Star-News Newspapers, Inc.

STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1003 Star-News Newspapers, Inc. and Nixon B. Howard. Case 11-CA-3975-1 June 24, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On January 20, 1970, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Decision in the above- entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. 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. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Production Manager George T. Hutchinson told employee Harold N. Marks that he would not put up with union activity around the shop, and when Hutchinson asked Marks what his wife, who worked at the A & P Store, was doing in picketing against Ekerds' Department Store. 2. The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent discharged Nixon B. Howard for en- gaging in protected activity, and that the reason ad- vanced at the trial for his discharge, i.e., miscon- duct toward employee Theresa Croom, was a pre- text to disguise or mask the true reason. We find merit in the Respondent's exception to this finding. The Respondent hired Nixon B. Howard as an apprentice "ludlow" operator on May 26, 1969. Prior to his discharge on August 5, 1969, Howard aided the International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the I.T.U.,1 in its campaign to organize the Respondent's employees. On August 5, 1969, Howard went to Production Manager George Hutchinson's office to inquire about his timecard. Hutchinson told Howard that he had his check. Howard asked if he had been fired. Hutchinson replied that Howard was discharged. When Howard asked for an explana- tion, Hutchinson said he was exercising company policy-6-month probation. Howard had been employed for approximately 2 months. Also present in Hutchinson's office at the time of Howard's discharge were Thelma Smith,2 who worked in the composing room with Theresa Croom, Personnel Director Arthur Tuggle, and Theresa Croom. According to Howard's testimony, Hutchinson told him he was fired and that they did'nt want the likes of him around there. Howard testified that the Respondent did not give any other reason for his discharge. Howard stated that prior to the time of his discharge, the I.T.U. had been involved in a campaign and that he played an active role in that campaign. The Respondent contends that Howard was discharged not for anything remotely related to legitimate and lawful union activities, but for seri- ous threats and coercion against an employee who obviously wanted nothing to do with the Union; that Howard was a probationary employee; and that it had every right to inform him that he was being dismissed because during his period of probation he had proved unsatisfactory. The Respondent con- tends further that it was not required, under the cir- cumstances, to conduct an adversary proceeding over his discharge. Howard testified that on July 30, 1969, at approx- imately 11 p.m., Miss Theresa Croom, age 19, a teletype operator in the composing room on the night shift, was upset and told him that someone had threatened her. Pursuant to Howard's sug- gestion, Howard and Croom clocked out together at approximately 1 o'clock in the morning on July 31, 1969, and walked to Croom's car. About half- way to the car Croom started crying and Howard told her there was nothing to worry about. When they got to the car, Croom gave him her keys and Howard sat beside her. Croom cried and leaned against his shoulder. Shortly thereafter, another employee, Mrs. Camille Cook, pulled up on the right-hand side of Croom's car. Cook noticed that Croom was upset and directed Howard to follow Cook to her res- idence and to bring Croom with him. Howard told n The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that the I T U is a labor organization We find that I T U is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, since it was organized for the pur- poses of representing employees of various employers concerning wages, hours, and conditions of employment II Thelma Smith was discharged for threatening to cut Miss Croom's face Although Smith , like Howard, filed an 8 ( a)(3) charge , no complaint issued in her case 183 NLRB No. 98 1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Croom he wasn't going to Cook's house; he said that if she wanted to go he would take her but that he also wanted to talk to her about some ad- vantages and disadvantages of belonging to the Union. A few minutes after Mrs. Cook left, Miss Janice Harrell, an employee and union member, got into Croom's car. Croom told Harrell that she had been threatened, and that someone was going to cut her face, whereupon Harrell laughed and said, "Nobody is going to hurt you." Thereafter, Howard suggested that all three go to a restaurant ap- proxmately 3 miles away to discuss the matter further. Upon arriving at the restaurant, Howard locked Croom's car and put the keys in his pocket. In the restaurant, Croom sat against the wall in a booth and Howard sat next to her on the outside. Harrell sat opposite Croom. They were joined by Joe Blake and his wife, Herman Jackson, Kenneth Rabon, and Thelma Smith. Howard testified that they all discussed the Union, and that that was their prime objective there. Howard asserted that Croom willingly allowed him to fill out an application for union membership for her, and that she divulged all the information and signed the application. Thereafter, Howard gave the application to Rabon. Howard stated that he made it obvious that Croom had nothing to fear, and that after this assurance she acted normally. Howard testified that he and Croom left the restaurant at approximately 2:45 a.m. on July 31. Croom had indicated to Howard earlier in her car that she had to be home by 3 a.m. After leaving the restaurant Croom and Howard returned to his car and he asked her for a date sometime and she agreed. Thereafter, they went their separate ways. Theresa Croom testified that she had a conversa- tion with Nixon Howard and that she told him she had been threatened by Thelma Smith and that she was scared. Howard told her not to worry, that nothing would happen to her. After clocking out with Howard, she crossed the street and saw Rabon and Smith in Rabon's car parked bumper to bumper behind Croom's car. Howard's car was parked bumper to bumper in front of Croom's car. According to Croom's testimony, Howard told her he wanted to talk to her about the Union. Croom stated that she had heard enough about the Union, and that she didn't want to have anything else to do with the Union. Howard said that she could go home after he had talked to her about it. Croom asked Howard to let her go home and he said he had to take her out to a restaurant and that she could not go home