Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP 33 Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation and Textile Work- ers Union of America, AFL-CIO Cases 5-CA-4377, 5-CA-4570, 5-CA-4571, and 5-CA-4625 December 7, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On August 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Arthur M Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended dismissal of those allegations Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases 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 recommendations of the Trial Examiner on an Amended Order Consolidating Cases, Amended Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, issued on February 18, 1970, alleging that Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation (herein called the Company or the Respon- dent) had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act) The Amended Consolidated Complaint, based on various charges and amended charges filed by the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or the TWUA), ' alleges that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by inducing employees at the Chase City and Lynchburg, Virginia, plants of the Company to revoke and to unlawfully assist employees in revoking authoriza- tions given by the employees to the Union threatening employees at Chase City with economic reprisal if the Union was selected to act as their bargaining representa- tive, and by disciplining an employee at Chase City for engaging in statutorily protected activity At the hearing herein the Amended Consolidated Complaint was further amended to allege that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees at the Chase City and Farmville, Virginia, plants Section 8(a)(3) of the Act was allegedly violated by the discharges of Paul Chapman and Mary Madison at the Farmville plant and of John R Smith, Margaret Smith, Mary Powell, and Diana Bacon at the Chase City factory Respondent denied all the material allegations of the Amended Consolidated Complaint All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and to file briefs Oral argument was waived and briefs were filed by Respondent and the General Counsel on May 22, 1970 Upon the entire record in the case, my reading of the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, Chase City, Farmville, and Lynchburg, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommend- ed Order TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ARTHUR M GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner Pursuant to an order of the Regional Director for the Board's Region 5, a hearing was held in Boydton, Virginia, on March 24 and 25, 1970, and in Lynchburg, Virginia, on April 7 and 8, 1970, I The charge, first amended charge and second amended charge in Case 5-CA-4377 were filed respectively on May 1 1%9 May 27 1%9 and June 6 1%9 The charge in Case 5-CA-4570 was filed on November 21 1%9 and the amended charge in that case was filed on February 18 I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, a Virginia corpora- tion, has several places of business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chase City, Farmville, and Lynchburg, the only plants involved in this proceeding During a 12- month representative period the Company sold and distributed products having a gross value in excess of $50,000 to points outside the Commonwealth of Virginia During the same representative 12-month period the Company received raw materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported to its places of business directly from points and places outside the Commonwealth of Virginia The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find, that the Company is and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's standards for assertion of its jurisdiction 1970 The charge and amended charge in Case 5-CA-4571 were filed on November 21 1%9 and January 28 1970 respectively The charge in Cass 5-CA-4625 was filed on January 12 1970 187 NLRB No 5 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background 1. The organizing campaigns The TWUA first undertook the organization of Respon- dent's plants in Lynchburg, Virginia, in February 1968, following the visit of a group of Respondent's employees to the Union's office. Following the Union's success in a Board-conducted election on July 25, 1968, a collective- bargaining agreement covering the Lynchburg plants was executed on February 7, 1969. Following the Lynchburg campaign the Union began organizing at the Company's Dillwyn and Farmville plants in May 1968. The Dillwyn campaign led to a Board- conducted election on October 30, 1968, which the Union lost. A new petition for election, filed in March 1970, was pending at the time of the hearing herein. At Farmville the Boot and Shoe Workers Union filed a petition for election. Following the TWUA's intervention in that proceeding and a stipulation for consent election, the Boot and Shoe Workers withdrew and the TWUA lost the election held on October 3C, 1968. A second election was agreed to in the wake of union objections to that election. The Union won the second election held on March 19, 1969, and was certified by the Regional Director after he overruled the Company's objections to that election. '; he Company tested the certification by refusing to bargain with the Union and on April 13, 1970, the Board affirmed a Trial Examiner's decision finding that the Company had violated its bargaining obligations under the Act.2 On January 14, 1969, the Union sent to Farmville Plant Manager Charles Rosser a list of five members of its employee organizing committee: John Vanover; Elsie Chapman; Paul Chapman; Ruth Shuler; and Mary Francis Madison. The Union's organizing campaign at the Company's Lawrenceville plant led to its certification for those employees following a Board election held on June 12, 1969. A collective-bargaining agreement covering the Lawrenceville plant was executed in March 1970. The organizing campaign at Chase City was launched late in June 1969 with the distribution of a leaflet and mailback card. Thereafter handbills were distributed at the plant gates on the average of 3 or 4 days a week. As well, union organizers and employee volunteers made calls to the 2 181 NLRB No. 171 3 Unless otherwise noted all dates hereafter were in 1969 4 Testimony of Chase City Plant Manager Taylor 5 These were the plant rules incorporated in the contract between Respondent and the Union for the Lynchburg plant Copies of these rules were sent to all company plants. 6 Discipline was to be imposed only for just cause which includes "failure to obey instructions of supervisor, violation of plant rules failure of an employee to properly perform his job in accordance with homes of company employees . A first meeting of the in- plant organizing committee was held on July 13, 1969.3 During July, Roger Dove, a TWUA organizer, received approximately 40 signed authorization cards from John R. Smith, a member of the organizing committee. About August 6, the date of the second organizing committee meeting, Dove received about 30 more cards from Smith. A third meeting of the organizing committee was held at John Smith's home on August 13 and thereafter the committee met each week. On August 22 the Company received two letters from the Union listing six members of the organizing committee: John R. Smith ; Mary R. Powell ; Margaret B. Smith; Diana W. Bacon; Nettie B. Sipes ; and Alma R. Hamlett. Plant Manager Maurice Taylor testified that he observed the leaflet distributions at the plant in June and July and that during that period he was given a union leaflet. He further testified that he knew there was a union organizer in town but stated that he first became aware of the organizing campaign in August. Dove testified that starting in September Taylor came to the union representatives for copies of handbills. The Union lost the election conducted on December 11 and subsequently withdrew the objections it filed. 2. The Company's disciplinary procedures In July or August 1968 the Company first instituted a warning form system for disciplining employees at the Chase City plant. The four-step warning system, providing at the first step for a verbal warning, a written warning at the second stage, then for a written warning with a layoff, and finally for a written warning and discharge of the offending employee, was for use in cases of infractions of plant rules or performance of unsatisfactory work. The plant manager and supervisors were to be responsible for disciplining employees? There was no formal notification to the employees at the time this warning system was introduced. However, Taylor testified that formal warnings were issued to employees prior to 1969. Approximately 1 year later, in July or August 1969, Taylor received from the Company's Lynchburg office a 2- page list of plant rules 5 and a two-page addendum to the plant manager's manual entitled "Disciplinary Procedure" setting out the warning slip system and explaining the actions to be taken in administering the procedure. After first setting forth the purpose and uses of the disciplinary procedure,6 the manual instructions spell out the four-step warning system and the manner in which the department manager working with the plant manager is to invoke the procedure. The department manager is charged with primary responsibility for administration of the disciplinary procedure.7 company standards " 7 From the "Disciplinary Procedure" "In administering disciplinary procedure, the department manager should use the official warning slips the department manager should discuss the facts of the case with the plant manager the department manager should make a record The warning slips should be written by the department manager .. The warning should then be discussed with the employee by the department manager The department manager should explain the complete details CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 35 Paragraph 4 of the "Disciplinary Procedure" manual section provides: 4. In the event an employee refuses to sign the warning, the following steps should be taken. The plant manager and department manager should again carefully explain the purpose of the warning and the reason why it has been given. They must advise the employee that they cannot return to work if they refuse to accept the warning slip. They should further advise the employee that if he or she does not agree with the facts contained in the warning slip, they can contact the Personnel department to have a complete review of their case. The plant manager should assist the employee in arranging the review. The final paragraph of the Company's manual section on disciplinary procedure provides that in the event an employee is discharged under that procedure "or an employee quits rather than sign an official warning" they cannot be reemployed without prior approval of the personnel department. At the time the list of plant rules and manual section on disciplinary procedure were received, a notice was put up in the Chase City plant advising that a copy of each had been posted.8 As well, a copy of the plant rules was circulated among the employees and each was required to sign. B. Chase City 1. The supervisory status of Sheldon and Harris General Counsel contends and the Company denies that Virginia Harris and Bettye Sheldon, classified as "Instructors" in the stitching department of the Chase City plant, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.9 Sheldon and Harris are employed in the stitching room where there are approximately 150 employees.10 If Harris and Sheldon are not supervisors there is no supervision of this 150-employee section other than Assistant Plant Manager Philip Delancey, who spends part of his time in the stitching room. Respondent last had a full-time foreman in the stitching room in May 1969. Employee Leola Pulliam testified 11 that when Hugh Wallace was employed as stitching room manager, Instructor Sheldon instructed employees in the perform- ance of their job duties, teaching them how to sew. Now Sheldon spends her time walking around the department to see that the work is properly performed. During the 6 months preceding the hearing, Pulliam testified, Claudia Hudson has been training new employees in the depart- ment. When there was a full-time foreman, Pulliam went to him with her problems and saw him when she wished to take time off from work. Now, Pulliam testified, Sheldon 8 John Smith testified that this notice was posted on July 10. 