Alterman Transport Lines, Inc.

18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alterman Transport Lines, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 512, an affiliate of International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 12-RC-3247 June 4, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert L. Westheimer . Following the hearing , this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington , D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of: All city or local drivers, dockmen, yardmen, hostlers and regular part-time dockmen at Jacksonville, Florida, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.2 The Petitioner contends that a unit limited to the Employer 's Jacksonville terminal is appropriate. The Employer contends that a statewide unit of all its Florida terminals , including all classifications of drivers, dockworkers, plant clericals, washrack em- ployees, steam men, hostlers, and yardmen located at the Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Orlan- do, Tampa, and Miami terminals is appropriate. In the alternative, the Employer contends that the smallest bargaining unit which could conceivably be found appropriate would be a terminalwide Jacksonville unit including all of the aforemen- tioned employees. The Employer would also in- clude the 0 S & D clerk,3 the billing and rate clerk, office clerk, washrack employees, and cashier. There is no history of collective bargaining at the Jacksonville terminal. The Employer is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of motor truck transport of perish- i The Employer filed an answer to the petition , a motion to dismiss, and a motion to quash hearing and/or notice of hearing at the start of the hearing The Hearing Officer referred the motions to the Regional Director Although there are some minor differences in the language of the motions, for the most part they assert matter that was before the Board in the prior consolidated proceeding (178 NLRB 122) In its answer the Employer set forth several defenses , including its asserted lack of knowledge or informa- tion as to certain allegations in the petition , that the Board has failed to in- vestigate the petition , that the Board does not have reasonable cause to be- lieve that a question concerning representation exists, and that the Em- ployer has never received any demand for recognition orally or in writing from the Petitioner As the Board's Rules and Regulations do not contem- plate answers to petitions , we deem it unnecessary to consider the Em- ployer's asserted defenses to the petition Moreover, it is well established that a representation proceeding is not an adversary proceeding The mo- tion to dismiss is based on grounds that the Employer was denied due process of law, that the Board has failed to comply with Sec 9 (c)( I) of the Act, that the Board has no authority under Sec 3(b) of the Act to delegate to the Regional Director the power to determine whether the Employer is subject to the jurisdiction of the Act, that the Employer was denied due process of law by the Board 's unlawful delegation of its powers to decide representation cases under Sec 9 of the Act, and that the Board failed to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act The motion to quash hearing and/or notice of hearing repeated many of the as- sertions set forth in the answer and in the motion to dismiss and in addition asserted that the Hearing Officer is not qualified under the Administrative Procedure Act The Board has often been confronted with the question of whether its authority under Sec 9 was properly delegated and it has con- sistently rejected contentions to the contrary. As in the prior consolidated proceeding , the Employer contends that the petition herein is fatally defective because of failure to comply with Sec 9(c)( I) of the Act, in that the Petitioner failed to allege that it made a request for recognition and that the Employer declined , and that the peti- tion was filed without giving the Employer an opportunity to recognize the Petitioner voluntarily In rejecting the Employer's contention , we note that the first petition and the amended petition indicate that a recognition request was made on February 10, 1969 , and the Employer did not reply Moreover, the Petitioner repeated its request for recognition at the hearing but the Employer declined The Board has often held that the filing of a representation petition in itself constitutes a sufficient demand for recogni- tion The Petitioner requested that the entire transcript of the consolidated proceeding (178 NLRB 122) be considered herein The Employer ob- jected to the introduction of any part of the prior transcript that did not re- late to the Jacksonville terminal . It asserts that it is not admissible by judi- cial notice, there was no showing of relevancy , and the terminal at Jackson- ville is different from the terminals in the consolidated cases Under the cir- cumstances herein , we find that the Hearing Officer did not commit preju- dicial error by admitting the entire transcript from the prior consolidated proceeding for whatever relevance such transcript may have to this proceeding In addition , we find that the Employer throughout this proceeding attempts to distinguish the Jacksonville terminal from the ter- minals involved in the consolidated proceeding Such comparison, it would appear, would necessitate perusal of some, if not all, of the transcnpt in the prior consolidated proceeding. ' The petition was amended on September 12, 1969, to conform to the Board 's unit findings involving the Employer 's Miami, Tampa , and Orlando terminals in Alterman Transport Lines, Inc , 178 NLRB 122, wherein the Board included all hourly paid drivers and checkers in the unit ' Overages, shortages , and damages clerk 183 NLRB No. 2 ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. able products , having its principal office and place of business at Miami, Florida . It operates terminals in several cities, some of which are located inside the State of Florida and some outside . Since its incor- poration in 1954 , the Employer has been granted various operating authority by the Florida Public Service Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission to expand these operations. In the summer of 1968, the Florida Public Service Com- mission authorized the Employer to transport general commodity freight in the southern peninsu- la of Florida between Cape Kennedy, Tampa, Or- lando, and Jacksonville. Miami is the nerve center of the Employer's operation, as that is where management and central dispatch are located . Central dispatch and the general offices are separate from the terminal of Miami. This focal point is complemented by con- nected operations at satellite terminals located at Tampa, Orlando , Jacksonville , Tallahassee, Pen- sacola, and Miami. All terminals are equipped with teletype and are connected to each other and to central dispatch with respect to freight movements and personnel. It is the Employer 's contention that central dispatch is the directing force for all Florida opera- tions on a day-to-day functional basis and that this is mandatory in light of the governmental regula- tions imposed , the commodities transported, and the special requirements of customers . Central dispatch is aware of the total picture and must coordinate freight movements between the various Florida terminals to promote efficiency and comply with relevant regulations. Freight is moved in the Employer 's trucks on the basis of truckload shipments, hereinafter called TL, so designated because of the rate charged and the applicable commodity weight , and on the basis of less than truckload shipments , hereinafter called LTL. A TL shipment does not mean that the trailer is filled to capacity , in fact TL and LTL loads may be combined on the same trailer . When both ship- ments are picked up at the same place , the truck will return to the terminal to have the LTL pulled off for transport by another vehicle and proceed with the delivery of the TL. However , if both the TL and LTL commodities are destined for the same general area , the terminal is bypassed and the delivery made . A driver may come into a terminal carrying a TL load, pickup LTL commodities, and deliver both loads if the goods are destined for the same consignee or for the same general area although not the same consignee. Trucks with LTL loads only must always report to the terminals where freight is to be delivered. In contrast to combination loads, there is no pickup 19 and delivery in which the terminal may be bypassed. Only the terminal designated as the final destination of the vehicle will be considered in re- gard to what freight will be pulled off and addi- tional freight loaded. When freight is returned to the terminal and dropped, delivery may be made by an hourly driver. Products picked up locally but destined for another terminal are returned to the terminal where the shipments are transferred at the dock to a vehicle destined for delivery at the other terminal location. The Employer is also engaged in the transporta- tion of perishable freight to and from air terminals. Trucks must be present when the airplanes arrive since the cargo planes are not equipped with refrigeration facilities . The Employer asserts that the nature of the air terminal operations requires that all available drivers, regardless of classifica- tion, are used to expedite the freight and that this requires coordination between terminals and per- sonnel that only central dispatch can implement. Freight is also moved on the Employer 's trucks to and from incoming ships on a regular basis. Tampa participates in 1 to 3 ships per week involving 18 to 20 trailers per ship. Orlando participates at the rate of 15 to 18 trailers per shipment. Miami engages 30 to 35 trailers at a time in ship operations . Jackson- ville participates in one to seven movements per week including one to three per movement. Ships are equipped with refrigeration units and , there- fore, the commodities they carry are not as vulnera- ble as those transported by air. The Employer con- tends that drivers and equipment must be on hand to begin loading or unloading commodities when a ship arrives at the pier, and this requires control by central dispatch implemented by successful interac- tion between the terminals involved. The Employer asserts that an immediate step-up of transportation requirements, over which it has no control, with respect to pickup and delivery requiring the dispatch of all available trucks and drivers, regardless of location or classification, is necessary when advance notice is given of a com- modity price increase and during the citrus industry season . In addition , the Employer contends that it must meet the needs of certain customers who require special pickup and delivery service and that all of the Employer's Florida terminals have peak business days each week. In Miami, the peak day is Monday. The peak days in Tampa are Sunday, Monday, and Friday. Orlando has its peak days Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Friday. Thursday and Friday are peak days in Jacksonville. One form of trucking operation engaged in by the Employer is called the relay operation in which two or more trucks coming from separate terminals 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 3 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meet at some predetermined point. There are basi- cally two types, i.e., "slip seat," involving the exchange of vehicles by the drivers, and "trailer change, " necessitating the exchange of trailers by the drivers. The "slip seat" method is used when it is necessary to send a vehicle from 2ny terminal to Miami for maintenance . The "trailer change" method is employed when freight movement is not combined with vehicular