Hickman Garment Co.

864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hickman Garment Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 9-CA-4872, 9-CA-4944, 9-CA-4967, 9-CA-5288, and 9-RC-7797 August 1 1, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND BROWN On March 17 , 1970, Trial Examiner Melvin Pol- lack issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner 's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed . Finally, the Trial Examiner found that certain conduct of Respondent after the petition in Case 9-RC-7797 was filed interfered with the elec- tion , and recommended that the election be set aside and the petition dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a supporting brief, and an answering brief, and the Charging Party filed cross -exceptions and a supporting 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 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawful interrogation , promises of benefits , threats that the employees might have less work if the Union were voted into the plant , attributing loss of I As found by the Trial Examiner, there were 208 employees in the unit on July 5, 1968 We find that the Union had obtained valid cards from 116 employees in the unit as of that date In addition, we note that the Union received valid cards from Joyce Cunningham , Ruth Cunningham, Mary Freeman , Brenda Giles, Shirley Lockard, and Lana Stowe before July 23, 1968 (see Appendix ), thus increasing the number to 122 by the later date In accepting as valid the cards with printed signatures, we note that each was authenticated by the testimony of the solicitor who witnessed the "sig- ning" of the card McEwen Manufacturing Company, eta! , 172 NLRB No employees ' vacation pay to the Union, and dis- tributing coercive antiunion propaganda during the election campaign ; and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by discharging employees Lizzie Hendrix, Evelyn Jackson, Maycel Phipps, Connie Kennedy, Blossie Westbrook, and Beverly Callison for discriminatory reasons . We further agree with the Trial Examiner 's finding that Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union on and after June 20, 1968, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and that a bargaining order is necessary to remedy the effects of its unfair labor practices. The record shows, and we find, that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the stipulated unit at the time it demanded bargaining.' As already noted , subsequent to the demand, Respondent engaged in extensive violations of the Act which involved every employee in the unit. We note further that the Board has previously found that this Respondent has engaged in a pattern of similar unfair labor practices at this plant during the same campaign .2 Respondent's flagrant repeti- tion of conduct previously found unlawful not only precluded the holding of a fair election in the representation proceeding the Union had instituted, but in our judgment was of a sufficiently pervasive and extensive character to have undermined the Union's preexisting majority . We are of the further opinion that the lingering effects of the Respon- dent's past coercive conduct render uncertain the possibility that traditional remedies can ensure a fair election . We therefore conclude, on balance, that the Union's majority card designations provide a more reliable test of employees ' desires and better protect employee rights than would a rerun election.3 In these circumstances, we believe that restoration of the status quo ante required in order to vindicate employee rights and prevent the Re- spondent from profiting from its own unfair labor practices would necessitate a bargaining order even absent an 8(a)(5) violation. Additionally, we find that by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union and by engaging in the aforesaid unfair labor practices, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by imposition of a bargain- ing order to remedy such violations.4 99 (cards of Bishop and Black) 2 Hickman Garment Company, 172 NLRB No 118, enfd 408 F 2d 379 (C A. 6), cert denied 396 U.S 838 s N L R B . v Gisse! Packing Company , 395 U S 595 ' The Charging Party has filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's failure to recommend that the Respondent be ordered to make employees whole for losses suffered as a result of the Respondent's refusal to bargain, mail copies of the notice to employees of the Hickman Garment Company and (Continued) 184 NLRB No. 99 HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 865 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hickman Garment Company, Hickman , Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 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. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on September 27, 1968, in Case 9-RC-7797 be, and it hereby is, set aside and all proceedings in that case be, and they hereby are, vacated. (Continued) the Ridgely Manufacturing Company; require a responsible company offi- cial to read the Board 's notice to each employee of the Hickman Garment Company and the Ridgely Manufacturing Company, grant to the Union reasonable access for a 1-year period to the Hickman Garment Company plant bulletin boards, grant to the Union, upon request, made within I year of the issuance of this Decision , a list of names and addresses of all bargain- ing unit employees at Hickman Garment Company, and make available, upon request , suitable facilities for employee meetings so that the Union may present its views to the employees assembled on company time at a (- hour meeting at the plant We deem it inappropriate in this case to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial orders in cases involving violations of Section 8(a)(5), or violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) We therefore find no merit in these exceptions . See Monroe Auto Equipment Company, Hartwell Division, 164 NLRB 1051, Marine Welding and Repair Works, Inc., Williamson Engine and Supply, Inc., Greenville Manufacturing and Machine Works, Inc, Greenville Propeller Works Inc., 174 NLRB 661 -2-67 APPENDIX 1. Anderson, Adell 3-8-67 2. Baggett, Minnie 11-15-67 3. Baker, Ruby 1-25-68 4. Barnett, Betty 6-18-68 Jean 5. Basham , Kathleen 4-18-67 H. 6. Bass, Birtie 4-24-67 7. Belt , Shirley Ann 3-16-68 8. Bequette , Laverne 11-8-67 9. Blackburn , Elneda 3-20-67 10. Booker, Betty 3-23-67 11. Bradley, Betty 2-2-67 Jean 12. Bradshaw, Arey 3-27-67 13. Brawner, Susie 2-1-67 14. Bridges , Helen 6-24-68 Louise 15. Brooks, David L. 2-14-68 16. Brown , Helen 6-27-68 Frances 17. Bryson, Charles 6-4-68 18. Bryson , Hazel 9-6-67 19. Cagle, Betty 2-1-67 Louise 20. Caldwell, Pamela 6-20-68 Louise 21. Callison, Beverly 2-1-67 22. Campbell, Sue 2-23-67 23. Carr, Rena 6-10-68 24. Carr, Steve 6-4-68 25. Cheers, Lillie 2-2-67 Mae 26. Choate, Linda 2-1-67 27. Council, Norma 2-1-67 28. Craddock, Linda 3-16-67 Kay 29. Crittenden, 2-6-68 Brenda Sue 30. Crittenden, 2-6-68 Charles 31. Crumble, Cecil 6-28-68 32. Cunningham, 7-8-68 Joyce 33. Cunningham, 7-12-68 Ruth 34. Dean, Jeannette 5-7-67 35. DeHart, Mattie 2-1-67 36. Dickerson, 5-7-67 Flossie 37. Eakes, Betty • 6-26-68 38. Eakes, Martha 3-17-67 Ann 39. Edgin, Glenda Jo 2-1-67 40. Edwards, Amrit 4-26-67 41. Elliott, Ada Faye 5-6-68 42. Farmer, Janice 2-1-67 43. Ferrell, Allene 11-8-67 44. Flanigan, Rose 6-20-68 Marie 45. Freeman, Mary 7-8-68 London 46. Freeman, Willie 6-27-68 Mae 47. Gibson, Dorothy 2-1-67 48. Giles, Brenda 7-23-68 Kay 49. Giles, Clarence 6-20-68 50. Goodman, Jo 2-1-67 Ann 51. Goodman, Mary 5-15-67 52. Gougar, Maudie 3-16-67 53. Graham, Nancy 6-20-68 Ellen 54. Green, Mary B. 4-11-68 55. Haney, Edna 2-1-67 Rose 56. Harris, Evelyn 5-13-68 57. Harrison, Doris 3-13-67 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 58. Harvey, Aggie 11-30-67 Lee 59. Henderson , Doris 6-21-68 L. 60. Henderson , Mary 6-28-68 Sue 61. Hendrix , Lizzie 4-7-67 62. Hickman , Mary 2-1-67 63. Higgins , Peggy 2-1-67 64. Jackson , Dorothy 2-1-67 65. Jackson, Evelyn 6-12-68 66. Jones, Ada 6-24-68 Lucille 67. Jones, Julia 6-20-68 68. Jones, Leona 2-1-67 69. Jones, Phillip W . 