G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc.

124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G. W. Murphy Industries , Inc., Portable Electric Tools Division and Dora C Ragsdale , Regina D. Ellis, Mildred R. Elliott, Nellie P. Smith, International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO; Cases 38-CA-601-1, 38-CA-601-2, 38- CA-601-3, 38-CA-601-4, and 38-C A-601-5 October 14, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow 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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the 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 hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, G. W. Murphy Industries, Inc., Warrensburg, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: -We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors appearing in the Trial Examiner's Decision section 111, E, second paragraph , delete "1947 and 1948" and substitute " 1967 and 1968" therefor 'These findings and conclusions are based , in part , upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner , to which the Respondent has excepted Having carefully reviewed the record , we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing those findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc . 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 2) 1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: "(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces." 2. Add the following as the third indented paragraph of the notice: WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM F SCHARNIKOW, Trial Examiner The complaint alleges, but the answer of the Respondent denies, that the Respondent, G W Murphy Industries, Inc , Portable Electric Tools Division, has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(l) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S C. Sec 151, et seq , by discharging employees Dora C. Ragsdale, Regina D Ellis, Mildred R Elliott, and Nellie P Smith on January 10, 1969, and by thereafter refusing to reinstate them, because said employees joined and assisted International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), and engaged in other union activity and concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and mutual aid and protection Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Decatur, Illinois on March 25, 26 and 27, 1969, before me. The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared by counsel and the Union by its representatives, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence upon the issues Counsel for the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union have submitted briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Texas corporation with an office and plant in Warrensburg, Illinois, is engaged in the business of metal stamping and assembling electric garden tools During a representative 12-month period, the Respondent, in the course of its business operations, sold and shipped from its Warrensburg, Illinois, plant, finished products of a value exceeding $50,000 to points outside the State of Illinois During the same 12-month period, the Respondent purchased and caused to be transferred and delivered to its Warrensburg, Illinois, plant, goods and materials of a value exceeding $50,000 directly from points in States other than the State of Illinois 179 NLRB No. 16 G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 125 I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to entertain jurisdiction of this case. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issue According to the General Counsel, the Respondent discharged four women employees at its Warrensburg, Illinois, plant on January 10, 1969, because of their previous concerted activities including their organizational activities on behalf of the Union which had lost a Board representation election on September 6, 1968. The Respondent denies this accusation and submits that the evidence taken at the hearing shows that they were in fact discharged by Plant Manager Roger Peterson, who had come to the plant as its manager only in November 1968 and knew nothing of the women's Union or other concerted activity, and that Peterson discharged the women, because from the reports made to him by the women's supervisors and his own observation of the employees' conduct, he believed that they presented "personality conflicts" in their relationships with their supervisors and fellow employees and that they were "insubordinate" within the meaning of plant rules which he found it necessary to publish on January 6, 1969 B. The General Employment History of the Four Dischargees The four women employees, the propriety of whose discharges is placed in issue, were Nellie Smith, who had worked in the assembly department at the plant since December 12, 1966, and three others, each of whom, in two or more years of continuous employment at the plant, had worked for the most part in its press department, I e , Dora Ragsdale (hired on February 6, 1966), Mildred Elliott (hired on December 19, 1966), and Regina Ellis (hired on January 18, 1967) When each of these women was hired, the plant was operated by Drake Electric Works as a division of Portable Electric Tools, but in a merger which took place in October 1967, the plant was taken over by the present Respondent which has since operated it as well as another plant in Geneva, Illinois, and continued to employ the same staff of employees including the four women with whom we are now concerned. Only during the last months of their employment, was there any change in the top local management of the Warrensburg plant Edgar Keyl had been plant manager since 1965 with no intermediate supervision, so far as the record shows, between him and his departmental foremen But in October 1968, Keyl became ill and in November 1968 was succeeded as plant manager by Roger Peterson who, according to his testimony, had had no comparable managing experience either at this or any other plant, his previous work having been in farming, in "engineering" and in a job at an electronics plant the details of which were not disclosed. On December 2, 1968, Joseph Cuvallo, who had been employed elsewhere by the Respondent and its predecessors for 18 years, was also brought in as plant superintendent in charge of all manufacturing personnel at the Warrensburg plant On December 9, 1968, Keyl returned from his sick leave as assistant plant manager and thus as a subordinate to Plant Manager Peterson. But the departmental supervision of the four women during the last year or more of their employment in the plant remained virtually unchanged. For the two years up to December 31, 1968, Jerry O'Loughlin had been the foreman of the assembly department in which Nellie Smith worked, and was succeeded as assembly foreman by James Stanford only for the last few days of Smith's employment And, from August 14, 1967, Herschel Wisnasky had been foreman of the press department in which the other three discharged girls worked, although after November 1968, Dora Ragsdale had been transferred and had worked until her discharge on January 10, 1969, at an inspector's job under Foreman Robert York. The only grounds asserted by the Respondent for the discharge of the 4 women employees in this case on January 10, 1969, were "personality conflicts" with their supervisors and other employees and "insubordination" in constantly complaining about conditions in the plant and failing to follow routine procedures prescribed by the supervisors The evidence as to these matters will later be considered in detail. But no complaint is made by the Respondent in the present case about the women's work or their production On the contrary, it appears from the credible evidence that during their several years of employment the very supervisors who complained about them in other respects during their testimony in the present case had generally complimented them on their work and had recommended and approved changes in their work assignments reflecting their satisfaction with the women's competency and their work performance. In the case of Nellie Smith, who worked under Foreman O'Loughlin in the assembly department for more than 2 years following her hire on December 20, 1966, O'Loughlin had made her a repair girl correcting the mistakes of other girls within 2 weeks after she was hired, and had thereafter urged her to take a lead girl's job until she finally did apply for and was given a lead girl's job for the duration of a night shift operated by the Respondent from April to August or September 1967 Reverting then to her original job as an assembler for about a year, she was again urged by O'Loughlin to bid for an assignment as a lead girl on a limited production job in the latter part of October or beginning of November 1968 But instead she asked for and was again given the job of a repair girl on November 6, 1968, and remained a repair girl until she was discharged on January 10, 1969. Despite Smith's difficulties with lead girl Donna Mihal from time to time (which will be later discussed) O'Loughlin had approved the assignments thus given to Smith Moreover, although O'Loughlin testified at the hearing merely that Smith's "work was up to the average of anybody else," and that "the quality of her work . was good," he did not deny Smith's specific testimony, and therefore I find as Smith testified, that "on many occasions," O'Loughlin told her he could not put her on a job she could not do Mildred Elliott, originally hired on December 19, 1966, in the assembly department under Foreman O'Loughlin, transferred to the press department as an operator under Foreman Wisnasky on October 2, 1967, and stayed on the latter job until her discharge on January 10, 1969. When 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD she told O'Loughlin of her intention to apply for the transfer, O'Loughlin told her, "Well, I like you and I hate to lose you; you're a good worker." In November 1967, shortly after her transfer to the press department, Foreman Wisnasky told her she had not made "her rate" for the first 30 days and he thought she could do better. But, after she was in the department for 60 days, she asked Wisnasky how she was doing and he said, "You're doing fine Don't overdo it " Finally, Wisnasky paid Elliott a more generous compliment in the first week in December 1968, dust a month before her discharge At that time, according to her testimony concerning the incident which I credit, Elliott asked Wisnasky whether it was true that he had mentioned her as being "a close second" to a girl he had warned for a bad record of absenteeism. Wisnasky denied having done so although