service requirements. The Employer contends that drivers in all classifications participate in the relay operation. The Employer's freight is also moved in what is described as a piggyback operation, whereby trailers are loaded on railroad cars for various destinations . This operation is only used to expedite freight movement when drivers and equipment are already committed to other assignments. Another form of freight delivery is described as a "peddle-run" in which freight is delivered to vari- ous customers from the same trailer and involves drop shipments of commodities at several locations. The Employer asserts that all drivers are utilized for this operation and that drivers are dispatched to various terminals to engage in such runs. A new method of freight transport employed by the Employer is described as a "double-bottom" operation. It consists of one tractor hauling two trailers. Drivers engaged in such operation must have at least a 5-year accident-free record. The Employer contends that regulations pertaining to this operation present problems with respect to available drivers, and that drivers come from all classifications. The only highway in Florida at present that permits double-bottom operations is the Sunshine State Parkway which runs from Orlan- do to the south. As noted above, the Employer was granted general commodities authority in Florida, and it is now the only trucking company in Florida that transports both nonperishable and perishable com- modities in mixed shipments. Prior to the new grant of authority, 98 percent of the Employer's Florida business involved the transport of perishables. The Employer asserts that it anticipates a step-up in general commodity transporting, that an increase in the utilization of drivers of all classifications has been the result, and that all drivers are making more trips to other terminals than ever before. Each terminal contains an office building, a building to protect foods awaiting shipment, a dock area, and a vehicle parking area. There is a ter- minal manager, an assistant terminal manager 4 and one or more dispatchers at each terminal . All ter- minals are geared for light repair work. Only the 4 At the time of the hearing, the assistant terminal manager position at Jacksonville was not filled. Miami terminal is equipped for heavy repair work. All terminals are equipped with various types of material handling equipment such as float jacks, pallets, pallet jacks, handtrucks, and barrel trucks to facilitate the handling of cargo. Each terminal is equipped with trailer dividers for use on small ship- ment operations to provide separate temperature areas within the trailer, making possible the trans- portation of frozen and nonfrozen items on the same vehicles. The terminal manager's duties are to supervise the terminal and employees within the terminal area; direct such employees as to their duties and work assignments; assemble and transmit cargo movement information to central dispatch and other Florida terminals to promote prompt and effi- cient cargo movements; handle customer relations in his terminal area as directed by the Miami general office; and inspect equipment to insure safe operations. The Employer contends that the ter- minal manager is a conduit for the implementation of policies and directives formulated by manage- ment in Miami; that the authority of Florida ter- minal managers is greatly restricted; and that they are limited to $25 purchases and the handling of minor damage claims. Driver classifications in the Employer's system are as follows: 1. Hourly paid drivers 2. Hourly paid drivers B 3. Hourly paid drivers B plus 4. Hourly paid drivers A 5. Salaried drivers 6. Owner-operator driver The Employer contends that these classifications are for payroll purposes and do not indicate job requirements. Duties of the drivers include operating motor vehicle equipment from one location to another; loading or unloading the vehicle or assisting therein; checking the freight on and off the vehicle; checking freight on the dock as required; perform- irg as a helper driver with another to assist in load- ing or unloading of a vehicle; and engaging in hos- tling functions in the yard. All drivers, regardless of their classification, are required by Interstate Commerce Commission and Department of Transportation regulations to have a physical examination; they must be 21 years of age; those who handle food are required by the State of Florida to have a health certificate; each driver must personally inspect his vehicle before he leaves the terminal area; any driver, regardless of classifi- cation, must prepare a log, if he travels outside a 50- mile radius from his point of origin, pursuant to De- partment of Transportation regulations. ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. 21 Driver training and evaluation programs are available to all drivers and employees who wish to become drivers. In addition to instruction on refrigeration units , driver training involves familiarity with the variance in driving procedures necessary to operate a variety of trucks. A driver trainee who is inexperienced in handling freight starts his employment as a dockman. If he wishes to progress, he must participate in the driver training program, and he may take prescribed tests to deter- mine his driver classification; i.e., B, B plus, or A.5 The next promotional level from an A driver clas- sification is a salaried driver classification. Salaried drivers are compensated at a higher rate. Regardless of classification, all drivers are subject to identical policies and regulations controlled by the general office in Miami. Hiring and firing is the exclusive prerogative of the personnel department in Miami. Drivers who fail to report for work are docked for lost time irrespective of classification. All paychecks are issued by the general office. Drivers receive instructions from local supervisory personnel when they are in a terminal and assist in loading and unloading trucks. They must check in money and freight bills and must service their vehi- cles and report all out-of-terminal fuel purchased. All drivers are covered by company insurance poli- cies, including life insurance, public liability, and property and cargo damage. However, drivers are responsible for paying their own fines with respect to traffic violations. Certain fringe benefits are for the benefit of all drivers. The services of a credit union are available to all drivers, and sick pay benefits are uniform for all. All vacation requests must be submitted to the general office for approval. However, owner-opera- tors and their helpers do not receive vacation or holiday pay. Each driver classsification is compensated on a different basis. An hourly driver punches a timeclock and is guaranteed 40 hours per week. If he works less than 40 hours due to lack of work, he is still compensated for 40 hours. However, if the hourly driver failed to report to work on one day during the week and consequently failed to reach the 40-hour mark, he would be paid only for the hours actually worked. Salaried drivers, all of whom are A rated, are guaranteed 60 hours per week. And, as in the case with the hourly drivers, if the salaried drivers miss a day's work they are docked for that time. Salaried drivers do not punch a timeclock and they receive an incentive of 20 cents per shipment plus one-half cent per mile.' Owner-operators are paid on a revenue basis; i.e., a percentage based on the amount of freight they haul. They do not punch a timeclrjck. In Jacksonville, there are approximately 30 to 35 hourly rated drivers; 15 to 20 salaried drivers; and 35 owner-operators and helpers assigned to the ter- minal. The Employer contends that all of its drivers engage in local pickup and deliveries, that hourly drivers and salaried drivers both spend approxi- mately 50 percent of their time on local deliveries, and that owner-operators have been employed for the express purpose of local delivery work. The Employer states that this is not true at all other ter- minals in the State. Sidney Alterman, the president of the Employer, testified that in the past year 15 or 12 hourly rated drivers from the Jacksonville terminal have spent one or more nights out on the road. He estimated that these drivers spend 50 to 75 nights on the road per year. Hourly drivers drive from Jacksonville to Savan- nah, Georgia, a distance of approximately 165 miles . Some make the trip up and back in the same day. The Georgia border is approximately 25 to 30 miles from Jacksonville. The Jacksonville terminal area includes, among others, Gainesville, Savannah, and Waycross, Georgia. There is testimony that 50 or 75 times a year an hourly employee is trans- ferred out of Jacksonville to take care of certain workloads. Only the owner-operators perform the long- distance hauls to the Employer's terminals in New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Omaha, or Dal- las. According to Sidney Alterman, all drivers per- form "in State " runs between the Employer's Florida terminals, and salaried and hourly drivers receive the same per diem. The Employer contends that, although a few of the lower rated hourly drivers limit their driving to "straight" trucks, i.e., trucks other than tractor- trailer rigs , "A" rated hourly drivers spend most of their time driving tractor-trailer rigs . Sidney Alter- man testified that hourly drivers drive tractor- trailer rigs that have sleeping accommodations. However, he also pointed out that each year the Employer retires trucks and reassigns them to a nearby area and that as trucks get old they are used closer to home. As noted previously, it is the Employer's primary contention that the only appropriate bargaining unit would be a Florida-wide unit composed of all classifications of drivers, dockworkers, plant cleri- cals, washrack employees, steam men, hostlers, and yardmen located at the Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami terminals " Some drivers have refused an A classification because it entails availa- The Employer contends that a similar 20-cent payment per shipment is bility for travel anywhere in the State of Florida to be instituted for hourly drivers 22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Employer. The Employer asserts that a sin- gle-plant or terminal unit is inappropriate where, as here, there is no prior bargaining history; and there is central control of supervision, labor relations, and hiring; integration of operations as well as sub- stantial integration of duties of all drivers and a strong community of interest among all drivers; a uniformity of required skills and a uniform schedule for wages and employee benefits; and interrelation of functions between all terminals; an interchange of drivers between terminals; and drivers are in frequent contact with each other. Finally, the Employer attempts to distinguish Groendyke Transport Inc. ,7 cited by the Board in the earlier consolidated proceeding, by pointing out that unlike Groendyke, wherein the Board stressed the fact that terminal managers had substantial authority in hiring, assigning , disciplining, and otherwise controlling drivers with respect to their day-to-day work, the Employer's Florida terminal managers clearly do not possess such authority. The Board has often held that single-terminal units are presumptively appropriate. The Employer has not offered sufficient evidence to warrant our finding that the Jacksonville terminal is an entirely different type of operation from the Miami, Tampa, and Orlando terminals where we found appropriate separate single-terminal units, or that the Groen- dyke Transport decision is not applicable herein. Notwithstanding the centralization of operation in Miami, it is clear that the Jacksonville terminal manager must exercise considerable discretion in the