until after she signed the papers now because she knew too much about the Union and who was involved. Howard drove the car to the restaurant and told Croom not to cry, and to 2) 3 ! P Stevens & Co , Inc , 163 NLRB 217, 218, enfd 388 F 2d 896 (C A LABOR RELATIONS BOARD act as if nothing had happened when she went in the restaurant. Croom was directed by Howard to sign and not say anything if she wanted to get home. She testified that she was frightened that if she didn't do what he told her to do that she would get hurt. Croom did not leave the restaurant until after 3 a.m. Finally, Croom testified that she was too frightened to complain that she was being held against her will in the restaurant and in her car when Cook and Harrell were present. The Trial Examiner found, essentially on the testimony of Howard, that he did not engage in any misconduct on July 30 and 31, and that he was discharged for engaging in protected activity and not, as contended by the Respondent, because of Howard's misconduct toward employee Croom. The Trial Examiner rejected the ground tendered by the Respondent as a mere pretext. The Trial Examiner found that Howard at no time threatened Croom, that he offered her his pro- tection, that she willingly accepted said protection, that she voluntarily accompanied Howard to Ez- zell's Restaurant, and that at no time did Howard force Croom to go to Ezzell's or to sign a union card. Finally, the Trial Examiner found that Howard was engaged in protected activity when he accompanied Croom and actively solicited her to join the Union during the course of the conversa- tion with her. We may agree with the Trial Examiner that Howard was engaged in soliciting for the Union, but we find that Howard's conduct toward em- ployee Croom exceeded the bounds of permissible organizational activity. Moreover, Howard's mem- bership in and solicitation on behalf of the Union does not immunize him from the Respondent's right to enforce its working rules, especially where, as here, such conduct involves the conduct of a proba- tionary employee toward a 19-year-old girl. The Act's grant of rights to employees to engage in or- ganizing activities, to belong to a union, and to en- gage in collective bargaining was not intended to deprive management of its right to manage its busi- ness and to maintain production and discipline.3 In the course of Howard's testimony, he admitted that Croom was upset when she came to him and that someone had threatened her, that he offered to help her and suggested that they clock out together; that Croom had no way of knowing that Howard was interested in the Union; that he first informed her when he got into her car; that Croom started crying as they walked toward her car; that he had parked his car directly in front of Croom's car dur- ing lunch hour; that Rabon and Smith were parked directly behind Croom's car; that Howard and Rabon had their cars parked so close to Croom's STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. that she could not move her car; that Croom con- tinued to cry in the car and asked Harrell if someone were going to beat her up; that Smith was discharged for threatening to cut Croom's face; that he wouldn't drive Croom to Cook's house; that he said that he would take Croom home but that he wanted to talk to her about the Union; that Howard suggested that Croom and Harrell go with him to Ezzell's Restaurant where they met with other em- ployees; and that their prime objective was to discuss the Union. It is clear that the Respondent was notified of Howard's conduct toward Croom and of union ac- tivity at the plant when employee Cook called Hutchinson sometime between I and 3 p.m. on the afternoon of July 31. Cook informed Hutchinson that, although Croom had complained to her about receiving threats concerning the Union, she had not paid much attention to her until she had seen Croom crying and hemmed in between cars owned by Howard and Rabon. Thereafter, Miss Croom and her mother complained to Hutchinson con- cerning the harassment of Miss Croom. Hutchinson directed Personnel Director Tuggle to do something about the situation and Howard's final check was prepared. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respon- dent entertained union animus. However, that find- ing was based, in part, on the Respondent's notice posted on its bulletin board, that it "does not want a union .... We do not believe that a union is good for you or the Company." Clearly, the Respondent was stating its preference to continue to operate its plant without a union, a view it was free to express. Another ground relied on by the Trial Examiner was his finding that the Respondent did not con- duct an impartial investigation to ascertain the facts about Howard's alleged misconduct. We disagree. As a probationary employee, Howard had not acquired any right to his job. Moreover, the Board has often held that an employer is free to discharge an employee for any reason, or for no reason, pro- vided that the discharge is not based on the em- ployee's union activity. Where, as here, a discharge is prompted by con- duct involving the coercion and harassment of a 19- year-old girl, albeit during an attempt to solicit her membership in the Union, the General Counsel has the burden of establishing that the Respondent seized upon this conduct, which it would not other- wise have considered objectionable, as an opportu- nity to get rid of a union adherent. We are not satisfied that this was the case here. We have carefully examined the facts dealing with Nixon Howard's discharge and we find, on the record as a whole, that he was discharged for cause and not because of his union activities. Ac- cordingly, we shall order that the complaint be dismissed with respect to the allegation that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Nixon Howard. ORDER 1005 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, Star- News Newspaper, Inc., Wilmington, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete all portions of the Recommended Order and the attached Appendix which relate to employee Nixon B. Howard, including paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order and the first para- graph of the Appendix. 2. Substitute the following for the last paragraph of the Recommended Order: "IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the com- plaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act by discharging Nixon B. Howard." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner : This is an unfair labor practice case litigated under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act (29 U.S.C. 160(b)). It was com- menced by a complaint issued on September 30, 1969, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, through the Regional Director for Region 11 (Win- ston-Salem, North Carolina ), naming as the Respondent Star-News Newspapers, Inc. That com- plaint is based on a charge filed on August 15, 1969, by Nixon B. Howard, the Charging Party. In substance the complaint alleges that Respon- dent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and that such conduct affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent has answered admitting some facts but denying that it committed any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice this case came on to be heard, and was tried before me, at Wilmington, North Carolina, on November 12 and 13, 1969. All parties were represented at and participated in the trial, and had full opportunity to introduce evidence , examine and cross-examine witnesses, file briefs, and offer oral argument. At the close of the hearing Respondent and the General Counsel ar- gued orally. Respondent also submitted a brief. This case presents the issues of whether Respon- dent (1) interrogated employees concerning the union or other concerted activity of such em- ployees and of the members of their families; (2) threatened employees with reprisals if they engaged in union activity; and (3) discriminatorily 1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharged employee Nixon B . Howard because he engaged in union or other concerted activity. Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. AS TO JURISDICTION Respondent, a North Carolina corporation, is en- gaged in Wilmington , North Carolina, in publishing a daily newspaper . It subscribes to interstate news services and publishes syndicated features and ad- vertisements of nationally sold products . During the past fiscal year it (a) received revenue in excess of $200,000, and (b ) made sales to, and performed services for, customers located outside the State of North Carolina, valued in excess of $50,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to as- sert jurisdiction over Respondent in this proceed- ing. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called I.T.U. or the Union, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. While no direct evidence was adduced re- garding the status of I.T.U., I infer from the meager evidence in the record concerning it that it is a labor organization ; and I so find. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. General Counsel's Evidence as to 8(a)(1) Violations At some time in 1969 I.T.U. engaged in "union activity" at Respondent's newspaper. Sometime after employee Nixon B. Howard was discharged (it is admitted that he was discharged on August 5, 1969), George T. Hutchinson, Respondent's production manager, spoke to employee Kenneth E. Rabon . I find that Hutchinson is a supervisor and an agent of Respondent under the Act. During the conversation Hutchinson mentioned that he had "heard we have a union here now," and that "the timing of the Union was bad." Rabon replied that although he "knew nothing about that " he was not going to help either the Union or Hutchinson. As noted above a union campaign to organize Respondent 's employees was initiated in 1969. About August 1969, Production Manager George T. Hutchinson spoke to employee Harold N . Marks. Among other things , Hutchinson asked if Marks knew anything about the union campaign. Marks replied in the negative, but added that he thought he "would be confronted with it." Continuing, Hutchinson said that he "wouldn't put up with it . . . with union activity around the shop." Two or three weeks later Hutchinson again spoke to Marks in Hutchinson 's office. Personnel Director Arthur G. Tuggle was also in the room at the time. Initially Hutchinson expressed his sympathy on the death of the brother of Marks. Then Hutchinson asked Marks what the latter 's wife, who works at A & P, was doing in picketing "against" Ekerds De- partment Store . Marks replied that it was nobody's business but his wife 's; that Marks had nothing to do with it; that when his wife is not working at A & P she "goes over at Ekerds"; and that such picket- ing "didn't involve Star-News Newspapers or any- body else." At this point Hutchinson asked Tuggle "if he had another nigger he could hire ." Shortly before this Respondent had hired a Negro to be trained by Marks "at the teletype." B. General Counsel's Evidence Relating to the Discharge of Nixon B. Howard Nixon B . Howard was hired as an apprentice "ludlow" operator by Respondent on May 26, 1969. For some time prior to August 5, 1969, the I.T.U. had initiated a campaign to organize Respon- dent's employees . Howard aided I.T.U. in that cam- paign. One Teresa Croom, age 19, is employed by Respondent as a night-shift teletype service opera- tor. At or about 11 p.m. on July 30 , 1969, Miss Croom came to Howard in a narrow passageway near their respective work stations . Croom, who was "upset," told Howard that someone had threatened her. Assuring Croom that he would per- sonally see that no one would harm her, Howard told her that she had nothing to worry about. In ad- dition he offered to escort her to her car if she so desired and "see that she got home." Thereafter Howard spoke to her on two or three occasions in "general conversation ." At or about 1 a.m. on the next morning , July 31 , Howard told Croom that, if she wanted , Howard would clock out with her and walk downstairs with her . Croom agreed to this, and the two clocked out together at this hour. As they left the building Croom told Howard that a Mrs . Camille Cook, another employee , was soon to meet Croom at Croom's car to pick up a melon and a cantaloupe. Howard accompanied Croom to her car "for protection ." As it was then raining Croom opened her umbrella and held it over both. Before they reached Croom 's car, however, she started to sob because of the earlier threat to her by a person she did not name . As a result, Howard put his arm around her and told her there was nothing to worry about. When they reached Croom 's car she gave the keys thereto to Howard . He then opened the door so she could enter from the driver's side. Howard followed her into the car. As they sat there Croom cried a little more and leaned against Howard's STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1007 right shoulder. Howard turned on the engine and started the defrosters because it was raining. He had planned to drive Croom to her home after Mrs. Cook arrived. A minute or two later Mrs. Cook pulled up along- side in her car and stopped on the right-hand side of Croom's car. The doors on Croom's car were locked at the time. Cook then opened the right front door of Croom's car after Croom unlocked it and entered Croom's car. After taking a melon and cantaloupe Cook