he said the girl to whom he had spoken might have seen Elliott's name as well as other employees' names as he flipped his record while he was talking Wisnasky then said to Elliott, "In fact, I made a remark dust a few days ago that I was going to congratulate you on your record and your production, it's real high " He added, however, that "there was a lot of discussion down there in the press room", that Elliott "was part of it", and that "he was getting tired of women jumping him when he went through the press room " Elliott admitted to Wisnasky that the girls "all discussed everything on breaks and lunch hour," but said that "I wasn't jumping him, that I just wanted to ask him a question and I didn't know who else to ask "' Dora Ragsdale, originally hired on February 6, 1966, worked during almost the entire time of her employment by the Respondent and its predecessor as an operator in the press department She was on the night shift in August 1967 when Wisnasky became foreman in charge of both shifts in the department When the night shift was discontinued in January 1968, she transferred to the day shift as a press operator. In November 1968, she was made an inspector under Foreman Robert York and served as an inspector the remaining weeks of her employment Shortly after her transfer to the day shift in the press department in January 1968, Foreman Wisnasky had told her that her production "was running low" but, in response to her question, said that it was not "drastic" although "it would stand some jacking up " Before Ragsdale transferred to inspection in November 1968, she asked Wisnasky whether to apply for the transfer and (according to her uncontradicted testimony) he told her that he did not see why she should not become an inspector; that she was a good worker and press operator and knew the types of steel they were using, and that he hated to lose her because she was a good operator Consistently, when her application for the inspector's job was approved, York, her new foreman in the inspection 'The findings in the text are made upon Elliott's credited testimony In response to a question put to him by Respondent 's counsel, Wisnasky denied "that during the first week of December 1968 [he had] congratulated [Elliott] on her work " In earlier questioning by Respondent's counsel, he had testified that it was "about March 28 of '68" that he had denied an accusation by Elliott that he had been "showing everybody [Elliott's] absentee record " He further testified that he had then told Elliott that her absentee record was in fact "outlandish " and that "something [had to be] done about it " because he did not know how to plan work "with to many being off for different occasions " No attempt was made by the Respondent through Wisnasky 's testimony or the production of any records to show what Elliott's attendance record was Nor is it claimed by the Respondent that absenteeism was a reason for the Respondent 's later discharging her department, told Krapek an official from the Respondent's Geneva plant in Ragsdale's presence, that Foreman Wisnasky had highly recommended her, that she was a good operator, and a conscientious worker.' Finally, according to employee Regina Ellis' testimony which I credit, Edgar Keyl (originally the Respondent's plant manager during the greater portion of Ragsdale's employment) expressed agreement with this appraisal of Ragsdale's competence shortly after he returned to work as assistant plant manager in December 1968. For when Ellis went to the office to borrow money from the credit union on December 10, 1968, she was asked by Keyl whether Ragsdale liked her new job as an inspector. She told Keyl that Ragsdale was "enthused," and Keyl said he was glad Ragsdale had gotten the job "because she was a very competent worker and he thought she would make a very good inspector "' Regina Ellis, the fourth employee discharged on January 10, 1969, was hired on January 18, 1967, and after briefly working in the assembly department worked the rest of her 2 years of employment as an operator in the press department where she was first on the night shift for about a year, then on the day shift for about 10 months, and finally again on the night shift from November 4, 1968, until she was discharged on January 10, 1969 For the most part, the evidence concerning her employment related to her personality and attitude which the Respondent asserts caused her discharge But as noted, the Respondent does not otherwise criticize her work record nor her competence. However, it should be affirmatively noted that according to Ragsdale's uncontradicted testimony which I credit, Foreman Wisnasky although complaining to Ragsdale in November or December 1968 about the night shift production being so low, specifically exempted Ellis from his criticism, saying that "her production is excellent. It's the rest of them I wish they would send some operators out here instead of waitresses and housewives." C. The Concerted Activities of the Four Dischargees During the two or more years of their employment by the Respondent and its predecessor, each of these four women who were discharged on January 10, 1969, had become involved in activity which the General Counsel contends was concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act The first involvement in such activity was a 2- or 3-day strike by the women press department employees in August 1967 Their second involvement in such activity was in the organizational activity in support of the Union which was eventually defeated in a Board representation election on September 6, 1968. And the third was a brief stoppage of work by the women press department employees in November 1968 while they protested to their foreman, Herschel Wisnasky, about a work assignment. The Respondent not only contends that the 1967 and 1968 stoppages were unprotected activities but (as will be seen) 'This finding, too, is based upon Ragsdale's uncontradicted testimony Neither York nor Krapek testified 'According to Ellis, upon whose testimony this finding is based, there were two people in the office in addition to Keyl and herself, i e , the receptionist and Plant Superintendent Cuvallo Neither the receptionist nor Keyl testified at the hearing Cuvallo testified that Ellis came into the office, spoke to the receptionist about the credit union and greeted Keyl who was having coffee with Cuvallo, that he did not remember her having any other conversation with Keyl, and that he did not hear Ellis say that Ragsdale was enthusiastic about her job, nor did he hear Keyl say that Ragsdale was a competent worker G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES through the testimony of Foreman Wisnasky, Superintendent Cuvallo, and Plant Manager Peterson indicates that involvement of three of the women in these stoppages was in part the basis for Peterson's conclusion that they presented such "personality conflicts" as to require their discharges on January 10, 1969 The 1967 work stoppage began on Friday, August I l when the women employees in the press department quit work in protest against the Respondent's discharge of their foreman, Truman Myrah, and the hire of a new foreman, Herschel Wisnasky, in his place. On the next day, Saturday August 12, press operators Regina Ellis and Dora Ragsdale (two of the four employees whose January 1969 discharges have given rise to the present case) telephoned Sundberg, a higher official of the company at its Geneva, Illinois plant Ellis spoke to Sundberg first and told him in substance that the girls were protesting the discharge of their foreman Myrah, who "was one of the best foremen to work with because he knew how to give us orders without being `pushy'," and that the girls did not intend to go back to work until Sundberg "did something about this matter" Ragsdale, who knew and was known by Sundberg as a result of his visits to the Warrensburg plant, then entered the telephone conversation She told Sundberg that "everything had been going real well" for the girls in the press room because Myrah had taken "safety precautions" and intended to fix two presses that still needed attention to make their operation safe She also told Sundberg that the girls wanted to know why Myrah had been fired and whether there was any chance of his being taken back. Sundberg asked Ragsdale whether the girls would go back to work and Ragsdale said, "not until something is done." She agreed, however, to Sundberg's request that she get the girls together to see him at the Warrensburg plant at 2 p m. on the following Tuesday, August 15. Accordingly, the press department girls including Ellis and Ragsdale went to the Warrensburg plant on August 15, 1967 Manager Keyl came out of the office and asked Ragsdale to come in to speak with Sundberg. When she did, Sundberg asked her in the presence of Keyl and Wayne, and company vice president in charge of production, why the press department girls had walked out. She replied that Myrah had corrected "the safety hazards" which had existed when he became foreman but that there were still presses that needed fixing and were responsible for "rejects," that one of the presses had not been fitted with a flywheel guard against the women's catching their hair in it, and that other presses "double tripped " Sundberg made notes as she talked. In spite of Ragsdale's plea on behalf of Myrah, his discharge was not revoked, and Wisnasky took charge of the department and has since remained as press foreman After Ragsdale had her conversation with Sundberg, she and the other girls returned to work and the Respondent thereafter took steps to eliminate the particular hazards she had pointed out to him The November 1968 work stoppage in which press department women employees engaged more than a year later, lasted only 15 or 20 minutes. With work running low in the welding department, Foreman Wisnasky had assigned two male spot welders to work at the lighter jobs on presses in the press department Press Operator Helen Rogers who had bid for the higher paying welding job, spoke to the other women press operators including Linda Cotton and Mildred Elliott about backing her up in a protest against the welders' operating the presses Although asked to be their spokeswomen Elliott refused, 127 saying that it was Roger's complaint and she should do the talking In any event, all the press operators on the shift, shut down their presses for 15 or 20 minutes while they talked with Wisnasky in a group. Warren and Cotton apparently did most of the talking. But the other women operators including Elliott also joined in the argument After 15 or 20 minutes they returned to their presses. On the following day, Wisnasky shifted