handling of freight and in his day-to-day rela- tionship with the Employer's customers in the Jacksonville area; he must determine when to discipline an employee for the violation of rules by suspension ; and he must alter work schedules in the event of emergencies. The Jacksonville terminal is several hundred miles from Miami; it would be vir- tually impossible to operate the Jacksonville ter- minal and control the flow of freight without a con- siderable amount of authority vested in the terminal manager, notwithstanding that the general office in • Miami must maintain the payroll, control interstate shipments, and do the bulk of hiring and firing of personnel. Contrary to the Employer, we find that the terminal manager does not merely serve as a conduit through which Miami's instructions are relayed to the drivers assigned to the terminal. The terminal manager's ultimate responsibility for the dispatch of local drivers and the flow of freight at the terminal is vital to the success of the Em- ployer's total trucking operation. Accordingly, we find that a separate single-terminal unit located at Jacksonville is appropriate. The Employer contends alternatively that the smallest bargaining unit that could be found ap- propriate would be a terminalwide Jacksonville unit composed of all classifications of drivers, dockwor- kers, plant clericals, washrack employees, steam men, hostlers, and yardmen. It asserts further that the facts as stated in the present case are substan- tially different from the conclusions reached by the Board in the consolidated cases (178 NLRB 122) and, therefore, do not support the position that a unit limited to all Jacksonville "city or local (hourly paid) drivers" plus other employees is appropriate. The Employer contends that none of the hourly rated drivers are classified as "city or local" drivers, since all classifications of drivers, whether they be B, B plus, or A rated, salaried, or owner- operators, engage in local pickup and delivery ser- vices; the Employer's operations require a constant interchange of drivers between terminals; on any given day, 25 percent of the drivers working at Jacksonville are assigned to other terminals; tempo- rary transfers occur 50 to 75 times a year out of the Jacksonville terminal ; salaried drivers spend up to 50 percent of their time on local deliveries; owner- operators have been hired at Jacksonville to do straight local delivery; hourly drivers are scheduled to travel out of State for overnight runs; except for owner-operators, drivers are not assigned to any particular piece of equipment or to any specific route; owner-operators also drive company-owned vehicles when the need arises and also work on the docks;' and equipment driven by the hourly drivers is not limited to straight trucks and nonsleeper trac- tor-trailers. Finally, the Employer asserts that all drivers share a substantial community of interest in the operation of the Jacksonville facility. While the Employer does point out some factors that distinguish the Jacksonville facility from those facilities involved in the consolidated proceeding, it has failed to substantiate, on the record, its conten- tion that the working conditions at the Jacksonville terminal are sufficiently different from those at the Miami, Tampa, and Orlando terminals wherein we found appropriate separate units of local hourly drivers. Furthermore, Sidney Alterman testified, in support of his contention that only a statewide unit of the Employer's terminals was appropriate, that the operations at the Employer's various terminals, including Jacksonville, are similar. We find that such differences as exist are not controlling and are not sufficient to warrant a find- 7 171 NLRB 997 6 The Employer notes that on these occasions the owner operators are compensated on an hourly basis. ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. ing that only a unit of all drivers at the Jacksonville terminal is appropriate. Perhaps the most signifi- cant factor is that hourly drivers are scheduled to drive out of State. However, the Georgia border is only 20 to 25 miles away from Jacksonville, and many of the trips into Georgia by the hourly drivers are a result of pickups and deliveries within the ter- minal area . The Employer's unit position would ap- pear to be based on the premise that only an op- timum unit is appropriate. However, the Board has often found that the unit found appropriate need not be the only appropriate unit. In support of its contention that all drivers within the Jacksonville terminal share a substantial com- munity of interst, the Employer notes the following: (1) all classes of drivers are charged for freight they fail to deliver; (2) all drivers punch a timeclock at various times;' (3) all drivers are permitted to pick up casual help with the permission of the dispatcher; (4) all drivers perform dockwork; (5) none of the drivers have the right to refuse work; (6) all drivers use nonmotorized equipment; and (7) all drivers are required by the Interstate Com- merce Commission and the Department of Trans- portation to have physical examinations . None of the above factors, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, would warrant our finding that the only appropriate unit would consist of salaried drivers, owner-operators, and hourly drivers. Notwithstanding that there are factors herein which indicate that the operation at the Jackson- ville terminal may differ slightly from the opera- tions at the three terminals in the consolidated proceeding (Miami, Tampa, and Orlando), we find that the record herein supports a finding that the Employer's hourly drivers at the Jacksonville ter- minal have a separate community of interest from that of the salaried drivers and owner-operators and their helpers because of their different duties and functions, separate supervision, and different basis of payment. At Jacksonville, there are approxi- mately 30 to 35 hourly rated drivers who spend at least 50 percent of their time on local deliveries within the terminal area, which includes, among others, Gainsville, Savannah, and Waycross, Geor- gia; approximately 50 percent of the hourly drivers are classified as B or B plus drivers; hourly drivers punch a timeclock; they are guaranteed 40 hours a week ; some local hourly drivers do nothing but make pickups and deliveries within the Jacksonville city limits; hourly drivers drive straight trucks and are not -required to qualify as "A" drivers capable of driving tractor-trailer equipment, although some 23 hourly drivers have qualified to drive such -equip- ment; hourly drivers check with and receive their orders from city dispatch rather than central dispatch; and they have the same local supervision. The record indicates that the interests and-work- ing conditions of the salaried drivers and the owner-operators are substantially different from those of the hourly drivers at the Jacksonville ter- minal. Salaried drivers `are guaranteed 60 hours of work per week; they receive an incentive pay plan of 20 cents per shipment plus one-half cent per mile for each mile they drive; salaried drivers must all be "A" rated, i.e., qualified to drive a tractor- trailer rig; both salaried drivers and owner-opera- tors make frequent overnight trips as a matter of course; neither salaried nor owner-operators are required to punch a timeclock; and both salaried drivers and owner-operators get their instructions from central dispatch in Miami when they are out on the road. Owner-operators own either the trac- tor or both the tractor and the trailer; they perform most if not all of the Employer's long-distance haul- ing; and they are paid a percentage based on the freight they haul. In view of the above, we find that the hourly paid local drivers constitute a separate unit. There is a further question, however, as to the unit placement of the following categories, which the Petitioner would exclude: Dock Foreman and Dock Foreman Checkers: The Petitioner contends that they are supervisors. The Employer, although it did not take a specific posi- tion at the hearing or in its brief, asserts that they work on the dock checking freight; that they direct certain dockworkers as to what trucks are to be loaded or unloaded; and that at times they load and unload the trucks. The record also shows that they direct dock employess, and, while the drivers are loading and unloading, they do so at the direction of the foreman. On the basis of these facts, we find that the dock foreman and the dock foreman checkers responsibly direct the employees on the dock and we shall exclude them from the unit. Dispatchers: The Petitioner would exclude the dispatchers as supervisors. The Employer look -no specific position either at the hearing or in its brief. The dispatchers instruct drivers and helpers in ac- cordance with central dispatch orders; they assign drivers to vehicles; and they relay instructions to dock foreman for the loading or unloading of vehi- cles. Sidney Alterman testified that the dispatchers spend 75 to 80 percent of their time directing other employees. On the basis of the foregoing facts, we Salaried drivers punch a timeclock to keep track of hours in excess of 60 per week Owner-operators punch a timeclock when driving company- owned vehicles or when working on the dock 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that the dispatchers responsibly direct other employees and we shall exclude them from the unit. Cashier: The Petitioner would exclude the cash- ier as lacking a sufficient community of interest. The Employer would include this employee as a plant clerical. The cashier types outbound manifests of truck movements; checks all drivers' receipts, freight bills, and cash collections; and prepares reports for the general office. The cashier also receives money from people who have to pick up their freight at the terminal. The duties of the cashier are primarily office clerical; we shall there- fore exclude the cashier from the unit. O S & D clerks (overage, shortage, and damage): The Petitioner would exclude these clerks as lacking sufficient community of interest. The Em- ployer would include them. 0 S & D clerks work with the drivers to locate freight shortages; they determine where excess freight belongs; they assess the cause and cure for damaged freight; they deter- mine the disposition of refused freight; and they help the drivers load freight. One of the two 0 S & D clerks is a woman who occasionally repacks light merchandise. Notwithstanding their daily contact with the drivers, the 0 S & D clerks are primarily office clericals; we shall therefore exclude them from the unit. Rate clerk: The Petitioner would exclude this em- ployee as office clerical. The Employer contends he is a plant clerical. The employee in this job reviews the shipping documents to determine what cargo is being transported in order to determine the proper charge in accordance with tariffs filed by the carri- er with the State and Federal governments. As the duties of the rate clerk are primarily office clerical, we shall exclude him from the unit. Billing clerk: The Petitioner would exclude this employee as an office clerical. The Employer would include him. This employee prepares freight bills; examines bills to determine corrections and weight and type of cargo; and resolves problems by con- sulting with the drivers to convey information with respect to merchandise. Clearly, the billing clerk is primarily an office clerical; we shall exclude him from the unit. Checkers: Although the Petitioner did not men- tion checkers either in the original petition or in the amended petition, it did indicate at the hearing that it amended the petition to conform the unit sought to the unit inclusions found appropriate by the Board in the consolidated proceeding. The Em- ployer took no specific position. There