6-24-68 70. Keath, Janeta I. 3-7-67 71. Kennedy , Connie 2-1-67 Patricia 72. Kinney, Mildred 3-13-67 73. King, Melba 4-24-67 74. Lane, Margaret 6-24-68 75. Lockard , Shirley 7-17-68 Kathryn 76. Logan, Margaret 2-1-67 G. 77. Luter, Leone 3-2-67 78. Mays, Bettye 11-16-67 Dean 79. McClure , Paula 2-1-67 R. 80. McDaniel , David 6-19-68 Scruggs 81. Murphy, Marcine 3-14-67 82. Nerren, Dianna 3-5-68 H. 83. Newberry, Ann 5-24-68 84. Nichols, Franklin 6-27-68 85. Pannell, Rachel 6-20-68 Darlene 86. Pewett, Wilma 3-16-67 87. Phipps , Maycel 6-3-68 88. Pierce , Betty 3-5-67 Ruth 89. Pillow , James 6-21-68 Thomas 90. Pratt, Sandra 6-14-68 Jean 91. Raymond , Etthyl 3-1 1-67 Lean 92. Rice, Ruth Ann 3-20-67 93. Riley, Mary Lee 6-19-68 94. Roberts , Beatrice 3-1-67 95. Robinson , 4-4-67 Minnie Mae 96. Sharp , Ruby 6-17-68 97. Staggs , Mary 3-28-67 LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 98. Stowe, Lana 7-17-68 99. Stray, Annie 11-30-67 Russell 100. Stray, Norma 6-24-68 Lou 101. Tarver, Swan 6-5-68 102. Taylor, Mildred 11-15-67 103. Thomas, Betty 3-15-67 Lou 104. Thompson, 3-27-67 Virginia 105. Thurman, 2-28-67 Shirley 106. Vaught, Rose 2-27-68 107. Walsh, Mary 4-15-68 Sue 108. Warren, 6-18-68 Dorothy Ann 109. Warren, 6-29-68 Josephine 110. Warren, Marion 4-12-68 Lee 111. Westbrook, 5-23-68 Blossie 112. Whitlock, Rose 6-24-68 113. Wilkerson, 11-8-67 Florence 114. Williams, Bertie 3-14-67 115. Williams, Joyce 6-26-68 Carolyn 116. Williams, Larry 6-25-68 Gene 117. Wilson, Iria J. 6-27-68 118. Winters, 6-18-68 Marjorie 119. Wirth, Francine 6-14-68 120. Woodruff, 3-22-67 Mildred 121. Workman, 2-2-67 Rosella 122. Wright, 2-2-67 Jimmie N. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MELVIN POLLACK, Trial Examiner: In this con- solidated proceeding under Sections 9(c) and 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), the issues to be decided are whether Respondent Hickman Gar- ment Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-organization; whether Respondent discharged or otherwise discriminated against six employees in order to discourage support of the HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union ; whether Respondent refused to bargain with the Union; and whether the objections filed by the Union to the results of an election held on September 27, 1968, should be sustained and the election set aside.' The case was heard at Hickman , Kentucky, on December 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1969. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and by counsel for the Union have been considered . Upon the entire record herein2 and my observation of the witnesses as they testified , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent, a Kentucky corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of clothing and garments at its plant in Hickman , Kentucky . Its interstate sales ex- ceed $50,000 annually. I find, as Respondent ad- mits, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Union , which had unsuccessfully tried to or- ganize the Hickman plant in the past , initiated a new organizing campaign in January 1967. In Hickman Garment Company, 172 NLRB No. 118, enfd . 408 F.2d 379 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 396 U.S. 838, the Board found inter, alia that Respondent during February and March 1967 discharged or refused employment to 19 employees for engaging in protected concerted or union activity, threatened employees with loss of employment and lower wages for engaging in union activity , and promised employees increased benefits if they abandoned their support of the Union. Philip and Nettie Roseman are the principal of- ficers of Respondent and of Ridgely Manufacturing Company, which manufactures clothing at a plant in Ridgely, Tennessee . On November 26, 1968, a Trial Examiner's Decision issued in Ridgely Manu- facturing Company, Case 26-CA-3143, finding inter alia that Ridgely had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating its employees concerning their union membership and activities, ' In Case 9-CA-4872, a charge was filed on September 6, 1968, and a complaint issued on October 30, 1968. In Case 9-CA-4944, charges were filed on October 29, November 6, 14 and 21 , 1968, and a complaint issued on January 20, 1969 In Case 9-CA-4967, a charge was filed on November 14, 1968, and a complaint issued on March 5 , 1969. In Case 9-CA-5288, a charge was filed on August 8, 1969, and a complaint issued on September 19, 1969 The Board on August 21, 1969, directed that a hearing be held on objections filed by the Union in Case 9-RC-7797 The foregoing cases were consolidated for hearing by the Regional Director for Region 9 by an order dated September 19, 1969. In Case 9-CA-5420, a charge was filed 867 by theatening employees with loss of their jobs or plant closure if they selected the Union as their bar- gaining representative, and by promising employees insurance benefits and putting them into effect to dissuade them from supporting the Union. Ridgely did not file timely exceptions and the Board, by or- ders issued on December 31, 1968, and January 22, 1969, adopted the Trial Examiner's findings. B. The Refusal to Bargain On June 20, 1968, the Union sent Respondent a letter requesting recognition and negotiations on a contract for the production and maintenance em- ployees at the Hickman plant. It offered to prove its majority status by a card check conducted by a neutral third party. President Philip Roseman replied by letter dated June 25, 1968, that Respon- dent had a good-faith doubt that the Union represented "an uncoerced or properly informed majority of our employees in any appropriate unit" and suggested that the Union "process the matter" before the Board. By letter dated July 3, 1968, the Union requested Respondent to clarify its position and again offered to prove its majority status by a card check. On July 5, 1968, the Union filed its petition for a Board election. In a letter dated July 10, 1968, Respondent's attorneys noted that the Union had filed a petition with the Board and sug- gested that the Union permit the Board to resolve the matter of representation. On August 14, 1968, the parties executed a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election. The stipulated bargaining unit is composed of all production and maintenance employees at the Hickman plant, excluding all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. A check of the union cards put into evidence against Respon- dent's July 5, 1968, payroll shows that the Union had cards from 116 employees out of 208 em- ployees in the unit as of that date.3 I find below that Respondent, upon the scheduling of the Board elec- tion , engaged in unfair labor practices including threats of economic reprisal, promises of benefit, and discharges of employees because of their union activity. I find that by refusing to bargain with the Union and thereafter engaging in a series of unfair labor practices which were calculated and tended to undermine the Union's majority status, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Easton Packing Company, 180 NLRB 1092. on November 17, 1969 , and a complaint issued on November 25, 1969, which was amended at the hearing after I granted the General Counsel's motion to consolidate. ' The unopposed motion of the Union to correct the transcript of testimony is granted 31 have not counted the cards of Joyce and Ruth Cunningham, Mary Freeman , Brenda Giles , Shirley Lockard, and Lana Stowe , whose names appear on the July 5 payroll , as these cards were signed after that date. Two cards are in evidence for Ruth Rice , one dated in 1967 and one after July 5, (Continued) 427-835 0 - 74 - 56 868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion On August 14, 1968, Philip Roseman spoke to the employees over the plant public address system. Roseman testified that he read a prepared speech and made no other remarks. According to the text of the speech, Roseman said the Union had at- tempted to make arrangements with Respondent to collect dues from the employees "without giving them an opportunity to vote in this most important matter in secret" but that "the Federal Government has agreed with your Company" that a secret ballot election should be held at the plant on September 27, 1968. He advised the employees that they would be exposed to "rumors, half truths and misleading statements" by the Union and its sup- porters . He said Respondent was "in trouble trying to get out [its] orders" and needed the support of its employees to meet its commitments , but that the dissatisfaction and problems caused among em- ployees by the Union "can only hurt all of us at this critical time in the life of this Company." He promised that Respondent would keep the em- ployee fully informed "so you will be able to make the right decisions based on actual facts-not promises." Connie Kennedy testified that Roseman said the Union wanted to come in and start collecting union dues but that the Board made them have an elec- tion . Roseman also said he "didn't feel the Union would do us any good and we would probably have less work if the Union came in than we did now and ... it would cause trouble with the Government contract."4 Kennedy's testimony concerning Roseman's remarks on the Union 's attempt to col- lect dues without an election and his feeling that the Union could do the employees no good com- ports with the text of the speech purportedly read without deviation by Roseman . Kennedy's overall testimony in the case is detailed and substantially uncontradicted. For these reasons, I consider her a reliable witness and credit her testimony that Roseman included in his talk on August 14 state- ments to the effect that the employees would probably have less work and Respondent would have trouble retaining its government contracts if the employees selected the Union as their bargain- ing representative . As Roseman did not accompany 1968. 