Calbert and Fontenot in those terms. I do not credit his denial because on other 671 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD occasions he had referred to "troublemakers" while dis- cussing union organizing. Further. according to him, Pon- thier assured him she wanted no part of the Union. and with a seemingly friendly listener he likely spoke more free- ly than if he had felt she was a union activist. There is no denying that when Ponthier approached Dummit, he was put in a delicate position. Nevertheless, in order for him to lend a sympathetic ear or to advise her on how to revoke an authorization card or to preliminarily explore whether she had been intimidated, it was not nec- essary to first query her about who solicited her, where she signed the card, and to note down the name of Goheman. This was really none of his business and, therefore, was in interference with employee rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Similarly, although he was perfectly free to talk about his views on unionism if such expressions were non- coercive, by mentioning a number of union activist and then indicating that two of them were being paid by the Union to organize the plant, he revealed to Ponthier a state of knowledge about union affairs from which she reason- ably could infer that he had these union activists under surveillance. For him to give her such an impression inter- fered with and coerced her respecting employee rights un- der the Act and violated Section 8(a)(1). M. The Antiunion Petition The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that dur- ing the period of June through October Dummit "allowed and encouraged" an employee to circulate and solicit dur- ing working hours the signatures of other employees on an antiunion petition. In support of this allegation, the General Counsel of- fered the testimony of Doris Calbert that in late June or July she observed employee Joyce Thibodeaux, who was known to be antiunion, approach two other women em- ployees with a paper. Later, Calbert asked one of these women, Ruby Ned, what it was. Ned replied that it was signing against the Union.1' Another black employee, Joyce Bradley, also testified credibly that one afternoon in late July or early August Thibodeaux inquired of her how she felt about the Union, for or against. On Bradley's reply that she did not know' enough about it, Thibodeaux suggested she talk with Dum- mit because they did not need a union in the plant. The next morning Thibodeaux again inquired of Bradley if she had thought about it. Bradley replied she would talk with Dummit. A short time later she was called to the office to speak with him. It is clear from this that Thibodeaux must have informed Dummit that Bradley would discuss the Union with him, and I infer that Thibodeaux's inquiries about how employees felt were either authorized by him in advance or ratified by him afterward. Bradley reported to the office when called.' 2 Dummit stated that he understood she wished to talk to him, to ' Neither Ned. the other woman. nor Thibodeaux was called to testifs 2 On July 26. which was about the time. or possibl shortl, beforer Brad- ley talked with I)ummit. the nion requested recognition fromn Respondent as the representative ,of its employees. Since then Respondent has reftused recognition. which she replied affirmativelys. The conversation contin- ued with Dummit's saying thev should be truthful with each other, to which Bradley agreed. He inquired if she had signed a union card. She replied she had. He then asked how she had gotten it, to which she responded that she did not remember. At this point, he said he probably had her name in a book on his desk and asked if she had gotten it from Peterson, Hurts. Socia, Knott. Jenkins, or Calbert. She indicated that could have been. He described the women mentioned as the people pushing for the Union. saying some may be here this (Christmas but none will be nt'e C(hristmas. Hie made disparaging remarks regarding certain union proponents including Roberts. Jenkins, So- cia. Knott, Peterson, and ('albert. He voiced his opinion that they did not need a union in the plant, and he told her she could pass the word that he would not be hiring any more blacks until the union mess was over because blacks started the trouble and were pushing the Union. He said he had good plans for the employees. that they had just missed a paid holiday. July 4, which they would have got- ten if the union campaign had not developed, and that he was working on getting them (Christmas as a paid holiday. Hle said he intended to enlarge and to employ more women in order to eliminate overtime work. Referring specifically to the Union. Dummit indicated it was corrupt. He said he knew everything the Union did since they were following a pattern with which he was fa- miliar. He further said he knew where the meetings were being held and who attended. lie also said he had employ- ees like Thibodeaux and another named Louise circulating procompany lists for employee signatures. Finally, he com- plimented Bradley and said he knew he could count on her. He then directed her to tell Hatten to put 2-1/2 hours on her production sheet and to sign it. ]Their conversation had lasted almost 2 hours. The followup to this occurred the next day when Thibo- deaux asked Bradlev if she had made up her mind for or against the Union. BradleN replied she had made up her mind for the C'ompans. Thibodeaux then asked her if she would sign a sheet of paper. She indicated she would and subsequentl? did so. l)ummit did not effectively contradict Bradley. He ad- mitted speaking with her and justified it on the grounds she voluntarily came to his office and asked him about the Union. Beyond that he recalled no specifics of the conver- sation, including nothing about hiring blacks or their part in starting the Union, but he agreed that there were rumors as to which race had started the organizing and agreed he might have discussed them with Bradley. He denied they mentioned Joyce Thibodeaux or talked about her circula- tion of an antiunion list. According to him, he did know such a list existed. He also denied saying that he was going to fire union proponents or that he had the names of union card signers. I credit the more detailed and affirmative ac- count of Bradley. Specifically respecting the antiunion activity of Thibo- deaux in arranging for employees to talk with Dummit and in circulating an antiunion list, I find the sequence of events involving Thibodeaux supports the finding that she engaged in those activities with the knowledge and appro- bation of management. 