9 Section 2(11) reads "The term supervisor means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment 10 This is the figure supplied by Plant Manager Taylor Employee assigns her all her work, she takes her problems to Sheldon and goes to Sheldon for time off. Employee Mildred Stevens testified that when she was subpenaed to appear at the instant hearing she took her subpena to Instructor Harris who gave her permission to attend. Mary R. Powell, one of the alleged discnminatees, also testified that she went to Harris for time off. Diana Bacon, another alleged discriminatee, testified that when Hugh Wallace was stitching room foreman she went to Wallace for time off, took her problems to him, and that Wallace gave the work assignments to Sheldon who would pass the instructions on to the employees. After Wallace left work was assigned by Sheldon, Bacon took her work- related problems to Sheldon who also granted Bacon's requests for time off, and it was from Sheldon that Bacon received all of her instructions. Sheldon and Harris now share the use of the desk in the stitching department which had been Wallace's before he left. Plant Manager Taylor testified that Assistant Plant Manager Delancey is temporarily in charge of the stitching department while the Company looks for a full-time foreman. Delancey, in charge of personnel for the Chase City plant, does all interviewing and hiring for the plant and locates employees to fill needs reported to him by the foreman. In addition, Delancey is responsible for samples and for the "sheet system," the production control for plant production. Taylor estimated that Delancey spends 35 percent of his time in the stitching department.12 As well, Delancey fills in for foremen who are absent and is in complete charge of the plant when Taylor is away. Instructors and employees enjoy the same insurance program. Supervisors are covered by a different plan. Instructors do not attend supervisors' meetings, punch the timeclock while supervisors do not, and are hourly paid while supervisors receive a salary. Taylor testified that the instructors cannot hire or promote employees, are not empowered to lay off employees for lack of work, and that it is Delancey who determines when overtime is to be worked in the department. While Harris and Sheldon cannot transfer employees from one job code to another they can transfer employees in their own departmentdl"for an hour or so." Taylor further claimed that the instructors cannot discipline employees for infraction of rules nor can they discharge employees. As explained by Taylor the Compa- ny's warning system provides for a four-step procedure leading to discharge of the offending employee after receipt of a fourth warning for infraction of plant rules or the performance of unsatisfactory work. The warning slips used in this procedure have a space for "Signature of person issuing warning or effecting disciplinary action." The witnesses gave varying lower estimates It must be assumed that the plant manager's employment figures would be the most accurate 11 Pulliam is presently employed by the Company and was knowingly testifying against the interest of her Employer. Accordingly, I attach great weight to her testimony Federal Envelope Company, Division of Nationwide Papers Incorporated, 147 NLRB 1030, 1036 12 Delancey testified that almost 50 percent of his time was in the stitching room 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exhibit files in this proceeding contain a number of such warning slips issued to employees at the Chase City plant, several of which led directly to the layoff or discharge of the employees involved. Certain of these warning slips were signed by acknowledged supervisors 13 at the spot specified for the "person issuing warning or effecting disciplinary action." Others were signed by Virginia Harris and Bettye Sheldon. Thus, a warning issued to employee Annie Watson on August 5, 1969, for "poor quality stitching," imposed a 1-week layoff on Watson and was signed by Sheldon as the person "effecting disciplinary action." Mary Powell received a warning on September 30, carrying with it a layoff, which was signed by Harris. And, on November 4, Powell was discharged as the result of a warning signed by Harris and Delancey . Sheldon also signed warnings to Diana Bacon on September 30 and one to Leola Pulliam on March 4, 1970. Thus, it cannot be said that Harris and Sheldon do not "lay off . . . discharge . . . or discipline employees" when in fact employees were laid off, discharged , and otherwise disciplined in connection with warnings they issued . This is clear evidence of supervisory status. In sum, based on their authority to lay off, discharge, or otherwise discipline employees,14 their authority to give employees time off from work, to transfer them, and to assign work to the employees , and with consideration of the otherwise unrealistic ratio of supervision to the working force, I conclude that Harris and Sheldon are supervisors within the meaning of the Act . Regency Electronics, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 49, enfd. sub nom. International Union of Electrical Workers v. N.L.R,B., 69 LRRM 2886 (C.A.D.C.); C & M Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation, 183 NLRB No. 29. 2. Revocation of union authorization cards Company President Lockridge spoke to the assembled employees at Chase City during the afternoon of August 11. As he was concluding his talk Lockridge told the employees that if they had signed cards for the Union and wanted the cards returned they could speak to their foremen or supervisors and make arrangements to sign a letter asking for their return. Lockridge said there would be no red tape and no hard feelings.15 The following day, August 12, various company supervi- sors approached employees reminding them they could get their union authorization cards back by signing a paper. Reba Gilliam was with a group of inspectors who were given this message by J. B. Hoyle, packing room foreman. Alease Walker was told by fellow employees that her union card would be returned if she signed a letter in the plant office. The employees said to speak to a supervisor . Walker talked to Hoyle who told her to go to the office where she was given a typed letter which she signed and returned to the secretary. Walker did not mail the letter which was is Maurice Taylor; J. B. Hoyle, supervisor of finishing and the packing room; Paul A . Dunaway, supervisor of the stock fitting department and first packing ; and Philip Delancey. 14 While my finding as to Hams' and Sheldon 's supervisory status is not based solely on their authority to discharge , lay off, or otherwise discipline employees, this standing alone would support such a finding . "[T]he possession of any one of the authorities listed in Sec . 2(11) (of the Act] places the employee invested with this authority in the supervisory class" dated August 12 and received by the Union in an envelope postmarked the same day. Frances Singleton was told by Hoyle that all foremen had been given a booklet containing the Lynchburg collective- bargaining agreement with instructions to pass it among the employees to read. Hoyle later told Singleton that if she knew of any employees who wanted their union cards back they could get in touch with him, sign a letter in the office, and get their cards back with no red tape. Geneva St. John was given the book to read by Hoyle and told that if she had signed a union card she could get it back with no red tape. St. John read and returned the book to Hoyle but did nothing about her authorization card. Instructor Bettye Sheldon told Diana Bacon that she knew Bacon had signed a card for the Union. Sheldon advised Bacon that if she knew any girls who had signed union cards and wished to get them back Sheldon would arrange for their return if she was given the names and addresses of the signers. Sheldon told Leola Pulliam that most of Pulliam's friends had signed letters to the Union asking that their cards be returned. Sheldon asked if Pulliam wished to sign such a letter. Pulliam replied that she would have to give the matter some thought . When Pulliam later told Sheldon she would sign a letter to the Union Sheldon had Pulliam sign and return to her three copies of a letter. A few days later Sheldon asked Pulliam if she knew of any others who had signed union cards . Some weeks later Sheldon asked if the Union had returned Pulliam's card. If the card had not been returned Sheldon advised Pulliam to go downtown and talk to a lawyer. Mildred Stevens testified that Instructor Virginia Harris spoke to her twice about the return of her union card. The first instance was the day after Lockridge spoke when Harris came to the work tables and told the employees that if they had signed union cards they could go to the plant office, sign a letter, and get their cards back. The following day as Harris was transferring Stevens from one job to another she again told Stevens she could sign a letter in the office to secure the return of her card. During the lunchbreak on August 12 Assistant Plant Manager Delancey asked Mary Powell what she had thought of Lockridge's speech and for her opinion of the Union.16 Powell replied that she could not express an opinion of the Union because she did not know enough about it. Delancey then gave Powell a copy of the Lynchburg contract to read. After lunch Plant Manager Taylor asked if Powell had read the book . Powell returned the book to Taylor saying she did not understand it. That afternoon Virginia Harris came to Powell's work station to say that if Powell wanted her union card returned she should go to the office and sign a letter for that purpose. Plant Manager Taylor denied that he tried to persuade employees to revoke their authorization cards. He did for that "section is to be interpreted in the disjunctive." Ohio Power Company v, N,L.R. B., 176 F.2d 385, 387 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 338 U.S. 899. is This account of Lockridge's speech is based on the credited testimony of Mary Powell and employee Frances Singleton. Respondent 's Personnel Director Walter Brown Holston, Jr., testified that he heard Lockridge speak but stated that, "1 didn't hear him make any such statement dung his talk." Lockridge did not testify. 16 This interrogation violated Section 8(axl) of the Act. CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 37 testify that he told employees how they could get their cards back from the Union. When Alma Kimball asked how she could. get her card back, Taylor testified, he told her to write to the Union and to send a copy of her letter to the Board. Taylor said he knew the procedure the employees should follow to secure the return of their cards because they had gone through the same thing at his former place of employment. Thereafter a typed petition was circulated among the employees for their signature stating that the signers had asked for the return of their union cards and wanted to have nothing to do with the Union. Plant Manager Taylor posted on a plant bulletin board this list of those who had signed letters to the Union asking for return of their authorization cards. In all the Union received 55 typed letters from employees at Chase City asking that the Union return their authorization cards. Three of the employees who signed such letters had not signed union cards. I find that by soliciting employees to withdraw their union authorizations and by its preparation of the revocation letters, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Movie Star, Inc., 361 F.2d 346, 348-349 (C.A. 5); N.L. R. B. v. Yale Manufacturing Company, Inc., 356 F.2d 69, 72-73 (C.A. 1); Normandy Square Food Basket, Inc., 163 NLRB 369, 373. 