1 have not included Ruth Rice as the record does not show that she was continuously employed after she signed a card in 1967 The Union would also include Brownie Kilpatrick A card for Martha Kilpatrick is in evidence As the record does not show that Brownie and Martha Kilpatrick are the same person, l have not counted this card. While some cards were authenticated by signers , most cards were ad- mitted into evidence over Respondent 's objection on the testimony of sol- icitors that they saw the cards signed or that the employees in question returned signed cards to them The Board has approved such authentica- tion of cards . McEwen Manufacturing Company, et al., 172 NLRB No. 99. (Two cards in evidence for Cecil Crumble are dated February 2 and February 28, 1967. The latter carries a notation on the back " RCW wit- nesses signing Feb. 28 , 1967." Union Representative Nunley identified the solicitor as Roy Wren. I have counted this card.) The Board in the McEwen case also approved cards with printed signatures . I have therefore counted the cards of several employees who printed their names on the signature these remarks with a "basis of objective fact to con- vey [his ] belief as to demonstrably probable con- sequences beyond his control,"5 I find that they were not expressions of opinion protected by Sec- tion 8(c) of the Act but rather threats of reprisal violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.6 On August 22, 1968, Roseman stopped by El- neda Blackburn 's machine and asked her what she knew about the Union and if she wanted a union. He commented that he knew she had never worked for a union because he had "checked that out." As Roseman 's interrogation of Blackburn concerning her union knowledge and sentiments occurred dur- ing an antiunion campaign marked by unlawful threats, promises, and discharges , I find it tended to restrain Blackburn in the exercise of her rights under the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On August 23, 1968, Mrs. Roseman spoke to the employees . Connie Kennedy credibly testified con- cerning Mrs. Roseman 's speech as follows: Mrs. Roseman asked employees who had been visited by union organizers to raise their hands . She said the Union could not do any more for the employees than what she was already doing and could not promise them anything but a strike . She spoke about high union dues and initiation fees and what being on strike in New York had done to her daughter . She said she would bargain with the Union if it were voted in but that " bargaining could go on and on and she didn 't have to do a thing she didn 't want to." She said she had "new insurance" for the employees "but the Union wouldn't let her give it to us." She said if the Union came in, production would continue , "while we were out on strike walking the picket line that other people would be there in our jobs drawing our paychecks." After her speech , Mrs. Roseman came over to Kennedy and said , "I hear you are for the Union. Tell me what you think they can do for you." Ken- nedy mentioned seniority , the setting of production, and the payment of insurance premiums at a unionized plant in Salant. Mrs. Roseman said she "just didn't believe" Kennedy's complaints, and, concerning insurance at the Salant plant, that it "just wasn't so, that the Union did not pay the insurance." I find that Mrs. Roseman violated Section line Although many cards were signed more than 1 year prior to the Union's bargaining requests , I have counted them as they were obtained during an organizing campaign interrupted by the filing and processing of unfair labor practice charges Blade-Tribune Publishing Company, 161 NLRB 1512 4 Respondent at all relevant times manufactured Army raincoats exclu- sively at the Hickman plant " N L R B . v Gissel Packing Co., 395 U S . 575, 618 ° Maycel Phipps testified that the "only thing" she remembered Roseman saying "was something about the Studebaker plant closing and we did not want that to happen at Hickman " As Phipps admitted that she was not "paying too much attention ," I am not satisfied that her recollec- tion of Roseman's remarks on August 14 was accurate and therefore do not credit her testimony in this respect HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) Asking employees who had been visited by union organizers to raise their hands, (2) identifying Connie Kennedy as a Union supporter and asking her what she thought the Union could do for her, and (3) telling the em- ployees that they would have received insurance benefits but for the Union. I further find that Mrs. Roseman 's remarks were calculated to convince the employees that collective bargaining on Respon- dent's part would be a sham, and that a strike and a consequent loss of employment were inevitable if the employees selected the Union as their bargain- ing representative. As her remarks thus stressed the futility of union representation and implied a threat of economic reprisal should the employees select the Union as their bargaining representative at the Board election, I find them violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 619-620; Kellwood Company, etc., 178 NLRB 20. Mrs. Roseman again spoke to the employees on August 27, 1968. Elneda Blackburn credibly testified that Mrs. Roseman told the eemployees the Union would not do more for them than what she was already doing. If they went out on strike, replacements would be hired. She asked an em- ployee if she wanted a union in there, and said she would not be able to get contracts "like she had been getting" if the Union came in . She knew of factories that had been closed "due to the union trying to come in on them." The Union could not get them more pay unless she and her husband "wanted us to have it." The "court fees and so on with the Union" had interfered with production so that "she could not pay us the holiday fees like she had been paying us." The union people were "gangsters" who "just wanted paychecks and fees" which would be sent to New York, and the em- ployees would get no benefit in return.7 I find that Mrs. Roseman violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by her assertions, unaccom- panied by objective facts, that: (1) Respondent would lose contracts if the Union came in, (2) Respondent could not give the employees their usual holiday pay because its involvement with the Union had interfered with production, and (3) the Union had caused other plants to close. I further find that her overall remarks on the futility of union representation, strikes, and loss of employment were substantially repetitive of her remarks on Au- gust 23 and equally violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. On September 24, 1968, a birthday party was given at the plant for Mrs. Roseman.' The party was attended by the Rosemans, their daughter, and 'Maycel Phipps also testified concerning an August 27, 1968 , speech by Mrs. Roseman "about the union " She said Mrs Roseman said union dues would be $3 to $4 a month and "would go to the New York gangsters " Mrs Roseman then asked Phipps, "You worked in a union company What have they ever done for you?" Phipps replied she had not worked there long enough to know 6 Ethyl Raymond testified that this was the only birthday party for Mrs. 869 all the employees. Mrs. Roseman received a gift from the employees' and the employees were served a free luncheon. That afternoon, Respon- dent distributed a leaflet reading: "Don't let the Union Gum Up the Works. Don't Get Stuck. Vote No!" A package of gum was attached to each leaflet. Although I do not doubt that the unprecedented birthday party for Mrs. Roseman was part of Respondent's antiunion campaign, I do not con- sider the serving of a free lunch to the employees or the distribution of packages of gum after the party a grant of benefits sufficient to warrant a Section 8(a)(1) finding. On September 25, 1968, Mrs. Roseman spoke to the employees "one [section] at a time." I find that she told the employees substantially the following:'' The Union made a lot of promises it could not keep and would make the employees pay high dues and high initiation fees and also make them pay em- ployees on strike against other companies. Respon- dent's government contracts could be broken if