672 ALBERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY I further find that, during his long talk with Bradley, Dummit repeatedly violated Section 8(a)(1). He unlawfully interrogated her as to whether she had signed a union au- thorization card, as well as how she got it. and asked her if various individuals had given it to her. He also gave her the impression that union activities were under surveillance by saying he probably had her name in the book in his desk, by naming those he said were pushing the union. and by indicating he knew the location of union meetings and the identity of those attending. He unlawfully voiced the threat that a number of those union proponents would no longer be employed with Respondent a year from the coming Christmas. He also voiced the threat, and asked her to cir- culate it, that he would not hire black applicants for em- ployment so long as the union campaign continued be- cause existing black employees "started the trouble and were pushing the union." He also admitted to her that be- cause of the union campaign an additional paid holiday for July 4 had been withheld. He also indicated generally that he planned further benefits for employees in the future and specifically was working on a paid Christmas holiday and was also planning to expand and employ more women to eliminate overtime work. Although he did not specifically relate these further improvements to the union campaign, his reference to them must be understood in connection with his other remarks about the Union and with the fact that the whole purpose of the conversation was to discuss with Bradley the disadvantages of a union campaign. I find. therefore. that in view of his expressed antiunion atti- tude he by implication was promising these future benefits provided the employees rejected the Union as their repre- sentative. Regarding the so-called antiunion petition. I find that Dummit allowed and encouraged Joyce Thibodeaux and another employee named Louise to circulate among em- ployees for their signature a paper intended to indicate their opposition to the Union and that such solicitation occurred during working hours and in working areas. I find such solicitation was a violation of Section 8(a)( 1) because it occurred during a period when Respondent banned so- licitation of employee signatures on union authorization cards, a ban which it at no time has rescinded. N. The Refusal To Hire Michael Bergeron on A.4 ugust 16 Respondent admits that on August 16 it refused to hire Michael Bergeron and since has failed to hire him. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's motive in failing to hire Bergeron was to discourage union and other protected activity among its employees. Respondent denies such was its motive, contending that it had no position open for which Bergeron qualified. As set out more fully below, I find that the evidence sustains the General Coun- sel's contention. Bergeron is the younger brother of Hazel Knott. whom Dummit knew to be an active union supporter. She had herself signed a union authorization card and successfully solicited the signatures of approximately eight others. She also participated in the various union meetings. Bergeron had never been employed by Respondent. He first applied in or about March at which time he was inter- viewed by Dummit but not hired. He applied again on August 16. Arriving about 9 a.m. on that day, he inquired of receptionist Cora Kennedy whether the Company need- ed anybody to work. She replied yes. He then said he had already filled out an application. She looked for, but could not locate, his old application and asked him to make out a new one, which he did. She then took this new application to Dummit who looked it over and informed her there was an opening but he would like to receive more applications before making a decision. According to Bergeron, she returned to the lobby after about half an hour, informing him that the Company need- ed no one. He then left. He returned four more times that same week, receiving the same information each time. Kennedy. on the other hand, testified that she repeated to him exactly what Dummit had told her, that there was an opening but he wanted more applications before deciding, and that Bergeron should check back later. I credit Kennedy's version because Bergeron did in fact check back later which he might not have done had he been flatly told there were no openings. A day or two after August 16. according to Kennedy, Bergeron again returned and asked about his application. She raised it again with Dummit who again reviewed the application and told her the reply was still the same; he was still waiting for more applications. She then repeated this to Bergeron. A few days later he came in again and instead of going to Kennedy, the receptionist, went to Judy Moreau, the other office clerical. to inquire of her if work was available, noting that he had a pending application. Moreau said she was not sure; that she knew of no position open. Neverthe- less, she pulled out his application, took it to Dummit, and inquired of him if there were any openings. Dummit re- plied affirmatively, that he was accepting applications, but was not interviewing until a later date. Moreau then re- turned to Bergeron reporting there was a possible opening and all applications were being considered. On August 23. Bergeron again returned to check on his application. This time he encountered Dummit in the corri- dor and inquired directly of him. Dummit replied that he had hired someone else, Ted Bordelon, the day before be- cause he had previously worked for Dummit and knew the work involved. He suggested that Bergeron look elsewhere for work. Bergeron wanted to know why he was not hired instead of the other man. According to Bergeron, Dummit answered that it was because the other man was experi- enced and he had no time or patience to teach Bergeron. On the facts above stated no finding of unlawfully dis- crimination would be warranted since they demonstrate Dummit had a lawful business reason, namely, prior expe- rience with the Company and knowledge of the work in- volved, for selecting an alternative applicant. It is plain that Bergeron was told he was being considered from Au- gust 16, and his application was kept pending until the decision to hire Bordelon. However, the above account is not the whole story. As found hereinafter, on or about August 16, the day Berger- on filed his second application. Dummit had an extended talk with employee Ophelia Davis about the Union and its organizing campaign. In the context of discussing the 673 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union, he stated to Davis that he would not hire the broth- er of one of the ladies. Although he did not mention the name of the lady he had in mind, nor that of the brother, the record reveals no possibilities other than Hazel Knott and Michael Bergeron. I find his refusal to hire Bergeron was a position he intentionally took in connection with the organizing campaign. Thus, his motive for not hiring Ber- geron was discriminatory, and the keeping of his applica- tion pending until he could hire Bordelon as a preferred employee was a mere pretext. I find further that Dummit's actions respecting Bergeron violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act in that it tended to discourage membership in the Union. O. The Conversation With Ophelia Davis on August 16 On the afternoon of August 16, employee Ophelia Davis had a discussion about the Union with Dummit in his of- fice. Just what caused her to confer with him is not clear. She testified she had been told by two other ladies, Evelyn Reodoux and Ruby Ned, that Dummit had said he wanted to talk with her. Later in her testimony, in answer to a direct question as to whether she went to see him or he called her in, she answered she went to see him. Dummit testified he had not given any directions for her to come in and that she requested to see him. I find he did not call her in. However, as noted earlier herein, it was generally known among the employees that he was willing and anx- ious to talk to employees individually about the Union, and an atmosphere of pressure existed influencing employ- ees to "voluntarily" see him. Dummit testified that Davis just came in and said she wanted to talk to him. He stated, Her reason was that she wanted to come in and see me because, she hadn't made up her mind to sign a card and she'd been promised a number of things and she asked me various things and I tried to