are four to six employees in this job category. They check freight on and off vehicles, aid in loading and un- loading trucks, and select freight to be stored at the dock. They work with all dock employees and all classes of drivers on the trucks and on the dock. Drivers and dockmen also work as checkers on a daily basis. Checkers have a sufficient community of interest with the drivers and dockmen; we shall include them in the unit. Washrack Man: The Petitioner would exclude this employee because of his dissimilar duties. The Employer wo,lld include him because of his regular daily contact with drivers and dockmen. He is responsible for spotting trucks at the dock, unhook- ing trailers, and aiding the drivers in the washing and loading of the meat racks. As this employee has duties and interests substantially different from those of the other employees in the unit, we shall exclude him from the unit. Garage Employees (mechanics, shop employees, and helpers): The Petitioner would exclude the garage employees as lacking sufficient community of interest. The Employer took no position on in- clusion or exclusion of these employees. As these employees are engaged in shop and service work and they work in a separate area of the terminal, we find that they have interests substantially dif- ferent from the other employees in the unit; and, therefore, we shall exclude them from the unit. In view of the foregoing, we find that the follow- ing employees of the Employer constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All hourly paid local and city pickup and delivery drivers, and dockmen, checkers, yard- men, hostlers, and regular part-time dockmen employed at the Employer's terminal located in Jacksonville, Florida, but excluding all mechanics or shop employees, washrack em- ployee, office clericals, casual dockmen, dock foreman and dock foreman checkers, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election10 omitted from publica- tion.] ` O In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un- derwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con- taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 12 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordina- ry circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. and Industrial Union De- partment , AFL-CIO. Cases 11-CA-3910 and 1 1-CA-3 944 June 5, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On March 6, 1970, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and de- sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein t The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by deviating from its past practice of relying solely upon a writ- ten notice to disclose new wage benefits and in- stead orally announcing a wage increase 2 days be- fore a scheduled Board election. While the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's action in posting the notice of the wage increase would not have constituted a violation of the Act, he thought otherwise about the oral announcement. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner as to the legal effect of the oral announcement in view of his other findings that the Respondent was conforming to in- dustry action in granting the wage increase, that written notices were placed on some plant bulletin boards during the first speech in accordance with ' In its exceptions, the Charging Party requested the Board to extend the scope of the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner so as to include all of the Respondent's plants in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia In view of the nature of the violations herein found, we do not think that 25 the Respondent's past practice, and that the oral announcement was made in the context of a pro- tected antiunion speech Accordingly, we shall dismiss that allegation of the complaint. THE REMEDY We have found in agreement with the Trial Ex- aminer that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and accordingly we adopt his remedial recommenda- tions in that regard. However, we have found, con- trary to the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent has not engaged in a certain other unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and we shall dismiss that allegation of the com- plaint. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, we substitute the following conclusion of law for the Trial Examiner's fourth conclusion of law: 4. By announcing an additional paid holiday 2 days before a scheduled Board election at its Cleve- land plant in Shelby, North Carolina, the Respon- dent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Shelby, North Carolina, and Hickory, North Carolina, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c): "Announcing improved holiday benefits for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "Offer to Geneva M. Beck immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision called `The Remedy."' the affirmative provisions of our Order should be extended beyond the Cleveland and Longview #1 plants, which were the plants where the unfair labor practices in these cases occurred 183 NLRB No. 5 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 3. Add the following after paragraph 2(h): "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges viola- tions of the Act not found herein." 4. Delete the words "wage increases or" after the words "WE WILL NOT" in the first indented paragraph in Appendix A. 5. Substitute the following for the third indented paragraph in Appendix B: WE WILL rehire Geneva M. Beck to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her job seniority, and we will give her the backpay which she lost because we fired her for her union activities. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner: These matters were heard at Shelby, North Carolina, on November 18, 1969, pursuant to a charge filed- in Case 11-CA-3910 on March 27, 1969, by Industri- al Union Department, AFL-CIO; and in Case 1 l-CA-3944 on July 8, 1969, by the IUD. Having previously on July 31 and August 29, 1969, respec- tively, issued complaints in Cases I1-CA-3910 and 11-CA-3944, the Regional Director for Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board, on Sep- tember 8, 1969, issued an order consolidating cases and notice of hearing. The General Counsel timely filed a brief with me. Upon consideration of the brief of the General Counsel and upon the record in the respective cases,' and my observation of the witnesses in each case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, a Delaware corporation owning and operat- ing in Shelby, North Carolina, a plant engaged in the manufacture and distribution of textile products; and in Hickory, North Carolina, a plant engaged in the manufacture and distribution of hosiery products. During the 12-month period immediately preced- ing the issuance of the complaints herein, Respon- dent separately at each of said plants manufactured finished products valued in excess of $100,000, and ' In accordance with the request of the General Counsel I take official notice of the following decisions involving the Respondent Company 157 NLRB 869 , enfd as modified 380 F 2d 292 (C A 2), cert denied 389 U S 1005, 163 NLRB 217, enfd as modified 388 F.2d 896 (C A 2), cert. de- nied 69 LRRM 2435, 167 NLRB 266, and 167 NLRB 258, enfd. as modified 406 F.2d 1017, 171 NLRB 1202, enfd 417 F 2d 533 (C A 5), 177 NLRB 944, and 179 NLRB 254 1 have similarly noted , as requested by the General Counsel, the decision of Trial Examiner Lawrence A. Knapp (TXD-588-69) LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sold and shipped separately from both its Shelby and Hickory , North Carolina , plants finished products valued in excess of $ 100,000 to points and places outside the State of North Carolina. Upon these admitted facts I find that Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, is admitted to be a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and I so find. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Case 11-CA-3910 1. The issue The complaint alleges that on May 26, 1969, the Respondent, through its general manager, James Sheppard , promised its employees wage increases and other benefits in order to induce them from assisting the Union or becoming or remaining mem- bers of the Union. 2. The scheduled election The record establishes that a representation elec- tion was scheduled to be conducted by the National Labor Relations Board among the employees at Respondent's Shelby, North Carolina, plant on May 28, 1969. 3. Benefits orally announced On Monday, May 26, James Sheppard, general manager of Respondent's Shelby group of mills,' gave three separate speeches to groups of em- ployees assembled in the plant warehouse. The speeches lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. Contending that the speeches were " antiunion," the General Counsel challenges only that part of the separate speeches which allegedly contained a promise of wage increases and other benefits. James Sheppard credibly testified that in each of his speeches to the employees on May 26 he stated that effective July 7 there would be an upward ad- justment of wages, and that the Company "was in- corporating" an additional paid holiday "in lieu of a time and a half holiday." In his speeches, Shep- pard did not designate the holiday which was to be observed.3 ' This group is comprised of six mills, including the Shelby mill known as the Cleveland plant. ' Employee Julius Downy credibly testified that Sheppard prefaced his announcement of a raise by an observation that the Company "tried to keep up with the textile trend," that the textile industry was one of the highest paid industries , and that the Company was "one of the highest paid companies " J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. During the course of the first two speeches Shep- pard mentioned the disruptive effects of strikes which could cause turmoil in the plant, loss of earnings and jobs, and result in union fines for non- participation. Strike experience in two neighboring plants of other employers was highlighted. Shep- pard stated that the Company was doing its best for employees and advanced his opinion that it would be in the best interest of the employees not to let the Union represent them.4 4. The posted notices The first speech which Sheppard made to em- ployees assembled at the plant commenced at ap- proximately II a.m. While Sheppard was in the process of addressing the assembled employees there was posted on some but not all plant bulletin boards the following notice: In keeping with the policy of our Company to maintain wage levels which are among the highest in the Textile Industry, we are pleased to announce that an upward adjustment of wages will be made effective Monday , July 7, 1969. The necessary calculations are being made to determine the new rates and each employee will be notified of his new rate by his Super- visor as soon as this work is completed. In addition to the wage increases, we are also pleased to announce that there will be an addi- tional paid holiday. The date to be announced later. We appreciate your continuing cooperation and loyalty. Julius Downy credibly testified that he did not observe the notice posted on the plant bulletin board which he perused following his attendance at the second meeting. Other employees testified credibly that they first learned of the wage increase and additional holiday through the auspices of the speech. William Washington, an employee of some 9 years' standing, testified credibly, and without "The foregoing is based on a synthesis of the testimony of Willard Gaskey, Leonard Marable , Galvin Howell , Shirley McConnell, William Mitchell, Jr, William Washington , Julius Downy, and Martin Fowler who attended either the first or second meeting and heard Sheppard 's remarks I do not credit the testimony of Martin Fowler to the effect that Sheppard stated in specific terms that the employees could "only receive benefits by staying with J P Stevens " or the testimony of Galvin Howell to the effect Sheppard stated in specific terms that the Company "was more favorable for people than the Union " Evidence sufficient to give context to the wage and holiday announce- ment was received in evidence over the objection of Respondent Con- sideration of testimony relating to these concededly protected utterances by James Sheppard , for the purpose of shedding light and giving dimension to the announcements alleged to be unlawful , is appropriate Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N L R B , 321 F 2d 100, 103 (C A 5), see also Darlington Manufacturing Co v N L R R, 68 LRRM 2356, 2361-62, (C A 4), enfg 165 NLRB 1074 27 contradiction, that in the past wage actions had been first announced by written notice posted in the plant.' James Sheppard credibly testified that notices identical in wording but slightly different in format from that posted in the Cleveland plant were posted in the six plants comprising, together with the Cleveland plant, the Shelby group. Sheppard testified that only at the Cleveland plant were speeches made to employees during this period of time and that only at the Cleveland plant were employees assembled and verbally informed of the pendency of a wage increase and the addi- tion of a paid holiday. 