the plant were unionized, the plant might have less work for the employees, and the plant could go else- where. The Union had promised the employees better' pay and holidays but the Union could not make her and her husband do anything they did not want to do. If the Union came in, and someone in the Union did not like any employee, that employee could be fired, She could not give the employees better insurance now because of the Union, but they would get better insurance and she was work- ing on a July vacation of a week with pay for the employees. Mrs. Roseman showed the employees a number of slides. One slide showed picketing of a plant where grass and weeds had grown around the plant. She asked, "Is this what you want to happen to your plant?" Another slide showed a man on a scaf- fold with a rope around his neck. Mrs. Roseman asked, "Would you want this to happen to you because of the Union?" Mrs. Roseman said if the Union got in, it could strike the next day and that was what it was for, that it always came around and tried to stir up trou- ble "after you get a job and get established in a plant." If the employees struck for more pay than she was willing to pay, she would hire other hands to replace the strikers. I find that Mrs. Roseman violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) her assertions that Respondent might lose its government contracts, the plant could go elsewhere, and the employees might have less work if the plant were unionized; (2) her statements that the employees would get Roseman at the plant in the 5 years Raymond had worked for Respondent 0 A collection for the gift had been taken up by Supervisor Mildred Glidewell 10 These findings are based on a synthesis of the testimony of Ethyl Raymond , Sue Campbell , Maycel Phipps, Leona Roberts, Hilda Everett, and Lillian Parker 870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD better insurance," and that she was working on a July vacation with pay for the employees ; and (3) her statements, highlighted by slides, to the effect that union representation was futile , and that it in- evitably would lead to strikes, loss of employment, and the closing of the plant. On September 26, 1968, the day before the Board election, Philip Roseman spoke to all the employees from a platform "erected in the middle of the plant near the entrance." He testified that he did not "deviate one bit" from a printed speech which he read "word for word." According to the text of this speech, Roseman said inter alia: Now if you decide you want a union, and that's your right, we'll bargain in good faith and make concessions to the union. We hope there wouldn't be a strike. But I do want to make one thing clear to everyone. If there is a strike here, and make no mistake about it- we'll take a strike to stay economically competitive. If this happens, we have a gov- ernment contract which we have to finish so we probably won't operate this plant during a strike, because it probably wouldn't be effi- cient. We'll make everything that is being made here now in another plant during the strike. Make no mistake, I'll do this if economically necessary. Now let me explain to you what a union can get for you-nothing . A union can't get you anything by itself-it has to get the company to give it and if we won 't or can 't, all they can do is strike . Bargaining starts from zero or scratch. In other words everything you now have is up for grabs. You could get less money ; you could get more money . The Union might trade lower pay and some of your holidays for a union dues clause- and this happens every day. Many of you know my daughter , Betty, who used to work in the plant . She's a school teacher and has been out on strike for over a month . Betty and 53,000 of her fellow teachers are out on strike now. She lost her apartment because she's broke. The union promised her strike money and she never got any. In short Betty doesn 't have a job now because she went out on strike . She told me the union lied to her and she wished she hadn 't believed them. Betty didn 't get anything for her dues money. She said she might as well have thrown the money away because the union didn 't get or give her anything except to cause her to lose her job. That's just one reason the union won't put anything in writing . They would rather lie about insurance and other things . If they put it in writing you could sue them for lying to you. " Insurance leaflets were distributed to the employees about September 20, 1968 , and the employees received improved insurance benefits after the September 27 election . I find that Respondent granted these benefits for antiunion reasons, in violation of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act Exchange Now we've had a lot of production problems here as all of you know, but I think we're just above over the hump . This can mean a better life for all of you if we can continue working together free from possible union trouble. We're a small company and I don 't think a union will help anyone ; it could hurt all of us. This I sincerely and honestly mean. Now let me repeat several things because of their importance: 1. Bargaining starts from scratch or zero. You could get more or you could get less. 2. If there 's a strike we'll probably be forced to make most of our coats in another plant during the strike because it would probably be too inefficient to make them here. 3. If you have signed a union card,-Re- member you can vote no. This is your right under the law. Ethyl Raymond testified that Roseman included in his speech a statement that the government con- tract would be broken and the plant closed down "if they got a union in the plant ." Sue Campbell testified that Roseman said "if the Union came in, the coats would be made at another plant " and that "the Union couldn 't guarantee our jobs." In a pretrial affidavit' 12 Blossie Westbrook stated that Roseman declared that if the Union got in , before he would let them take away his factory, he would take all the coats to Ridgely and the employees would be out of a job. I find it unnecessary to determine to what extent Roseman may have deviated from this prepared speech, for I find that this speech was not signifi- cantly different from the speeches of Mrs. Roseman in its emphasis on the futility of union representa- tion , strikes, and loss of employment if the Union won the election .In this context, Roseman 's asser- tion that he would manufacture coats elsewhere in the event of a strike was tantamount to a declara- tion that he would close the Hickman plant if the Union won the election . I find , accordingly, that Roseman's speech contained threats of economic reprisals against the employees if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative and hence that it was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent distributed some 15 pieces of anti- union material during the election campaign, includ- ing: A leaflet to "Vote No ... if you want Steady Work" and don't want "Strikes" or "Dues, Fines, Assessments," " Union Domination," "Con- stant Uncertainty,"and "IF you don't want to Pay for what you Already Have." A leaflet with a cartoon of a Gypsy fortune teller reading a crystal ball with the words "Dues, Ru- mors, Strikes Violence" and captioned "I See Parts Co , 375 U S 405 " Westbrook was hospitalized at the time of the hearing . The parties ac- cepted Westbrook 's affidavits in lieu of her testimony HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY Possible Trouble Ahead." The text of the leaflet emphasized that a union cannot force a company to do anything; that union salesmen sell "dues"; that unions cause strikes and plant closedowns. The leaflet closed with the sentence : "Strike and labor violence will only hurt the company and hurt its employees." A leaflet with a union letter showing the con- sequences of a lost strike . The leaflet asked "Can you be sure it will not happen here?" and answered "Yes ... Vote No Union." A newspaper advertisement which , in part, listed what Respondent had tried to do for the employees and stated : "Hickman Garment sincerely feels that no union can do one single thing for anyone that the Company isn't doing anyway because in other plants where this Union is in employees have ac- tually ended up with less money and less freedom with the union than they had without it." A leaflet with a drawing of a judge holding a gavel and emphasizing: "The Union Cannot Make the Company Do Anything "; "The Union Could Cause You To Lose Your Job" (because if it calls a strike the company has the right to replace economic strikers ); "Unions often cause employees a lot of Trouble and Cost Them A Lot of Money by fines (hundreds of dollars ) assessments and `special levies' and union caused discharge and loss of