give her a straightforward answer. She told him the union representative had guaranteed her nine paid holidays, more money, and things of that nature. Dummit responded that, although some unions shops had nine paid holidays, they were long established factories which had not granted those benefits overnight; that Re- spondent had tried to improve paid holidays and had good intentions of adding others in the future. He denied he made any promises of future benefits and testified he did not relate future benefits to a time when the union cam- paign would be over. In her testimony Davis did not clearly indicate how the conversation began. According to her, he asked her some questions, the first of which was why she was for the Union, to which she responded because of pay, holidays, and benefits. It was after this, according to her, that he asked her if she was for the Union, to which she replied she was neither for nor against. He then said he would put her down as undecided. This reported sequence does not make sense, and I find that Davis was mistaken about which discussion came first. Dummit's description, noted above, as to how the conversation began is logical and I credit him in this regard. I find, however, that at some point in the conversation he did ask her directly, or put her in the posi- tion of thinking she should tell him, how she felt about the Union and the reasons for her feelings, and that he also indicated to her that he was making a note that she was undecided. This interrogation was unlawful as was his un- lawful indication that he was making a list of employees respecting their attitude toward the Union. His own testimony indicates that he then proceeded to sell her on the idea that a nonunion shop would be prefer- able to a union shop and, in speaking about paid holidays in this context, indicated to her that he intended improving paid holiday benefits in the future but could not do any- thing in that regard during the union campaign. This could reasonably be understood by her as an expression of management's intent to improve benefits in the future if the plant remained nonunion. That impression was forti- fied by his statement that the Union could not guarantee anything. At the conclusion she assured him she was satis- fied with his answers and said she would not sign the union card nor vote for the Union. I make the above findings even though she denied he told her anything about an in- crease in benefits after the union matter was over. I find that in effect he promised improved benefits after union activity ceased. Davis testified that, while they were discussing the Union, Dummit said that he would not hire the brother of one of the women employees, not mentioning any names. Dummit denied he made such a statement. As noted earlier herein, I do not credit his denial and instead credit Davis' account. This does not seem to be the sort of thing she would invent. She was not even acquainted with Bergeron. For him to tell her this was unlawful coercion because, given the general topic of conversation, his reference to the rejected applicant could have no other meaning. She also testified, and I find, that Dummit indicated he had a great deal of information about how the Union oper- ated based on literature which was available to him. He did not thereby unlawfully impart to her the impression that he had union activities under surveillance. She testified fur- ther, however, that he separately stated that he knew every move that John Curtis (the union representative) and the union men made. Such a statement respecting union repre- sentatives in this particular organizing campaign necessar- ily imparted to Davis the impression that the employee activities in the campaign were under observation. Such conduct was a violation of Section 8(a)(l). Davis also testified that, after making his comment about knowing every move of John Curtis, Dummit said he would see to it that all the troublemakers were gone, and that Peterson, Hurts, Calbert, and Knott were all involved in the Union. Dummit testified that he did not recall any discussion about union troublemakers. He specifically de- nied saying once the union campaign was settled all the troublemakers would be fired. He did not specifically deny mentioning certain union activists by name. Considering that he did not specifically deny discussing troublemakers or naming certain prounion employees, I credit the ac- count of Davis and find that he did refer to troublemakers in the sense of union supporters and indicated that in the future troublemakers would no longer be employees. I fur- ther find that he identified Peterson, Hurts, Calbert, and 674 ALBERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY Knott as being involved in the union movement. From this part of the conversation, Davis could only understand that in the future union activists, and those individuals in par- ticular, would be terminated. This was, therefore, in sub- stance a threat of future discharge of union proponents which I find violated Section 8(a)(1). P. The Termination of Ella Jenkins on August 23 Ella Jenkins was a longtime employee of Respondent. She was first employed in 1972. continuing for a little over a year when she quit. In 1974, she was rehired and was discharged August 23. Jenkins was a snap operator, a job in which she operated two machines simultaneously which applied the snaps to the fly of pajama pants. She was the only employee per- forming that job full time although two other employees were able to operate the machines, and during the last month and a half of her employment one of these operated her machines during Jenkins' half-hour lunch break. The record is clear that the application of snaps was usually a bottleneck in Respondent's production process. The snap operator was urged to work quickly and Jenkins was a fast operator. However, speed beyond a certain point results in poor work quality. Assistant Plant Manager Hat- ten credibly testified that company policy encouraging speed was qualified and limited by the requirement that the work product not be defective. Still, the upper limits for speed on the operation appear to have been unstated and left substantially to the judgment of the operator. Jenkins appears to have worked as fast as she could. Hatten testi- fied that in the 2 weeks prior to her termination she worked at such a fast rate that it was not possible for her to do quality work. Jenkins testified she was never reprimanded for sloppy work and that she never received any warning that she would be disciplined or discharged for that reason. I credit her testimony that she never received any warning of ad- verse consequences to flow from performing sloppy work, but I find that she was frequently reprimanded for sloppy work. Both Hatten and Marcotte, her supervisors, testified credibly that they frequently admonished her. She appar- ently ignored these admonitions without adverse conse- quences. This is not surprising in view of the admitted fact that defects in garments were a frequent occurrence and apparently posed no problem unless a customer rejected them. In the summer, Respondent received a rush order from J. C. Penney Company for a special type of pajama. The record shows that Penney's inspection of purchases is ex- tremely stringent and that the first shipment of its order from Respondent was rejected in part because "snaps on pant's fly misplaced on all garments." On the morning of August 23, Respondent's New York office informed Dummit by telephone that Penney had re- jected all of the garments because of