5. Industry wage action. On Friday, May 23, Burlington Mills announced a general wage increase. Sheppard testified, credibly, that through trade journal and newspaper coverage and through word of mouth, this action gained notoriety in the industry and that he per- sonally became apprised of it prior to his speech on Monday, May 26. Prior to his speech on May 26, Sheppard was in telephonic contact with his superi- ors who informed him of the Company's plan to in- stitute a wage increase and to add a paid holiday. On the occasion of his telephone conversation, the pendency of the Board election at the Cleveland plant was discussed and the decision was made to proceed with the wage and holiday decision. Shep- pard's best recollection was that he learned of the wage action of Burlington on May 23 or May 24 and that his conversation with his superior trans- pired on Saturday, May 24. The wage increase and addition of a paid holiday was announced companywide to become effective at all plants of Respondent and was not limited to the plants comprising the Shelby group.' Conclusions The evidence of record establishes that in the past Respondent has followed, at its Cleveland plant, the practice of apprising employees of wage increases through the posting. of written notices on plant bulletin boards. In May, at the Cleveland plant, this method of informing employees was not ' The testimony of record is not so definitive as to warrant rejection of Sheppard 's testimony that during the first speech notices were posted in the plant , nor is it sufficient to establish that , merely because the notice was not observed on certain specified bulletin boards, it was not posted on other of the several bulletin boards in the plant " On the basis of the testimony of James Sheppard which is undisputed I find that Respondent 's wage decision was preceded by a decision of a com- petitor, Burlington Mills, to grant a general wage increase to its employees While James Sheppard displayed a lack of certitude as to precisely when and how he learned of the Burlington wage action, I find that his testimony, considered in its totality, supports the finding that Burlington Mills took the lead in the round of wage increases granted in May 1969 The General Counsel came forward with no evidence countering Sheppard's oral testimony , although evidence to establish the validity or invalidity of Shep- pard's testimony was undoubtedly readily available In sum, I credit Shep- pard 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD followed in first announcing improvements in benefits to a significant segment of the employee complement. There is no challenge to the General Counsel's contention that employees, attending the first meet- ing on the morning of May 26, 2 days prior to a scheduled representation election, first learned of the wage increase in the course of a speech, given by the plant's highest management official. The evidence supports the General Counsel's conten- tion that the speech had an antiunion tenor. The record established to my satisfaction that, in granting the wage increases, Respondent was fol- lowing the lead and conforming to industry pattern. I am similarly satisfied that industry action played no role in Respondent's announcement of an addi- tional paid holiday. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and falls clearly within the doctrine of N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375 U.S. 405, 409-410. In Exchange Parts the Board found that an em- ployer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by con- ferring benefits to his employees shortly before a representation election where the employer's pur- pose is to effect the outcome of the election. In the course of its opinion the court stated the oft-cited dicta: The danger inherent in well-timed increases in benefits is the suggestion of a fist inside the velvet glove. Employees are not likely to miss the inference that the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and which may dry up if it is not obliged. The danger may be diminished if, as in this case, the benefits are conferred per- manently and unconditionally. But the absence of conditions or threats pertaining to the par- ticular benefits conferred would be of con- trolling significance only if it could be presumed that no question of additional benefits or renegotiation of existing benefits would arise in the future; and, of course, no such presumption is tenable. [Footnote cita- tion omitted.] Noting the observation of the court below that the questioned conduct stood in isolation, the Supreme Court observed in Exchange Parts, supra, 410: Other unlawful conduct may often be an indi- cation of the motive behind a grant of benefits while an election is pending, and to that extent it is relevant to the legality of the grant; but when as here the motive is otherwise established, an employer is not free to violate § 8(a)(1) by conferring benefits simply because it refrains from other, more obvious violations. The essential inquiry here is into Respondent's motivation, for Exchange Parts did not relegate mo- tive to the realm of the immaterial. Rather, it fashioned the requirement that to support a viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) there must be evidence suf- ficient to support a finding that an employer's con- ferral of employee benefits "while a representation election [is] pending [is] for the purpose of induc- ing employees to vote against the union."7 To sustain the complaint a finding of unlawful motive must be drawn from the proof of record herein, showing a departure on the part of the Company from past practice in the method of an- nouncing wage increases and from the absence of any business necessity requiring or warranting the announcement of an additional paid holiday so proximate in time to the pending election at the Cleveland plant. Given the lack of any business exigency and the time proximity of the election, the latter action, standing alone, is a sufficient basis from which the inference of unlawful motive may be drawn.8 When this inference is buttressed by evidence revealing that Respondent did not follow past practice at the Cleveland plant of relying upon a written notice to disclose new wage benefits, the motivation becomes more suspect. When further considered in light of the evidence that all employees at the Cleveland plant were informed of the Company's beneficence either in the forum of an antiunion speech, or in close time relationship to their exposure to anti- union comments, the scale of proof tips strongly in favor of the General Counsel. The Respondent un- dertook no explanation of its reasons for not defer- ring announcement of holiday benefits until after the election, and for including at the Cleveland plant the announcement of the wage and vacation benefits in the speeches presented to the assembled employees. The protected, but antiunion, com- ments of the company manager disassociated from company conduct, of course, can form no basis for a finding of a violation.9 But when, as here, anti- union remarks serve as the backdrop and setting for the announcement and bestowal of significant benefits immediately prior to an election, the evidence warrants a finding of improper motive. While the improvement in holiday benefits ap- pears to have been applicable to and announced at all of Respondent's other plants through the posting of notices, the singular lack of urgency in publiciz- ing for the benefit of the employees the addition of the holiday is revealed by the fact that management had not yet decided upon the holiday to be added. There is a void of evidence suggesting competitive or industry factors requiring the announcement. These considerations and the Respondent's propen- sity, as established by a series of cases litigated be- Tonkawa Refining Co , 175 NLRB 619 " See Browning Industries, Inc, 142 NLRB 1397, 1400 , Lincoln Mfg. Co v NLRB., 382 F 2d 411 (C A. 7), enfg 160 NLRB 1866, Burkley En- velope Company, 165 NLRB 43, J. Taylor Mart, Inc, dlbla Taylors IGA Foodliner, 166 NLRB 329; c£ Falcon Plastics-Division of B-D Labora- tories, Inc, 164 NLRB 786, 793-794, Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., 165 NLRB 1 9 N L R B v Exchange Parts Company, supra, 409, fn 3 J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. fore the Board and courts, to commit violations of the Act in furtherance of a design to counter union organizational efforts whenever such efforts emerge warrants the finding, which I make, that the an- nouncement of the holiday benefit was timed to cor- respond with the election at the Cleveland plant. The wage action precipitated by industry decisions served as a convenient nexus for but did not neces- sitate the admixture of the holiday enticement. I find that the timing was settled upon by company management with an eye to its foreseeable impact upon the election pending at the Cleveland plant. In sum, I conclude from the evidence as a whole that the Company refrained from placing exclusive reliance upon posted notices as a means of first in- forming employees of the wage increase and timed the announcement of a plan to improve holiday benefits because it sought to gain maximum impact from these actions by joining their announcement in a preelection, antiunion speech at the Cleveland plant. I find this conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. Case 11-CA-3944 1. The issues The complaint alleges that in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Respondent unlawfully inter- rogated employees; unlawfully issued warnings to them; and, by changing their working conditions and constantly maintaining a watch over them dur- ing normal working hours, harassed and intimidated them. Additionally, the complaint alleges that on or about June 5, Respondent discriminatorily ter- minated the employment of Geneva M. Beck. 2. The Longview operation a. Supervision and employee complement In Hickory, North Carolina, Respondent has two plants known respectively as Longview #1 and Longview #2. Only Longview #1 is directly in- volved in this preceding. At the Longview #1 plant are employed approximately 1,200 to 1,300 em- ployees. At pertinent times Glenn Deck was em- ployed as personnel manager, Harry Jensen served as assistant personnel manager, Don Baker served as department head of the greige department,10 and Kenneth Greer was supervisor of the dextramat de- partment, with supervisory responsibility over the greige mending work carried on in the dextramat department. At the Longview #1 plant there were maintained at pertinent times three working shifts and Greer's responsibility extended to all three shifts. b. The dextramat department In the dextramat department are employed on each shift 20 dextramat machine operators, 1 spot 10 Baker entered on his duties as department head on January 26, 1969 29 checker, 2 fixers, and 1 production clerk. In addi- tion, on the first shift only is employed one mender who performs greige mending work. Geneva Beck was employed as the greige mender in the dextra- mat department at pertinent times until June 5. Menders are employed in other departments at both Longview #I and #2. 