seniority." A leaflet headed Hickman Garment Company which showed the salaries paid the Union 's three top officers and the Union's total salaries and ex- penses in 1967 . The leaflet concluded : "That's a total of $3,121 ,222.02 the Union Bosses spent in 1967 ... no wonder they want you-they need your money . There's one other thing, if there was a strike here, the Union Bosses and Organizers still get paid-they just go on to some other town." The foregoing materials, no less than the speeches of Mr . and Mrs . Roseman , were calcu- lated to instill a belief in the employees that collec- tive bargaining could accomplish nothing for them and that selection of the Union as their bargaining representative could only lead to strikes and loss of work . I find , accordingly, that the antiunion materi- als distributed by Respondent , viewed in their en- tirety and evaluated in light of the coercive speeches of the Rosemans , contained threats of economic reprisal for union activity violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cf. Yazoo Valley Elec- tric Power Assn ., 163 NLRB 777, 788-789. D. The Discrimination Against Employees 1. Lizzie Hendrix Lizzie Hendrix was hired at the Hickman plant " A letter in evidence dated October 27, 1969 , offering reinstatement to Beverly Callison , is signed by Gray as "Personnel Director " I am satisfied from Gray 's actions with respect to the alleged discnmmatees as described in the text that, whether or not so formally designated , she exercised the 871 on August 17, 1966. She signed a union card on April 7, 1967, and talked "more than once" to other employees in favor of the Union. She told "some of the girls" she herself had signed a card. Hendrix saw her doctor in June 1968 about the removal of her tonsils . The doctor set a date in July for a tonsillectomy and gave her some tablets for blood pressure . The medication caused Hendrix to "go to the bathroom quite often " and also made her "slightly dizzy ." Hendrix advised Gayle Gray in the plant office of her difficulties and asked Gray for an indefinite leave of absence . Gray told her "to go ahead home."19 The tonsillectomy was performed on July 23, 1968 . Hendrix called Plant Supervisor Peter Hol- comb on August 5 at his home . Holcomb told her to report to the office and he would have her machine set up when she "got there the next day." Hendrix called the office after speaking to Hol- comb and told Gray she was "able to come back to work." Gray said she would have to check to see if her machine was set up . Hendrix asked about her insurance premium , which was deducted from her paycheck. Gray told her to send the premium in. Hendrix did so and was covered for her tonsillecto- my expenses. Hendrix spoke to Holcomb again on August 10, 1968. Holcomb said work was still slow and they had no work for her then . She asked him whether she could draw her "unemployment " and he told her "to go and sign up for it." Hendrix applied for unemployment compensation but was informed that she was not eligible because Respondent had reported that she "quit." Hendrix called Gray, who said she had "quit." Hendrix said she had not quit. Gray told her to continue to call in about work. Hendrix spoke to Gray again 'on August 26 about work. At Gray's request, she got a statement about her tonsillectomy. Hendrix called Gray several more times about work and each time Gray said they still had no work for her. Hendrix was rehired by Respondent on June 3, 1969,14 and assigned to a sewing operation she had not previously performed which required "more time." According to a list submitted by Respondent of employees discharged in 1967, 1968 and 1969, al- legedly for absenteeism or nonproduction , Hendrix was discharged for both these reasons . Hendrix's testimony that she advised Gray of the side effects of tablets she was taking for high blood pressure, and that Gray granted her an indefinite leave of absence, is uncontradicted . Respondent introduced no evidence to show that Hendrix was a low producer or that she had ever been warned about low production in her 2 years' employment with Respondent . Nor was anything said to Hendrix functions of a personnel director and that Respondent is chargeable with her conduct " Respondent had advertised for sewing operators in November 1968 872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about low production when she was refused work after her tonsillectomy . Rather, she was told that work at the plant was slow and Respondent had nothing for her to do. This reason for refusing her reemployment was plainly false , for the record shows considerable turnover of personnel at the Hickman plant and that Respondent advertised for operators in November 1968, months before it re- called Hendrix to work. Hendrix signed a union card and spoke in favor of the Union at the plant. In view of Respondent 's hostility to the Union and its palpable false explanations for the refusal to reemploy Hendrix after her tonsillectomy, I find that Respondent had work available for Hendrix but that it refused her employment because it knew or believed that she was a union supporter , thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Cf. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466, 470 (C.A. 9). 2. Evelyn Jackson Evelyn Jackson worked for Respondent for about 8 years . She signed union cards on February 1, 1967, and June 12, 1968. During the hearing in the prior unfair labor practice proceeding against Respondent, Mrs. Roseman called six or seven em- ployees, including Jackson, into her office and asked them to make a "statement ." Jackson said she would make a statement "on behalf of what she said " but told Mrs . Roseman that she was "also Union because I signed a Union card. '115 Jackson was away from work for 3 weeks because of an automobile accident on February 18, 1968. She was absent for another week when she had surgery on an arm on June 12. In July, Philip Roseman came up to the line where Jackson was working and claimed that the whole line was not making production . He asked Jackson why she did not make production and Jackson replied that it "wasn't worth the extra sixty cents to work that hard." Jackson was summoned to the office where Foreman William Tony said she was "a ringleader and a queen bee and ... started trouble and caused other girls not to make production."" Jackson spoke to Roseman and Gray about her arm on August 16, 1968 , and received permission "to go and do what I could for my arm." Jackson returned to the plant on August 29 to see about her insurance which she had paid through October 15, 1968. She told Roseman at this time that she would know after she came back from an operation in Memphis whether she would be able to work or not because that would be the last test . Roseman com- mented that he had to be willing to take her back "Jackson recalled that Mrs Roseman made a statement that " Evelyn Jackson told me she had signed the card and I still wanted her to work The record does not show when Mrs Roseman said this 1° Jackson testified that Tony 's charges were not true and that she usually made production 11 Before her discharge on April 6 , 1967, Phipps had signed a union card on March 13, 1967. 18 Phipps testified that her forelady and Gayle Gray knew that she rode because she had "quit." Jackson retorted, "I haven 't quit." Jackson was hospitalized for 1 day in Memphis on September 5 or 6. She telephoned Gayle Gray on September 10 about her job. Gray told her to get a doctor's certificate. Jackson did so and called Gray to tell her she had a statement from her doc- tor. Gray said work was too slack and they had no work for her. Jackson was told by an employee that Mildred Nipp had been put on her machine. Jackson called Gray at the end of the week and asked about work . When Gray said "no," Jackson asked her, "How come you put Mildred Nipp on my machine if you did not have any work for me?" Gray said "I had nothing to do with it." Mrs. Roseman notified Jackson to return to work and Jackson was hired as a new employee on January 28, 1969. Jackson, like Hendrix , was refused employment after an operation on the ground that work was "too slack ." Another employee was in fact assigned to her machine . Respondent was aware that Jackson was a union sympathizer . Her competency is not challenged . I find that Respondent had work for Jackson after her operation but refused to em- ploy her because she was a union supporter, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. Maycel Phipps The Board found in the prior unfair labor prac- tice proceeding that Respondent discharged Maycel Phipps on April 6, 1967, "not because of any record of absenteeism , but because Respondent knew or suspected that she was espousing the Union 's cause" (172 NLRB No. 118, TXD). She