misplaced snaps. He and Hatten then conducted an inspection of garments in production that had been through the snap operation. They took a full bundle of these to the office and looked them over. According to Dummit, not one garment in the bundle was satisfactory. At that point they jointly decided to fire Jenkins. Dummit directed that her final check be prepared, and he had her called into the office. There, he and Hatten confronted her with the unsatisfactory garments. Accord- ing to her. he told her she was terminated for doing sloppy work, saying "' tolerated it at first and I am not going to any more." She was shown several pairs of pants with mis- placed snaps. Although in testifying she admitted she had worked on pajamas of that style, she stated it was not her work because the quality was so poor. She testified that she questioned the work and suggested that they go out on the floor and look at the work out there but that Dummit re- fused to do so. Both Dummit and Hatten testified that she did not question that the work was hers. Since they corrob- orate each other, I credit their version. After about 5 min- utes she was handed her check and she left. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's reli- ance on Jenkin's sloppy work as a reason for discharge was a pretext to mask its purpose to rid itself of a union activist. I agree. Respondent did have cause to discharge Jenkins because it had reason to believe she had done a substantial amount of sloppy work. Immediately preceding her discharge, an entire order had been rejected by a customer because of defects, but defective work was not unusual in this plant. Even allowing for the fact that the Penney order was a special order which called for perfect or near perfect gar- ments, and crediting Hatten's testimony that he and Mar- cotte informed all operators of the need for extra care in filling the order, the whole shipment to Penney had cleared through the production line, including inspection subse- quent to the performance of Jenkins' function, all under the scrutiny of Supervisor Marcotte and Assistant Plant Manager Hatten. without any other defects being caught.'3 Basic company policy was to encourage speed in the pro- duction process. More specifically, Jenkins was required to work as a piece-rate operator, a system which encourages speed. Although Marcotte and Hatten both testified they had spoken to Jenkins in the past about the poor quality of her work, she was never warned she would be disciplined or discharged for that reason. She was allowed to continue. The surrounding events must also be considered. These include the union organizing campaign and Dummit's in- tense animosity toward the Union, his extensive unfair la- bor practices in the form of independent violations of Sec- tion 8(a)( 1) and violations of Section 8(a)(3), and his programed campaign against the Union including his de- clared intent to eliminate troublemakers. More specifically with respect to Jenkins, in late July or early August, a few weeks before her discharge, Dummit had interrogated Joyce Bradley as to whether she had signed a union card and how she had acquired the card, naming for her seven known union activists, including Jenkins, as possible sources of the card. Again, a few days after the discharge, he interrogated Deanna Jeansonne by asking her if any of the ladies had approached her about the Union. While doing this, he had a sheet of paper before him with some I is also noteworthy that none of the inspectors or production workers responsible for other defects on the garments in question. nor the superviso- rs staff. appear to have been called on the carpet for slopp) work 675 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD names on it and read off the names of nine employees, including Jenkins, as possibilities who might have ap- proached her in that regard. Later in this same interchange, he told Jeansonne he was going to get rid of all the trouble- makers in the plant even if they (the Company) had only two sewing machine operators left. He said he had all that he needed in his briefcase. Also during this conversation, Jeansonne asked Dummit what had happened to Ella Jen- kins, and he replied that she had tried to get smart, that she went from $2.90 an hour up to $5 and something an hour, that he checked her work and found it was sloppy, so he let her go. What he meant by saying she tried to get smart is not entirely clear. He might have been referring to her union activity, or he might have been referring to her ef- forts to increase her speed during the weeks prior to her termination when there was a bottleneck at her operation. and Respondent assigned another employee to work her machines during her lunch break and was even considering installing additional machines for the snap operation. In any case, it seems to me that the testimony of Bradley and Jeansonne, in the context of Dummit's animus. multiple unfair labor practices, antiunion campaign, and declared intent to get rid of troublemakers, establishes that his true motive was one of unlawful discrimination, and his de- clared cause for the discharge was a pretext. Accordingly. I find that the discharge of Jenkins and the subsequent fail- ure to reinstate her were unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Q. The Conversation W'ith Deanna Jeansonne in Late A tuusr Another conversation between Dummit and Jeansonne occurred in late August when she went to his office to request a layoff because of personal problems at home. He refused the layoff. After discussing her personal problems they continued talking about other matters, the whole con- versation lasting about an hour. He asked her if she was familiar with the goings on of the Union, saying also that she need not answer if she did not wish to. She indicated she was familiar with them. He then stated that, if the Union entered the plant, he would still run it the way he wanted to. He also asked her, as indicated earlier herein, which of the union activists had approached her about the Union. Later in the conversation, he declared his intention to get rid of all the troublemakers in the plant even if the Company only had two sewing machine operators left, in- dicating he had all he needed in his briefcase. Dummit admitted they had a conversation, but, accord- ing to his version, she volunteered the information that she had attended union meetings and that at the second meet- ing she had asked a lot of questions. He then asked her, "Well, did you get any answers?" To this she replied, "No, they ignored me." He denied he told Jeansonne certain employees would be fired, and he denied mentioning the names of the union activists or that he had a list of employ- ees on his desk. I do not credit these denials because other witnesses in addition to Jeansonne credibly testified that he used a list of names during employee interviews and that in the course of his interrogations he would suggest the names of union activists in an effort to obtain further in- formation. Furthermore, Jeansonne appeared to be a credi- ble witness. In view of the foregoing, I find that Dummit unlawfully interrogated Jeansonne on the occasion in question regard- ing her union activity and the activities of others and that he unlawfully threatened that union supporters, whom he termed "troublemakers," would he gotten rid of in the fu- ture thereby indicating a long term plan to combat union support in the plant. His statenment that, if the Union en- tered the plant. he would still run it the way he wanted to. is open to too many interpretations to warrant a finding that it was a Section 8(a)(I) threat. R. Ihe Termination olf l)oroi Peterson on September 8 D)oris Peterson also was a longtime employee having worked for Respondent from August 1969 to 1971, when she quit, and again from April 1. 