3. Beck's employment and duties Prior to the cessation of her employment on June 5, Beck had been employed by Respondent as a mender for approximately 3 years. For approximate- ly 18 months Beck served as the greige mender in the dextramat department. Some 4 or 5 weeks be- fore her termination, Geneva Beck was assigned to do mending at a mending table in the department. Prior to that, during the course of her employment as a mender in the dextramat department, utilizing a portable mending machine, Beck moved from one operator in the department to another mending stocking which had ticks and pulls and which had been placed aside by the operators to be mended. In addition, as time permitted by use of her porta- ble mending machine she performed mending tasks on production set aside by operators on the second and third shifts. On or about April 14, Beck was informed that she would no longer perform her duties by circulat- ing among the operators in the department. Beck was told that thereafter she would be assigned to a work station and would use a different machine in lieu of her portable mending machine. At the time of this change, Beck was compensated at the hourly rate of $1.91. Incident to the change of assignment, as found below, she was placed on a production rate basis and was compensated on the basis of 27 cents a dozen. 4. Beck 's union activities Geneva Beck credibly testified that in late February the organizational campaign at the Long- view plant # 1 commenced, Beck attended or- ganizational meetings and signed a union card. In addition she passed out some union literature. 5. The alleged interference, restraint, and coercion Geneva Beck credibly testified that on or about March 20, in the company of employee Barbara Annas, she spoke with Kenneth Greer, her super- visor. Beck and Annas had attended a union meet- ing on the evening of March 19 and after consulta- tion together decided to inform Greer of their union activities. They approached Greer and stated that they were "for the union," and asserted furthei that they were not " sneaking and slipping around and trying to hide" their preference for the Union. Greer responded that it was their privilege to be in favor of the Union and he asked Beck if she were going to be "active." She answered in the affirma- tive and Greer observed, "I'm going to feel sorry for some people." 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Beck credibly testified that theretofore Greer had been friendly and would greet her in the morning. Thereafter , Greer spoke to her only as the necessity of his supervisory responsibility required. Addi- tionally , Beck credibly testified, Greer and Don Baker, department head of the greige department, "would stand around and watch [her] and talk, which was unusual from what had been taking place." Geneva Beck credibly testified that on April 11, Kenneth Greer informed her that she had no work to do, Beck responded by stating that she had plen- ty of work to do and Greer responded , in sub- stance, that while there was work on hand to be performed it would be done by employees in another department in their spare time after they had caught up with their normal workload. Beck challenged the fairness of not permitting her to work a full 40-hour week while allocating available work to employees in another department. Greer asked Beck if she wished to speak to Don Baker and Beck did so. She went with Greer to speak with Baker. In speaking with Baker, Beck stated that she did not understand why she could not work when she had "plenty of work " to do . Baker observed that Beck 's department was "closed " and Beck an- swered that she was behind in her work and ob- served further that she had worked on previous oc- casions when the rest of the employees were "off." Baker thereupon observed that Beck was , in fact, 3 weeks behind in her work . Beck responded by inquiring, "Well, how can I catch it up if I don't work while they 're off?" Baker answered that she could catch up on her work on Monday . Beck as- serted that the other employees would be back on Monday, and that there was more work than she could do . Baker answered, "Well we'll get some- body to do it. The department is closed." Geneva Beck credibly testified that she had worked on "several Friday mornings " when the dextramat department had been closed and that, on an unspecified number of occasions, she had done mending when the department was closed. Beck further testified that on the occasion of her conver- sation with Greer and Baker she observed Sandra Fulbright , the production clerk , working in the dextramat department . However, Beck testified further that Fulbright's work was such as to require her to remain daily current , whereas her own mending work could be accumulated and deferred. Don Baker testified credibly that after assuming his position as supervisor of the greige department on January 26, 1969 , he made it a practice when a department was closed down not to permit any in- dividual other than the production clerk in the de- partment to work.'[ " Don Baker credibly testified that the exception made with respect to the production clerk was premised upon the fact that in order to determine in an efficient and timely fashion the earnings of the production employees, it was essential to permit the production clerk to work on the day following the shutdown of a department for the few hours necessary for her to complete her duties 6. The alleged constructive discharge a. The April 14 change In late February , Baker spoke with Bennett Causby, superintendent of the finishing greige de- partment concerning the concept of changing the job of Geneva Beck from a roving one to a stationa- ry one . Causby had served as a superintendent in the greige department of Longview plant # 1. After considering the matter with production manage- ment, in early April , Causby instructed Baker to place Beck at a stationary mending table in the dextramat department. Baker was told to prepare a table in the dextrament department at which Beck could work . Baker transmitted these instructions to Greer and the table was installed. On April 14, Beck was informed of the decision to change her job from a roving one to one performed at a sta- tionary mending position in the plant . She was in- structed henceforth to work at or in the close vicinity of the mending table which had been in- stalled . Beck was assigned a different mending machine than the portable one which she had been using and on which she had originally trained at the outset of her employment 3 years previous. Beck was further told to work at perfecting her mending techniques and increasing her output with the new machine. Beck was then informed that for the present she would continue to be compensated at her hourly rate of $1.91, but that she would later be placed on a production rate to be determined. Beck worked on this basis until Monday , May 26. In the 6 weeks between April 14 and May 26 Beck's best daily production was 27 dozen . Kenneth Greer testified this equaled her best production while rov- ing and using the portable machine. Beck testified without contradiction that Greer had never criticized her work and that Greer 's former superi- or, Bobby Dotson, had complimented her work. Beck never received any written reprimands or warnings. b. The production rate made effective On May 26 , after a portion of the morning had passed , Beck was informed by Greer that she was now on a production rate and had been so since the beginning of the workday . Beck was told that her piece rate had been set at 27 cents per dozen. Beck protested the rate , stating that it would be impossi- ble at the rate set to earn the minimum wage of $1.60, much less her previous wage of $1.91. Beck observed that she had not been timestudied and inquired how the rate had been determined. Greer stated that the rate had been derived from those ap- plicable to menders in the finishing department. Beck asserted that the work techniques there were different and urged Greer in order to assess the ac- curacy and fairness of the 27-cent-per-dozen rate, to have another mender perform the mending work that her duties required. Beck asserted in this con- J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. nection that it would be impossible on the machine assigned to her for any mender to mend 47 dozen a day-the number of dozens necessary in order for her to earn at the equivalent rate of her former compensation. Greer declined to make use of another employee for the purpose of comparisons.12 c. Beck threatens to resign On Monday, June 2, Beck informed Greer that if adjustments could not be made in the piece rate as- signed to her in order to bring her compensation to a level equivalent to $1.91 that "this would be [her] last week." Greer answered, "We don't want that." Beck then informed Greer that she desired to speak with Glen Deck, personnel manager. Greer stated he would endeavor to arrange this. The fol- lowing day, Greer contacted Beck and informed her that Deck was very busy, but that he would try to arrange a meeting for her. Later in the day Greer told Beck that Deck was out of town, but would be in town Thursday and that Beck could talk with him after work on Thursday. Beck was absent from work on Thursday, June 5. However, Beck placed a call to the plant and spoke with the switchboard operator. She requested to speak to Deck but was told that he was busy. Beck left a request for Deck to call her. She received no call from deck. d. Beck's termination and the aftermath Beck worked the following Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, June 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but did not again work in the employ of Respon- dent. On Friday, June 6, Beck was told by another firm, Regal Manufacturing Company, to report to work on the following Monday at 4:30 p.m. How- ever, on Monday, Regal called and instructed Beck not to report. That evening, with Beck listening in on the telephone extension, Beck's husband called Greer at his home and inquired if Regal had contacted him seeking a reference on Beck. Greer stated that he had received a call but that he had referred the call to the personnel office. " The foregoing is based principally on the credited testimony of Geneva Beck To the extent the testimony of Kenneth Greer, Don Baker, and Bennett Causby is consistent therewith , I credit it While I credit the testimony of Causby to the effect that he and Don Baker conversed in late February concerning the prospective modification of Beck 's mending job from a roving one to a stationary one, l do not credit the testimony of Baker and Greer to the effect that on many unspecified occasions prior to the ac- tual change in the job Beck had requested the change be effectuated Beck disclaimed any request on her part for such a change and convincingly testified that, to the contrary , she did not desire a stationary assignment and preferred a roving assignment Thus, l am convinced that either Causby was inaccurate in his recollection to the effect that, when Baker first discussed the prospective change in Beck 's Job, Baker informed him that Beck had requested a change, or that, in making such a statement to Causby, Baker was misstating the facts 31 Thereafter, Beck contacted Glen Deck and inquired if he had received a call from _ Regal. Deck stated that he had had no call. Beck protested that she had lost a job opportunity because someone at the Company had given her "a bad recommenda- tion." Deck instructed Beck that the next time she got a job to call him and he would give her a recommendation. 