was recalled to work in 1968 and signed a second union card on June 3 , 1968.17 She talked to em- ployees at the plant about joining the Union "at various times during the campaign." She identified two union cards dated May 24, 1968 , and one card dated July 23, 1968 , as having been signed in her presence. On Wednesday , October 8, 1968, Phipps had lunch away from the plant and called Philip Roseman about 12:15 p.m. to tell him she would not be able to come in but that she would be in the next day . Roseman said that would be all right. Phipps did not report to work the next day because Vera Holly, who drove her to work , was sick.'8 Phipps was also absent on Friday because "the teachers had a meeting and all my kids were home from school." Phipps sent word by Holly that she would not be in. Holly told Phipps that afternoon that "she told them. "1B with Holly and that she would not be in when Holly was absent from work. 1° Holly testified that she did not see Phipps that Friday and did not re- port Phipps' absence to Respondent . I do not credit Holly in view of her further testimony that Phipps would tell her when Holly "went by her house " if she was not coming in and Holly would in turn tell Respondent when she got to work. Holly did not explain why this "agreement" with Phipps and Respondent was not followed on October 10 HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY Phipps picked up her paycheck at the plant on Saturday. Plant Supervisor Holcomb told her he heard she had quit and that another girl had been put on her machine . Phipps said she had not quit and would be in on Monday . Holcomb instructed her to call Gray before coming in. Phipps called Gray from a neighbor 's house on Monday morning. Gray said they had sent her a letter that they would take it for granted she had quit if she missed any more time without calling in . Phipps said she had sent word to her forelady by Holly . Gray said they had to be told directly in the office and that she had no job for Phipps. Phipps tried to speak to Philip Roseman at the plant on October 15. Roseman rebuffed her and had Gray speak to her in the plant lobby . Gray said she had "quit" but Phipps said she wanted "Mr. Roseman to tell me I don't have a job." Gray replied , " I told you you had quit . And you don't have to talk to him." Phipps said she would sign up for "unemployment" and Gray replied , "Go ahead if you can." Respondent offered Phipps work in June 1969 but Phipps refused to return because she was now living too far from the plant. Phipps' testimony that Roseman excused her absence on Wednesday afternoon , October 8, that she did not come to work on Thursday because Holly was sick , and that both her forelady and Gray knew that she depended on Holly for a ride is un- contradicted. Respondent has not explained why in these circumstances Gray sent her a letter that she would be considered "quit " if she missed any more time without calling in . In any event , Phipps sent word by Holly on Friday , October 10, that she would not be in that day. As Phipps ordinarily had Holly notify Respondent of her absences, and as it does not appear that Gray checked with Holly be- fore she discharged Phipps , I consider Gray's state- ment to Phipps the following Monday that she should have reported her absence directly to the of- fice wholly contrived and a pretext to discharge Phipps a second time for her union activity. 4. Connie Kennedy Connie Kennedy worked for Respondent for about 12 years . She signed union cards on February 1, 1967, and June 11, 1968, and talked "on more than one occasion " to employees at the plant about joining the Union. After Mrs . Roseman spoke to the employees on August 23, 1968, she said to Ken- nedy, "I hear you are for the Union . Tell me what you think they can do for you ." Kennedy was a union observer at the September 27, 1968, elec- tion. Just before the election Kennedy told Gayle Gray she wanted to take 6 weeks off for dental work, 873 beginning October 4 . Gray noted Kennedy's request and Kennedy, at Gray's direction , notified her supervisor , Eddie Mayo, that she would be off for 6 weeks beginning October 4 . Kennedy started her 6-week leave of absence on October 4 but called Gray back on October 21 to tell her she was ready to return to work . Gray said she would check , left the phone , and returned to tell Kennedy there was no work for her at that time . She took Kennedy's phone number and said she would call her. Kennedy spoke to Gray on October 23 and November 19, but each time Gray said they had nothing at all for her . Respondent about this time was advertising for sewing machine operators. Gray called Kennedy back to work in May 1969. Kennedy worked until June 27 when she quit because she needed a babysitter . Gray told her to call in when she found a babysitter . About a month or so later, Kennedy called Gray for work. Gray said she had nothing for her . Kennedy has called off and on ever since but Gray said each time they had nothing for her. Kennedy was a union supporter and served as a union observer at the September 27, 1968, elec- tion . Kennedy had received permission in Sep- tember 1968 to take time off for dental work, and had a good reason for quitting work in June 1969. Gray's statements to Kennedy in October and November 1968, and again during the summer of 1969, that Respondent had no work for her were obviously not the real reason for refusing to employ Kennedy, who had worked for Respondent for about 12 years . I find that Respondent refused em- ployment to Kennedy in the fall of 1968 and the summer of 1969 because of her known union ac- tivity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. 5. Blossie Westbrook20 Blossie Westbrook started to work for Respon- dent in January 1967. She signed a union card in the summer of 1968 and served as a union observer at the September 27, 1968, election. Westbrook sent word to Gray on Thursday, Oc- tober 24, 1968, that she was sick . Westbrook also missed work the next day. She returned to the plant on Monday October 28, but was taken ill that morning . Supervisors Eddie Mayo and Ruth Yates spoke to Westbrook and Yates arranged for em- ployee Mary Green to take her home . Green took Westbrook to the doctor instead. Westbrook stayed out of work the rest of the week without reporting to the office. Westbrook reported back for work on Monday, November 4, 1968 . She got her timecard from the rack to clock in but Gayle Gray "came running down the hall " and asked her if they had called her !0 As previously noted, Westbrook was hospitalized at the time of the hearing and the parties agreed to accept her pretrial affidavits as her testimony. The text is based on these affidavits 874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in to work . Westbrook asked if she was laid off but Gray said no, she thought Westbrook had quit. Westbrook asked if Gray knew she was off sick. Gray said she knew that but Westbrook had not called in every day to let them know when she would be back to work . Wesbrook said she knew of no rule like that but that you were supposed to call in the day you were out . Gray left to talk to Plant Supervisor Holcomb . Upon her return , Gray told Westbrook she would have to wait for work until they found another place for the operator assigned to Westbrook 's machine . Gray said she would call Westbrook by Thursday or Friday but she did not do so. Westbrook reported back for work on June 2, 1969, pursuant to an offer of reinstatement from Respondent about May 21, 1969 . She had worked on sewing shields-squares of material-on the left shoulder of the Army raincoats manufactured by Respondent . Westbrook had always made produc- tion on this work. When she returned to work on June 2, Plant Supervisor Holcomb assigned her to sewing pleats. She was given no training for this work which involved "much more sewing ." West- brook had "real trouble in pleating" and asked Hol- comb for another job. Holcomb said he needed her on pleating . Two or three weeks after Westbrook's return to work, Holcomb gave her a warning for low production . She was discharged on July 3, 1969, for low production. It appears that Westbrook consistently made production before she missed a week's work because of illness. Respondent introduced no evidence that it had a strict requirement that em- ployees absent for illness had to call in daily. Gray and Supervisors Mayo and Yeats knew that West- brook was "off sick." Westbrook had acted as a union observer at the September 27, 1968, elec- tion. I find from these circumstances that Respon- dent refused to employ Westbrook on and after November 4, 1968 , because of her union activity. As a discriminatorily discharged employee, West- brook, absent special circumstances , was entitled to reinstatement to her old job. Chase National Bank, 65 NLRB 827, 829 . Respondent, however , assigned her to different work when she returned to work on June 2, 1969, pursuant to Respondent 's offer of reinstatement. Respondent thereafter refused West- brook's request for other work , warned her about low production, and discharged her. Absent adequate explanation by Respondent for its refusal to transfer Westbrook to her former work or other operations within her capacity , these facts warrant an inference that Respondent assigned Westbrook more difficult work and refused to transfer her from this work in order to have a pretext to discharge her again because of her union activity. As Respondent offered no explanation whatsoever for its conduct, I find that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by assigning West- brook to more difficult work and discharging her for low production. 