1974, until her termina- tion on September 8. 1The General Counsel contends she was unlawfully terminated because of her union affiliation. Respondent's theory is that she quit. I find she was unlaw- fully discharged. Both Dummit and Hatten knew that she was active in the Union. She was one of the first employees contacted by the Union when Union Representative Mason London called on her at her home in May prior to the time of any organiz- ing meetings. Peterson gave him the nam2s of other em- ployees she thought might be interested in the Union, and she herself talked to other employees about it. The first gathering of nine employees met at Roberts' house on May 27. Peterson was present and at every other union meeting held thereafter. In addition to attending meetings and talk- ing to others about the Union, she obtained a supply of blank authorization cards and succeeded in obtaining the signatures of six other employees on cards in addition to signing one herself. Respondent has a standing rule in the plant which for- bids employees' moving about visiting others who are working. Thus, employees who are on a break may not visit another employee who is working. When an employee is caught violating this rule, she is reprimanded by being told to stay in her own area. According to Dummit, such viola- tions do not normally result in discharge of the employee. Both Peterson and her daughter. Doris Hurts, worked in the plant. Peterson as a presser and Hurts at a sewing ma- chine. Each received a half-hour break for lunch, Peterson's coming first from 11:35 to 12:05 and Hurts from 12:05 to 12:35. The practice for Peterson was to go to lunch first, using her automobile which she parked in the company parking lot. On her return from lunch she habit- ualls dropped off her car keys to Hurts, who was usually still working at her machine, and then returned to work. On September 8, Peterson went to lunch as usual. At first her car would not start. hut eventually she got it going by striking the battery cable with a hatchet. After returning from lunch, she went to Hurts' work station, handed her the keys, and took a minute or so to tell her of the car trouble and her method for overcoming it. While doing this. she was observed by I)ummit who came over to re- monstrate with her for violating the no-visiting rule. She protested. with some reason. that others were doing the 676 ALBERTSON MANUFACTUIRING COMPANY same thing, pointing to another emplovee nearby whose mother was then visiting with her.'4 At that point. Dummit directed her to go to the office (he had already told her to return to work, but instead she had argued with him), and he called Hatten to come along as a witness. In the office he again admonished her. She again asked about the other employees who were doing the same thing. Dummit responded that he had not seen the others, hut when he saw them he would correct it. Peterson also ex- plained her normal practice of delivering the keys to her daughter, the particular problem of starting the car that day, and her need to tell her daughter about that. Dummit would have none of it; he simply reemphasized that she was not supposed to be there talking. He went on to remind her that her production as a pres- ser had been dropping. and he expected both the quantity and quality of her work to improve in the next 2 weeks or he would take action. Based on a composite of the testi- mony of Peterson and Dummit, I find that she said she thought she was doing about as good as she could and that he really could not expect her to do much more because she was doing a man's job for a woman's paw: that she w\as holding down two jobs, the one at the plant during the day and another 5 hours every night at a restaurant. Dummit, corroborated bN Hatten, testified that he then replied that if it was affecting her work she would have to decide which job to keep; that she could not hold down both of them. He then told her to return to work. They further testified that, as she was leaving. she said that, "Well, when you want to get rid of me you can. be- cause this is what I want." According to Dummit. he re- plied that, if that is the way she felt, he would terminate her then, and he ordered that her final check be made out. Peterson denied that it was she who mentioned her other job. but she did admit that Dummit said she could not work for him and also work at the other job: so it is clear her second job was discussed. She also denied indicating to him that, if he wanted to get rid of her, he could. Accord- ing to her, she told him she was doing the best she could and could not do anymore, and at that point [)ummit Imi- mediately ordered her final check to be made out. On this latter conflict as to whether she did or did not invite discharge. I credit Petersonl even though Dunimmit and Hatten corroborate each other respecting what was said. -he necessity to call Peterson to the office anid to call Hatten in as a witness seenms unusual in rier of the minor nature of her infraction of visiting at her daughter's work station, an infraction which frequently occurred ,and which for other employees doing the same thing did not result in being called to the office. More importantly'. Dummit pre- viously had made it clear in talking to Ophelia l)avis. and separately to Deanna Jeansonrie. and again separ.iltels to Joyce Bradles, that sooner or laiter the "'roublemakers" would be eliminated. The record leaves no doubt that hb that term he meant union proponents. [he record also leaves no doubt that Peterson was one of that group. More- over, Peterson, as compared with either l)umnmit o I flat- ten, appeared to he the more forthright witness. 14 Suhsequcnils, [)tDiui1iinl Als> rctprilniadicd Ihl Illothetr &d.uiIit l .oll, natilon tor s,1olallinl the rule. hll icN >errltl !hthl , l,e ilc l't 1wl . I find, therefore, that Peterson did not quit but was dis- charged. I further find that she was terminated not because she wished to be but because of her union activities. In finding a discriminatory motive in the discharge, I rely on the pervasive antiunion animosity evidenced by manage- ment by the numerous other unfair labor practices commit- ted and by Dummit's extended campaign to defeat the ef- forts of the employees and Union to organize the employees. Peterson's discharge in these circumstances necessarily discouraged membership in the Union. Accord- ingly. I find that her discharge on September 8 and the subsequent failure to reinstate her were unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. S. The Refusal To Bargain As already noted, the Union on July 26 requested Re- spondent to recognize and bargain with it as the represen- tative of the employees. Respondent received this request on Julv 27. As I find below, the Union in fact was the majority representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit and was entitled to recognition and bar- g.lining based on the July 27 request. The Union's status as the choice of the majority of the employees in the appropriate unit found hereinabove is clearlN established in the record by valid union authoriza- tion cards executed by a majority of those employees. The evidence includes two payroll records. The first payroll as of June 12, supplemented by stipulations of the parties. shows a total of 106 employees in the unit. Prior thereto. 