7. Alleged posttermination threat Subsequently, on June 13, Beck went to the Respondent's office to obtain her final paycheck. She spoke to Harry Jensen, Deck's assistant. In response to Jensen's inquiry into her separation, Beck stated that she was not "happy over the 31- cent per hour cut in pay." Jensen asked if Beck had spoken to her superiors and she stated she had. Jen- sen then said, "Well, I think you jumped the gun a little too quick." Beck asserted she felt that the matter had "come about over [her] union activi- ties." Jensen answered, "Well, Geneva, the ones that had their name on that leaflet . . . anybody could come by and pick up one." Jensen added that it would be hard for Beck to get a job in Hickory. Geneva Beck testified without contradiction that on or about March 27 at the plant gates she had passed out a union leaflet bearing her name and the names of approximately 100 other employees. 13 8. The alleged basis for production rate Bennett Causby testified credibly, in substance, that the 27-cent-per-dozen rate was based on the rate for menders already established at three other plants in which he had previously worked. He testified further, in substance, that this rate was ap- plicable both in plant #1 and plant #2 for menders using the same type of machine Beck was using at the time she ended her employment with Respon- dent. Causby further credibly testified that 98 per- cent of the menders in plant #I are assigned to sta- tionary work and are on a piece rate basis, while the 2 percent who work on a roving basis, including the mender in the greige inspection department, are compensated at an hourly rate. He testified further that experienced menders at plant #2, working at the rate of 27 cents per dozen earn in excess of $2 Moreover, t credit the testimony of Beck to the effect that she began utilizing a new and different mending machine when she was placed at her first stationary position on April 14 She testified convincingly and with certitude on this score On the other hand, while Baker and Greer testified that this transition did not take place until May 26 , they demonstrated less certitude and I am convinced that their testimony is in error The testimony of Causby is not directly supportive of the testimony of Baker and Greer, in this latter regard, as Causby did not testify directly as to the date of this transition and did not specify any occasions after the modification had been effectuated when he specifically observed Beck performing her du- ties " All of the foregoing is based on the testimony of Geneva Beck, which I credit Neither Glen Deck nor Harry Jensen testified at the hearing 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD per hour. He testified however, in substance, that there are variations between the job of Beck and that of other menders in that some mending jobs entail less mending detail than is required in Beck's job and some require more. 9. Other evidence of changed attitude Geneva Beck credibly testified that at a time sub- sequent to her March 20 conversation with Greer concerning the Union, she injured one of her fin- gers with a pair of scissors and it was bleeding. She asked Greer for something to put on the finger and Greer answered that he did not have anything. Beck stated that Greer had a first-aid kit but Greer commented that he did not have any medicine and started to walk away from Beck. Thereupon John Deal, a supervisor on the third shift, approached and Beck asked him for some methylate to put on the finger. Deal said that he had something back in his tote box and gave Beck a band aid.14 Beck testified there is available to the dextramat depart- ment a first-aid room to which Greer has a key. On April 25 during working hours Geneva Beck went to the restroom and upon her return stopped to speak with employee Sandra Fulbright. Beck asked Fulbright for a piece of chewing gum and spoke with her briefly. Greer approached her and commented that Beck was not going to get her mending done. He observed that Beck had been in the restroom and had been talking.15 Beck testified credibly that employees were permitted to visit the restroom as required and that it was practice for employees moving through the plant for that pur- pose to stop and speak with each other. Conclusions 1. The constructive discharge I find that the evidence preponderates in favor of a finding that Geneva Beck was constructively discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. There is a suggestion in the record that Don Baker initiated an analysis of the dextramat mend- ing job which Beck held soon after he became su- pervisor of the greige department in late January, prior to the advent of the Union . There is, then, an inference of business purpose in the inquiry that Baker initiated . But the evidence does not go beyond this point and , indeed, as the Respondent's explanation for the personnel action developed on the record, it becomes clear that Respondent 1° Kenneth Greer testified that he could remember no incident of this type involving Beck and testified further that he had never declined first- aid assistance to any employee in the event of injury on the job Whether Greer's inability to recall the incident was feigned or whether it derived from his studied avoidance and noninvolvement with Beck throughout the period of time in question I do not determine However, I am convinced that Beck was an essentially honest witness and would not have fabricated this incident I find that the incident did, in fact, occur makes no contention that in effectuating the change in Beck's job it did so for production or other business purposes. I find that this was not a factor. The explanation of Respondent's agents for ef- fectuating the change in Beck's job from one in- volving a roving procedure to one performed at a stationary mending table is that it was accom- plished at Beck's request and to please her. I find no credible evidence to support this thesis. Rather, the credible evidence of record establishes that the change was not at her suggestion and was against her wishes. In this context, it is pertinent that the change was not made until after Beck's union activities and af- finity had become known to supervision. While Beck's union involvement was not particularly sin- gular among the employees, her support for the Union had been pointedly disclosed to her super- visor prior to the changes which were wrought in her job. Her name had also been listed on union leaflets distributed at the plant. It is a reasonable in- ference that, if her activity in distributing the leaflet at the plant gate did not become known to supervi- sion, the union leaflets bearing her name would gain a certain degree of notoriety among Beck's su- periors in company management and supervision.16 But, in any event, the evidence leaves no doubt that after her union affinity became known, and without her request, changes of significance which resulted in no demonstrated or discernible benefit to the Company were made in Beck's job. The changes were implemented and adhered to despite Beck's protestations. The foregoing chronology is sufficient alone to cast a pale of suspicion over the actions which Respondent took. However, Respondent's purposes and motives become crystallized when analysis is made of the production rate established by manage- ment to govern the compensation which Beck would derive from her job. Despite Beck's inability prior to the procedural changes in her job to ever produce at a rate higher than 27 dozen per day-a rate not exceeded by her during her several weeks' trial at a stationary post-the rate set was one which, on the basis of her past level of proficiency, would compensate her at below the prevailing minimum wage and substantially below her previ- ous hourly rate. This consideration becomes com- pelling in light of the absence of even a modicum of evidence suggesting that Beck was not a proficient mender and had not at all times during the course of her employment been producing at a level satisfactory to supervision. The Respondent came 'S Kenneth Greer testified that he had spoken to Beck on occasion when she had lingered speaking with Sandra Fulbright for a period of 15 minutes or more He placed the incident as having transpired after Beck 's piece rate had been effectuated Beck 's testimony is to the contrary and I credit Beck. I think it likely, therefore , that Greer is inaccurate in his recount of the sub- stance of his comments to Beck and the length of Beck 's visit with Ful- bright 18 Harry Jensen, assistant personnel manager, knew of the leaflets J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. 33 forward with no evidence suggesting that the change in modus operand: from roving to stationary was expected to result in a significant increase in the number of dozens which Beck could produce. There is no evidence warranting an assumption that management expected her production to double so as to approximate her earnings prior to the change. It is significant that the roving procedure had been an established and entrenched one at the plant and that it was one which continued to be utilized in greige inspection after the change which was made in Beck's job. In the absence of any evidence shedding suspicion upon Beck 's capabilities as a mender, the evidence that some menders working at the 27-cent-per-dozen rate earn at hourly rates higher than Beck's former rate is not determinative. Not only was the evidence in this regard general- ized in nature but it lacked persuasive force in the absence of direct contrast between Beck's per- formance and that of an operator performing the identical work tasks that Beck was called upon to perform. It is not for this trier of fact to engage in specula- tion with respect to the proper procedures to be employed by Respondent in establishing a produc- tion rate for Beck's job. Suffice to find on this record Beck judged the rate to be so low as to necessitate her resignation. Her judgment was for- mulated upon an awareness of her production capacity over an 18-month period using the porta- ble machine, and her short-term production record at the stationary position. There is no evidence of substance suggesting that Beck resigned for reasons other than the paucity of her production rate earnings. In the abstract, it may be reasoned that Beck's action in leaving her employment so soon after giving warning of her intentions was precipitous. But to Beck, reliant upon an established level of income, there was nothing in the response of supervision to her protest which held out any prospect of impending remedy. Greer's encouragement that Beck, an experienced employee working at or near her level of top profi- ciency, aspire to increase her earnings by increasing her production, was to Beck vapid and futile. Her inability to obtain an audience with the personnel officer-even if attributable to other legitimate de- mands upon his time and availability-did nothing to increase Beck's confidence that necessary changes would be made. Upon the record as a whole I conclude and find that the change in the procedures of Geneva Beck's job were undertaken by management for the pur- pose of causing Beck dissatisfaction, and that the production rate assigned to the changed job was set at an artificially