Howard Knit Products, Inc.

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Howard Knit Products, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case I1-CA-3529 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE February 12, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On October 21, 1968, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charging Party, and the General Counsel, all filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Howard Knit Products, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below: 1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: (b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her 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. 2. Add the following as the last indented paragraph of the notice: WE WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her 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. OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner- This case heard at Gastonia, North Carolina, on June 28, 1968, pursuant to charges filed the preceding January 29 and April 2 and- a complaint issued on April 25, presents the question whether the Respondent discharged Frances Lutz on January 19, 1968, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, my consideration- of the brief filed by the General Counsel, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a North Carolina corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of athletic shirts and men's underwear at a plant at Gastonia, North Carolina. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent purchased from out-of-State sources and had shipped to its plant at Gastonia , more than $50,000 worth of goods and materials . During the same period of time the Respondent shipped from its Gastonia plant to out-of-State destinations in excess of $50,000 work of finished products . Upon these facts, I find, as the Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Discharge of Frances J. Lutz in Violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 1. Lutz' employment record Lutz was hired by the Respondent in 1958. At the time of her discharge on January 19, 1968, she was one of seven or eight girls engaged in sewing first shoulder, the first operation in the manufacture of T-shirts. As both General Manager Frank Jones, Jr., and Supervisor Fay Wingenroth freely admitted, Lutz was a good operator. The Respondent's employees are paid on a piecework basis. According to Lutz' testimony, her production quota was 175 bundles a day. However, Lutz' daily production averaged about 215 bundles a day, or more than 20 percent more than her production quota. This is Lutz' undenied testimony. 2. The supervisory setup of the Respondent's plant The Respondent has approximately 140 production employees of whom about 110 are in the sewing department. All 140 employees work in one large room. The overall operations of the Respondent are under the supervision of Frank C. Jones, the Respondent's general manager. Under him is Fay Wingenroth who is responsible primarily for the sewing department. Rachel 174 NLRB No. 68 HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS Lewis is a subordinate supervisor under Wingenroth and is primarily in charge of quality control, which includes the examining and folding operations. In Wingenroth's absence Lewis acts in Wingenroth's place. Both Wingenroth and Lewis spend almost all their time in the room where the employees work and Jones frequently has occasions to be present there also. During the period of time involved in this case, from December 12, 1967, through January 19, 1968, the Respondent was loaning the services of Wingenroth to an unrelated concern located in Great Falls, South Carolina, which is some 65 miles from Gastonia. Wingenroth was trying to establish a production program for this other concern, to set up proper standards, and to train employees. During this period Wingenroth worked only intermittently at the Respondent's plant. At the hearing Wingenroth estimated that between December 12, 1967, and January 19, 1968, she was al the Respondent's plant on about 15 days. 3. The union activities at the Respondent's plant and Lutz' part therein On December 12, 1967, Burl Robinson, a representative of the Union, stationed himself just outside the parking lot adjacent to the Respondent's plant as the employees were leaving the plant at 2:30 p.m. Lutz and several other employees approached him as he was passing out union leaflets to employees leaving the parking lot. Lutz obtained some 8 to 12 leaflets from Robinson and, standing there beside Robinson, gave them out to employees who were on their way to their cars in the parking lot. She also gave leaflets to the riders in her carpool. General Manager Frank Jones was informed by employees of the distribution of the union leaflets by the union representative "within a matter of minutes," as he admitted.' The next day Lutz called General Manager Jones over to her machine and asked him if he was aware that a union representative had been giving out union literature at the plant. Jones said yes. Lutz also asked Supervisor Lewis that day if she knew about the distribution of union literature on the day before and whether she had received any such literature. Lewis said she knew about it but that none had been offered her and that she would not have taken it anyway because she was "just not for the