observed that Croom was upset. Thereupon Cook asked Croom what was wrong, but Croom replied, "Oh, nothing." Then Cook directed Howard to follow her to Cook's residence, bringing Croom with him. Nevertheless Croom did not give Howard "any indication that she wanted me [Howard ] to follow Mrs. Cook." Since Howard did not know where Cook lived he offered to drive Croom to Croom's home . However, Howard also told Croom he desired to talk to her about "some advantages and disadvantages of belonging to the union in question," but suggested he could not talk and drive at the same time. About a minute after Mrs. Cook left employee Mrs. Janice Harrell came by and entered Croom's car. When Croom told Harrell that she (Croom) had been threatened and that someone was going to cut Croom's face , Harrell replied, "Nobody is going to hurt you." Then Croom asked Harrell if the latter belonged to a union. Harrell replied that she did or that she "had signed an application" and had nothing to worry about. Shortly thereafter Howard suggested that the three of them go to Ezzell's Coffee Shop about 3 miles away on Columbia East Road for further discussion . Ezzell's was a meeting place for several of Respondent's night-shift employees where they. enjoyed coffee or breakfast after work. Since Croom and Harrell agreed to go to Ezzell 's all three proceeded to go there, Croom and Howard in Croom's car and Harrell in her own . Before doing so, however, Howard went to his car for a pack of cigarettes and then returned to drive Croom in her car to Ezzell's. The Croom and Harrell cars arrived at Ezzell's at or about the same time and parked next to each other. Then Howard , Croom , and Harrell entered the restaurant where they occupied an empty booth. They all partook of light refreshments. Soon employee Joe Blake and his wife and employee Jackson sat in their booth. All of them were discussing the Union . Howard also saw employees Rabon and Thelma Smith in the restaurant. While there Croom divulged " all the information " neces- sary so that Howard wrote it on an application for membership in the Union ; and Croom then signed it . Howard later gave it to Rabon. While in Ezzell's Croom acted normally. Twice she went to the restroom accompanied by Janice Harrell . Once Croom asked Blake for a drink of an alcoholic beverage . Blake complied. As Croom had told Howard that she had to be home by 3 a .m., Howard decided to leave Ezzell's with her at 2 :45 a.m . on July 31 . As he drove Croom to Howard 's car, he told her to call him if she became frightened again . Then Howard entered his own car, which was parked near Respondent's premises, and drove away alone. Towards the end of July 1969, employee Ken- neth Rabon was present in Ezzell 's Restaurant at or about 1 :30 or 2 a.m. I find that this was July 31. Rabon testified that while there he observed em- ployee Nixon B. Howard sitting with employee Miss Teresa Croom at a booth in the front of the restau- rant. Rabon "saw nothing out of the ordinary" in Miss Croom's behavior and observed that her behavior "appeared normal." Early in the morning of July 31, 1969, employee Joseph W . Blake , accompanied by his wife , visited Ezzell's Restaurant . He testified that he observed Howard, Janice Harrell, and Miss Croom there on that occasion and joined them for about 45 minutes. The party discussed the Union , among, other things. In Blake's opinion Miss Croom's behavior was "natural ... normal, laughing and all." During that time Howard filled out a union ap- plication for Croom , which Croom then signed. Mrs. Blake confirmed her husband 's testimony as recited above in this paragraph. Mrs. Blake further testified that "members of law enforcement agencies," one of whom was a sheriff, were present at Ezzell 's during the time mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and that at no time did Miss Croom ever "make any complaint or attempt to approach this sheriff in any manner." On August 5, 1969 , Howard went to Production Manager George Hutchinson 's office to inquire about his , Howard 's, timecard . Hutchinson replied that Howard had none as he, Howard, was fired, and that Hutchinson "did not want the like of [Howard ] around there ." Personnel Director Arthur G. Tuggle was present on this occasion. When Howard asked for an explanation, Hutchin- son "mentioned something about six months' probation," but offered no other reason for Howard's termination. On August 13, 1969, Respondent 's personnel director, Arthur G. Tuggle , posted on the Com- pany's bulletin boards a notice (G.C. Exh. 2) which , among other things, apprised employees of some of the tactics used by "some union [ which] is attempting organization of this Paper . Your com- pany wants you to understand that it does not want a union . We do not believe that a union is good for you or the Company ." This notice , according to Tuggle , also refers to an incident for which Tuggle testified Howard was discharged by Respondent. This incident is described as follows in said notice: During the last week of July, one of our young female employees in the production depart- 1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment, after completing a day 's work ... was physically forced into an automobile and required to sign some union petition before being returned to her own car .... Those in- volved have been dealt with. C. Respondent's Evidence Respondent's initial witness was Theresa Croom, an employee in its composing room . An abridgment of her testimony follows. On the night of July 30 , 1969, Croom , who was then 19 years of age , went to and told Nixon B. Howard , a fellow employee with Croom on the night shift, that Croom was "scared " as she had been "threatened " by employee Thelma Smith. He assured Croom not to worry and that he would see that nothing would happen to her. When Croom re- ported for work that night she parked her car by the side of the post office at a point where no other cars were parked in front of or behind hers. Sometime later Howard and Croom clocked out together and Howard accompanied her across the street. Croom was crying as they came out of the building because she was scared . As they crossed the street Croom observed Kenneth Rabon and Thelma Smith seated in Rabon 's car which was parked "real close bumper to bumper " behind Croom 's car. Howard's car was parked "the same" way in front of Croom 's car . Croom and Howard "got into" Croom 's car. Respondent's evidence is silent as to how they "got into " the vehicle ; and, in the absence of such evidence from it relating thereto , I assume that Croom voluntarily entered the car and invited Howard to join her. While the two sat in Croom 's car Howard said he wanted to talk to her, but she replied that