6. Beverly Callison The Board in the prior unfair labor proceeding against Respondent found inter alia that Respon- dent refused reinstatement on February 1, 1967, to Beverly Callison and three other employees because they were "ardent, known, union activists" (172 NLRB No. 118, TXD). After the Supreme Court on October 13, 1969, refused to review the decision of the Sixth Circuit enforcing the Board's order against Respondent , by letter dated October 27, 1969, Respondent offered to reinstate Callison and directed her to report to work on November 4, 1969 , "or notify us of your intentions by that date." Callison received the letter on October 29 and im- mediately called Gray to tell her that she would come to work on November 4. Gray called Callison back in an hour and told her she would have to re- port to work the next morning if she wanted a job. Callison reported to the plant the next morning and was hired as a new employee .21 Quality Manager Hofrath took Callison to a machine and gave her a 10-minute explanation on the work she was to do as a pleater . Callison , who had worked on sewing linings in coats, asked for her old job back. Hofrath said she would have to speak to Plant Supervisor Holcomb about returning to her old job. Callison had made "over production" in her old job but she was not able to make production on pleating which she found "a far more complicated operation." She also had trouble with her machine from the beginning. She complained several times about the machine but "it was never repaired satis- factorily. The stitches were too short and the feeder on it did not work properly ." Callison spoke to both Hofrath and Holcomb about lengthening the stitches on her machine . Hofrath looked the machine over and said the stitching was satisfacto- ry. She also asked Hofrath for permission to ob- serve one of the experienced pleaters . Hofrath refused to let her do so. Shortly after her return to work , Callison told Holcomb she would like to have her old job back, that her new job "wasn 't like the other job and [her] machine didn 't sew as well as the other girls," and that she had never done pleating but that she "was experienced on shell to lining ." Holcomb said he would not take a girl off shell to lining to put Callison on that work and that she could clock out if she did not like what she was doing. Callison said she was not going to quit and would "stay on this job in protest." Much of Callison's work was rejected. About November 10, Supervisor Roger Price returned every coat she had sewn the day before for inspec- " Gray told Callison as a new employee she would receive holiday pay after 6 months, vacation pay after a year, and insurance effective in December HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 875 tion and repair . Callison "started crying" and In- spector Barbara Parnell came over and asked her what was wrong. Callison said she "had been sort- ing through and inspecting all these coats and these bundles and had found only two or three repairs." Parnell told Callison she had found only a few coats that needed redoing and that she had turned them "cross-wise" so that they could be pulled out for repairs and the bundles put through. According to Callison, Gayle Gray followed her "most every time" she left her machine to go to the restroom and "stayed until I went back to my machine." During her lunch hour on November 12, 1969, Callison called her sister-in-law and said she "had to get away from there for a little while."22 About 1 p.m. Gray came over to Callison 's machine and said her daughter was sick and she was to go home. Cal- lison returned home that afternoon. Gray checked with the school which Callison 's daughter attended. The next day, Callison reported for work and found her timecard missing . She went to the office where Gray insisted that she sign a statement that she missed work on November 12, 1969, from 1 to 4:15 p.m. because her daughter was ill . Callison at first refused to do so but then signed the statement, took her timecard , clocked in , and went to her machine. At 9 a.m., Callison returned to the office and told Gray she would appreciate getting the statement back, that she had signed it under duress. Gray asked her what was untrue in the statement. Cal- lison said she had been nervous and upset and wrote out an explanation why she had taken the af- ternoon off. Gray said she would not dismiss Cal- lison but that it would be grounds for dismissal if she "was caught in misrepresenting the facts again." Philip Roseman was present and heard this conversation between Callison and Gray. About 11 or 11:30 a.m., Holcomb told Callison he wanted to see her in the office during her lunch hour. When Callison came to the office, Holcomb, in the presence of Roseman and Gray, told her he was firing her "for misrepresentation of the facts." After lunch, Callison returned to the office and asked Gray why she had reprimanded her that morning and told her she would not be dismissed. Gray said she was not actually fired but only tem- porarily laid off. Callison called Gray the next morning and asked when she could expect to return to work. Holcomb got on the line and told her she was not laid off, that "we have decided to dismiss you for misrepresentation." Callison asked, "Does that mean I am fired?" Holcomb replied, "Yes, it does." When Callison returned to work pursuant to Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , she, like West- brook , was assigned to work she had not done be- fore. Her uncontradicted testimony shows that she received little training, that she was assigned an in- ferior machine, that she asked Holcomb for her old job back but was told that she could quit if she did not like what she was doing , and that she was sub- jected to job harassment . I am satisfied from these facts that Respondent did not reinstate Callison in good faith but sought to force her to quit and was looking for an excuse to get rid of her. It found such an excuse when Callison left work after lunch on November 12 on the pretext that her daughter was ill. Gray immediately checked out Callison's excuse and the next morning refused to permit Cal- lison to return to work until Callison signed a state- ment affirming the reason for her absence the previous afternoon. Callison returned to the office a little later, told Gray, in Philip Roseman's presence , that the statement was untrue , and told Gray that she had taken the afternoon off because she was nervous and upset. Gray accepted Cal- lison's explanation and permitted her to return to work with a warning. Callison was nevertheless discharged after her lunch hour. I find under all the circumstances that Respondent discharged Callison for her union activity and not because she took a few hours off by misrepresenting that her daughter was ill.23 IV. CONDUCT AFFECTING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION I have found that Respondent in its preelection campaign engaged in coercive conduct, including promises of benefit and threats of economic reprisal . As this conduct interfered with a free and untrammeled choice in the September 27, 1968, election , I recommend that the election be set aside. In view of the bargaining order to be recom- mended in the unfair labor practice proceedings, I further recommend that the petition in Case 9-RC-7797 be dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ,3. By the acts and conduct herein found viola- tive of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, which unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in " According to Callison , she was "nervous and upset. I had been crying. I got quite a few reject bundles My machine still wasn 't sewing right." " Peggy Johnson testified that when Callison first returned to work she said she was not going to do her work and that she had returned to spite Mrs Roseman Johnson also testified that Callison told her on November I 1 that she "would love to take off today just to run around. I could maybe get my slack outfit finished." Johnson 's testimony does not refute Cal- lison's testimony concerning her efforts to get her machine repaired and to transfer back to her old job . Moreover, in view of Johnson 's further testimony that she observed Callison crying over rejects, it would appear that Callison took her new work seriously. 