Union." A few days later Union Representative Robinson went to Lutz' home and gave her additional union leaflets and some union application cards. Lutz gave Robinson the 'Union Representative Robinson testified that while he was passing out union literature at the parking lot entrance , an employee who was later identified to him as Grady Fronaberger, came up to him and told him that Frank Jones had sent him out there to tell him not to pass out any more union leaflets on company property At the opening of the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege an 8(a)(1) violations based upon this incident, also one other which is discussed ,below. However, this motion was subsequently withdrawn upon the suggestion of the Trial Examiner, who stated at the time that if the motion to amend were withdrawn , he would not make any findings of violations of the Act based upon the incidents relied upon in the motion to amend. In these circumstances I do not deem it proper to make any finding of a violtation of the Act based upon this December 12, 1967, incident. In any event, it is implicit in Jones' testimony about this incident , which I credit, that he did not give Fronaberger instructions of the nature testified to by Robinson The record wholly fails to establish that Fronaberger is a supervisor for whose actions the Respondent is responsible For these reasons I must reject the General Counsel 's request in his brief that the Robinson December 12, 1967, incident be made the subject of a remedial order 411 names and addresses of some of the Respondent's employees whom she thought would be interested in the Union. Lutz passed out union cards in the plant lunchroom, in the plant restroom, and in the parking lot. Lutz also solicited signatures on union application cards at the homes of various employees. Later on Lutz returned some 20 to 30 signed cards to Union Representative Robinson. Lutz arranged for a union meeting to be held at her home on the night of January 11, 1968. She spoke to approximately 25 employees in the plant about the meeting and asked them to pass along to their fellow workers information concerning the meeting. The meeting had to be cancelled at the last minute because of snow and ice on the roads. 4. Jones warns the employees about improving their production and maintaining a cooperative attitude About the middle of January, General Manager Jones commenced giving a series of talks to groups of the employees. In the course of these group talks, he reached all of the employees except those' who happened to be absent. Jones testified that he mentioned to the employees the problems the Respondent was facing due to the imminent completion of a government contract, the impending increase in the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was to take effect February 1, 1968, and the increased cost of overall operations. In an effort to solve these problems, Jones warned the employees that he was going to "weed out" piece rate workers who failed to earn the minimum wage, and said that in deciding which employees to retain, he was going to take into consideration not only the quality of their work, but also "their abilities to get along with other people, their cooperation, their general attitude and everything else." About January 16, Jones had the following notice posted on the bulletin board: It has been the company practice -that anyone punching another employees time card or leaving their work area before the buzzer sounds, at break, lunch, or quitting time is subject to reprimand and/or dismissed.' On January 17, in a telephone conversation with Wingenroth, Jones reported the substance of his talks to groups of employees and the contents of the notice which he had posted. Jones further told Wingenroth on this occasion, as he testified, that "things were getting pretty lax with her being away and me (Jones) being away off and on, that we were shorthanded (of management personnel), that we were going to crack down." This statement signalled a significant change in the working conditions in the Respondent's plant, for as set forth below in part 7, up until this time the plant had been operated in quite a relaxed manner. Under all the circumstances, including particularly the timing of the adoption of this policy, I conclude that Jones' decision to "crack down" on the employees was prompted by the union activities then going on in the plant, and that the posting of the rule quoted above was part of Jones' new "crack down" program 'Although, as found below, Jones' posting of this rule was part of the Respondent's response to the union activities which were then being intensified in the plant, it is conceded by Supervisor Wmgenroth, who effected Lutz' discharge, that this rule played no part in Lutz' discharge 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. Lutz has a union meeting at her home on the night of January 18, 1968 The union meeting which had been planned for January 11, 1968, was rescheduled for January 18. Before the meeting Lutz contacted about 25 to 30 employees about attending. Lutz spoke to some of the employees during break or lunch periods in the plant and to others in the plant parking lot. Burl Robinson and two other representatives of the Union spoke at the meeting at Lutz' home. An undisclosed number of the Respondent's employees attended. 