3. The discharge of John R. Smith John Raymond Smith was employed by Respondent at Chase City from 1950 until his termination on August 13, 1969. Smith was the only edge trimmer in the plant trimming the soles down to the shoe itself. Smith was approached by the union organizers early in the campaign at Chase City and attended meetings of the union committee starting with the first meeting on July 13. Most of the union meetings were held at Smith's home. In the campaign Smith spoke to other employees seeking to enlist their support and distributed authorization cards to solicitors who in turn passed the signed cards back to him. In all Smith estimated that he received 164 signed cards which he turned in at meetings to union representatives. On or about July 10 a notice pertaining to the quality of work was posted on the timeclo7.ks and copies were passed among all the employees. However, while on occasion work was returned to Smith, at no time prior to August 8 did he receive either a verbal or written disciplinary warning for bad work. In Smith's words, before August 8 he had no disciplinary problems "to amount to anything whatsoever." During the morning of August 8 Plant Manager Taylor and Paul Dunaway, Smith's supervisor, came to Smith and "suggested" that he was using the wrong sized cutter in it Taylor appeared to be an impressive witness with instant recall of the dates, of warnings issued to Smith and other employees , their dates of hire and breaks in employment, identity of employees involved in disciplinary situations and the like. However, while he was testifying I noticed that he had in his lap a notebook which he consulted from time to time . I ordered that he produce this pad and it was introduced in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit 1. Examination of the notebook revealed that unbeknownst to Respondent's attorney, Taylor, in preparation for his appearance in this proceeding , had made a list of dates and names and other pertinent information which he used while testifying . Thus, Taylor's testimony became suspect , not only because it did not represent his edge trimming a particular style of shoe. They asked that Smith use a larger cutter on those shoes . Smith testified that he had been using the smaller cutter on that style for 2 years or more. Smith switched to the larger cutter and nothing more was said at the time. That afternoon Dunaway returned some shoes to Smith to be checked over . Shortly thereafter Taylor and Dunaway came to Smith and Taylor asked what was wrong with Smith, inquiring why Smith could not properly trim the shoes, and stating that the shoes in question were unsatisfactory. Taylor said that the shoes did not meet his standards adding, "I should put you on report . By the way, I believe I will." Smith testified that this was the first time that Taylor had complained about his work. Taylor testified that this verbal warning on August 8, given in accordance with the four-step disciplinary procedure instituted in August 1968, was the first recorded warning issued to Smith . Taylor explained that the shoes had been unevenly trimmed , with a little more taken off the sole on one side of the shoe than had been trimmed from the other side. Taylor testified that the poor work was shown to Smith who agreed that the work was poor and reworked the shoes.17 On Monday, August 11, a group of company officials visited the Chase City plant.is Taylor, Mitchell, Taylor's supervisor, and Assistant Plant Manager Delancey spent time on the floor, came up the production line, and examined some shoes . Smith was sent for but when he arrived only Dunaway, his own supervisor, was there. Dunaway showed Smith some shoes, stated that they were unsatisfactory and that he was going to issue a written warning to Smith . Smith testified that Dunaway said the shoes were unsatisfactory but did not say in what way the work was unacceptable. Further, Smith stated, Dunaway did not point out to him the alleged defects on the shoes but instead picked up and set down shoes as he complained about the work . Smith insisted that the shoes were "trimmed good" and so advised Dunaway. Dunaway took Smith to the office where he wrote up a warning for "Edge trimming-sole to [sic] full, and not trimmed in pairs (knots on toes)." 19 Smith signed the warning after Dunaway stated he would be automatically discharged if he did not. Taylor also signed the warning . When asked to explain in what respect Smith's services had been unsatisfactory on this occasion, Taylor testified, "Well, the way this is written ..." repeating the words of the written warning. Smith received his second and it developed last written warning on August 13. Once again he was called to the floor where Taylor, Delancey, and Dunaway had been examining shoes . Taylor said that the shoes were not trimmed right and were not up to their standards. While unaided recollection of the events but also because of the surreptitious manner in which he used his notes to refresh his recollection. Accordingly, I do not credit Taylor except when corroborated by credible evidence. is This was the date of Company President Lockridge 's speech to the employees which was followed by the campaign to secure employees revocation of their union authorization cards. 19 It was explained that shoes not being trimmed in pairs was a condition where one shoe in the pair was trimmed closer than the other. "Knots on toes" refers to small bumps on the edge of the sole where the cutter may have hit a knot in the leather. 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Smith was not shown the particular shoes about which his supervisors were complaining20 he saw the cases of shoes in question and protested that they were in good shape because he had trimmed them as he trimmed samples. Smith was again taken to the office where a written warning was prepared carrying with it a layoff from August 13 to 18. This warning read that his services had been found to be unsatisfactory because of: Knotty foreparts and shanks (second time) on edge trim shoes- no line on shoes. The August 13 warning was signed by Dunaway as the person issuing the warning and countersigned by Taylor. Smith asked if he had to sign the warning and Taylor replied that Smith did not have to sign but would have to do so before he could return to work. Smith testified that Taylor said he could think about signing during his layoff and sign when he returned to work on Monday, August 18. Taylor said he would be in touch with the Company's Lynchburg office about the warning. Smith then clocked out and left. As with the warning of August 11, Taylor's explanation of what work or services by Smith were found unsatisfacto- ry and led to issuance of the warning was confined to a reading of the warning itself . Taylor testified that Smith had asked if Taylor would discharge him if Smith refused to sign the warning. His reply had been, Taylor stated, "No, I cannot discharge you, but I cannot put you back to work." Taylor claimed to have advised Smith that he could appeal the case to Lynchburg by getting in touch with Holston in the personnel department. Smith did not indicate an intention of appeal. Taylor testified that he spoke to Holston on August 13 to inform him as to what had transpired and to alert Holston that Smith might be appealing his case. At the expiration of his layoff on August 18, Smith returned to the plant prepared to sign the warning of August 13 and to go to work. Smith testified that he waited for Taylor to arrive and then was told by the plant manager to sit in the conference room until Taylor could speak to Lynchburg, explaining that he had not as yet discussed Smith's case with the personnel office. Some time later Smith was called to Taylor's office and informed that Taylor had spoken to Lynchburg the preceeding week and had suggested to Personnel Director Holston that Smith not be put back to work. Accordingly, Taylor told Smith, he could not return to his job. According to Taylor, on August 18 Smith did not ask for the right to sign the warning but did ask for hisjob. Taylor testified that he told Smith that he had not appealed the case and was terminated. The termination was caused by Smith's refusal to sign the warning. Taylor denied that Smith's discharge was in any way motivated by his union membership or activity and Taylor claimed that he had no knowledge at the time that Smith was a member of the Union. As to the termination for refusal to sign the warning, Taylor testified that while the manual provisions on disciplinary procedure do not provide for automatic termination of the employee involved, "Craddock-Terry 20 Taylor testified that out of three or four cases of shoes (36 or 48 pairs), there might have been six bad pairs. 21 The Union's letters hstmg the members of its Chase City organizing policy is that if they do not sign the warning slip, they are automatically terminated and if they want them [sic] to appeal the case in Lynchburg, we will help them do it." As noted, I do not credit Taylor except when his testimony is corroborated by a credible witness or other credible supporting evidence. In the matter of Smith's discharge such support for Taylor's version of the events is lacking. In any event, there is a contradiction between Taylor's testimony as to what he told Smith on August 13, i.e., "No, I cannot discharge you, but I cannot put you back to work," and his later testimony that upon Smith's failure to sign the warning on August 13 he was automatically terminated. Although there is no direct evidence of company knowledge of Smith's union activity at the time of the events leading to his discharge,21 I believe that a reasonable inference can be drawn from the sequence and timing of those events that Respondent's conduct toward Smith was not unconnected with the Union's campaign and Smith's role in it. After almost 20 years of employment and a full year after the Company adopted its disciplinary procedure, suddenly and contemporaneously with the launching of its campaign to induce the employees to revoke their union authorizations Smith received three warnings for bad work, one verbal and two written, including a disciplinary layoff. Moreover, Smith's discharge following his refusal to sign the warning slip of August 13 was contrary to Respondent's disciplinary procedure. Under the four-step procedure discharge is to come only at the fourth step, with the issuance of the third written warning. The warning of August 13 was Smith's second, yet Taylor recommended at that point that Smith's services be terminated. Additionally, Taylor misled Smith on August 13 when he told Smith that he would not be discharged for refusal to sign the warning. Rather, Taylor advised Smith that he would not be returned to work until he signed and that Smith could think about signing during the layoff period and sign when he returned to the plant on August 18. I find that Respondent was aware of Smith's union activity, was engaged in a campaign to unlawfully subvert employee adherence to the Union, and was engaged in a design to harass union activists by use of the disciplinary procedures. Further, I find that Respondent seized upon Smith's refusal to sign the August 13 warning as a pretext to discharge him although such action was contrary to the procedure spelled out in the plant manager's manual. Accordingly, I find that by its discharge of Smith the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The discharge of Margaret Smith Margaret B. Smith , wife of John Smith, was employed at Chase City from 1947 until her discharge on October 20, 1969. For at least 10 years Mrs. Smith worked as an antiquer, using a spray gun to antique shoes, shading and evening the colors. Mrs. Smith antiqued sample shoes at the direction of her foreman , J. B. Hoyle . Employee Frances Singleton testified that to her knowledge Mrs. Smith antiqued all samples unless she was helped in that work by committee, including Smith, were not received by Respondent until August 22 CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 39 Hoyle. After Mrs. Smith's termination, Singleton observed only Hoyle antiquing samples. Inspectors Reba Gilliam and Alease Walker testified about the quality of Mrs. Smith's work. They were able to identify Mrs. Smith's work by her employee number which she affixed to the shoes she antiqued. Gilliam testified that of the two antiquers, Mrs. Smith's work was the better. Both stated that on occasion they had returned work to Mrs. Smith which they felt did not pass inspection. However, Gilliam testified that there had been no increase in bad work by Mrs. Smith in 1969 as against the quality of her work in prior years. Walker stated that she had not had to return "too much" work to Mrs. Smith any time. Both characterized Mrs. Smith's work as "good." Foreman J. B. Hoyle testified that he had spoken to Mrs. Smith about her work before August 1969. However, Hoyle stated that there was no mention in the records of any warnings to her prior to August. Mrs. Smith testified that there had been no complaints about her work before August 8. Mrs. Smith participated in the Union's organizing campaign, served on the organizing committee, made house calls to solicit authorization cards, held meetings at her home, and distributed union handbills at the plant gate together with the Union's organizers and Mary