the spot welders from the presses to material handling Between these 1967 and 1968 work stoppages, Smith, Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis, along with other employees, also made an attempt to organize the Respondent's employees and establish the Union as their collective-bargaining representative. But the Union lost the Board election held on September 6, 1968, and its objections to the conduct of the election submitted on affidavits of various employees (including those of Smith, Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis), were overruled by the Regional Director. It is stipulated in the present proceeding that although the Respondent opposed the Union and campaigned against it in speeches made to the employees and in literature delivered to them before the election, its conduct was not violative of the Act. Nevertheless, among the factors to be considered in the present case in the light of the Respondent's conceded opposition to the Union, are the extent of Smith's, Ragsdale's, Elliott's, and Ellis' participation in the Union organizational campaign and the Respondent's awareness thereof through its own representatives. Nellie Smith began the effort to organize the Respondent's employees in February 1968 by telephoning Boyd Shinn, the Union's Regional Director in Decatur, and asking for his help At Shinn's suggestion, she thereupon formed an organizing committee consisting of herself, Mary Parrish, and Caroline Taylor (all three of whom were assembly department employees), and also Dora Ragsdale and Mildred Elliott (who were employed in the press department). Shinn later met with this committee at Smith's home, and gave them general instructions and union cards which they signed and were to get other employees to sign preparatory to the Union's asking for a Board election In the following few months, the committee, joined by about five other employees including Regina Ellis, solicited card signatures from their fellow employees. All four of the women employees whom the Respondent later discharged on January 10, 1969, thus took part in this union activity during work breaks at the plant, and outside the plant in stores and homes, and over the telephone. Smith spoke to roughly 20 other employees and got about 15 card signatures, and Ragsdale secured 17 card signatures from the 30 to 40 employees whom she solicited Elliott and Ellis, in addition to signing their own cards and attending union committee and general meetings during the organizational period also handed out union cards to other employees and asked them to support the Union. But, although it appears from their testimony that Elliott thus spoke to 15 or 20 other employees and handed out eight cards, and that Ellis spoke to 20 or 25 employees, it does not appear from the evidence that either Elliott or Ellis actually procured any employee-signatures on the union cards. Nor does it appear that any of the union solicitation occurred in the presence of the Respondent's supervisors or officials. But from the credible evidence it does appear that the Respondent's plant manager, the departmental foreman, and the Respondent's attorney did eventually become aware of the fact that Smith, Ragsdale, and Elliott, were supporting the Union in the organizational campaign 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thus, on August 6, 1968, the Union sent Plant Manager Keyl a telegram claiming that it represented a majority of the Respondent's production and maintenance employees, asking for recognition and a beginning of contract negotiations, and "informing [Keyl] that along with other employees . [the] Union organizing committee includes Dora Ragsdale, Nellie Smith, and Carolyn Taylor " There was also credible, and for the most part uncontradicted evidence of conversations between the employees and the Respondent's representatives which clearly shows that the latter knew of the particular employees' support of the Union in the election Following Nellie Smith's questioning a statement made by the Respondent's attorney to the employees over the plant's "intercom" before the election, the attorney engaged in three friendly conversations with Smith, during the first two of which he answered Smith's question by showing her a decision holding that a union's promise to waive initiation fees would be ground for setting aside an election if the union won Then in the third conversation after the election (in which Smith had in the meantime served as a union observer and had also submitted an affidavit to the Regional Director in support of the Union's objections to the election), the attorney told Smith not to feel badly about the Union's loss, because she had given the Respondent a good fight and it "thought highly of [her] " Similarly, the Respondent's attorney also had a friendly conversation with Dora Ragsdale about the Union before the election, and Ragsdale, like Smith, thereafter served as a union observer at the election and (as the Respondent knew) submitted an affidavit in support of the Union's objection to the election. In addition, Ragsdale telephoned Wisnasky, her press department foreman, at his home a short time before the election and just after Wisnasky had distributed a company letter to the employees informing them of the Union's representation petition. In this telephone conversation, Ragsdale told Wisnasky that, although she was a union committeewoman, she felt like a traitor to him but that the girls wanted a union, not because of him, but because of the heat and the dangerous condition of the machinery in the press room.4 Mildred Elliott, too, in a number of conversations with the Respondent's supervisors just before and after the election made clear her support of the Union. In one conversation, Manager Keyl asked her why "there was a lot of dissatisfaction downstairs" and whether the girls liked Foreman Wisnasky, to which Elliott replied that there was dissatisfaction not only downstairs but all over the plant; that "there was too much partiality and we wanted better working conditions [and] job security"; and that although some of the girls did not like Wisnasky, this would be so anywhere and she herself had personally found Wisnasky and Foreman O'Loughlin (for whom she had first worked in the assembly department) to be fair to her In another conversation just before the election, Foreman Wisnasky while passing out company handbills among the employees, told Elliott that signing a Union card would not prevent her from voting against the Union in the election, to which Elliott replied that she knew it, because, as Wisnasky should remember, she had been a member of a "real good" union on a previous job Wisnasky thereupon said to her, "The way you talk, This finding is made upon the testimony of Ragsdale which I credit Wisnasky testified merely that Ragsdale told him in this telephone conversation that she was sorry that he "looked like [he] was beat" but that "she did not say she was working for or against the union " maybe you're one of the [Union] representatives " Then, just after the election, Elliott told Foreman O'Loughlin she felt bad about the Union's loss because "we had worked hard for it," to which O'Loughlin replied that he had not wanted the Union to win because "it would have made it look like Mr. Keyl and I wasn't managing the [plant] right " Of the four women who were later to be discharged by the Respondent on January 10, 1969, only Regina Ellis apparently had no conversations or contacts with any of the Respondent's representatives which might have revealed her participation in the Union's organizational campaign However, she, like Smith, Ragsdale, and Elliott, also submitted an affidavit to the Regional Director in support of the Union's objections to the conduct of the election There is no dispute, of course, that the women's participation in, and support of, the Union's preelection organizational campaign was protected concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act The Respondent's contentions with respect to this activity are that it ended with, and was not continued after, the Board election on September 6, 1968, that the four women's past connection with this union activity was not known to Manager Peterson who became plant manager in November 1968, and that it was therefore not a factor in his decision to discharge the women on January 10, 1969 The Respondent, however, does dispute the General Counsel's contention that both the August 1967 and the November 1968 stoppages were concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act In its brief, it argues in substance that both stoppages were unprotected attempts by the employees to interfere with the Respondent's exercise of its "management prerogatives," since the 1967 stoppage was a protest against the Respondent's change of its foreman (br , p 34) and the 1968 stoppage was a protest against the Respondent's temporary assignment of work in the press department to welders when they ran out of their own work, in accordance with a "precedent that had been [previously] established ..." (br pp 7 and 19 ) But, in making this argument, the Respondent ignores the clear nature and purposes of the stoppages in the present case, and the rights of its unrepresented employees under Section 7 of the Act to engage in "concerted activities" - including work stoppages - to persuade the Respondent to change existing terms or conditions of employment to which the employees objected and which had not been the product of a collective-bargaining agreement with their representatives Although the 1967 stoppage took the initial form of a protest by the press department employees against the discharge of their foreman, Dora Ragsdale as the women's spokesman made it clear to Sundberg who had come to the plant from the Respondent's home office, that they were objecting to the discharge because the foreman had undertaken to eliminate dangerous machine conditions in the department but had not yet fully accomplished this undertaking That this was the purpose of the stoppage - i e., to eliminate the dangerous conditions - and that the Respondent understood this to be the purpose, was shown by Sundberg's noting the conditions pointed out by Ragsdale, by the girls' then returning to work although the discharged foreman was not reinstated, and by the Respondent's thereafter taking steps to eliminate the hazards pointed out by Ragsdale The 1968 stoppage, too, was a clear protest against a term or condition of employment in which the women press department employees were mutually concerned and G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 129 to which they understandably objected For the temporary assignment