6. The circumstances of the discharge of Lutz on January 19 Supervisor Wingenroth returned to the plant from Great Falls at 11 45 a.m. on January 19, 1968, and immediately engaged in a conversation with Rachel Lewis at the desk which both apparently used. While she was talking to Lewis, Wingenroth noticed Lutz, whom she assumed was on her lunch hour, talking to two girls, Mabel Dameron and Mary Cable at their work stations. Both Dameron and Cable were working at the time. While Lutz was standing talking to Dameron and Cable, Betty Bradley, whose work station was nearby, asked Lutz for a union card. Lutz put a union card and some union literature on Bradley's machine. At the time of this incident Wingenroth was standing facing Lutz about 30 feet away. After a few minutes, Lutz walked past the desk where Wingenroth and Lewis were engaged in conversation. Lutz asked Lewis whether the employees were going to work the following day, Saturday. Lewis said no. Wingenroth said nothing to Lutz about her visiting with Dameron and Cable. On her way back to her machine Lutz detoured almost two-thirds of the way to the other end of the plant and stopped and talked with Odessa Floyd and Georgia McClure "just briefly."3 Both Floyd and McClure were at work at this time McClure gave Lutz some signed union cards which Lutz put in her purse. Then Lutz returned to her machine and commenced working. The whole incident took not over 10 minutes.' As Lutz commenced sewing Wingenroth came to her machine and told her that since she (Wingenroth) had returned she (Lutz) had stopped and talked with Dameron, Cable, Floyd and McClure, that she had previously been warned about talking to girls on her lunch hour, and that she was dismissed. Wingenroth had one of the office girls fill out her termination slip and give it to Lutz It gave as the reason for the separation "disobeying a company rule [of] which [Lutz] was aware." When Lutz asked the office girl which rule she had violated, the office girl said that she did not know and went to get Wingenroth. When Wingenroth came in, Lutz told her to specify the rule she was relying on. Wingenroth refused Lutz then asserted, "Well Fay, everybody has been doing what I did " Wingenroth replied, "Well, we're starting now." Lutz refused to take her termination slip that day, declaring that she wanted to talk to Jones.' At the close of work that day, Wingenroth discharged Betty Woods for violating the recently posted rule against 'This is Lutz' uncontradicted testimony. This finding is based on my reconciliation of the testimony of Lutz and Wingenroth . The former testified that the whole incident took from 5 to 10 minutes, while the latter testified that it lasted 10 to 13 minutes 'The above findings are based mainly on Lutz ' credited and undenied testimony. leaving her work area before the buzzer sounded.- The following Monday, Lutz went back to the plant accompanied by her husband She asked Jones at this time whether he knew she had been fired. Jones said he had been told about it. Lutz told Jones, "Well, I've been working here 10 years and I would like to keep on working here " Although Jones told Lutz on this occasion that she "was his best first shoulder operator and that with them firing [her] he had to . . take three of his collarette girls off their machines that morning," he did not rescind Lutz' discharge. The collarette operation is a subsequent operation on T-shirts., Lutz brought out that Wingenroth refused to specify the rule which she had violated. Jones told her that she had been "running around into the area." This is Jones' credited testimony. Lutz said that she was going to take her termination slip under protest and, as Jones also testified, he "would certainly hear about this -thing, that she was working for the Union." To Lutz' assertion that "You have found out that I had union meetings at my house," Jones responded simply "Oh," as he further testified. 7. The relaxed working conditions in the Respondent's plant up until about the time of Lutz's discharge Lutz testified that employees customarily talked to the employees next to them at work and that it was permissible to leave your work to talk to someone on another row.' Mary Ryan, who had left the Respondent's employ after Lutz' discharge and prior to the hearing, testified, in response to a question about talking in the plant, as follows: Well, everyone talked. They would leave their work station and go somewhere else and tell somebody something TRIAL EXAMINER: They would leave their work stations and go talk to somebody else? THE WITNESS: Some did; some didn't., General Manager Jones' testimony on the subject of talking in the plant, is as follows: Q. And was part of the general problem where various employees talked among themselves? A. Well, I've never discouraged talking up to a point among themselves. You'll never stop women from talking; you can control it, but you'll never stop it all together. Now, for instance, if a girl happens to be sitting on an end row and a girl happens to pass her and she might be four rows up but it's in the path of her objective, the ladies room, usually; and she might stop there for a second or so and say, `Hey, pick me up tonight; I don't have a rid home,' or something like that. You just can't stop things like that. And that, in general, is what the discussions usually are. 