Powell. Mrs. Smith testified that she was observed handing out leaflets by Plant Manager Taylor and Delancey, the assistant plant manager. Mrs. Smith' s name was included in the list of the organizing committee sent to the Company by the Union in its letters received on August 22. About the middle of September Mrs. Smith began wearing a badge reading "Union Committee." She continued wearing this pin until the time of her discharge. During the morning of August 8 Hoyle brought an off- color shoe back to Mrs. Smith to be shadowed. That afternoon Delancey called Mrs. Smith to the inspection line. After some colloquy in which Delancey complained aboul the antiquing of certain shoes on which Mrs. Smith had worked, Delancey directed her to go over the entire case of shoes. Mrs. Smith took the case back to her work table, and although she could see nothing wrong with the shoes she shadowed about 2 pairs from the 12 in the case and returned the shoes to the inspection line. That ended the incident. Plant Manager Taylor testified that Mrs. Smith received her first verbal warning on August 8 for bad antiquing. Taylor testified that possibly one case of shoes was involved but that not all 12 pairs were improperly antiqued, stating that he did not count the number of shoes embraced in the complaint. On August 11 Foreman Hoyle returned a half case of shoes to Mrs. Smith to be touched up. These shoes had passed inspection. The inspector involved told Mrs. Smith that she could see nothing wrong with the shoes Hoyle had brought back. Mrs. Smith touched up the shoes and returned them to the packing line. Mrs. Smith received a verbal warning from Plant Manager Taylor on August 19. Taylor spoke to Mrs. Smith and fellow antiquer Kitty Willmoth about four cases of shoes , only one of which had been antiqued by Mrs. Smith. Taylor complained that the antiquing vaned on the shoes. The plant manager said, "This is going to be a verbal warning," adding, "If I have to, I can get nasty about it." Taylor told them to wash off the antiquing and to redo the shoes. Mrs. Smith took the shoes back to her work station but could not work on them that afternoon. In the morning the shoes were gone and could not be found. Mrs. Smith never did get to reantique the complained-of shoes. Taylor testified that some of the shoes were dark and others light and that about 50 cases of the same style of shoes had been returned by customers in the same condition. A written warning was issued to Mrs. Smith on September 29 for "Not antiquing shoes as they should be." The warning was signed by Hoyle and Taylor. Taylor testified that antiquing had been missed in spots or the shoes had not been properly shadowed. Mrs. Smith did not recall this written warning. Mrs. Smith received a written warning and 3-day layoff on October 1. During the morning she was called to the inspection table and asked to examine a pair of red shoes which Taylor was holding. When Mrs. Smith commented that she could see nothing wrong with the shoes, Taylor stated, "Well, they are not up to my standards." Mrs. Smith replied that the shoes met her standards whereupon Taylor said, "Well, dust take her on in the office and lay her off for the rest of the week." In the office Mrs. Smith remarked to Hoyle that there was nothing wrong with the shoes and that the Company was picking on members of the Union's organizing committee and those who were wearing union committee badges. Hoyle replied that he would not say that. Mrs. Smith testified that Hoyle asked Taylor what he should write her up for and the plant manager said the warning should be issued for work not up to standard. Taylor then told Mrs. Smith to go home, "think this over," and return the following Monday. When she returned to the plant the following Monday Mrs. Smith reported to Taylor. After some discussion as to why she had come to see him, she told Taylor that she did her work "the best I know how." Taylor replied that that was all he asked and told her to go back to work. On October 20 Mrs. Smith was issued a third written warning and discharged. That morning she was taken by Hoyle to the packing area where Taylor had unpacked some shoes which had been inspected, doublechecked, and packed, ready for shipping. Taylor asked Mrs. Smith to examine the shoes and when she stated she could see nothing wrong with them, Taylor said, "How in the hell do you think I am going to get shoes out of here like this?. . . I could go get my five-year-old son in here and he could do better than that." Mrs. Smith suggested that he do so and noted that Taylor had not shown her how to antique shoes in all the time he had been in the plant. Taylor then instructed Hoyle to take Mrs. Smith to the office and discharge her, saying, "I don't want her in this factory." Turning to Mrs. Smith Taylor said, "You haven't tried to do your work right since I got rid of your husband in here." Mrs. Smith testified that Taylor complained that the shoes in question, which were brown, were not dark enough. Taylor testified that the warning of October 20 was for improperly antiquing shoes, that the shoes had been shown to her and she had been told what was wrong with them and that he could recall nothing more of the incident. When asked whether any action had been taken against the 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD inspector who had passed the allegedly inferior work, Taylor could not recall if anything had been done. Hoyle stated that Mrs. Smith was terminated for poor work which was not up to company standards. Hoyle further testified that he was aware of Mrs. Smith's union affiliation at the time of her discharge but that this fact had nothing to do with her termination. As with her husband the onset of Mrs. Smith's troubles with allegedly bad work coincided with the launching of Respondent's antiunion campaign at Chase City. However, unlike the situation of her husband the Company had direct knowledge of Mrs. Smith's work for the Union from the letter advising Respondent of her membership on the organizing committee, her distribution of union handbills at the plant gate, and her wearing of a union committee badge. Mrs. Smith had been employed by Respondent for some 22 years, fellow employees who were charged with the responsibility of checking quality testified that her work was good and indeed better than that of the other antiquer, and prior to August 8 there is no company record of any verbal or written reprimand issued to her for poor work, a period which emcompasses a full year of operation of the disciplinary warning system at Chase City. Further, it does not appear that the incidents of poor work of which the Company complained and upon which Mrs. Smith's discharge was based were other that ordinary occurances which arise in production but were seized upon here to build a case for terminating an outstanding union adherent. Moreover, the subjective nature of the warnings, the inability of Respondent's witnesses to testify with particu- larity as to Mrs. Smith's malfeasance , and the lack of evidence that inspectors, who in the course of their duties passed on the allegedly bad work, were also disciplined for improper work performance combine to make the chain of warnings suspect. All things considered, I find that Respondent, in the course and conduct of its campaign to defeat the Union at Chase City, utilized its disciplinary warning procedure to establish a pretextual basis for the discharge of Margaret Smith, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The discharge of Mary R. Powell Mary R. Powell was employed at Chase City on the lockstitch operation from December 5, 1955, until her discharge on November 4, 1969. During the period of the events herein Powell was the only lockstitch operator in the plant. In the lockstitch operation parts of the shoe are joined together with long stitches. In the summer or fall of 1969, during the period when Powell was receiving warnings for bad work discussed below, Powell and other employees were assembled in the plant's conference room and shown defective shoes returned by customers. As well, the Company posted notices on the bulletin board stating that it wanted better quality work and less rejects. Powell's first contact with the TWUA was at its August 5 meeting. She joined the Union's committee, solicited employee signatures on authorization cards, held meetings 22 This was the day that both John and Margaret Smith received the first of the series of complaints which led to their discharges 23 Harris did not testify. 24 Powell was compensated on a piece rate basis which did not apply to at her home and attended meetings at the homes of other employees, and handed out leaflets at the plant gates. Starting in September and continuing until the day of her discharge Powell wore a union pin to work bearing the Union's initials and its full name as well . Powell's name was included in the list of organizing committee members in the Union's letters to the Company. Plant Manager Taylor testified that prior to August 1969 there was no evidence of bad work by Powell. Mary Powell received a verbal warning for bad work on August 8.22 That morning Taylor directed Powell to rip up a case of shoes stating, "these damn shoes will not go." Powell took the shoes back to her table and asked Instructor Harris if she saw anything wrong with the shoes, saying she could not see any defects. Powell testified that Harris examined the shoes and agreed there was nothing wrong with them. However, Harris said that Powell would have to rip them as Taylor had told her to do.23 Thereafter, Taylor passed Powell's work station and she asked him to pick out the substandard shoes so that she would not have to redo the entire case. Taylor replied that he had told her "to rip these damn shoes" and that was what she was to do. Powell spent 2 hours ripping the shoes.24 During the afternoon of August 8 Taylor brought five cases of shoes to Powell which had been through five different operations after Powell had worked on them. Among others, the stitching room inspector had examined the shoes. Taylor asked what was wrong with Powell, why couldn't she do her work right. The plant manager directed Powell to repound the shoes. Powell redid four of the five cases of shoes but did not touch the last case. Nothing further was said about the shoes she did not rework. From this Powell concluded that there had been nothing wrong with the entire lot of five cases which Taylor returned to her. Taylor testified that Powell received a verbal warning on August 8 because in lockstitching shoes she had run off the edges of the shoes. Taylor claimed that the bad work had been shown to Powell who agreed the work was bad and ripped and redid the shoes. Taylor did not refer to the second incident on August 8 in his testimony.25 On August 13 Powell received a written warning for "Poor quality work in cementing underlays in such a manner the mark shows after fancy stitching and before." Powell testified that some of the shoes had been fancy stitched or that other operations had been performed on them before they were brought back to her. She conceded that the "mark" did show on the shoes but claimed that the shoes had been done in that manner before because there was no way of doing the job without the mark showing to some extent. Harris brought Powell to the office where Taylor and Delancey were waiting. Powell asked what was wrong with the shoes, stating that they had been trying to find fault with her work for the preceding week or two. Powell claimed and the company representatives denied that she was being picked on. Powell signed the warning after being told that if she did not she would not be time spent redoing work 25 There was no reference to this second incident in the notes which Taylor had in his lap while testifying CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 41 permitted to go back to work. As she was leaving the office, Powell testified, she was upset and began to cry. Stopping outside to regain her composure Powell overheard Taylor say that when he got through with her , she would wish she had never heard anything about the Union. Powell returned to the office and called Taylor a sneak . Powell was then laid off for the balance of the day. Taylor testified that the written warning of August 15 was issued for "The same thing, the lock stitching was running off the edge of the shoes, the margin, we call it." Taylor did not controvert Powell's claim that he had stated after issuing the warning that she would be sorry she was connected with