876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.24 It has been found that Respondent disccrimina- torily discharged or refused reemployment to Lizzie Hendrix , Evelyn Jackson, Maycel Phipps , Blossie Westbrook , Connie Kennedy, and Beverly Callison. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer full and immediate reinstatement to these em- ployees to their former or substantially equivalent positions at the Hickman plant , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that Respondent make these employees whole for any loss of pay suffered by reasons of the dis- crimination against them .25 Backpay shall be com- puted in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The record establishes that the Union represented a majority of the Hickman production and maintenance employees in an appropriate unit before Respondent engaged in a series of unfair labor practices which were calculated and tended to undermine the Union 's majority status . the unfair labor practices are such as to render it doubtful that their coercive effects could be eliminated by traditional remedies so as to ensure a fair election. I therefore find that the purpose of the Act can better be effectuated and employee rights better protected by reliance on the employees' desires as expressed by their signed authorization cards rather than on the results of an election. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent be ordered to bargain with the Union upon its request as a remedy for Respondent 's violation of Section 8(a)(5), as well as to remedy the other unfair labor practices found. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case , I recommend that Respondent, "The Union contends that traditional remedies , including a bargaining order, are not enough to ensure the employees effective representation because the Union 's strength has been dissipated by Respondent's flagrant unfair labor practices and by turnover of personnel during the delay in bar- gaining caused by those unfair labor practices It argues that the Union is in effect faced with another major organizational campaign and urges that I recommend additional remedies similar to those adopted by the Board in J. P. Stevens and Co, Inc., 157 NLRB 869, 878-879 , and also a monetary remedy similar to that recommended by the Trial Examiner in Ex-Cell-0 Corporation, Case 25-CA-2377, TXD 80-67 . By virtue of the bargaining order recommended herein , if adopted by the Board , the Union , without regard to fluctuations in its majority status , will have a reasonable time to bargain for a contract , to process grievances on behalf of the employees, and otherwise to demonstrate the advantages of unionism to the em- ployees San Clemente Publishing Corporation , et al., 167 NLRB 62 (TXD). The Union 's position is thus far different from that of the union in the Stevens case whose organizational campaign was met and aborted by "mas- sive and deliberate " unfair labor practices ( 157 NLRB at 878 ). I therefore do not believe the Stevens remedies proposed by the Union are necessary to dissipate the coercive effect of Respondent 's unfair labor practices. As the Ex-Cell-0 case is still pending before the Board , I see no need for a Hickman Garment Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing reemployment to em- ployees, by assigning employees to more difficult work, or by discriminating against them in any other manner because of their union membership or activity. (b) Refusing to bargain , on request, with the above-named Union , as the majority representative of the production and maintenance employees at the Hickman plant, excluding office clerical em- ployees, professional employees , watchmen , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) Threatening reprisals for engaging in union activity, promising or granting insurance , vacation, or other benefits in order to discourage union ac- tivity, and coercively interrogating employees con- cerning their union activity and sentiments. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of their rights under the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Lizzie. Hendrix, Evelyn Jackson, Maycel Phipps , Blossie Westbrook, Connie Ken- nedy, and Beverly Callison immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any losses of pay they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify any of the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. specific recommendation on a monetary remedy for the bargaining delay caused by Respondent 's unfair labor practices. 45 I have found that Respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate Westbrook and Callison to their former jobs when they returned to the Hickman plant pursuant to Respondent 's offers of reinstatement Even as- suming, contrary to my findings above , that Respondent thereafter in fact discharged Westbrook for low production and Callison for taking an after- noon off on the pretext that her child was sick , I would nevertheless recom- mend that they be reinstated with backpay as Respondent failed to remedy its original discrimination against them . The record shows that both Cal- lison and Westbrook made production on their former work and Callison's misconduct was not such as to make her unfit for further employment with Respondent Although Phipps told Gray in June 1969 that she lived too far away to work at the plant, the record does not show that Respondent offered her full reinstatement I therefore consider a reinstatement and backpay order appropriate for Phipps The question of Phipps' availability for employ- ment after her discharge in October 1968 may be appropriately left for determination at the compliance stage of this proceeding I have recom- mended reinstatement for Hendrix and Jackson as it appears that they were rehired as new employees HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 877 (c) Bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union. (d) 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. (e) Post at its plant in Hickman, Kentucky, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."28 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 9, after being duly signed by a 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. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.21 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, except as hereinabove found, all other allegations in the com- plaint be dismissed. IT IS ALSO FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the elec- tion in Case 9-RC-7797 be set aside and that the petition be dismissed. " 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 " Zr 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 " ployees to more difficult work , or by dis- criminating against them in any other manner because of their union membership or activity. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of work or with other economic reprisals for engaging in union activity. WE WILL NOT promise or give our employees insurance , vacation , or other benefits in order to discourage them from engaging in union ac- tivity. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the rights of our employees to join or sup- port a labor union. WE WILL offer back their jobs to Lizzie Hen- drix, Evelyn Jackson, Maycel Phipps , Blossie Westbrook , Connie Kennedy , and Beverly Cal- lison , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and, if we have not already done so, we will pay them for any loss of pay because of our discrimination against them. WE WILL notify immediately the above- named individuals , 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 ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our production and maintenance employees, excluding office clerical employees, profes- sional employees , watchmen , guards, and su- pervisors. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO , or any other labor union. HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY (Employer) APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from joining or supporting the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other union, by discharging or refusing reemployment to employees, by assigning em- 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, Room 2407 Federal Office Build- ing, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.