'Although Jones took the stand after Lutz had given the above-quoted testimony, he was not questioned about it Jones did testify , however, that he had related everything he had said to Lutz in this postdischarge interview, and his version omits any mention of Lutz being his best first shoulder operator and having to transfer collarette operators as a'result of her discharge In other respects, the versions of Lutz and Jones of the postdischarge interview are consistent. Under all the circumstances I do not believe that Jones , by his omission of any reference to his favorable comments about Lutz' work, intended to deny that he had made such comments. I credit Lutz' testimony above quoted. 'I accept Lutz' testimony in this regard only since it is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses in this case, including that of the Respondent's supervisors. Lutz' further testimony on this point appeared to be somewhat exaggerated HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS Q. Well, isn't it a fact that it was the practice among the girls to talk whenever they chose to do so, wasn't it?" A. Up to a point. Supervisor Wingenroth conceded at the hearing that during the year before Lutz' discharge talking was pretty general in the plant She also testified that "maybe once a week" she observed employees going from one machine to another to talk to their fellow workers. 8. The Respondent's contentions ; conclusions Supervisor Wingenroth, whose decision it was to discharge Lutz, testified that a few days before Lutz' discharge she received instructions from Jones to tighten up on discipline in the plant, to strictly enforce all company rules, and dismiss employees violating - such rules. Wingenroth further testified that during the incident before Lutz' discharge, she observed Lutz interfering with the production of the four employees and decided to discharge her forthwith. Wingenroth denied ever having seen a union card and further denied having any knowledge of any union activities at the plant For reasons discussed below, I do not credit this denial. In any event, even if the discharge occurred as a result of Wingenroth's attempting to implement Jones' "crack down" program, since, as I have found, this program was instituted for antiunion reasons, Lutz' discharge would be violative of the Act regardless of Wingenroth's knowledge of Lutz' union activities. General Manager Jones denied having any knowledge at all of any union activities going on at the plant, aside from the fact that a union representative distributed union literature at the plant gate on December 12, 1967 It is inconceivable to me, upon all of the facts of the case, that Jones would not have had more knowledge of union activities among the Respondent's employees than he admitted to having. Lutz passed out cards and literature in the plant and on the parking lot, and frequently spoke to employees about the Union on company premises. Numerous of her fellow employees who were spoken to by Lutz about the Union were aware of her union activities, including the fact that she had scheduled union meetings at her home. Jones was admittedly informed by employees of the distribution of union literature outside the plant on December 12, 1967, within minutes after the distribution began. Concerning the spread of information around the plant, Jones testified that "if you've been around a ladies' sewing plant, all you have to do is drop one word and it will get across the plant." An incident which occurred in the week after Lutz' discharge further demonstrates the speed with which information concerning union matters was communicated to management. Mary Ryan was one of Lutz' coworkers at the plant. One night during the week following Lutz' discharge a man called Ryan at her home and, after giving his name, identified himself as a union lawyer. He sought to obtain Ryan's aid in connection with an unemployment compensation claim which he was pressing on behalf of Lutz. Ryan told the lawyer that she would rather not appear and did not want to get involved. The union lawyer's call apparently made Ryan apprehensive about her job, for the next morning she told two of her fellow workers about receiving the call. One or both of these employees promptly reported to Wingenroth both the fact that Ryan had received the call from the union lawyer and the further fact, I infer, that Ryan was fearful 41.3 for her job because of having received the call. Later that same morning Wingenroth went to Ryan and said, "Mary, I've talked it over with Frank (Jones) regarding the union lawyer talking to you . . . your job will not be in danger."8 During this conversation Wingenroth told Ryan that "she just hoped that Frances Lutz lost her butt." In view of the scope of Lutz' union activities in the plant and the speed with which the record shows that information concerning such matters spread to management, and bearing in mind the fact, as experience demonstrates, that information concerning union activities among an employer's employees is ordinarily a matter of considerable interest to the employer and a matter which members of management normally discuss with one another, I cannot accept Wingenroth's and Jones' sweeping denials of all knowledge of Lutz' union activities. While there is no affirmative evidence that Wingenroth was informed at the time she discharged Lutz that Lutz had held a union meeting at her home the night before, I am convinced, contrary to the testimony of