the Union and her retort to him. Taylor issued two written warnings to Powell for soliciting for the Union during working hours , the second warning carrying with it a 1-week layoff. The first incident occurred during the morning of August 19. Powell testified that she had just returned to her work station from the ladies' room when Instructor Virginia Harris asked her to come to the office . There, Taylor accused Powell of having asked an employee in the washroom to sign a union card. Taylor asked Powell what was wrong, why could she not cooperate with them and said that Powell had been reported for asking other girls to sign for the Union. Powell denied asking anyone to sign a union card and requested that they bring the employee involved to the office so that the matter could be straightened out. Taylor refused to do so saying he would take the other woman's word. Powell testified that Taylor told her there had been a union in the last place he worked, that he didn't like unions and would do all in his power to keep the Union out, not giving a damn who was hurt in the process . Powell replied that she was for the Union and would do all that she could for it. Delancey asked Powell why she had turned against the Company and gone to the Union but Taylor said she did not have to answer that question . Powell testified that on August 19 she had discussed with Alma Kimball in the restroom the dirty deal which the Company had given John Smith but that there had been no discussion of union cards, noting, "Why should I ask somebody to sign one when she had already signed one?" Taylor first testified that Kimball came to her supervisor and reported Powell's solicitation for the Union, the supervisor reported this to Taylor who then took action against Powell . Taylor then stated that Kimball was crying, Foreman Dunaway went to her and she told him of the incident with Powell . Taylor then spoke to Kimball and she told the plant manager that Powell had asked her to sign a card. Kimball did not testify. On October 20 Powell was again written up by Taylor for soliciting for the Union and a 1-week layoff was imposed. At about 3:30 p.m. Powell was taken to the office by Instructor Bettye Sheldon where Taylor said that Powell had been reported for asking girls to sign union cards. Powell denied having done so. Whereupon, Powell testified, "He jumped in my face and said to me, `Liar, liar, liar.' " Taylor said he would take the other employee's word, that he did not want the Union in the plant, and that it would not come in as long as he was there . The name of the employee involved in the alleged incident was not mentioned during this discussion in the office . When asked about employee Eloise Thorpe during cross-examination Powell testified that she had a conversation with Thorpe on October 20 when she brought some work to Thorpe and asked Thorpe how she liked the work to which she was assigned . Powell stated that not a word was said about the Union. At the time Thorpe was a new employee and Powell did not know her name. Taylor testified that Thorpe came to an instructor and complained that Powell was trying to have her sign a union card. Taylor spoke to Thorpe who did not say where the alleged conversation with Powell took place . As to the time of that conversation, Taylor testified, it "was sometime in the morning , I think ; now, I'm not sure on the time." Thorpe did tell him, Taylor stated, that Powell had bothered her during working hours and tried to get her to sign a union card or something . Taylor testified that Thorpe said this took place on the floor of the stitching room. Thereafter, Taylor testified that he did not know what time Powell was supposed to have talked to Thorpe, that Thorpe did not say she was bothered during working hours, but that Thorpe had come to Taylor during working hours . Based on this investigation Taylor issued the warning slip and layoff to Powell for soliciting for the Union during working hours. Neither Sheldon nor Thorpe testified. Powell was again written up for bad lockstitching on September 30 and given a 3-day disciplinary layoff . On this occasion Instructor Hams wrote out the warning at Assistant Plant Manager Delancey's instruction. Delancey asked Powell what she was trying to do, noting that Powell earned over $2 an hour. Powell testified that she looked at the supposedly bad shoes and could see nothing wrong with them. She had asked Sheldon and Harris about those shoes, Powell testified, and had been told to sew and pass them along after Harris had picked out the shoes she did not think would pass inspection . Delancey testified that he "thinks" he issued a warning to Powell for the quality of her work. This took place when Taylor was away but Delancey could not remember the date . The warning was issued, Delancey said, after he caught some bad work that Powell had passed on. Taylor , testifying with his notes before him, stated that the warning was for bad lockstitching but he could not be sure. Taylor stated that Powell was shown the bad work. As noted, Delancey testified that Taylor was not present when he issued the warning. On October 13 Powell was denied the opportunity to do handwork which she had performed from the time she was hired in 1955 . On this occasion Instructor Harris told Powell she was a lockstitcher and that from that time on when the lockstitching ran out Powell was to punch out and go home . As a result Powell, who was called in to work at 12:30 p .m. on October 13, was required to clock out after working only 1 hour. When Powell reported for work on November 4 she discovered that her machine had been moved from its usual place to a spot facing some bins , limiting her view to the boards facing her. The machine had not been hooked up and Powell had to wait an hour before she could go to work. After finishing the two cases of shoes available for her to lockstitch Powell asked Rachel Morgan , the matchup girl, to bring some work to her. Morgan said she would 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD speak to Instructor Harris. Powell waited an hour for something to do and was told by Morgan that Harris had told her not to worry about Powell's request for work.26 Powell testified that she was at work for 3 hours and 20 minutes on November 4 and earned a total of 68 cents sewing the two cases of shoes. Thereafter, Harris took Powell to the office to see Taylor. There were three or four cases of shoes in the office which had been in the inspecting room. Taylor told Powell, "These shoes won't go. I'm going to have to write you up. You know what this means, that we will have to let you go." Powell protested that there was no way of knowing if she had done the complained-of work because there was no tag with her employee number with the shoes and a lockstitcher from the Lawrenceville plant had been brought into Chase City while Powell was laid off from October 21 to October 28 as a consequence of the Thorpe incident. In any event, Powell stated, she could see nothing wrong with the shoes and their condition did not warrant her discharge. Taylor testified that Powell was separated for bad work and that the warning on November 4 and the consequent discharge was because of bad lockstitching. Powell's case presents an almost classic example of the harassment and discharge of an active union supporter by an employer seeking to thwart a union organizing campaign. Taylor himself spelled out the reason for the warnings, layoffs, and discharge when, on August 13, when he got through with Powell she would wish she had never heard after issuing a warning to Powell, he told Harris and Delancey that of the Union.27 As with John and Margaret Smith, from the first warning issued on August 8 until her ultimate discharge on November 4 there is an amorphous quality to Respondent's explanations for the discipline imposed upon her. Thus, on August 8 Powell was unable to redo all of the work Taylor had directed her to do yet there was nothing further said about those shoes, and as to the allegedly unsatisfactory work involved in the warning and layoff of September 30 Powell testified without contradic- tion that she had asked Harris and Sheldon about the shoes and had been told to sew and pass them on. Taylor's testimony about the Thorpe incident involving alleged solicitation for the Union during working hours, aside from sharing the infirmity of his general vagueness about the reasons for discipline imposed, revealed no evidence that Powell had solicited Thorpe during working hours on the plant floor. Delancey had no recall of the warning he gave to Powell on September 30 yet Taylor, who was absent from the plant that day, knew why the warning was issued and was sure that Powell had been shown the bad work. Finally, with the alleged bad lockstitchmg for which the third warning and discharge were imposed the absence of a tag with employee identification numbers and the fact that another lockstitcher had been working at Chase City the preceeding week during the layoff imposed on Powell for the Thorpe incident raises serious questions as to whether the bad work, if it was below standard, had been performed by Powell. Accordingly, I find that Powell's discharge and the disciplinary warnings and layoffs which preceded it were part and parcel of a campaign directed against this outspoken union partisan and that her discharge and the layoffs violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. The discharge of Diana W. Bacon Diana W. Bacon was first employed at Chase City as a bar tacker in May 1966. With two breaks in employment, she worked for the Company until January 2, 1970. Bacon became active in the Union's organizing campaign in August 1969. Bacon was listed as a member of the organizing committee in the Union's letter received by Respondent on August 22. She made house calls after work soliciting signatures to authorization cards, held two union meetings at her home and while on layoff in September and October distributed union leaflets at the plant. Taylor and Delancey observed her while she was handing out handbills. Commencing in the latter part of August Bacon wore a union committee badge to work each day. Bacon served as a union observer at the December 11 Board- conducted election. Plant Manager Taylor issued a verbal warning to Bacon on September 12 for substandard work. Bacon testified that the work Taylor said was bad did not carry a tag with employee identification numbers so she could not tell if she had worked on those shoes. On September 30 Bacon received a written warning for bad work. Bacon insisted that on this occasion she was laid off for 3 days. However, the written warning received in evidence indicates that no layoff was imposed. Bacon received a second written warning on October 13. On this occasion Instructor Sheldon brought Bacon and fellow bar tacker Leola Pulliam to see Taylor in the plant conference room. Bacon was wearing her union badge, Pulliam was not. Taylor sent Pulliam back to work and wrote up Bacon for stitching which was pulling loose on shoes. Bacon testified there was no tag on the shoes with employee identification numbers and she could not tell if she or someone else had sewn the shoes in question. As noted, Bacon served as a union observer at the December 11 election. On December 17, having heard a rumor that Instructor Bettye Sheldon was quitting, Bacon went to Sheldon and asked if she was really leaving. Sheldon replied that she was and that Bacon would take her place while Mary Powell would replace Virginia Hams. As Bacon was going back to work Sheldon called after her and asked if Bacon had given her 2-week notice. Bacon replied that she had not, that she had plenty of time if she decided to quit. On December 22 a fellow employee asked if Bacon was really quitting. Bacon said she was not leaving and the fellow employee stated her understanding that Sheldon had given Bacon's 2-week notice. Bacon then asked and Sheldon said that she had turned in Bacon's notice and that Bacon would have to take up the matter with Delancey. When Delancey confirmed that Sheldon had given Bacon's notice to the office, Bacon insisted that she had not told the instructor she was quitting. Delancey replied that he would have to take her supervisor's word over Bacon's and that Bacon would have 26 Morgan did not testify 27 The account of this incident is based on Powell's credited testimony made the statement. Harris did not testify Neither Taylor nor Delancey, both of whom followed Powell on the witness stand, referred to the occurrence, let