62 employees (including Loraine Meche who was unlawfully discharged on June 10) had signed authorization cards. In fact, bs June 3, 54 employees had executed valid authoriza- tion cards. Thus. based on the payroll record. a majority of employees in the unit had executed valid authorization cards as of June 3. 1 he payroll as of July 31, as adjusted by stipulations of the parties. shows 103 employees in the unit, but those pay- roll records do not include the name of Meche or Merlin Fontenot. found above to have been discrimatorily dis- charged. Adding their names. the total unit is 105 employ- ees. Thus, 5s of the employees for that payroll period had executed union authorization cards. It is thus clear, based on both payroll records, that a m;ajority of emplo_,ees had authorized the Union to repre- sent them. The law presumes that the Union's majority status, once achieved. continues. Celanese Corporation of 4mecrica, 9' NL RB 664 (1951). Nothing in the record re- buts this presumption. I find, therefore, that on July 27, when Respondent received the Union's request for recogni- tion, the I rnion represented a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit entitling it to recognition from. and bargaining with. Respondent. Respondent's refusal to accord the U;nion such recognition and bargaining was a refusal to haisritin in good faith as required by Section 8(a;)(5) and (I ) of the Act. 15 Because of the extensive unfair :' h .le tllrlzt.o ,ll a.rd, supuportinig the foregoing findings of malorilx stm.1111 .ar1,t hlel l I " Appendix \ . a113thed hercl) I he authenilcll (if these :rd W.l t,:lhlllic] dairng the hearing when thes were suhlecl to examl- Continued 677 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices occurring prior to the Union's request for recognition and Respondent's obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union, I find that it is unlikely that a fair election could be held under Board auspices. Accordingly, as set out hereinafter in the section dealing with remedy, Respondent's obligation to bargain must be retroactive to the time majority status was achieved by the Union, and the unfair labor practices had commenced. T. Summary of Unfair Labor Practices Found To summarize, Respondent committed the following un- fair labor practices: I. Independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. a. On May 28, Plant Manager Dummit interrogated em- ployee Savannah Roberts and gave her the impression he had union activities under surveillance. b. On May 31, in speaking to the assembled employees, he generally threatened that the Union would not be toler- ated in the plant, invited prounion employees to resign, thereby conveying the idea their continued employment by Respondent was incompatible with their rights guaranteed by law, threatened to close the plant if employees chose the Union to represent them, gave them the impression union activities were under surveillance, referred to the leading union proponents among them as "troublemakers." and threatened to terminate the employment of union support- ers by living on their backs. c. On June 1, he coercively interrogated employee Glen- da Dubroc about union activities, threatened that her job and prospects for promotion were jeopardized by her own union activity, and gave her the impression he had union activities under surveillance. d. On June 2, in speaking to the assembled employees, he gave them the impression all activities in the ladies' rest- room (including union activities) were under his surveil- lance. He also announced a no-solicitation rules for the plant applicable to union as well as other solicitation, which rule was illegally broad, applying to protected union activity during employee breaktime and in nonworking ar- eas. Subsequently, Respondent disparately applied the rule by allowing it to remain in effect as to union solicitation while permitting other types of solicitation. e. Also on June 2, he interfered with and coerced em- ployees in the exercise of their protected rights by causing the arrest of Mack Arthur Hurts, a relative of two pro- union employees, and by accusing Hurts and his wife (an employee) of being prounion and threatening that the) would be sorry. f. During the second half of June, Assistant Plant Man- ager Hatten coercively interrogated employee Deanna Jeansonne about union activities and solicited her to in- form management about union activities. g. In late June, Plant Manager Dummit coercively inter- nation by all parties and were admitted into evidence as valid aulhoria- tions. A breakdown of the dates on which authorization cards were signed indicates that 10 were dated May 27, 39 on May 28. 2 on May 29. 1 on Mas 30, 1 on June 2. I on June 3. 3 on June 4. 2 on June 5, 1 on June 6. 1 on June 10. I on June 14. and I on July 14. rogated employee Gail Marie Roy about union activities. h. During June or July, he coercively interrogated em- ployee Darlene Ponthier about union activities and gave her the impression he had union activities under surveil- lance. i. During June, July, and August Respondent allowed antiunion employees, during working time and in working areas, to solicit employee signatures in opposition to the Union, although prounion solicitations were banned. j. In late July or August, Plant Manager Dummit coer- cively interrogated employee Joyce Bradley about union activities, gave her the impression he had union activities under surveillance, threatened that union supporters would be discharged in the future, threatened not to hire blacks because black employees started the union organizing in the plant, informed her planned new paid holiday benefits had been withheld because of the union activity, and by implication promised future benefits to employees if they should reject the Union. k. On August 16, he coercively interrogated employee Ophelia Davis about union activities, informed her he was making a list of employees pro or con for the Union and those undecided, promised further employee benefits after the cessation of union activity, informed her an applicant for employment who was related to an employee was re- jected for employment, implying he was rejected because of the ongoing union activity, gave her the impression he had union activities under surveillance, and threatened that in the future union supporters would be fired. 1. In late August, he again coercively interrogated em- ployee Deanna Jeansonne about union activities and threatened that he would get rid of the troublemakers, meaning prounion employees. 2. Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. a. The layoff of Loraine Meche on June 10, the refusal to rehire her on August 23, and the failure to reinstate her at any time. b. The discharge of Merlin Fontenot on June 16 and the failure thereafter to reinstate her. c. The failure to hire Michael Bergeron beginning Au- gust 16 and the refusal to hire him on August 23 or thereaf- ter. d. The discharge of Ella Jenkins on August 23 and the failure thereafter to reinstate her. e. The discharge of Doris Peterson on September 8 and the failure thereafter to reinstate her. 3. Violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. The refusal since July 27 to recognize or bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees in the Bunkie plant. Ix' IHE l EFE(T OF THE UNFAIR L.ABOR PRA(TICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section Ill, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section 1. above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade. traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. They are unfair labor practices affecting com- 678 ALBERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. CONC i SIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby committing unfair labor practices pro- hibited by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by: a. Giving employees the impression union activities were under surveillance by Respondent. b. Threatening employees that a union would not be toler- ated at Respondent's plant. c. Inviting prounion employees to resign. d. Threatening to close the plant if the employees chose the Union to represent them. e. Referring to prounion employees as troublemakers, and threatening to get rid of troublemakers. f. Threatening to terminate prounion employees by ha- rassing them. g. Coercively interrogating employees about union ac- tivities. h. Threatening an employee that her union activity jeop- ardized her job and prospects for promotion. i. Threatening that union supporters would be dis- charged in the future. j. Promulgating and disparately maintaining an unlaw- ful no-solicitation rule. k. Allowing antiunion solicitation in work area during worktime while banning prounion solicitations. 1. Causing the arrest of a relative of two employees for the purpose of discouraging union activities of employees. m. Threatening that prounion employees would be sor- ry. n. Threatening to not hire blacks because black employ- ees started the union organizing. o. Informing employees that a planned paid holiday had been withheld because of their union activities. p. Promising future benefits if employees reject the Union. q. Informing employees that lists of employees for the Union, against the Union, and those undecided were being kept. r. Informing employees that an applicant for employ- ment was rejected because of union activities among em- ployees. 4. Respondent discriminated with respect to employees' hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization and committed unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, by laying off Loraine Meche on June 10 and refusing to rehire her on August 23. by discharging Merlin Fontenot on June 16, Ella Jenkins on August 23. and Doris Peterson on September 8, and failing to reinstate any of them there- after, and by failing and refusing to hire Michael Bergeron on August 16 and 23 or thereafter. 5. Since June 3. the Union has been designated by a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit to be the representative of employees in that unit for col- lective-bargaining purposes. 6. Respondent. by refusing since July 27 to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, refused to bargain in good faith and has committed, and is committing, unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 7. The above-described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. TiHt REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action nec- essary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. I recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer Loraine Meche, Mer- lin Fontenot, Ella Jenkins and Doris Peterson, immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions are not available. to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other benefits and privileges previously enjoyed, and that it offer Michael Bergeron immediate employment in the position for which he was rejected or, if that position is not available, to a substantially equivalent position. I also recommend that Respondent be ordered to make these employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by payment to them of the sums they would have earned but for the dis- crimination against them, with interest thereon to be com- puted in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Comrn- patn. 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) 16 I further recommend that Respon- dent be required to preserve, and make available to Board's agents, upon request, all pertinent records and data necessary in analyzing and determining whatever backpay may be due. Having found that by June 3 a majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate bargaining unit had author- ized the Union to represent them in collective bargaining with Respondent, and having found that Respondent com- mitted serious and extensive unfair labor practices so that it now seems unlikely, if not impossible, that a fair election under Board auspices could he held, I recommend that Respondent be required to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representatives of those employees effective June 3. N.L.R.B. v. G(issel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). Although the Union did not request recognition and bargaining prior to July 27, such a request is not a prerequisite to a retroactive bargaining order under the principles set out in Gissel. See Beasley Energy. Inc., d/.'ba Peaker Run Coal Company. Ohio Division # 1, 228 NLRB 93 (1977). I further recommend that Respondent be required to post appropriate notices at its Bunkie, Louisiana, plant. ' Set. gcner.alh\ Is Plimlhng & Hciatng (, 138 Nl R 716 I1 I62) 679 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER 1 The Respondent, Albertson Manufacturing Company, Bunkie. L.ouisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, laying off, refusing to reinstate, refus- ing to rehire, refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminating against employees or applicants for employment because employees engage in union or protected activity. (b) Interrogating employees about union activities. (c) Soliciting employees to inform Respondent regard- ing union activities. (d) Informing employees of lists maintained by it indi- cating which employees favor the Union, which are op- posed. and which are undecided. (e) Giving employees the impression that Respondent has union activities under surveillance. (f) Informing employees that union supporters are trou- blemakers. (g) Inviting union supporters to resign. (h) Threatening employees that a union will not be tol- erated in the plant. (i) Threatening employees that Respondent will close the plant if they choose the Union to represent them. (j) Threatening employees that their jobs or their pros- pects of promotion are jeopardized by their union activi- ties. (k) Threatening employees that union supporters will be terminated. (1) Threatening employees that no black applicants for employment will be hired because black employees insti- gated union activity among Respondent's employees. (m) Informing employees that applicants for employ- ment who are related to employees will be rejected for em- ployment because of union activities among the emplotccs. (n) Informing employees that improvement in emplocee benefits planned by Respondent have been withheld be- cause of their union activities. (o) Promising employees that in the future employment benefits will be increased if the Union is rejected hb the employees. (p) Causing the arrest of any person because employees engaged in union activities. (q) Promulgating or maintaining a rule forbidding em- ployees to solicit for or against a union at times when they are not actually working, or applying any rule against solic- t In the event no ex.ceptions are filed a.s provided hb Scc 102 4t6 . 