of the two welders from a higher paying classification to jobs on the presses deprived the women of the work which they usually performed. It is thus apparent from the evidence (and I therefore agree with the General Counsel and disagree with the Respondent) that both the 1967 and the 1968 stoppages were protests by the Respondent's women press department employees against specific terms or conditions of employment in which they had a mutual, legitimate interest and that, by their participation in these stoppages, the employees engaged in protected "concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection" within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act That, in their initial expression of purpose in the 1967 stoppage the women may have appeared to be simply protesting the discharge of their foreman, did not remove this stoppage from the protection of the Act since they made it clear to the Respondent that their actual concern was that, with his discharge, further progress in eliminating dangerous conditions in the department might be discontinued.' D The Discharges on January 10, 1969, and the Respondent's Evidence as to the Reasons Therefor It was Roger Peterson, the new plant manager, who shortly after his arrival in late November 1968, decided to discharge the four women employees In his testimony, which was consistent with that of Foreman O'Loughlin and Wisnasky, he explained his reaching this decision as a result of talking with them about their employees in a series of conversations in November and December so that he might familiarize himself with his plant staff, and their reporting to him in full pertinent detail that each of the four women was unable to get along with her fellow employees and her supervisors; that each of them presented "personality conflicts" and were disobedient in that they constantly complained about conditions in the plant and refused to follow routine instructions and orders of their supervisor, and that, in their "troublemaking," Elliott and Ellis had engaged both in the August 1967 and November 1968 "walkouts," and Ragsdale in the August 1967 walkout 6 In support of the details of Peterson's testimony to this effect, O'Loughlin testified that he had been critical of Nellie Smith's attitude and conduct during the 2-year period of her employment, and so informed Peterson, because "she was standoffish, she didn't intermingle with too many of the employees She seemed to hold herself apart [and] seemed to feel she was a little better than the rest of the employees", because she was a "little rebellious" and disobedient in that she not only insisted on doing her work in her own way rather than in "the way we laid it out" but, assuming a "lead girl's responsibilities" even when she was only a repair girl, she also "suggested different ways of doing things other than what our standard procedure was", and because, in thus assuming a lead girl's authority, she had arguments "on several occasions" with Donna Mihal, her lead girl, which so "upset Donna Mihal [that Mihal] broke down" In similar support of Peterson's testimony, Foreman Wisnasky testified concerning the attitude and conduct of the three other girls from the press department and his report thereof to Peterson He testified that, as he told Peterson and had previously repeatedly told Manager Keyl since October 1967, that there were about eight girls in the press department who were "not right up- to standard" in that they were "disobedient," were taking irregular and excessive rest periods, and were shutting down their machines and dressing early at the end of the workday, that three of the eight girls (Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis) were a "little bit exceptional" in that when Wisnasky spoke to the others about quitting early they merely asked "Why can't we quit early if the others do?" whereas Ragsdale's answer, for example, was that "We got to have time to clean up our machines [and] make our time card out", that Dora Ragsdale, was "obstinate," "aggressive," so talkative that three of the other women employees did not want to work near her, constantly complained about the equipment, the steel, the dies, the "clamps, the bolts, the guards, and so on," and, in her last few weeks of service as an inspector in the press department, rejected a large quantity of steel without reason and shut down machines because of rejections without consulting the foreman as she should have done, that Mildred Elliott, too, constantly talked to other employees while they were working, followed other employees to the restroom, was "a chronic griper [about] most anything" (even about "cracks on the walls"), and was one of the press department girls who engaged in the work stoppage and protest in November 1968,' and finally that Regina Ellis, when asked to do anything, "would kind of pout and balk at you," talked and laughed with other employees while they were supposed to be working, went frequently to the restroom, overstayed her breaks, wandered into the toolroom where she had no business to be, shut down her machines and was ready to leave the plant before quitting time, and on one occasion on July 29, 1968, after shutting down her machine and sitting idly by it from 2 to 2 45 p.m , informed Wisnasky that she was resting and filling out her production card although she actually left at 3.30 p.m without having filled out the card.' According to the testimony of Plant Manager Peterson and Joseph Cuvallo, his recently arrived plant superintendent, Peterson told Cuvallo in the beginning of December 1968, of Foremen O'Loughlin's and Wisnasky's unfavorable reports concerning the four women employees and asked Cuvallo to check on their conduct and attitude. At the same time, according to his testimony, Peterson himself watched the four girls at work. 'See Dobbs Houses , Inc , 135 NLRB 885, 888, enforcement denied on other grounds 325 F 2d 531 (C A 5), Plastdrte Corporation. 153 NLRB 180, 182-185, and cases therein cited in fns 3 and 4 'Peterson was in error as to Ellis ' participation in the November 1968 walkout or stoppage which occurred on the day shift at a time when Ellis was on the night shift In addition, as has already been found , Ragsdale, rather than Elliott, had played the leading role along with Ellis in submitting the press department girl's protest underlying the August 1967 "walkout " But the significant aspect of Peterson 's testimony concerning the reports which he says he received from Wisnasky is that the reports included the press department girls' walkouts both in August 1967 and November 1968 and that these reports were admittedly a factor in his decision to discharge the four girls on January 10, 1969 'According to Manager Peterson's testimony , Wisnasky told him that Elliott had been one of the instigators of the August 1967 walkout and "seemed to be the main spokesman of the group" in the November 1968 stoppage 'in his testimony , Wisnasky made no mention of Ellis' actual involvement in the August 1967 walkout and specifically testified that she was not involved in the November 1968 stoppage However, as I have found , Peterson testified that in the course of his talks with Peterson, Wisnasky told him of Ellis' involvement in both stoppages and that this was part of the information upon which Peterson relied in deciding that Ellis as well as the other three girls were "troublemakers" and "personality" problems and should be discharged 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Peterson testified that his own observations of Smith, Elliott and Ragsdale tended to confirm the foremen's criticisms. With respect to Smith, however, he testified merely that he heard her "grumble" while she was working, and from this he concluded that "she didn't seem able to just take directions from the lead girls as they gave them, and that she felt like doing it her own way" although he admitted that he didn't hear what she was "grumbling" about and that there was no lead girl in the vicinity at the time With respect to Elliott, Peterson testified that, in watching Elliott at work and in the company of other employees during breaks, he "could not find anything to disprove" Foreman Wisnasky's statement that "she wasn't a friendly person to work with" and he therefore concluded in agreement with Wisnasky that he "just didn't observe her being a friendly or a fun-loving gal " Finally, with respect to Ragsdale, Peterson testified that his conversations with her confirmed Wisnasky's statement to him that "Let [Ragsdale] alone for ten minutes and she'll be running the department " For, according to Peterson, when he talked with Ragsdale and "led her in to . conversation dealing with the equipment, with the steel," Ragsdale would complain about the steel and the presses Peterson admitted, however, that Ragsdale was at that time an inspector whose job it was to inspect the parts turned out by the presses and to inspect the steel for "dimensional tolerances" and acceptable surfaces. But, according to Peterson, although she had been working several years on the presses, she had just been made an inspector and "couldn't have acquired this knowledge in that short time." Peterson also testified generally that in the reports he had requested from Cuvallo, Cuvallo also told him that his investigation supported the criticisms made by the two foremen of the four girls However, Peterson himself testified only as to the reports made to him by Cuvallo concerning Smith and Elliott. As to Smith, Peterson testified merely that Cuvallo told him that "he would have to agree that Nellie Smith was giving the lead girls a hard time and was disobedient." As to Elliott, Peterson, testified that Cuvallo also said "that he would have to agree that [Wisnasky's] observations were entirely correct He couldn't find anything to dispute them." In describing his own investigation of the four women employees and his reports to Peterson in greater detail, Superintendent Cuvallo testified that, as he thereafter told Peterson, both O'Loughlin and Wisnasky had repeated to him the substance of their criticism of the women including the facts that Mildred Elliott as the principal leader and Dora Ragsdale and Regina Ellis in lesser roles, had led the August 1967 "walkout" and that Mildred Elliott also led the November 1968 stoppage, that Cuvallo had seen Dora Ragsdale (then an inspector) continually talking to other employees, holding them up in their work, that, in confirmation of Wisnasky's criticism of Elliott for her constant complaining and returning late from work breaks, Cuvallo had once seen Elliott arguing with Wisnasky (although he could not overhear the substance of their conversation) and