alone denied that Taylor had CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. to leave the Company on January 2, 1970, the day that Sheldon said she would quit. On Friday, January 2, Bacon asked Sheldon if she had to work the following day. Sheldon replied that this was Bacon's last day of work because she had given her notice. On Monday, January 5, Bacon went to Delancey to ask if he would put her back to work. Delancey replied that he could not do so because he had hired a girl to take Bacon's place.28 While Bacon agreed that during December she had told fellow employee Annie Brooks that she was thinking of quitting, she insisted that at no time had she told anyone connected with the Company that she would quit on January 2 or indicated that she was giving notice that she intended to quit. Delancey testified that Bacon was terminated because she had given notice on December 17 that she would leave in 2 weeks. "That's the only reason," Delancey stated, "that she had turned in her notice." The assistant plant manager29 testified that Bacon had given her notice to Sheldon who had immediately advised Delancey. Some- time after Christmas (Taylor was back with the Company) Bacon 's husband came to the plant to say that his wife did not want to quit and had not intended to give notice. Delancey testified that he told Mr. Bacon that he had accepted his wife's notice in good faith, hired a replace- ment, and Mrs. Bacon would have to leave on January 2. Bacon's replacement had previously worked for the Company as a bar tacker. Delancey stated that he was aware at the time of her termination that Bacon was on the Union's organizing committee. Brown Holston, Respondent's personnel manager, prod- uced a compendium purporting to show Bacon's hours of work and "rate" for the weeks of June 7 through December 27. During 21 of the 29 weeks shown on this exhibit, Bacon 's "rate" was below the Federal minimum wage of $1.60 an hour. Respondent's counsel stated that this record of Bacon's failure to earn the minimum wage together with her record of having left the Company's employ on two previous occasions had weight in determining whether she was a desirable employee and went to the Company's reasons for refusing to reinstate or reemploy her. However, I find that there are serious questions as to the value of the record submitted by the Company of Bacon's hours of work and "rate." This exhibit does not indicate how much work was available for Bacon during each of the weeks shown or the hours she was on the clock or whether some of those hours were down time when no work was available for her thus reducing her hourly piece rate earnings. No explanation was offered as to how the "rate" on this exhibit was compiled. In sum, I find that Respondent has failed by this exhibit to establish that Bacon's efforts failed to earn the minimum wage.30 It cannot be denied Respondent that it devised a novel scheme to rid itself of Bacon, a leading union partisan. However, I find that it was nothing more than that and that 28 The foregoing sequence of events is based on Bacon's uncontradicted testimony 29 On December 17 Delancey was acting plant manager as Taylor had left the Company and was on anotherjob Taylor returned to the Company some time after Christmas 1969 30 Employee Leola Pulliam, a bar tacker still employed at Chase City, testified that Bacon's work was "good " Further, Pulliam testified that 43 the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating Bacon's employment on January 2, 1970. Bacon's alleged notice of intent to quit followed close upon her services as union observer at the representation election. Thereafter, Bacon's actions were totally inconsis- tent with those of an employee serving out a notice period prior to voluntarily leaving her employment. Moreover, Mr. Bacon's visit to the plant in an effort to save his wife's job was further notice to the Company that Bacon had not announced an intention to quit. On the other hand Respondent's actions were entirely consistent with an intention to be nd of Bacon. Delancey testified that the only reason Bacon was let go was her 2-week notice to Sheldon, yet Delancey was advised both by Bacon and her husband that she had not given such a notice. The one witness Respondent could have produced to give substance to its claim that on December 17 Bacon gave her notice to Sheldon was Sheldon herself. Sheldon was present in the courtroom but was not called as a witness by the Company. I find that Bacon's alleged notice was a device manufac- tured to drive her from the plant. In so concluding I am mindful of the background of her open union activity, the Company's animosity toward the Union and its advocates, and the disciplinary warnings issued to her for work which bore no evidence that it was her product. C. Farmville 1. The discharge of Paul J. Chapman Paul J. Chapman was first employed by the Company at the Farmville plant in the early 1950's. There were two breaks in his employment. At one time Chapman had a "misunderstanding"31 with his foreman and did not work for the Company for about 1 year. The second break was occasioned by Chapman's imprisonment for 5 years. The record is not clear as to the reason for this conviction. Chapman testified that he "signed a false statement and was sent to prison for 5 years by signing a false statement." The record does not reveal whether his crime was signing a false statement or his conviction was based on a confession which Chapman now claims was not true. There was no offer into evidence of any documentary evidence as to this conviction. In any event, the circumstances of his conviction do not appear to have involved the Company and following his release the Company reemployed Chapman and brought him back into the plant in 1966. As noted, the Union launched its organizing campaign at Farmville in May 1968. Chapman was a member of the Union's organizing committee,32 solicited between 40 and 50 authorization cards, and attended all but one of the Union's meetings . About 15 days before the second election held on March 19, Chapman put a 16- by 25-inch sign in his station wagon window reading, "Join the TWUA and get what Lynchburg gets." The station wagon with the sign was parked in front of the factory. When Company President because the piece rate for bar tacking was set low she was having difficulty meeting the production requirements to earn the minimum wage at the time Bacon left the Company's employ. 31 Chapman's characterization 32 Chapman's name was included in the roster of the TWUA organizing committee set out in the Union's January 14 letter to the Company 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lockridge spoke to the Farmville employees he started his speech by noting that the first thing he had seen upon arriving in Farmville was the station wagon with the sign. Chapman worked in the lasting department under Foreman Richard Carwile. Mrs. Chapman worked in the stitching room, supervised by John Rhymer. Chapman testified that it was his custom, as well as that of other men whose wives worked in the plant, to visit his wife during working hours to advise her if he was leaving early. Prior to April II Chapman had not been told he could not do this and to his knowledge nothing had been said to the other men who visited their wives at work. On Friday, April 11, Chapman was released from work at 3:15 p.m. and went to the stitching room to inform his wife that he was leaving the plant and she could find him in the barber shop if she left work early. Chapman testified that he had not been with his wife more than 2 or 3 minutes when Stitching Room Foreman Rhymer came to them and asked what Chapman was doing there. Chapman stated the reason for his visit. Rhymer then said that Chapman could not be in the stitching room unless he had permission from his own foreman to be there. Chapman denied the existance of such a rule and an argument ensued between Rhymer and Chapman. Chapman testified that in a "right loud" voice, motioning with his hands, he asked Rhymer three or four times to come with him to the office to check on whether there was such a rule. Rhymer insisted that Chapman leave the stitching room at once. Chapman agreed that he was interfering with the production of the stitching room employees. Rhymer agreed that he had asked Chapman if he had obtained permission to be in the stitching room, reminding Chapman that to be there he had to have permission from his own foreman, Rhymer, or Plant Manager Rosser. After some discussion, Rhymer testified, Chapman went to the door, waving his arms and causing a commotion, calling for Rhymer to come with him and saying, "You just come on and I'll show you." Rhymer stated that Chapman did not make clear where it was that he wanted the foreman to accompany him. Plant Manager Rosser, making his rounds of the plant, arrived in the stitching room and noticed that most of the employees had stopped work and were looking in the direction of the door. Rosser heard someone calling in a loud voice and as he walked up he saw Chapman waving his arms and calling for Rhymer to come with him. Rhymer explained to Rosser that Chapman was in the department without permission and that he had asked Chapman to leave. Rosser testified that he could see that Chapman was red in the face and figuring that this was not the time to discuss the situation and the best thing was to get Chapman out of the building, ordered Chapman to leave. When Chapman reported for work on Monday, April 14, his timecard was missing from the rack. Chapman's foreman, Carwile, got Chapman and his wife together and told them that any time Chapman wished to go to the stitching room to see his wife he was to see Carwile for 33 Rosser did not refer to or deny this exchange during his testimony Accordingly, I find, as alleged in the amendment to the complaint, that on April 14, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, Rosser interrogated permission. Carwile then gave Chapman his timecard, Chapman clocked in, and went to work. About 10 a.m. Chapman was called to the office. There, with Rhymer and Carwile present , Rosser presented and asked Chapman to sign a written warning reading: Threatening and interfering with supervisor in Stitching Dept. Friday 4-11-69. This was Chapman's first warning. Rosser read the warning and said that when Chapman had three warnings he would automatically be discharged. Chapman refused to sign the warning as written but agreed to sign if it was changed to read that he had interfered with the operators in the stitching room. Chapman testified that Rosser replied that he could not change the warning without first talking it over with the Company's office in Lynchburg. Rosser said he could not permit Chapman to go back to work if he did not sign the warning. As Chapman put it, Rosser said he was not fired, not discharged, not laid off, but could not go back to work because he had not signed the warning. Rosser asked Chapman, who had attended a union meeting in Lynchburg the preceding Friday, what meetings he had attended in Lynchburg Friday night. When Chapman replied that Rosser would have to go elsewhere for his information, Rosser said that the factory was not union then and would never go union.33 Rosser testified that he discussed with Chapman the reasons for the warning and told him that he would have to sign if he wanted to go back to work. When asked if he had told Chapman he could have a review of his case in Lynchburg as provided in the Company's disciplinary rules, Rosser replied, "I don't know that I did." Rosser did not recall discussing review with Chapman. Chapman testified that nothing was said by any company representative about a possible right of review. Further, Rosser stated that he did not think anything was said during the Monday morning discussion about Chapman's right to sign the warning at a later time. After Chapman refused to sign the warning Rosser directed that he be escorted from the plant. Chapman then went home and called Dernoncourt, the Union's chief organizer and told him what had happened. Dernoncourt advised Chapman to return to the plant and sign the warning "under false pretenses."34 Chapman returned to the plant about 1 p.m., but Rosser would not permit him to sign the warning, saying he would have to contact Lynchburg and that Chapman should return to the plant the following morning at about 10 a.m. Chapman testified that the plant manager asked why he had changed his mind about signing and that he explained he had done so because his wife worked in the plant and they could travel to work together. Rosser testified that he would not permit Chapman to sign the warning when he returned to the plant because it was policy that when an employee refused to sign a warning and left the plant he did not have authority "to re-employ them or let them sign it and go back to work" unless it had been cleared by the Company's personnel department. Rosser claimed that these were the instructions issued to Chapman concerning his union activities. 