she did not want to talk and wanted to go home . Neverthe- less Croom asked him what subject he desired to converse about . When he answered that he wished to speak about the Union, she responded that she had "heard enough about it [and ] didn't want to have anything else to do with the union or anything else about it." Although she asked Howard to take her home he refused to do so and assured Croom that she "could go home " after he had talked to her "about it." So Croom "did talk to him." Howard remarked "that it was good" and briefly enumerated two of the benefits flowing from union membership. While the two "were sitting there " Camille Cook came to Croom's car and opened the door to pick up a watermelon and a cantaloupe which Croom had brought for Mrs. Cook. Croom was crying at the time. Although Cook asked Croom "what was wrong," the latter replied, "nothing ." Thereupon Cook commented that "no one was going to hurt Croom" and requested Howard to take Croom to Cook's home. At this point Croom told Howard that she "wanted to go home." Nevertheless Howard said "no ... he wanted to talk to [Croom] about the Union." But Croom insisted that she "didn't want to know anything about the union." Although Croom "repeated" that she wanted to go home "or to Camille Cook's house" Howard told her that she "couldn 't go home until he had finished talking to [her] about it." Soon Janice Harrell came to Croom's car. Howard was still in it . Croom , who was crying at the time, told Harrell that " I [Croom] was going to get beat up and get my face cut up ." Harrell as- sured her that no one was going to hurt Croom "that [Harrell] knew of." Then Harrell left. Croom again asked Howard to take her home or to let her drive home. However Howard replied that he had to take her to Ezzell 's Restaurant and that she "had to sign some papers now before [Croom] got to go home because [Croom] already knew too much ... about the union and who in all was involved." Then Howard drove Croom to Ezzell's Restau- rant in Croom 's car. On the way Howard suggested that Croom should "act like nothing had happened and ... not to be crying or act like [Croom] was upset when [Croom ] went in there." He also told her to "sign the paper and not say anything" if she wanted to get home. Croom further testified that her "state of mind" on the way to and at Ezzell's was "I was scared that if I didn 't do what he told me to do that I would get hurt." At or about 3 a.m. Croom departed from Ezzell 's Restaurant with Howard, who drove her to his car. They conversed for a while . During the conversation he told her that she did not have to worry that anyone was going to hurt her . He also gave her his telephone number and address so that she might communicate with him if anyone tried to bother her. Then Howard left and Croom drove home in her own car. It was after 4 a.m. on July 31, 1969, that Croom arrived home . Upon arriving there she related to her mother "what had happened." This caused her mother to "get real mad." Later that week Croom's mother called Production Manager Hutchinson, ac- cording to Croom . A couple of nights later Croom talked to the police about the matters " related" in her foregoing testimony . Finally Croom testified that her mother was "pretty definite " in warning Croom to stay out of the Union and "not to have anything to do with that union ." When Croom returned home in the morning of July 31, she told her mother that she , Croom, had signed an "appli- cation for the Union." Her mother "wasn't very happy about that." On cross-examination , Croom testified that Howard never threatened her and that she had so stated in writing to the National Labor Relations Board in its investigation of the charge in this case. Her written statement confirms this. (See G.C. Exh. 4.) Mrs. Camille Cook, a night-shift employee, also appeared as a witness for Respondent. A summary STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. of her testimony ensues. During the night of July 30 and the early morning of July 31, 1969, Cook ob- served that Croom was "very upset." Upon Cook's inquiring of Croom the reason therefor, Croom replied that Croom "had been threatened to beat up if this so-called Thelma Smith lost her job or if [Croom] told about her [Smith's] union activities in the office." Early the next morning, July 31, Cook found Croom and Howard together in a car. Cook then picked up some melons from Croom's car. At the time "tears were still on [Croom's] face." This caused Cook to ask Croom "what was the matter." Immediately Croom sobbed. Again Cook asked Croom "what was wrong." But Croom merely "sort of shook her head." Thereupon Cook told Croom, "Theresa, don't worry. There is nobody out there that can hurt you." This prompted Howard to say, "That's what I've been trying to tell her." At this Cook told Howard to "bring her out to my house." But Howard and Croom did not come to Cook's house. At 3 p.m. of the same day, July 31, Cook re- ported to Production Manager George Hutchinson "what she had observed and seen earlier in the day." Mrs. Janice Harrell, another witness for Respon- dent, testified in substance as follows. Harrell works in Respondent's production room. Upon finishing work in the early morning of July 31, 1969, she drove her car "around to" Croom's car. Observing that Croom's car was "blocked off" by Howard's car in front and Rabon's car in back, Harrell parked in back of Rabon's car and then walked to Croom's car. Then Harrell "went in" Croom's car. Harrell discerned that Croom was crying. Soon Croom said to Harrell, "I am not going to get beat up, am l?" Harrell replied, "Not by me you're not." Shortly thereafter Harrell again saw Croom at Ezzell 's Restaurant . Croom was "still upset " there. On one occasion at Ezzell 's Harrell accompanied Croom into the restroom. While at said Ezzell's Howard filled out a union application and handed it to Croom who signed it "afterwards." Nothing hap- pened at Ezzell's "to cause [Harrell] to believe that [Croom] was forced to sign a union application." Respondent's production manager, George P. Hutchinson , testified in essence as follows . Respon- dent's production employees, who in effect con- stitute a night shift, report to work at 4 p.m. and quit at 1 or 1:30 a.m. the following day. On July 31, 1969, at or about 1 p.m., employee Mrs. Camille Cook reported to Hutchinson that Theresa Croom, while crying, earlier that day had told her that Croom "had been threatened if [Croom] did not join the union ." At this time Hutchinson was not aware of any union activity at the newspaper. A day or two later Respondent 's managing editor "came to [Hutchinson] with the same story Mrs. Cook had given" Hutchinson. The managing editor had received "that