had once seen Elliott returning to her press 5 minutes after a work break had ended, that, on being questioned by Cuvallo, lead girls Donna Mihal and Betty Craw said that Nellie Smith would do her work her own way in spite of different instructions from Foreman O'Loughlin; and that, consistent with one of Wisnasky's criticisms of Regina Ellis, Cuvallo and Peterson had once seen Ellis return 5 minutes late from a work break. According to Peterson's testimony, without any specific recommendation from O'Loughlin, Wisnasky, or Cuvallo (although he relied upon their reports to him as well as his own observation of the four women), Peterson decided a few days before January 10, 1969 to discharge the women because of "personality conflicts" and "insubordination." In any event, without first telling the foremen or Cuvallo or giving any advance intimation to the women themselves, Peterson did discharge the four women by having their foremen give them their terminal paychecks on January 10, 1969. Foreman Wisnasky gave Ellis and Elliott their checks, making no comments to Ellis except that he was sorry and telling Elliott he did not know why she was being discharged After receiving their checks from Assembly Foreman Stanford (O'Loughlin's successor) and Inspection Foreman York, respectively, Smith and Ragsdale went separately to Manager Peterson for an explanation of their discharges. Peterson told Smith she was not being discharged because of her work but because she had a "personality clash" and denied Smith's suggestion that she was fired because of her Union leadership, telling her "No, I asked them not to tell me who was in on the union activities." Peterson told Ragsdale, too, that there was nothing wrong with her work but that she was terminated "because of a personality clash " Ragsdale then told him, "By God, it's only on account of the damned union that I got screwed up on this. If you would dust understand why we went to the union," and tried to explain the employees' enlistment of union aid because of "the way [the presses] had been messed up, the way people had gotten hurt on them." But Peterson made no further answer or comment on her statements. The foregoing summary presents the full substance of the Respondent's evidence in support of its reasons for discharging the four women The women's testimony in denial or explanation of the incidents or types of "insubordination" with which they were charged in Foreman O'Loughlin's and Wisnasky's basic testimony has still to be considered But before turning to this, some further comments and observations should be made about Peterson's testimony concerning how he had reached a decision a few days before January 10, 1969, to discharge the four women because of "personality conflicts" and "insubordination." For several elements in this testimony as given by Peterson not only seem unnecessarily to complicate and confuse, rather than to clarify, his explanations but also to provide strong indication that, both in laying the ground work for the discharges and in his explanatory testimony, he was unreasonably straining to justify his decision and his independence in making it One of these elements in Peterson's testimony was his insistence that, knowing nothing of the girls' previous union or other concerted activities, he alone decided that they should be discharged without any specific recommendations to this effect from Foreman O'Loughlin, Foreman Wisnasky, or Superintendent Cuvallo although he relied upon their highly unfavorable' reports to him about the women employees' conduct and general attitude and although Wisnasky had actually told him that with the elimination of Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis (whom he referred to as "the troublemakers in his department") Wisnasky felt that the press department "operation would improve." Furthermore, from my summary of Peterson's as well as Superintendent Cuvallo's testimony and brief direct quotations excerpted therefrom, it is apparent that neither of these two men G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 131 made any such observation of the conduct or attitudes of any of the four women as could reasonably have confirmed Foremen O'Loughlin's or Wisnasky's reports, much less have given any independent basis for Peterson's discharging the women Accordingly, adopting the most favorable possible view of Peterson's testimony, I conclude that his decision to discharge the four women must be regarded as having been based upon information given to him by the two foremen Another confusing element in Peterson's explanation of his discharges of the four women for "personality conflicts" and "insubordination," was his reference to his distribution among the employees on January 6, 1969, of the Respondent's "Hourly Employee Handbook" containing the first set of published Rules and Regulations for the Warrensburg plant employees which, inter alia, made "Insubordination" and "Handicapping or slowing down production of a fellow worker or purposely limiting the output of himself or fellow workers" grounds for discharge. Of course, if any of the four women in the present case had been insubordinate or had interfered with the work of other employees, this would have been proper grounds for her discharge even before the promulgation of the Rules on January 6, 1969. Yet, in his testimony, Peterson referred to these Rules, and the Respondent had them introduced in evidence, as if their promulgation had some significance in Peterson's decision to discharge the four women for conduct which he testified had occurred during the preceding 2 years or more of their employment Finally, there was Peterson's confusing testimony, and other related evidence, concerning a personnel investigation which Peterson ordered through the Respondent's Personnel Manager from Pinkerton's, Inc and which covered only Smith, Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis. Peterson at first testified that before January 10, 1969, the day these girls were discharged, he had requested the Respondent's Personnel Department to hire investigators "to check on different people employed by our company"; that he believed that all four of these girls in the present case as well as others, were on the list he submitted; that the Personnel Department delayed in making the request to Pinkerton's so that as a result, Pinkerton's was retained, made the investigation, and submitted its report to the Respondent only after the four girls were discharged. On further examination, Peterson stated that he could not recall the date he engaged Pinkerton's for the personnel investigation but that it was before January 22, 1969, the date shown on Pinkerton's typewritten confirmation of the order After Peterson had testified, Personnel Manager Martha Clifford testified that the request for the investigation was made to her department by Peterson 10 days after the discharges and she thereupon ordered the investigation from Pinkerton's about 2 days before January 22, 1969 Michael Mosey, Pinkerton's Decatur manager then testified as a witness for the Respondent. He generally confirmed Mrs. Clifford's statement that she had telephoned a request for a personnel investigation without naming the subjects, on or about January 22 or 23, 1969 and he further testified that on January 22 he visited the plant and saw Manager Peterson who asked him to make a personnel investigation of the 4 women involved in the present case, i.e , a court check, a credit check, police record check, and a neighborhood investigation; that, except for this investigation of these four women, his Decatur office had not made a personnel investigation for the Respondent before or since January 23, 1969; but that he had first met Peterson at the plant on or about January 10, 1969 (the day of the discharges) when Pinkerton's supplied the plant with a security guard and Mosey had explained to Peterson the other services Pinkerton's renders for its clients Whether or not Peterson had asked his Personnel Department for an investigative check before or after he discharged the girls on January 10, 1969, he gave no testimony as to why he ordered one either before or after the discharges, except to say at one point in his testimony that it was "because we have a full right to run an employment check on any people we wish," and, at another point in his testimony, when asked whether his request was made before or after the discharges that "there was no reason afterwards." Nor is there any other evidence in the record to explain why the security check was ordered at all, and why it covered only the four girls in this case and has been the only one ever made of the plant's employees, although Peterson testified he thought it covered other employees as well and gave the impression that it was routine in the changeover to a new plant at the Warrensburg site and covered new hires as well as continuing employees E. Consideration of the Respondent's Asserted Grounds for Discharging the Four Women in the Light of the Evidence Generally Against such general accusations of "personality conflicts" and "insubordination" as are made by the Respondent in the present case, it would ordinarily be difficult for any employee to defend herself In the present case, however, a number of factors militate against acceptance of the Respondent's contention that there was a substantial basis for such accusations and that they constituted the actual reasons for the women's discharges by Manager Peterson One such factor is that, as already found, all four of the women had been concededly capable workers whose performances during their 2 years of employment had been consistently praised and recognized by the two foremen who now profess to be critical of their general attitude and conduct Another such factor is that the Respondent's annoyance with three of the women (which in part admittedly prompted their discharges) stemmed from their participation in the August 1967 and November 1968 stoppages which I have already found were concerted activities protected by the Act. A third factor in the women's favor (which has just been developed in detail) is the unsatisfactory, unconvincing testimony given by Manager Peterson in explanation of the discharges, from which it appears that, both in laying the ground work for the discharges and in his testimony, he was unreasonably straining to justify the discharges. And a fourth factor in the women's favor, which will now be considered, is that, aside from general criticisms of their temperament, the Respondent's evidence as to each of the specifically alleged incident or type of continuing improper conduct and "insubordination" charged against the four