34 Chapman, who is illiterate, referred to this as "false precinct " CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 45 plant managers when the warning system went into effect in August. 1968. "In a sense," Rosser testified, Chapman had quit when he left the plant without signing the warning. Personnel Manager Holston was at the Farmville plant the afternoon of April 14 and Rosser discussed Chapman's case with him. This was after Chapman had returned to the plant and had asked to sign the warning. Holston asked Rosser what he thought should be done about Chapman and Rosser recommended that Chapman not be put back to work. Rosser stated that Chapman was discharged because of his refusal to sign the warning. As instructed by Rosser, Chapman returned to the plant on Tuesday, April 15. Personnel Manager Holston was in the plant at the time, saw Chapman, but did not speak with him. Rosser told Chapman that he had not had an opportunity to discuss the case with Lynchburg and told Chapman to leave a telephone number with the secretary where he could be reached. Having had no word from Rosser by 4:15 p.m. Chapman tried unsuccessfully to reach the plant manager in his office and finally called Rosser at his home that evening. Rosser told Chapman that if he had anything else to do, to go ahead and do it because it would take some time to straighten out the matter. Rosser testified that he told Chapman to find another job because the Company could not use him any further. Rosser stated that he spoke to Holston on April 15 and was advised not to reemploy Chapman. Rosser testified that Chapman had already been discharged at this point. The warning slip bears the notation, "Quit." Chapman's claim for unemployment compensation was denied by the Virginia Employment Commission, not because of the circumstances of his termination by Respondent, but because of his failure to report to another job to which he was subsequently referred. In his conclusions concerning Chapman's discharge by the Company, the appeals examiner stated: ... although the claimant was not without fault in his failure to sign the warning slip, this was not an act that would show a substantial, wanton or willful disregard of his duties and obligations to his employer. It is the opinion of the Appeals Examiner that although the claimant was dis- charged from his employment, it was not for reasons which would constitute misconduct in connection with his work. As in the case with John Smith, Chapman's discharge for his refusal to sign the warning slip was in disregard of the Company's established disciplinary procedure. Discharge was to come with the fourth warning, yet Rosser recommended to Holston that Chapman be terminated on the occasion of his first warning. Moreover, if in fact company policy, contrary to the disciplinary manual provisions, provides that an employee who leaves the plant without signing a warning may not be reemployed, there was an element of entrapment in Rosser allowing Chapman to go home on April 14 without advising him of the consequences to his employment or of his right to review of his case in Lynchburg. Indeed, Rosser misled Chapman by ss Rossei's question to Chapman indicated an awareness of union activity and the identity of those participating. 36 Madison was corroborated on this point by Rosser and Cutting telling him he was not fired , not discharged, not laid off, but merely could not go back to work because he had not signed the warning . In the context of the Company antiunion campaign, Chapman's outspoken advocacy of the Union, and Rosser's unlawful interrogation of Chap- man about his attendance at a union meeting ,35 I find that, as with John Smith , Chapman's discharge for refusal to sign the warning was a pretext utilized to rid the Company of a union partisan. 2. The termination of Mary F. Madison Mary F. Madison worked in the Farmville plant as a die distributor in the cutting department from December 1966 until May 1969. From July 1967 until February 1968 Madison was out on maternity leave. Madison became active on behalf of the Union in July 1968, serving on the TWUA organizing committee. Her name was included in the list of that committee sent to the Company by the Union on January 14, 1969. In the campaign before the first representation election Madison made house calls for the Union and obtained 30 signed cards. In the union drive before the March 1969 election Madison solicited cards at a service station across the tracks from the plant and secured about 45 cards for the Union. While so engaged Madison was seen by Plant Manager Rosser and Cutting Room Foreman Foster. Madison served as a union observer at both Board- conducted elections and testified at the hearing held on the Company's objections to the second election. In addition, Madison served as vice president of the local union established to serve the Farmville plant. During her employment by the Company Madison received no warnings, verbal or written.36 After work on Tuesday, May 27, Madison, her sister Lorraine, and Delores Hendricks, their first cousin, went to the Uniroyal plant in Farmville seeking employment. In May the Craddock-Terry plant had been working short weeks. At Uniroyal they spoke to John Wright, the plant manager. Wright told Madison to fill out a Uniroyal employment application at the local office of the Virginia Employment Commission and to return to see him at 8 a.m. on Thursday, May 29. Hendricks, who had completed a Uniroyal application in March, was also told to return on Thursday. At lunchtime on Wednesday, May 28, Madison filled out a Uniroyal application stating thereon that she was then employed by Craddock-Terry She then returned to the company plant and told Foster, her foreman, that she had to be off from work Thursday morning but would be in at 10 a.m. Madison testified that Foster "didn't say anthing at first." Madison then asked Linda Shreck, a fellow employee who customarily filled in when Madison was not at work, to work in Madison's place Thursday morning. Shreck agreed to cover Madison's job. Madison testified that when she returned to Foster and told him that Shreck would work in her place the following morning the foreman replied, "You know we come to work at 7:30." Madison said that she knew this but that she had important business to attend to. Department Foreman Foster Foster characterized Madison as a "fair" employee. 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Foster testified that on Wednesday Madison asked for permission to be off the following morning, explaining that she had business to attend to but did not state its nature. Foster replied that she was needed on the job. Madison said that she had arranged for one of the other girls to do her work but Foster replied that that employee had her own work to do. Foster testified that during May the plant was working short weeks and they were trying to finish all the available work in 4 days so that the entire department would be off on the same day. To have allowed another employee to cover for Madison would have taken that employee from her own work. Foster stated that he did not excuse Madison from reporting for work at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday. Madison, together with her sister Lorraine and Delores Hendricks, returned to the Uniroyal plant to see Plant Manager Wright Thursday morning arriving shortly after 8 a.m., using for transportation a car belonging to another sister who worked for Uniroyal. Madison was interviewed by Wright who asked how she felt about the Union and if she had any connection with it. Madison gave him her opinion. When Madison arrived at the company plant at about 9:55 a.m. her timecard was missing from the rack. She asked Foster for her card and told her foreman that she would have to leave at 3:30 p.m. for about 15 minutes to return her sister's car. Foster then said there was no point in her clocking in if she was "going to punch right out again." Madison then left and attended to personal business during the day. Hendricks did not report to the company plant that day, sending word that she was sick. Hendricks testified that she was told by Madison's sister, Lorraine, that after Madison left the plant following her conversation with Foster, Foster, Plant Manager Rosser, and a third person identified only as Jimmy held a conference following which Jimmy asked Lorraine if Madison and Hendricks had gone to look for other jobs. Lorraine denied that they had and Jimmy asked Lorraine to be sure that Hendricks was at work on Friday, May 30. Foster testified that Madison's timecard had been removed from the rack on Thursday under a rule providing for such action whenever an employee does not report for work at the beginning of the shift. When Madison asked for her card at about 10 a.m. Foster reminded her that she was supposed to be at work at 7:30, and when she told him she would have to be off again at about 3 p.m. Foster told Madison that she might as well take off the balance of the day. Rosser stated that he became aware of Madison's absence on May 29 when he noticed that her card was missing from the rack. At about 10:30 a.m. Wright of Uniroyal called Rosser for a reference on Madison, explaining that she had applied for work at Uniroyal and asked if she was then employed by the Company. Rosser told Wright that Madison was on Respondent's payroll. Madison was not scheduled to work on Friday, May 30, as the cutting room was off that day. Hendricks testified that when she reported for work on Friday her timecard was not in the rack and she was told to go to the office where Rosser asked why she had not been in to work on Thursday. Hendricks replied that her nerves had been bad so she had gone home. Rosser said that her foreman had called her home but she had not been there. Hendricks replied that he had probably called while she was on her way there. Rosser then asked if she was sure she had not been with Madison and when Hendricks said she had not, the plant manager stated, "I'll suspend you until I investigate the matter." Hendricks then left the plant, called Madison and told her that Rosser was investigating, had questioned Hendricks about whom she had been with, and "then he said he was going to suspend us." Madison testified that Hendricks called her at about 9:15 a.m. on Friday to say that Rosser had told Hendricks to inform Madison that they were suspended until further notice. Madison received her last paycheck by sending a note with Hendricks who picked up the check for Madison. Hendricks did not tell Madison why they were suspended and Madison never asked either Rosser or Foster why she had been suspended. Rosser testified that he had talked to Hendricks only about her own case on Friday. Rosser claimed to have told Hendricks that he would not discuss Madison with her because Madison's situation was between Madison and himself. Rosser denied giving Hendricks any message for Madison. Further, Rosser stated that he had not talked with Madison about her case at any time, either during the incident or since. Rosser testified that when he told Hendricks she was being suspended pending investigation because what she had told him did not agree with other information the Company had obtained, she replied, "You don't have to investigate it; I quit." Madison testified that she never got in touch with the Company because Hendricks had told her that Rosser would be contacting her. Madison and Hendricks testified that they talked on Saturday, May 31, speculating on how long they would be suspended. Rosser and Foster also talked on Saturday. They testified that they discussed Madison, Rosser telling Foster that Madison had been to Uniroyal looking for ajob on the day she failed to report for work on time. Rosser alerted Foster to the possible need to make arrangements to cover Madison's job in the cutting room. Foster testified that had Madison reported for work on Monday, June 2, it was his intention to put her to work, he had no instructions to the contrary. Rosser testified that while he could not say that Madison