J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.

254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc. Gulistan Division and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-7261, 10-CA-7323, 10-CA-7364, and 10-CA-7450 October 22, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Gulistan Division, Statesboro, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. On June 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that such allegations be dismissed Thereafter, Respondent, the Charging Party, and the Intervenors' filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings," conclusions," and recommendations° of the Trial Examiner. At the hearing in Case 10-CA-7450, Don F Hughes and approximately 113 other employees of Respondent appeared through counsel and were permitted to intervene, in order to challenge the validity of authorization cards obtained from them by the Union We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (I) by refusing to employ Mary Frances Bradley for discriminatory reasons The record reveals she applied for a job with Respondent before organizational activities commenced At that time, she listed two active union supporters as her relatives on the application form Bradley was then overweight Personnel Manager Harrington told her that " he couldn't use me on account of my weight for the insurance they were carrying," and that she would have to lose some weight By April 30, 1968, after the organizational drive began, Bradley had lost approximately 85 pounds Again she applied, telling Respondent she desperately needed a job At this time Harrington asked her if she were related to Charles Waters (a prounion employee) and Truman Delano Cribbs (a union leader found to have been discriminatorily discharged by Respondent on March 26) When she acknowledged being closely related to both, Respondent told her he could not promise her a job Later, on May 6, when Bradley again asked for a job, Harrington told her no job was available and she should not bother coming back The record reveals that after Bradley's April 30 application. Respondent hired nine women On these facts, against the strong background of the antiunion animus, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent refused to employ Bradley because of her relationship to active union supporters in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) and (l) In doing so, we do not rely on Bradley's testimony regarding her conversation with the Mayor of Statesboro after the April 30 application In adopting the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(l) and (3) finding regarding William Gary Akins, we do not rely on the Trial Examiner 's comments regarding Respondent 's failure to withhold salary from Akins during his absence from work Respondent and the Intervenors have excepted to some of the credibility resolutions made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Such a conclusion is not warranted here Standard Drv Wall Products , Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) The record reveals that upon learning of the presence of the Union, Respondent resorted to a campaign of extensive and egregious unfair labor practices in its efforts to thwart the Union ' s organizational drive The timing of Respondent's unfair labor practices , commencing almost immediately after the organizational drive began and persisting until after the time of the election , persuades us that the unfair labor practices were calculated to, and in fact did dissipate the majority which the Union acquired between February 18 and March 18, 1968 In these circumstances we believe that a bargaining order is required to repair the effects of such unfair labor practices For this reason , and also because Respondent's unfair labor practices were of such a nature as to make the erasure of their effects by traditional remedies and holding of a fair and coercion free rerun election improbable if not impossible, we are of the opinion and find that, on balance the rights of the employees and the policies of the act would better be effectuated by reliance on the employee sentiment as expressed in the authorization cards Accordingly , as there is no question that the Union had been validly designated by a majority of the employees as their representative when the Union renewed its bargaining demand, we find that by refusing to honor the Union's bargaining demand and by engaging in the numerous unfair labor practices found by the Trial Examiner, Respondent violated See 8(a)(5) and ( I) of the Act , and that the policies of the Act will be effectuated by the imposition of a bargaining order to remedy the Respondent's refusal to bargain , as well as its other unfair labor practices herein found N L R B v Gissel Packing Company. 395 U S 575, Sinclair Company v N L R B , 395 U S 575 'The Charging Party has filed exceptions to the failure of the Trial Examiner to recommend a remedy which would make whole all of Respondent 's employees for contractual benefits which would have accrued to them had Respondent not refused to bargain and had a collective-bargaining agreement been concluded We deem it inappropriate in this case to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial orders in cases involving 8 (a)(5) violations, and therefore find no merit in the said exceptions See Monroe Auto Equipment Company. 