dischargees by their foremen, either (a) shows that the Respondent's irritation with the four women which prompted their discharges was caused, as in the cases of the 1967 and 1968 stoppages, by their complaining about conditions of work and employment in the plant as obvious leaders of the women employees on whose behalf they had just recently attempted to secure Union representation, or (b) is convincingly refuted or explained by the women in their testimony or by other evidence in the case 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Smith's alleged "insubordination" Reference has already been made to Foreman O'Loughlin's testimony that Nellie Smith adopted a superior attitude toward others in the plant, insisted on doing her work in her own way rather than in "the way we laid it out", and, in suggesting "different ways of doing things," had arguments with Donna Mihal, her lead girl, "on several occasions" which so "upset Donna Mihal [that Mihall broke down " Mrs Mihal, although a lead girl, was not a supervisor and had voted in the representation election She testified that her difficulties with Smith occurred during an 8-week period ending in December 1967 while Smith was substituting for Mihal's regular repair girl, that Smith, although she did her work, would not follow routines laid out for her, that, because this was "a year" ago, Mrs Mihal could not remember exactly how Smith departed from the prescribed routines, that Smith gave assemblers on the day shift incorrect numbers for parts they were to use, thus repeating an error she had made in compiling a list of parts during her own immediately preceding service as a lead girl on the night shift, that, before repairing a motor, Smith would ask Mrs Mihal if she knew what was wrong with it, indicating by her manner that she actually knew what was wrong but was testing Mrs Mihal to see whether Mihal knew, and that on two occasions Mrs Mihal became so upset that she cried and reported the incidents to Foreman O'Loughlin In her testimony, Nellie Smith admitted that she once had a disagreement with Mrs Mihal about her work But she denied that she had a number of disagreements with Mrs. Mihal about the latter's instructions, that she ever told Mrs Mihal that she knew her rob better than Mihal, or could do repair work in a better way than she had been instructed by Mihal, or that she had given incorrect part numbers to the assemblers She further testified that she knew only one way to do the work in which she was engaged, never varied from her instructions, and was never told by Foreman O'Loughlin or Mrs Mihal that she had departed from her instructions With respect to her relationship to Mrs Mihal, Smith testified that she followed Mihal's suggestions in her work, that her arguments with Mrs Mihal were about the Union and not about work, that she never caused Mrs. Mihal to cry and that the only time she did see her cry was on a day when she had had no conversation with Mihal and saw Mrs Mihal talking with Foreman O'Loughlin and then suddenly leave to go to the restroom On consideration of this testimony in the context of the general evidence in the case, I credit the testimony of Mrs Smith rather than the testimony of either Foreman O'Loughlin or Mrs Mihal For neither Foreman O'Loughlin nor Mrs Mihal could be specific in their testimony as to how much variation there actually could be in the routine procedures of an assembler or a repair girl Furthermore, even if Smith had frequently made suggestions of "different ways of doing things," as O'Loughlin testified, he also testified that, "Everybody is free to make suggestions and we would study them to try to determine which is the better " Finally, in view of the undisputed evidence indicating O'Loughlin's otherwise uniformly favorable regard for Smith's work during the 2 years she had worked in his department, it seems incredible that he had been actually critical during this time of Smith for making unwelcome suggestions as to changes in routines, for insisting on doing her work in her own way, or for any serious difficulties with a leadgirl in an 8-week period in the fall of 1967 For, as I have found, during this entire period of Smith's employment, he had repeatedly complimented her on her work, had made her a repair girl, then a leadgirl, and had even urged her to become a leadgirl again shortly before her discharge For these reasons, as well as my acceptance of Smith's testimony, I find no credible support in the evidence for the Respondent's contentions that Smith refused to follow the instructions of her foreman or of her lead girl and was therefore "insubordinate," and that her "insubordination" and superior manner was actually the reason for her discharge on January 10, 1969 2 Foreman Wisnasky's general criticisms of Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis With respect to the women employees in his press department, Foreman Wisnasky testified that from the time he became foreman in August 1967, he had trouble with about eight of them, including Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis in that all eight "were disobedient, they wasn't taking their rest periods at a certain time, they was quitting early; sometimes they were as high as ten minutes till 3 00 making out their cards, they were fully dressed sometimes at ten after, quarter after 3.00, [although] their quitting time was at 3 30" According to Wisnasky, he spoke to every one of the eight girls about these matters, and, although the others simply asked, "Why can't we quit early if the others do?" Ragsdale said, "Well, we have got to have time to clean up our machine, time to make our time [i e , production] card out " According to Wisnasky's testimony, Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis were the principal offenders in this and other conduct interfering with their work and the work of other employees Thus, he testified that they talked too much during working time, with Ragsdale on occasions talking and laughing with another employee for 15 or 20 minutes, while her machine was running but not producing, and ignoring him as if he were a mere "expediter", that all three of these girls frequently went to the rest room; and that they took 20 or 30 minutes instead of the 10 minutes permitted on rest periods and would even return to the restroom shortly after rest periods But Wisnasky directed even more serious additional criticism against Ellis He testified that Ellis left the department during breaks to go to the toolroom where she had no business, and at times returned to her press 6 to 10 minutes late, and that on one occasion while she was sitting idly beside her press, he asked her what she was doing and she replied, "Just resting." As the most extreme example of Ellis' conduct, he testified that on another occasion (July 29, 1968), he watched Ellis sitting by her idle press from 2 to 2 45 p m., that when he asked her what was the matter, she said that she was filling out her production or timecard, that although he expressed surprise that she was doing so "this early" since it should have taken only 5 minutes, she told him when he later asked her for the card at 3 30, "I didn't make out any [card] because you didn't give me time." Finally, Wisnasky testified that he repeatedly reported the unsatisfactory attitude of the eight girls in his department including this type of conduct, to Ed Keyl, while Keyl was still plant manager and even suggested "a couple of days lay off," but Keyl shrugged off his complaints, saying "Well, we will see what we can work out." Then, according to both Wisnasky's and Peterson's testimony, Wisnasky reported the same facts to Peterson when Peterson became plant manager in November 1968 G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 133 including his dissatisfaction with all eight girls but his particular difficulties with Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis Against the avalanche of general accusations leveled against them by Foreman Wisnasky in his testimony, the three women replied in some detail All three of them admitted talking while at work, but Elliott testified that all the women employees talked and Ragsdale and Ellis denied that they spoke any more than the rest of the women and certainly not for 20 minutes at a time as charged by Wisnasky Ragsdale and Elliott denied making frequent trips to the rest room, and all three women denied any practice of returning to the rest room immediately after breaks, although Elliott admitted having done so once or twice when necessary Only Ellis admitted having overstayed her rest periods 5 or 6 times in a 3-month period and her testimony to this effect will be considered below With respect to Wisnasky's charge that they shut down their machines and dressed to go home well before quitting time, all three women denied that they had done so in disregard of Wisnasky's instructions. Ragsdale testified that she had shut down her machine only for the time that was necessary to permit a count of her production and to clean up scrap before quitting time Both Ellis and Elliott testified that Wisnasky had tightened up on the time allowed for this purpose and had spoken to all the girls in the department as a group and not to them individually She testified that in the beginning of Wisnasky's time as foreman, the girls had shut down their machines usually from 3 15 to 3 20 p.m but that Wisnasky had then insisted, in speaking to them as a group, that they shut down their machines only at 3 25 p m., 5 minutes before quitting time Ellis was equally specific in her testimony concerning the charges made against her particularly She admitted having told Wisnasky on one occasion that she was "just resting" but testified that, whether Wisnasky realized it or not, it was the end of her rest period which had not yet expired With respect to her shutting down her press or machine on the one occasion (which Wisnasky said was on July 29, 1968), she testified that it was not as early in the afternoon as he testified, and she was actually computing her production on the time card, which would have required from 10 to 15 minutes, but that, although she told this to Wisnasky he insisted upon her starting her machine again with the result that at the end of the day, as she then told him, she had not had time to fill her card out She testified that she did not refuse to fill it out but did so at home that night and turned it in the next morning Finally, with respect to her trips to the tool room during breaks she admitted that in the last 3 months of her employment she had made four or five such trips to visit a male employee in the tool room and had been late in returning to her press