information ... of [Croom] being afraid and the union threatening her" from 1009 Croom's mother. Hutchinson thereupon instructed the managing editor to request Croom's mother to call Hutchinson. Mrs. Croom did call Hutchinson. Her conversation with Hutchinson , which was not admitted for the truth of its content, disclosed that her daughter, Miss Theresa Croom, was being harassed on the job and that "something had to be done or Theresa would have to resign." Hutchinson then invited Mrs. Croom to come to his office "to talk to [him] about the situation." At a later date Mrs. Croom came to Hutchinson's office. There she related that Thelma Smith had threatened Theresa with physical injury and that Nixon Howard had forced Theresa against her will to go to Ezzell's Restaurant and would not let her go home "until she had signed whatever this was he had he wanted signed." Mrs. Croom also gave Hutchinson a written statement to this effect. Per- sonnel Director Tuggle was present at the time. "As a result" of Mrs. Croom's statement Hutchinson removed Howard's card from the timeclock rack, gave it to the accounting office, and had a check made out to Howard for time worked plus a week's additional pay. Soon Howard came to Hutchinson asking if Hutchinson had Howard's timecard. When Hutchinson replied "No. I have your check .... You are discharged," Howard asked for an ex- planation . Hutchinson asserted, " I am exercising company policy-six months probation." At the time Howard was "under six months probation." Among others, Theresa Croom was present at the time. About August 18, 1969, Hutchinson obtained a written statement from Theresa Croom regarding the events of July 31, 1969. (See G. C. Exh. 5.) Some of it is inconsistent with her sworn testimony at the trial of the instant case. Some time after Howard was discharged, Hutchinson had employee Harold Marks sent to his office. Personnel Director Tuggle was present. Hutchinson "expressed my sympathy for his brother passing away .... Then I said, `Harold, I did not know that your wife worked at Ekerd's."' When Marks replied that his wife worked at A & P, Hutchinson remarked that he thought that he had seen Mrs. Marks "in a picket line in front of Ekerd." Marks answered, "you did. She does this when she is through work at A & P." But Hutchin- son denies that during this conversation he asked Tuggle, who was also present, "Do you have another nigger?" Hutchinson denies that he told employee Rabon, "I hear we have a union here now." But he con- cedes that, after he "had learned of Theresa Croom's threats," he mentioned to Rabon that "I hear we have some threats from the Union around here." Rabon responded that he did not know anything about it. Respondent's final witness , Personnel Director Arthur Tuggle, in substance gave the following testimony. About August 5, 1969, Hutchinson took 1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an oral statement from Theresa Croom in Tuggle's presence. As Croom narrated the facts Tuggle recorded them in longhand on a "legal pad." Later, "When this thing became a case," Tuggle asked Croom to, and she did, dictate her statement to Tuggle's secretary and this was "typed up by the secretary and notarized." This occurred on August 18, 1969 . Such statement is in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 5. Tuggle was present during a conversation between Hutchinson and employee Harold Marks. After .Hutchinson "paid our respects for his death in his family," Hutchinson remarked to Marks "about the employment place of Harold's wife ... Harold corrected him. . . no. she did not work at Edkerd's, that she worked at A & P." When Hutchinson stated that he saw Mrs. Marks "at the picket line at Ekerd's," Marks retorted that his wife was "just helping them out over there and what she does is her business. . . ... But at no time did Hutchinson refer to any "nigger" in this colloquy. D. Concluding Findings and Discussion as to the Discharge of Nixon B. Howard "Direct evidence of a purpose to violate the statute is rarely obtainable [ in connection with an employee's discharge.]" Hartsell Mills v. N.L.R.B., 111 F.2d 291, 293 (C.A. 4). "Nowadays it is usually a case of more subtlety." N.L.R.B. v. Neu- hoff Bros., Packers, Inc., 375 F.2d 372, 374 (C.A. 5). Consequently it is imperative to scan the record to ascertain the actual motive prompting an em- ployee's dismissal. Radio Officers Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 50. On the record unfolded before me I am of the opinion, and find, that Howard was discharged for engaging in protected activity and that the reason advanced at the trial for his discharge, i.e., miscon- duct towards employee Croom, is a pretext to disguise or mask the true reason . These ultimate findings are based on the entire record and the fol- lowing findings which I hereby find as facts: 1. Respondent had knowledge of Howard's union activity prior to the time it discharged him. This finding flows from the fact that (1) as Produc- tion Manager Hutchinson credibly testified, he was told that Howard had been soliciting Miss Croom to join the Union during the time Howard accom- panied Miss Croom on July 31, 1969, and (2) both Hutchinson and Personnel Director Tuggle were aware of Howard's union activity by reason of a written statement given to them by Croom. (See G. C. Exh. 5.) Although the foregoing written state- ment is dated August 18, 1969, Respondent's evidence indicates that it merely reaffirms a prior written statement before August 5, 1969, taken by Tuggle from Croom. 2. Respondent entertained union animus. This finding patently follows from two facts: (a) Respondent displayed a printed notice, posted on its bulletin board, that it "does not want a union.... We do not believe that a union is good for you or the company." (See G. C. Exh. 2.) (b) Respon- dent 's Production Manager Hutchinson expressed antiunion sentiments to employees Harold Marks and Kenneth E. Rabon . On the issue presented by (b) in this paragraph I credit Marks and Rabon to the extent that their testimony conflicts with that of Respondent's witnesses Hutchinson and Tuggle. Although the antiunion remarks recited above occurred shortly after Howard' s discharge, it is reasonable to infer-and I do so-that they reflected Respondent 's attitude towards unions as of the time when Howard was discharged. Of course I recognize, and rule as a matter of law, that antiunion hostility in itself is not an unfair labor practice, for an employer may lawfully dislike or oppose unions and may lawfully express antiunion sentiments. N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d 1, 8 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Howard Quarries, 362 F.2d 236 (C.A. 8). Nevertheless antiunion animus is a factor which may be evaluated in ascertaining the true reason prompting a discharge. Maphis Chapman Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 368 F.2d 298, 304 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Georgia Rug Mill, 308 F.2d 89, 91 (C.A. 5). 