1ic Rules and Regulatiolns of the National Lahbor Relltions Boa;rd. the fiuldinl, conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in1 Sc 1I(2.48 of the Rules .:lid Regulations. he adopted h Ithe BoHilrd anhd bc- its findings. conclusilns. and Order. and all objections th.ieotC sh:dl . b deenmed waived for all purposes. itations for or against a union in a discriminatory manner. (r) Allowing solicitation in the plant of employee signa- tures in opposition to the Union, or allowing circulation of antiunion petitions, while not allowing solicitation in favor of the Union. (s) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Loraine Meche. Merlin Fontenot. Ella Jen- kins, and Doris Peterson immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or, if those positions are not avail- able, to substantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed, and to offer Michael Bergeron immediate employment in the position for which he was considered but not hired or, if that position is not available, to a sub- stantially equivalent position, and to make all of the fore- going whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request. all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms hereof. (c) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate bargaining unit found herein and. if an understanding is reached, embody such in a signed agreement. The appropriate bargaining unit is: All employees employed by Respondent at its Bunkie. Iouisiana, plant, excluding office clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (d) Post at Respondent's plant in Bunkie, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 18 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by an au- thorized representative of Respondent. shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, for a period of 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15. in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. Ii Is It RIIIER ORI)RI I) that the unfair labor practices al- leged in the complaint, but not specifically found herein, are hereby dismissed. In1 tile cicnt Ihat this ()rder Is enforced hy .I Judgment of a t:niied StitCes ( ourtI of Appeals. the iords in the ol0tic readring 'Piosled hb Order of Tie Nailwn;lal .lhaor Relations HiBoard" shall ad "'Posied Pursuant to a .ILnlutiC i of the t hited Stkiics ( ourt ,f ppea l, I nfrting an Order of the Natllional I habor Relationr Board 680 ALBERTSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY APPENDIX A Union authorization cards received in evidence The following 19 individuals identified and authenticated the cards that they themselves signed. The date of the signing is as shown below: Name Joyce Bradley Doris Calbert Ella Mae Coco Ophelia Davis Glenda Dubroc Merlin Fontenot Doris Hurts Deanna Jeasonne Ella Jenkins Hazel Knott Loraine aleche Betty Moore Doris Peterson Darlene Ponthier Willie Lee Reynolds Savannah Roberts Gayle Roy Mary Socia Catherine Woods G.C. Date Exh. Signed 42 4 3 21 18 46 55 41 59 27 43 35 47 14 25 8 10 30 5 5--28-76 5--28--76 6--04-76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28-76 5--27--76 5--28--76 5--27--76 5--27--76 5--27--76 5--27--76 5--27--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--27--76 5--28--76 7--07--76 5--27--76 The following 40 cards were authenticated by the testimony of a witness who witnessed the signing: Card G.C. Date Exh. Signed Earma Johnson *Doris Hiurts Avia Ann Malveaux Isabella Johnson Dorothy Berry Bonnie Sampson Jenkins Lubertha Thomas Amelia Jenkins *Ella Jenkins Doraella Goheman Debbie Whatley Shirley Blood Jennie iae Fruge JoAnn Dauzat Roberta Armand Verlie Wilson *Hiazel Knott Claudia Pickett Shirley Franks *Loraine iMeche Berda Belton Merrie Christmas Linda Washington Marie Washington Janie Sauseda *Betty Moore Brookxie McMullen Carolyn Johnson Carolyn Robinson Edra Mae Price Alberta Price Nell Rosa Anderson Doris Lloyd *Doris Peterson 58 6--10--76 60 61 62 63 64 65 28 29 31 32 33 43 54 54 44 45 36 37 38 39 40 48 49 50 51 52 53 57 5--28--76 5--28--76 5-30-76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 6-06--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 6--04--76 6--04--76 6--14-76 5--27--76 5--27--76 6--03--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 6--05--76 6--05--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--29--76 Loretha Peters Ruth Ann Green Rosa Coleman (inadvertently marked 23 by the court reporter) *Ophelia Davis Marleen Armand Cherry White *Glenda Dubroc 22 23 24 19 20 5-28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 5--28--76 *Witness Brenda Dabney *Willie Lee Reynolds Ruby Ned Evelyn Reodoux Eva Claire Williams Darlene Johnson *Savannah Roberts Wayne Williams Virginia Smith *Catherine Woods 26 6-02-76 9 10 12 13 6 7 5-28-76 5-28-76 5-28-76 5-28-76 5--27-76 5-29-76 236 NLRB No. 98 681 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The following cards were distri- buted in blank form to the individuals whose signatures appear thereon and were returned with the signatures of the individuals attached: G.C. Date Card Exh. Signed Johnnie Mae Williams Dinah Iles Nina lies *Glenda Dubroc and Savannah Roberts Ella Mae Hawkins *Doris Hurts 15 16 17 5-28-76 5-28-76 5-28-76 56 5-28-76 *Distributor APPENDIX B NorI( E To EMPIOYiES POS1 ED BY ORDER OF THE NAIIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NO1 do anything that interferes with, re- strains, or coerces employees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, refuse to reinstate, refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against em- ployees or applicants because of any union activity. WE WILL NOI interrogate employees about union ac- tivities. WE WILL NOt solicit employees to spy on union activ- ities. WE WILL NOT tell employees that the Company has lists of those for, against, and undecided about the Union. WE WILL NOT give employees the impression that union activities are under surveillance. WE WILL NOT tell employees that union supporters are "troublemakers." WE WILL NOT invite prounion employees to resign. WE WILl. NOT tell employees that a union will not be tolerated in the plant. WE WILL NOT tell employees the plant will close if they choose the Union to represent them. WE WILL NOT tell employees that their job or their chances for promotion are jeopardized by their union activities. WE WILL NOT tell employees that union supporters will be terminated. WE WILL. NOT tell employees that no black applicants will be hired because blacks started the union activity. WE WILL NOT tell employees that applicants related to employees will be refused jobs because of union activity in the plant. WE WILL NOT tell employees that employee benefits already planned have been withheld because of union activity. WE WILL NOT promise future benefits to employees if the Union is rejected. WE WII.L NOT have persons arrested because of em- ployee union activities. WE WILE NOT maintain or enforce a rule forbidding employees to solicit for or against a union at times when they' are not actually working, nor will we apply any rule forbidding solicitation for or against a union in a discriminatory manner. WF wi ll NOT allow antiunion solicitation while not allowing prounion solicitation. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE wl;ii offer Loraine Meche, Merlin Fontenot., Ella Jenkins, and Doris Peterson their old jobs, offer a job to Michael Bergeron, and pay each of them for lost earnings. WE WiLL recognize and, upon request, bargain with International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. AFL CIO, as the exclusive representative of all em- ployees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees employed by us at our Bunkie, Loui- siana, plant, excluding office clericals. guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. AIBFRTSON MANUFA( IURING COMPANY 682