at the end of the break The foregoing summary presents the substance of the evidence relating to Wisnasky's general criticisms of the conduct of Ragsdale, Elliott and Ellis Ex-manager Keyl did not testify at the hearing in late March 1969, but I do not regard it to be significant that the Respondent failed to produce his testimony to substantiate Wisnasky regarding to the foreman's repeated complaints about the girls for a period of more than a year For counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent agreed on the record at the hearing that Keyl had by that time retired from the Respondent's employ and could not be located by either of them But Keyl had been back at the plant as assistant manager from December 9, 1968, until after the girls were discharged on January 10, 1969, and, although according to Peterson's testimony, Peterson had conferred with Wisnasky and Superintendent Cuvallo during this time about the conduct and attitude of the girls before deciding to discharge them and had been told by Wisnasky of his inability to get Keyl to do anything about it for more than a year, it further appears from Peterson's testimony that he did not consult Keyl at all about the girls, an omission that is strange in view of Peterson's attempt to create the impression that he had been extremely careful to investigate and confirm Wisnasky's charges Moreover, despite my recognition of some possible handicap to the Respondent in not being able to produce Keyl as a witness, I could not in any event accept the intended import of Wisnasky's testimony that, during their 2 years of employment in his department, the general conduct of Ragsdale, Elliott, or Ellis had actually provided a credibly substantial and actual reason for their eventual discharge by Manager Peterson in January 1969 My reasons for rejecting the Respondent's contention to this effect are founded not only upon what I regard to be the credible testimony of the three women but upon my unfavorable appraisal of Wisnasky's testimony on its face and in the light of the general evidence in the record At the very least, Wisnasky's testimony reveals a tendency to exaggerate, and, whether or not he had in fact complained in vain to Keyl about the girls for more than a year, the substance of what he now says were his complaints, is certainly inconsistent with the general evidence to the effect that he had at the same time complimented them on their work and shortly before they were discharged had even encouraged and recommended Ragsdale's assignment to an inspector's job For these reasons, I credit the women's testimony rather than Wisnasky's, and find that the foreman's general criticisms had no substantial base nor did they provide the actual reason for their discharges. 3. Ragsdale's and Elliott's "troublemaking" According to Manager Peterson's testimony, in Foreman Wisnasky's report to him about the women employees in his department, Wisnasky referred to Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis as being among those who were "continually troublemakers" and, in this connection, Wisnasky told him that Elliott and Ellis had engaged in the August 1967 and November 1968 stoppages and Ragsdale in the August 1967 stoppage, and that Ragsdale "usurped authority" by "continually complaining about the steel that was being used about the equipment" and about "the condition of the equipment" not only on her own behalf but on behalf of the other employees in the press department. In his testimony, Foreman Wisnasky gave a generally similar account of his difficulties with the women in these respects, and his report thereof to Peterson As already noted, he testified that Ragsdale was "obstinate" and "aggressive" and constantly complained about the equipment, the steel, the dies, the "clamps, the bolts, the guards and so on," and that in her last few weeks of service as an inspector in the press department, she rejected a large quantity of steel without reason and shut down machines because of rejections without consulting the foreman as she should have done With respect to Elliott, he testified that she, too, was "a chronic griper [about] most everything," even about "cracks on the walls." These criticisms by Foreman Wisnasky of Ragsdale and Elliott must, of course, again be considered in the light of 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the rest of the evidence in the case Unlike Peterson, Wisnasky himself testified that Ellis had not made complaints and that Ragsdale's frequent complaints had been supported while she was on the night shift by a set up man and by a fellow employee, Sandra White, whom he did not report to Peterson and who was not discharged. With respect to Ragsdale's rejection of a large quantity of steel, she testified (and I credit her testimony), that this occurred on the day before her discharge (so that it could not have been mentioned by Wisnasky in the reports which he testified he had been making to Peterson leading up to her discharge); that when she asked York, her inspection foreman, why she was being discharged, York told her that the incident had nothing to do with her discharge; and that Peterson, too, told her that there was nothing wrong with her work but that she was being discharged "because of a personality clash " Furthermore, with respect to the single specifically given example of an assertedly unreasonable complaint made by Elliott - i.e , her complaint about "cracks in the walls" - she testified, and I credit her testimony, that in the last few days of her work during "zero weather" in January 1969, she was wearing a heavy winter jacket while operating her press alongside a wall where there was not merely a "crack" in the wall but where "bricks [were] out of the wall", that because she "was about froze," she asked Wisnasky to have the maintenance man put up a cardboard shield; but that Wisnasky said the maintenance man was too busy Otherwise, according to Elliott's testimony, there were only two specific instances in which she could recall having made what could have been regarded as complaints One was an instance (already noted) in which dust before the Board election Manager Keyl had asked her why "there was a lot of dissatisfaction downstairs" and whether the girls liked Foreman Wisnasky, to which Elliott had replied that there was dissatisfaction not only downstairs but all over the plant, that "there was too much partiality and we wanted better working conditions [and] job security"; and that although some of the girls did not like Wisnasky, such a dislike for a supervisor might be found anywhere and she herself had found Wisnasky and Foreman O'Loughlin to be fair to her. The other instance which she recalled was her reporting to Wisnasky the fact that she and another employee had noticed that one of the presses was dangerously "double tripping," i.e , rapidly operating twice after each pressure of the operator's foot upon its pedal There are, however, broader reasons for questioning both the factual bases for Wisnasky's criticisms of the women and the Respondent's contention that they provided legitimate, actual grounds for the discharges For one thing, as I have already found upon what I regard to be credible evidence, dust 2 months before Ragsdale's discharge, she had been made an inspector of both material and product on Wisnasky's urging and recommendation and had thus been placed in a position for which she would certainly not have been qualified had there been any truth to Wisnasky's criticism of her for displaying an annoying and disrupting penchant for unreasonably complaining about material and equipment. Finally, from both Peterson's and Wisnasky's testimony, as well as the testimony of the women, it appears to me that the "chronic complaining" of the three girls in the press department, which Peterson asserts was a principal reason for his discharging them as "troublemakers," not only specifically included their participation in the August 1967 and November 1968 stoppages which have been found to have been protected concerted activities, but also their continuing engagement in such less dramatic, but nonetheless similarly protected, concerted activities through their annoying, repeated complaints to Wisnasky on behalf of the women employees in the department about their working conditions, including the condition and safety of the equipment upon which they worked. F Conclusions As noted, the issue in the case is whether, as the General Counsel and the Union contend, the Respondent discharged Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on January 10, 1969, because of their participation in various concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, including their participation in a Union organizational drive which ended in the Union's loss of a Board representation election on September 6, 1968, or whether, as the Respondent contends, Manager Peterson without any knowledge of the women's Union or other concerted activity, discharged the women because, from the reports made to him by the women's supervisors and his own observation of the women's conduct, he believed that they presented "personality conflicts" and that they were "insubordinate " The factual issue thus presented is the legality or illegality of the Respondent's actual reasons or motivation for the discharges. With due recognition of the General Counsel's burden to show illegality, the decision of this issue requires consideration not only of the sufficiency of the evidence from which an inference of illegality might be drawn, but also of the credibility of the evidence relied upon by the Respondent to show an asserted legal reason for the discharges. For if the Respondent's evidence to support the legality of its action is incredible, it reinforces rather than negates the affirmative evidence of illegality The relevant evidence bearing on these matters has already been discussed in detail and, for the most part, I have made the observations and findings which control my decision It remains necessary only to refer to these findings and my pertinent observations, and to draw what seems to me to be the proper ultimate conclusions. The credible evidence, upon which the General Counsel primarily relies to show that the discharges were unlawfully motivated, has established, as I have found- (1) The Respondent's continually demonstrated satisfaction with the women's competence and work performance during their more than 2 years of employment, as shown by the repeated compliments paid to them and the assignments given to them and recommended for them by the Respondent's supervisors, including their foremen, O'Loughlin and Wisnasky. (2) The leadership and general participation