3. Respondent committed other unfair labor practices, as found below. This conduct may be weighed in determining the actual basis for a dis- charge. It is also significant that Howard's dis- charge coincided with the Union's organizational campaign. N.L.R.B. v. Mira-Pak, Inc., 354 F.2d 525, 527 (C.A. 5); Texas Industries, Inc., 156 NLRB 423, 425. 4. Howard was abruptly discharged during the Union's organizational drive. Thus timing is also significant. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company, 142 NLRB 1083, 1085-86. The abruptness of the discharge warrants the inference-and I draw it- that Howard's union activity entered into the deci- sion to discharge him. "The abruptness of a dis- charge and its timing are persuasive evidence as to motivation." N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 247 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 355 U.S. 829; N.L.R.B. v. Hawthorn Com- pany, 404 F.2d 1205, 1210 (C.A. 8); N.L.R.B. v. L. E. Farrell Co., 360 F.2d 205, 208 (C.A. 2). 5. Production Manager Hutchinson avoided giving a reason for Howard's discharge when Howard asked for one. In this connection I find that merely informing Howard that he was dis- charged because of "a six month's probation" is neither responsive to Howard's inquiry nor does it constitute assigning a reason for terminating him. Failure to give a reason "alone would be enough to support an inference that the lay-off was discrimina- tory." N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307 F.2d 275, 278 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Plant City Steel Corp., 331 F.2d 511, 515 (C.A. 5); Virginia Metalcrafters, Incorporated, 158 NLRB 958, STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1011 962; Sutherland Lumber Company, Inc., 176 NLRB 1010. Idraw this inference. 6. Respondent did not conduct an impartial in- vestigation to ascertain the truth or veracity of Howard's alleged misconduct . At most Respondent did no more than ( a) have Miss Croom 's mother confirm orally and in writing in Production Manager Hutchinson 's office a complaint which the mother had previously made over the telephone, and (b ) take a written statement from Miss Croom. But at no time was Howard invited to offer his ver- sion of the events in controversy . This omission to ask for an explanation from Howard , the failure to allow him to defend himself, and the neglect to af- ford him an opportunity to present his account of the events involving him in my opinion demonstrate that Respondent did not conduct a fair and objec- tive investigation of Howard 's purported derelic- tions. I so find. Failure to conduct a fair investigation of an em- ployee 's alleged shortcomings is evidence of a dis- criminatory intent in discharging such employee, especially when viewed in the light of Respondent's hostility to the Union on whose behalf the em- ployee was active. Norfolk Tallow Co., Inc., 154 NLRB 1052, 1059. See Shell Oil Company v. N.L.R.B., 128 F.2d 206, 207 (C.A. 5). Further, an arbitrary attitude of discharging a new employee may be considered in determining the motive underlying a discharge . U-Tote M of Oklahoma, Inc., 172 NLRB 228, affd. on this issue sub nom. Fairmont Foods Company v. N.L.R.B., 407 F.2d 828, 829 (C.A. 4). In this connection I expressly find that Howard did not engage in any misconduct, as I specifically credit his testimony as to what occurred late on July 30 and early on July 31, 1969. To the extent that Respondent's evidence is inconsistent with Howard 's, I do not credit the Respondent's evidence . Thus I find that Howard at no time threatened Miss Croom, that he offered her his pro- tection, that she willingly accepted said protection, that she voluntarily accompanied Howard to Ez- zell's Restaurant, and that at no time did Howard force Croom to go to Ezzell 's or to sign a union card . And I further find that Howard was engaged in protected activity when he accompanied Croom on the above occasion as he actively solicited her to join the Union during the course of the conversa- tion with her. Because of the above finding that Respondent did not conduct a fair investigation of Howard's supposed misconduct, I find that Respondent did not act in good faith in believing that he engaged in reprehensible activity . But even if Respondent did act in good faith in believing that Howard 's actions towards Miss Croom were censurable , I find that Respondent was mistaken in such belief for I have found that Howard 's conduct was not blameworthy. Further , I find that Respondent knew that Howard was engaged in union activity while he was with Miss Croom . Accordingly, I find that discharging Howard in the mistaken but good-faith belief that he was engaged in misconduct in the course of union activity, when in fact the misconduct did not occur, renders the discharge unlawful under the Act despite such good faith. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21; United Aircraft Cor- poration , 180 NLRB 278, fn. 3; Marion Manufac- turing Company, 161 NLRB 55, 56, fn. 1. 7. Finally, I find that it is not necessary that union activity be the only reason leading to Howard 's discharge . It is sufficient in finding such discharge to be discriminatory that union activity is a motivating or substantial reason for such termina- tion . N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing, Co., 328 F.2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Lexington Chair Company, 361 F.2d 283, 295 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883, 885 (C.A. 1). And I find that union activity was a substantial reason for Howard's discharge . N.L.R.B. v. Park Edge Sheridan Meats, Inc., 341 F.2d 725, 728 (C.A. 2). E. Concluding Findings and Discussion as to Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Some time after August 5, 1969, Production Manager Hutchinson told employee Rabon that Hutchinson had "heard we have a union here now" and that "the timing of the union was bad." Respondent's contrary evidence is not credited. While not very serious (cf. N.L.R.B. v. Talbot General Wire Products, Inc., 419 F.2d 824 (C.A. 8)), this statement of Hutchinson never- theless interferes with the rights of employees to be free of employer intrusion into their protected activities. Hence I find it violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. About August 1969, Hutchinson asked employee Marks if Marks knew anything about the Union. Respondent's contrary evidence is not credited. This is coercive interrogation as no legitimate pur- pose for such an inquiry is disclosed in the record. Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 774-775, en- forcement denied 344 F.2d 617 (C.A. 8). In this same conversation Hutchinson said that he would not put up with union activity around the shop. His denial thereof is not credited . I find that this ut- terance is coercive as it threatens employees with reprisals if they show any interest in a union. Two or three weeks later Hutchinson told Marks that Hutchinson had seen the wife of Marks on a picket line at A & P . This is coercive as it connotes employer disapproval concerning the protected ac- tivity of an employee's relative ; and I so find . In this same conversation Hutchinson asked Personnel Director Tuggle , who was also present, if Tuggle "had another nigger he could hire." Respondent's evidence contradicting this version by Marks is not credited. But I find that this remark by Hutchinson contains no threat of reprisal against protected ac- 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 65 1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tivity, and, therefore, is not coercive. Accordingly, I find that this does not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that the National Labor Relations Board order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take specific af- firmative action, as set forth below, designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. Since the discharge of Howard goes "to the very heart of the Act" (N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4)), I shall recommend that the relief provided in the Board's Order be broad enough to prevent further infraction of the Act in any manner. Cf. R & R Screen Engraving, Inc., 151 NLRB 1579, 1587. In view of the finding that Respondent dis- criminated against Nixon B. Howard in discharging him, it will be recommended that it be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or one substantially equivalent tthereto, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges. It will further be recom- mended that Howard be made whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. In making Howard whole, Respondent shall pay to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of his layoff to the date of reinstatement or a proper offer of reinstatement, as the case may be, less his net earnings during such period. Such backpay, if any, is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent calculated by the formula set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that Respondent preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon reasonable request, all pertinent records and data necessary to aid in analyzing and determining whatever backpay may be due. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the fol- lowing: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Respondent is an employer within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Nixon B. Howard, thereby discouraging membership in I.T.U., a labor or- ganization , Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice condemned by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By engaging in the conduct set forth in this paragraph, Respondent has committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act: ( a) telling an employee that Respondent had "heard we have a union here now ... the tim- ing of the union was bad"; (b) coercively inter- rogating an employee if such employee knew anything about the Union; (c) telling an employee that it would not put up with union activity around the shop; and (d) coercively intimating to an em- ployee disapproval concerning the protected activi- ty of such employee's wife. 5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent has not committed any other un- fair labor practices alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, I recommend that the Board issue an Order requiring that Respondent, its officers, agents, suc- cessors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization, by discharging em- ployees or otherwise discriminating in any manner in respect to their tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Telling employees that it had heard that they had a union and that the timing of the union was bad. (c) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their protected activities or those of the members of their families. (d) Telling employees that it will not put up with union activity around the shop. (e) In any other manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights vouchsafed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Nixon B. Howard immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or one sub- stantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges en- joyed by him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of his dis- STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. charge, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent. (b) Notify said Nixon B. Howard if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon 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. (d) Post at its plant at Wilmington, North Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor prac- tices not found herein. ' 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 said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify our employees that 1013 WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In- ternational Typographical Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating in any manner in respect to their tenure of employ- ment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT coercively ask employees questions about their protected activities or those of the members of their families. WE WILL NOT tell employees that we have heard that they had a union and that the timing of the union was bad. WE WILL NOT tell employees that we will not put up with union activity around the shop. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer Nixon B. Howard immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or one substantially equivalent to it , and will pay him backpay for any loss of pay he may have suf- fered as a result of his discharge by us, with in- terest thereon at 6 percent. WE WILL notify Nixon B. Howard if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selec- tive Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refuse to become or remain, members of said In- ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, 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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem , North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-9211 , Ext. 360.