low level for the further purpose of causing Beck to resign her position of employment. I find that this was done for the purpose of ridding the plant of a known union advocate, and that the conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The independent violations of Section 8(a)( 1) Supportive of the unlawful motive which I find governed Respondent's actions toward Geneva Beck is the change which transpired in the work relationship between Geneva Beck and her im- mediate supervisor, Kenneth Greer, after March 20 when Greer learned of Beck's interest in the Union. I find that the elements of this changed attitude, which in combination, had the effect of inhibiting and harassing Beck in her performance of work tasks, were Greer's intentional change in demeanor toward Beck during working hours , his main- tenance of close scrutiny over her as she performed her work tasks , his refusal of first-aid assistance, contrary to past practices, and his reprimand of Beck for conversing with a fellow employee in a manner previously countenanced by supervision. The effect of this harassment was to coerce Beck in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Consistent with the hostility toward union activi- ty which formulated the underlying motivation for the actions which caused Beck to leave her employ- ment was the March 20 statement of Kenneth Greer, in context of Beck's disclosure of her union activities , that he was going to "feel sorry for some people." In the circumstances in which the com- ment was made this statement constituted a viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as did Greer's inquiry of Beck if she was going to be active in her union participation. There was nothing in the dis- closure of Beck to Greer which necessitated his inquiry into the potential level of Beck's future union activities and, when combined with his state- ment above referred to, the inquiry was such as to have a coercive effect. Contrary to the General Counsel I find no impli- cation of hostile motive or illegality arising from the refusal of Don Baker to permit Beck to work at her mending tasks during times when the dextramat de- partment was closed. Baker testified credibly that after assuming supervisory authority over the de- partment in late January, he adopted a uniform practice of not permitting any employee, save the production clerk, to work when the department was closed down. I am convinced that this policy was applied evenhandedly and was not invoked dis- criminatorily against Beck. Nor do I find that the evidence of record is suffi- cient from which to draw the conclusion that Respondent intruded in a manner sufficient to deprive Beck of employment at Regal Manufactur- ing Company. While the evidence of record gives rise to a suspicion, it lacks the substantiality neces- sary to support such a finding. The alleged confir- mation of Respondent's involvement in this matter which Beck testified she received subsequent to the incident was clearly hearsay in nature and lacked reliability. Further, I find nothing improper or suspicious in the refusal of Kenneth Greer to give a recommendation when solicited by Regal. Greer's 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD declination was consistent with established policy which he followed with respect to Beck. Finally, I find no violation of the Act flowing from the comments of Harry Jensen, assistant per- sonnel director, during a solicitous and friendly conversation with Beck, to the effect that Beck would have a hard time getting a job in the locality. Jensen's remarks, analyzed in the context in which they were made, contain no threat of reprisal on the part of Respondent nor any threat of personal intervention to Beck's detriment on the part of Jen- sen himself. Rather, Jensen's remark concerning the union leaflets have the connotation of specula- tion on Jensen's part that Regal learned of Beck's union activity through gaining possession of one of the leaflets, or that Beck's association with the Union gained currency in the community as a result of the circulation given the leaflets. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in sec- tion III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among-the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. See J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., 167 NLRB 258, fn. 2. Having found that in Case 11-CA-3944, Respon- dent unlawfully and constructively caused the discharge of Geneva M. Beck because of her union and concerted activities, I shall recommend that Respondent offer Geneva Beck immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position of employment, without preju- dice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equivalent to that which she normally would have earned in Respondent's employ. Said sum shall be calculated in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Having found that for discriminatory purposes Respondent modified the methods and procedures relating to Beck's job, and for the same reason set the piece rate for her job at an artificially low level, Beck's reinstatement shall be at the hourly wage rate which, but for the discriminatory change, would have been in effect for her job, absent the discrimination . It is also recommended that backpay for Beck be calculated on the basis of the hourly wage rate which would have prevailed for her job , absent the discrimination . Such recommen- dation , of course , has no binding prospective effect insofar as limiting Respondent 's freedom to modify on a nondiscriminatory basis any element of Beck's job or .the compensation therefore. Because of the character of the unfair labor prac- tices found herein , and the propensity of Respon- dent as memorialized in previous Board and court decisions involving violations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist not only from the specific unfair labor practices found , but also from in any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. See J. P. Stevens & Co ., Inc., 167 NLRB 266, enfd . 406 F.2d 1017 (C.A. 4). Upon the basis of the ' foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent discharged Geneva M. Beck because she engaged in union or concerted activi- ties and it thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. By orally announcing during an antiunion speech presented to assembled employees at its Cleveland plant in Shelby, North Carolina, 2 days before a scheduled Board election, a wage increase and additional holiday benefits, Respondent en- gaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By interrogating employees concerning their union activities; threatening employees by stating that supervision would feel sorry for employees because of their activities in the Union; and coerc- ing employees by manifesting through supervisory personnel a changed personal attitude and demeanor toward employees after learning of their union activities, by maintaining an unprecedented watch over them during their normal work, and by departing from past practice in refusing to make first-aid supplies available to injured employees and reprimanding employees for visiting with employees in a manner previously permitted Respondent inde- pendently violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. 35 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I shall recommend that J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Work- ers Union of America; AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any employee or by discriminating in any other manner with respect to hire or tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities; stating that supervision would feel sorry for employees because of activities in the Union; in an unlawful manner through the conduct of supervisors harassing employees in the per- formance of their work tasks or the enjoyment of established working conditions. (c) In any unlawful manner announcing wage in- creases and/or improved holiday benefits. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Geneva M. Beck immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position of employment, without preju- dice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its Cleveland plant in Shelby, North Carolina, and at its Longview # 1 plant in Hickory, North Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendixes A and B," respectively.17 Cop- ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 11 , after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Inform employees of their rights under the Act and assure them that Respondent will not en- gage in the conduct from which it is ordered herein to cease and desist, and that the Respondent will comply with the affirmative requirements of this Order by mailing a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" to each employee of its Cleveland plant in Shelby, North Carolina; and by mailing a copy of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix B" to each employee of its Longview #1 plant at Hickory, North Carolina. (e) Convene during working time, by depart- ments and by shifts, all its employees in the Cleve- land and Longview #1 plants, and a responsible of- ficial of the Respondent, at department supervisor level or above, or a Board agent shall read to de- partment employees at each plant the contents of the attached Appendix which has been ordered to be posted at said plant. (f) Upon request of the Union, immediately grant the Union and its representatives reasonable access at the Cleveland and Longview #1 plants, for a 1-year period, to its bulletin boards and all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. (g) Upon request of the Union, made within 1 year of the issuance of this Decision, immediately give to the Union a list of names and addresses of all employees in its Cleveland and Longview #1 plants. (h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'8 'r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " '" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT announce wage increases or improved holiday benefits at a time or in a manner so as to discourage employees from assisting Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or from becoming or remaining a member of Tex- tile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 4 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL The National Labor Relations Act gives all em- ployees these rights: To organize themselves To form , join , or help unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT interfere with any of these rights , including your right to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of your choice. J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-2300. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge any employee because of union activities or for any antiunion reason. WE WILL NOT (1) question our employees about their union activities; (2) tell our em- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees that supervisors will feel sorry for em- ployees because of their activities on behalf of the Union ; or (3) harass our employees in the performance of their work tasks or the enjoy- ment of established working conditions. WE WILL rehire Geneva M. Beck to her former or equivalent job and pay her for any loss of wages or income that she suffered with 6 percent interest. The National Labor Relations Act gives all em- ployees these rights: To organize themselves To form, join, or help unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT interfere with any of these rights , including your right to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of your choice. J. P. STEVENS & CO., INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) We will notify immediately the above-named in- dividual if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-2300.