of the four women (known to their foremen and the Respondent's plant manager at the time) in the Union's unsuccessful organizational campaign which the Respondent opposed without, however, at that time committing any unfair labor practice or engaging in any other improper conduct affecting the outcome of the Board representation election which the Union lost. (3) The participation of three of the four women in the 1967 and 1968 work stoppages which were concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act (4) The fact (if we adopt the most favorable view of Peterson's confusing testimony) that Peterson's decision to discharge the four women within the 6 or 8 weeks after he became plant manager, was necessarily based upon critical information about the women given to him by their two foremen, O'Loughlin and Wisnasky, in spite of their G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 135 previously expressed general approval of the women's work and conduct. (5) The related facts that although Peterson made the discharge decision and may not himself have known of the women's union organizational activity, Foreman O'Loughlin and Wisnasky knew that the girls had led the Union movement; that the two foremen by their own acts or statements during the organizational campaign, had indicated their sympathy with, and support of, the Respondent in its opposition to the Union; and finally that the two foremen (for whose acts and motives the Respondent was certainly responsible) actually and consciously caused and procured the girls' discharges by Peterson when they gave him the highly damaging reports upon which the manager acted (6) The undisputed further facts not only that, in complaining to Peterson about the women, Foreman Wisnasky reported their involvement and apparent leadership in the 1967 and 1968 stoppages as examples of their "troublemaking," but that Peterson admittedly relied upon this report as a substantial factor in finally concluding that the girls presented "personality conflicts," were "insubordinate," and should therefore be discharged These facts alone would provide a strong basis for finding that the four women were discharged by the Respondent through the point action of its manager and the two foremen because of the women's concerted activities, including not only the participation in the 1967 and 1968 work stoppages by three of the women but also the leadership and participation of all four of them in the Union's recent organizational campaign That the Union movement happened to be dormant at the time of the discharges does not tend to rebut the inference that the girls' past, but still recent, involvement in that activity which the Respondent had opposed, still annoyed the Respondent as did their participation in the nonunion work stoppages. For, by their activity, the four women must have been recognized as being the leaders of the women employees in the plant and there was, of course, always the possibility, if not the likelihood, that they would renew their union activity. Nor would the possibility that Manager Peterson himself did not know of, or base his discharge decision, on their 1968 union activities remove these activities as one of the actual factors contributing to their discharges For, as I have pointed out, Peterson's decision was the result of complaints about the girls with respect to their other concerted activities by O'Loughlin and Wisnasky who did know of the women's union activities and had been apparently displeased at the prospect of their being successful. The Respondent cannot, therefore, claim that, because Peterson did not know of the women's union activities, these activities were not one of the reasons why the foremen (for whose acts and motives the Respondent was also responsible) were so apparently intent on getting Peterson to discharge them. Against this chain of credible evidence pointing to an illegal, discriminatory base for discharging the four women, the evidence given by the Respondent's witnesses for the purpose of showing that Peterson's discharges of the women were not in fact motivated by the women's participation in any concerted activities protected by the Act, is not persuasive. Indeed, in view of my holding upon the evidence that the 1967 and 1968 stoppages were protected concerted activities, and Peterson's as well as Foreman Wisnasky's testimony that these activities were important factors in Peterson's decision to discharge the three women employed in the press department, it seems clear, and I find, that the discharges of Ragsdale, Elliott, and Ellis constituted such a reprisal for these activities as to amount to an interference with the women's Section 7 right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, and an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Furthermore, as I have already noted and found for reasons fully set forth in the course of my detailed discussion of the evidence, the testimony of Manager Peterson, Foreman Wisnasky and Foreman O'Loughlin as to other asserted examples and types of all four women's conduct to show that they were "personality" problems and "insubordinate," was so confusing, strained and incredible both internally and in the light of the evidence generally and the testimony of the four women, that I have concluded (as I have already indicated) that what actually annoyed the Respondent and motivated its discharges of the women by Peterson on the basis of the foremen's reports was not simply "personality conflicts" with their supervisors and other employees nor "insubordination," but their involvement in the Union's organizational campaign (known to both O'Loughlin and Wisnasky), their involvement in the 1967 and 1968 work stoppages, and their annoying, repeated complaints on behalf of themselves and the other women employees about their working conditions, including the condition and safety of the equipment on which they worked Accordingly, I conclude in agreement with the General Counsel (1) that the Respondent discharged Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on January 10, 1969, in part because all 4 of them had engaged in the union activity preceding the September 1968 election, and, in the cases of the last three mentioned, also because they had engaged in the various other protected concerted activities in the press department; and (2) that in discharging these four women for these reasons the Respondent committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of both Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, in that it thereby discriminated against the discharged employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in the Union, and generally interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid or protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce between 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 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I will 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 discriminatorily discharged employees Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on January 10, 1969, I will recommend that the Respondent offer each of them 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discharge by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned from the aforesaid date of her discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reemployment, less her net earnings during said period The backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula stated in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Furthermore, it will be recommended that the Respondent pay interest on the backpay due to each of these employees, such interest to be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum and, using the Woolworth formula, to accrue commencing with the last day of each calendar quarter of the backpay period on the amount due and owing for each quarterly period Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act 2. Respondent, G W. Murphy Industries, Inc , Portable Electric Tools Division, a Texas corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 3. The Respondent discharged Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis on January 10, 1969, because of their organizational activity in attempting to establish the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees, and because of their participation in this and other concerted activities of the Respondent's employees protected by Section 7 of the Act 4 In thus discharging the aforesaid employees, the Respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in order to discourage membership in the Union and thereby committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. In thus discharging the aforesaid employees because of their concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent also interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, G W. Murphy Industries, Inc , Portable Electric Tools Division, Texas corporation, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall- 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form or join labor organizations, and to engage in any other concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of her discharge, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay due under the Order herein (c) Post at its place of business in Warrensburg, Illinois, copies of the attached notice hereto and marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, shall, after being signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained 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 ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has 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 the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, 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 discourage membership in International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging and refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. G. W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES 137 WE WILL offer Nellie Smith, Dora Ragsdale, Mildred Elliott, and Regina Ellis, reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of their discharges. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the aforementioned union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activites except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. G W. MURPHY INDUSTRIES, INC., PORTABLE ELECTRIC TOOLS DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (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 members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Subregional Office, 225 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone No. 309-673-9061 (282).