both Wingenroth and Jones, that both were aware of Lutz' earlier union activities. Even though Wingenroth was frequently away from the plant during the period the union activities were in progress, Jones remained in touch with her by telephone In any event, Wingenroth, by her own testimony, was at the plant 15 days during the time the union activities were in progress and thus had an adequate opportunity to become apprised of such activities. Various circumstances cast serious doubt on Wingenroth's explanation that Lutz was discharged for talking and disrupting the production of other employees. In the first place, Lutz was discharged without warning for an offense which had not up to that time been regarded as a serious violation of the Respondent's rules It was quite a common occurrence for employees to leave their machines to talk. Never before, as Jones admitted, had an employee been discharged for such an offense. Wingenroth had ample opportunity while Lutz was speaking to Dameron and Cable to tell her to stop bothering them, but she did not do so. Nor did Wingenroth reprimand Lutz when Lutz passed by her after leaving Dameron and Cable. Although Wingenroth told Lutz when she discharged her that she had been warned, at the hearing Lutz was unable to substantiate this assertion in any meaningful way. When asked to be specific about the number of warnings issued to Lutz in the year prior to her discharge, Wingenroth answered "about once. We warned the whole mill." Wingenroth further testified that she had not warned Lutz about talking any more than any other employees. While Jones talked to Lutz once in the fall of 1967 about leaving her machine and talking, this incident occurred in Wingenroth's absence, and it does not appear that Wingenroth was aware of it. Secondly, Wingenroth's discharge of Lutz worked at cross purposes with the Respondent's professed goal of 'The General Counsel urges in his brief that Wingenroth 's action in telling Ryan that her conversation with the union lawyer had been discussed with General Manager Jones was coercive in that it tended to inhibit Ryan from testifying in Lutz' behalf. This incident was the other subject of the General Counsel's motion to amend made at the opening of the hearing, which was withdrawn at the Trial Examiner's suggestion For the reasons discussed above , I do not deem it proper to make any finding based upon this incident. Moreover , upon the facts found, I do not believe that the inference of coercion which the General Counsel urges me to draw is a reasonable one 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD achieving more efficient production and thereby helping to solve the problems which it was then facing as the result of the completion of a large government contract, the coming increase in the minimum wage, and the overall increase in its costs which it was then experiencing. At such a time it was more important than ever that Respondent hang on to its good producers. Lutz, a 10-year employee of the Respondent, was a good producer who consistently made substantially more than her minimum production quota. Lutz, as found above, was on the first T-shirt operation, and the volume of her production affected the volume of work available for employees on subsequent operations. Particularly in assembly line operations like the Respondent's it is essential that good producers be retained, for without an adequate number of satisfactory producers in the early operations, production may have to be curtailed in subsequent operations. This actually happened in this case after Lutz' discharge. I have found that Jones told Lutz after her discharge that as a result of firing her he had to take three collarette girls off their machines. Sound business procedures in such a situation suggest finding some other solution to the talking problem than dismissing one of the Respondent's better producers. If the Respondent seriously regarded Lutz' visiting and talking as objectionable, a word of warning to Lutz most likely would have been sufficient to curtail such activity 9 Wingenroth's seizure upon this one incident as an occasion to visit upon Lutz the extreme penalty of discharge, contrary to past practice and sound business considerations, strongly suggests that Wingenroth had an ulterior motive for getting rid of Lutz. I so find. What ulterior motive could Wingenroth have had that could not have been brought out into the open? If Wingenroth acted because of her disapproval of Lutz' union activities, then there would have been reason for her to conceal the true motivation underlying her action for such action would have been illegal. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I conclude that such was the motivation behind Wingenroth's discharge of Lutz. The Respondent's supervisory officials had knowledge of Lutz' activities in support of the Union, including, I find, her scheduling of union meetings at her home. This, I find, based upon the scope of Lutz' activities on company premises, the number of employees she contacted both in and out of the plant concerning the Union and union meetings, and the speed with which Jones admitted that information of an unusual nature spread through the plant. It will be remembered that Jones testified that an employee reported to him the fact that a union representative was distributing union leaflets at the parking lot on December 12, 1967, "within a matter of minutes" after the representative commenced such activity. After Lutz had scheduled a union meeting at her home on January 11, 1968, Jones held meetings with groups of employees at which he warned of impending dismissals, and said he would take into consideration in deciding whom to let go, among other factors, "their abilities to get along with other people, their cooperation" and "their general attitude." Even assuming that Jones had a valid business reason for holding these meetings with 'The fact that Lutz continued to talk to Dameron and Cable for some minutes in plain sight of Wingenroth and later went and briefly talked to Floyd and McClure suggests that Lutz had np idea at the time that she was committing a serious breach of the Respondent 's rules. employees, in my opinion, he utilized these meetings as an occasion to issue a veiled warning to the employees against becoming involved in the union activities then going on among the employees. This is the impression, I believe, Jones intended to convey by stressing the need for employees to "cooperate" and watch their "attitude." At the time of Lutz' discharge she had just held a union meeting at her home, a meeting concerning which she had previously given some publicity in the plant. When Wingenroth arrived at the plant on January 19, she first had a talk with Supervisor Lewis, who was in charge of the plant in Wingenroth's absence and who was the supervisor closest to the employees during this period of organizing activity and therefore the supervisor most likely to receive information concerning organizing activities.10 Wingenroth thus had an opportunity to be brought up to date on the current organizing activities. The activity in which Lutz was engaged immediately prior to her discharge in plain sight of Wingenroth - talking to five employees and giving and receiving cards - undoubtedly suggested to Wingenroth that Lutz was engaged in further union activity. The explanation given by the Respondent for the drastic and unprecedented action taken against Lutz - that she was interfering with production - does not withstand scrutiny. Talking in the plant was quite common and the discharge of one of the Respondent's better operators," I have found, disrupted rather than improved production in the plant. No other explanation has been offered by the Respondent for the discharge without warning of this efficient producer.12 Under all the circumstances, including the timing of Lutz' discharge - at a time when Lutz' activities in support of the Union had reached a peak - I infer and find that it was Lutz' activities in support of the Union which led to Wingenroth's decision to discharge her. Such a discharge is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I so find. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 By discharging Frances Lutz because of her union activities the Respondent has discriminated against Lutz in regard to her tenure of employment and has discouraged membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will direct the Respondent to cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and from like and related conduct, and that the Respondent reinstate Lutz, with backpay from the date of her discharge to the Respondent's offer of reinstatement. "Lewis was not called as a witness and there is no direct evidence of her knowledge of union activities among the Respondent 's employees. "General Manager Jones' testimony indicated that the Respondent had marginal operators, average operators, and good operators. Lutz was in the latter category "The Respondent has not availed itself of the opportunity to file a brief with the Trial Examiner and consequently the Examiner is without knowledge whether the Respondent is still relying on the explanations given by Wingenroth and Jones at the hearing or whether the Respondent has some other contention regarding Lutz' discharge. HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS In computing backpay, Lutz' net interim earnings shall be taken into consideration , and the formulas set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, 291-293 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716, shall be followed. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, Howard Knit Products, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Frances Lutz immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, in the manner described in "The Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's Decision. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records and reports and all other records necessary or useful to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order (c) Post at its Gastonia, North Carolina, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, 415 defaced, or covered by any other material." (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.,' "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " "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 ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or otherwise discriminate in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because they have engaged in union or concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL reinstate Frances Lutz and reimburse her for the wages she lost as a result of her discharge. Dated By HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 723-2911