would still be employed by the Company, and he might have given her a written warning, she would not have been discharged had she reported for work on any day during the week of June 2. On Monday Foster removed her timecard from the rack and kept it at his desk. At quitting time on Wednesday, June 4, Foster "terminated the card and sent it to the office" pursuant to a company policy of terminating employees who fail to report to work for 3 days without reason. At Foster's request, Rosser noted on Madison's timecard: Discharged. Asked for permission to be off Thursday 5-29-69 to take care of some business. Denied permission by supervisor. Did not report to work 5-29-69 until 10:00 am and said she would have to be off again at 3:00 pm for more business. She was not allowed to go to work Thursday. About 10:30, we received a reference CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. phone call from John Wright at Uniroyal that she had be [sic] out at Uniroyal Thursday am applying for work. Last day-5-28-69. Carrying dyes. Not recommended. /s/ HER Company rules, which have been made known to the employees, provide that a written warning will be issued the first time an employee is absent without leave; a written warning and 3-day layoff will follow the second instance of absence without leave; and a written warning and 1-week suspension will be imposed for a third violation. During cross-examination Rosser acknowledged that in many cases, employees, including Paul Chapman who had quit had been contacted by company representatives and asked to return to the Company's employ. I do not find that General Counsel has met his burden of establishing that Mary Madison's termination was occa- sioned in whole or part by her union activity. It cannot be gainsaid that she played an outstanding role for the Union. Further, in evaluating the facts as to Madison the background of the Company's animosity to the Union must be given weight. However, absent union considerations, Madison's actions in absenting herself from work on Thursday without permission, and indeed in the face of her supervisor's indication that she was expected to be in to work at the regular starting time, to seek other employment, would justify disciplinary action by her employer. The essential element in my determination is Madison's failure to report for work on Monday, June 2, or thereafter, and her total failure to take any action to ascertain whether her employment had been terminated. I find unconvincing the explanation that she refrained from contacting the Company because Hendricks had told her that Rosser would be in touch with her. As between Hendricks, who had lied about her reasons for being away from work on May 29, and Rosser, I find Rosser to be the more credible witness and accept his testimony that he had not sent any messages to Madison by Hendricks and had not informed Hendricks that Madison, as well as she, was to be indefinitely suspended. At that point Madison had offered no explanation for her actions on May 29 and I note that Hendricks' suspension pending investigation was based upon the conflict between her story and other information the Company had obtained. While company rules provide for a series of warnings and layoffs in the event of absences without leave, Madison's total failure to report for work on June 2 and thereafter prevented the Company from imposing such discipline on her and gave substance to the conclusion that she had quit. At this point the company rule providing for termination after 3 days' absence without reason would appear to supercede the disciplinary proce- dure for absence without leave. Moreover, such a conclusion was made more plausible by the fact that the entire transaction had been initiated by her efforts to seek other employment. Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint allegation that Madison's termination violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 37 See In. 11, supra. 38 The parties stipulated that Reynolds was a supervisor within the D. Lynchburg 47 A collective-bargaining agreement covering the employ- ees at Respondent's Lynchburg plant, providing for a voluntary checkoff of union dues, was executed on February 7, 1969. General Counsel presented a number of witnesses who testified to company efforts to persuade them to revoke their checkoff authorizations. Barbara L. Heath, employed by the Company since 1953,37 told of an occasion when her foreman, Fred Barber, brought a bill from the credit union to her. Barber asked if Heath was for the Union and when she replied that she was, Barber pointed out that the $5 taken from her pay each month for dues would pay the credit union bill. Several weeks later Barber told Heath that if she wanted to get out of the Union he would tell her what to do. Heath did not withdraw from the Union. Paul Tardy testified to a time when Clyde Kiger, his foreman, gave Tardy a card to withdraw from the Union. Later Kiger told Tardy that Reynolds, the paymaster,38 wanted to see Tardy. Reynolds said that Kiger had informed him that Tardy wanted to sign a card to get out of the Union. Tardy denied having told this to Kiger. Tardy remained in the Union until he left the Company's employ. Margie B. Downey, employed by Respondent since 1960, testified about a conversation she had with Claiborne Craddock, plant manager at Lynchburg, after she applied for a loan. Craddock asked if Downey was active in the Union. Downey said that she was and asked about her loan. Craddock replied that those who were more deserving and loyal to the Company would get the loans. Downey commented that she didn't know anyone who was more deserving than she. Following this conversation with Craddock, Foreman Bryant came to Downey and said that he had heard that Downey was dissatisfied with the money coming out of her pay for dues and told her that if she wanted to get out of the Union she should let him know. Some weeks later Downey went to Bryant to say she had decided to get out of the Union. Bryant told Downey to come to the office with him. There, the office girl dictated and Downey wrote down a statement which she signed and gave to the office girl. Some time later the Company stopped deducting union dues from Downey's pay. Dolly Lemon, who had worked next to Downey in the packing department, testified that she had overheard Foreman Bryant tell Downey that if she wanted to get out of the Union she should speak to him about it. Lemon told of a time in June 1969 when she was called to the office about two doctors' bills which she owed. Lemon signed an agreement permitting the Company to deduct $5 each week from her pay which would be applied to those bills. At the same time Paymaster Reynolds handed Lemon another paper and asked if she wanted to sign to get out of the Union. Reynolds pointed out that with the $5 for dues coming out of her pay the total deduction would now be $10. Lemon refused to sign the withdrawal and Reynolds took back the proffered paper. Respondent offered no evidence to contravene the meaning of the Act. 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testimony summarized above. Accordingly, I find that the Company, at Lynchburg, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by inducing "employees . . . to revoke and unlawfully assisted them in revoking the authorizations given by such employees to the Union authorizing the Union to represent them for the purpose of collective bargaining"38 and authorizing the checkoff of union dues from their pay. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Company's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman, and prior thereto engaged in a course of harassment against those employees including the issuance of disciplinary warnings and layoffs, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate the named employees to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and to make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful conduct, including losses suffered during periods of unlawfully imposed disciplinary layoffs, and to expunge from company records the warnings issued to said employees. Backpay shall be computed 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 716.40 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. as Amended Consolidated Complaint, par. VI (d). 40 As the hearing closed I asked the parties to file briefs and "to devote some attention on the question of remedy to the matter of interest to be levied on backpay . . Specifically, the Isis formula which the Board has applied to date provided for six percent interest . In view of the rising interest rate in the national economy and the problems of interest on small loans, particularly for wage earners , I believe that examination should be given to the possibility that interest higher than six percent might properly be payable on backpay due. And I would ask that the parties include a section on this in their briefs." Respondent's brief contained a thoughtful analysis and argument against such an increase in interest rate on backpay. The only reference to interest in General Counsel's brief was a request for "back pay at six 2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to hereinabove in section III, B 2 and 5, C 1, and D, hereof, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By engaging in the conduct described in section III, B 3, 4, 5, and 6 and C 1, hereof, Respondent discriminated against John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman in regard to the terms and conditions of their employment, in order to discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not committed other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER41 The Respondent, Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Questioning employees concerning their union activities and opinions; soliciting employees to revoke their union dues checkoff authorizations; soliciting employees to revoke their designation of the Union as their bargaining representative; or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. (b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor organization, by discriminating against employees in regard to the terms and conditions of their employment. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana W . Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman if presently percent for the layoff suffered by Powell " The Charging Party did not file a brief. In the absence of interest by either the General Counsel or the Union in exploring the appropriateness of the present level of interest levied, I do not believe it behooves me to delay issuance of this Decision to undertake the study needed to develop the background required for such a change. 41 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, CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 49 serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its Chase City, F'armville, and Lynchburg, Virginia, plants copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."42 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith 43 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Consolidated Complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not found herein. 42 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 National 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." 43 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 WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities and opinions in a manner violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to revoke their union authorizations or assist them in doing so. WE WILL NOT Solicit our employees to revoke their union dues checkoff authorizations or assist them in doing so. WE WILL NOT issue disciplinary warnings or layoffs to employees because of their union activity. WE WILL expunge from company records disciplinary warnings issued to employees because of their union activity. WE WILL offer John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman their jobs back with backpay and pay Margaret B. Smith and Mary R. Powell the wages they lost while they were discriminatorily laid off. WE WILL notify John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman if they are presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application as provided by law, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All of our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. Dated By CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORPORATION (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822.