164 NLRB No 144 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner The hearing in the above-numbered consolidated cases began in Statesboro, Georgia, on August 6, 1968.' On August 7, the hearing was recessed to allow the General Counsel time to initiate subpena enforcement proceedings as to certain witnesses who had failed to appear and testify On October 29, 1968, the hearing was resumed and the General Counsel and the Respondent presented all their witnesses on the issues in Cases 7261, 7323, and 7364. At that point, however, the General Counsel, having issued a complaint in No 7450, and the Trial Examiner having 'The hearing in Case 7261 initially opened on April 16, 1968, before 179 NLRB No. 47 J. P STEVENS & CO. granted a motion to consolidate that case with the three already in litigation, at the request of the Respondent, the hearing in the matter was again postponed After the hearing was resumed on December 10, 1968, a further continuance became necessary on December 13, 1968, when attorneys for three of the parties became ill The hearing was finally resumed on February 3, 1969, and closed on February 7, 1969 In its respective answers, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices At the hearing, all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to argue orally A motion to dismiss, made by the Respondent at the close of the hearing, is disposed of as appears hereinafter in this decision The parties waived oral argument On April 16, 1969, a brief was submitted by the General Counsel No briefs were received from any of the other parties.' The Motion to Intervene On December 10, 1968, when the issues in Case 7450 came on for trial, Don F Hughes, et a! , employees of the Respondent, appeared through their counsel, Attorneys B Avant Edenfield and Charles H Brown Counsel for the aforesaid employees moved to intervene in the proceeding on the ground that Hughes and approximately 100 other employees who had signed authorization cards wished to be represented during the course of the hearing on all issues related to the question as to whether the Union had a majority in the appropriate unit. Various objections to this motion, raised by the General Counsel, were overruled and the motion was granted to the extent that the Intervenors were allowed to examine and cross-examine as to all issues raised by their specific cards. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers, AFL-CIO v N L R B, 392 F 2d 801, 809-8 10 (C A D C ), Sagamore Shirt Co , 153 NLRB 309, fn I, enfd as to this point, sub none , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. AFL-CIO v N L R B, 343 F 2d 581 (C A.D C ), Gary Steel Products Corp , 144 NLRB 1160, fn I Thereafter, throughout the trial on the allegations in Case 7450, counsel for the Intervenors ably and vigorously represented the approximately 113 employees who had moved to intervene. Their counsel were accorded complete latitude in cross-examining any of the aforesaid employees whom the General Counsel called to the witness stand. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, the Trial Examiner heard 35 additional witnesses whom the Intervenors called to testify as to the circumstances in which authorization cards were secured from them Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs Trial Examiner George A Downing , but that hearing was continued, at the request of the Respondent , immediately after it opened and without the taking of any testimony Later this case was consolidated with cases 7323 and 7364 and the presentation of evidence in these three cases was begun on August 6, 1968 On April 16, 1968 , the General Counsel submitted a two-page motion to correct the transcript in various particulars A certificate of service accompanying this motion set out that it was served on all opposing counsel The parties having filed no opposition thereto, and the Trial Examiner having duly considered the motion , said motion is granted and the transcript is corrected in accordance therewith 255 and memoranda of the parties, and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with a plant and place of business located in Statesboro, Georgia, is engaged there in the manufacture of textile products During the calendar year prior to issuance of the complaint, a representative period, the Respondent sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from its Statesboro plant directly to customers located outside the State of Georgia Upon the foregoing facts, which the Respondent concedes, the Trial Examiner finds that J P Stevens & Co , Inc , Gulistan Division, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Cases 10-CA-7261, -7323, and -7364 A Background and Sequence of Events Late in January 1968,' the Union initiated an organizational campaign among the employees at the Respondent's plant in Statesboro, Georgia Thereafter, the Respondent engaged in various acts and conduct which are alleged to have constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of the Act. On about February 16, the Respondent discharged Wayne Connor, on March 1, William Gary Akins, and on March 26, Truman Delano Cribbs On about April 30, it refused to employ Mary Frances Bradley The circumstances surrounding these three terminations, and the one refusal to employ, constitute issues in this case which are considered hereinafter B The Union Campaign, Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion, Findings and Conclusions with Respect Thereto In January 1968, the Union began a campaign to organize the employees at the Statesboro plant Harold McIver was the principal representative of the Textile Workers throughout this campaign His assistants, also organizers for the Union, were Estes J. Riffe and Robert Best On various days during the latter part of January and early in February the foregoing stationed themselves on the access road leading to and from the plant and distributed union leaflets to the employees On February 12, the Union held its first organizational meeting Another meeting was held on February 15 On February 17, the Union made the first of several demands for recognition as the bargaining agent of a production and maintenance unit at the plant The original and all subsequent demands were rejected by the Respondent on 'Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1968 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the ground that the latter had a good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit The General Counsel alleged that throughout the period from February through April the Respondent engaged in numerous acts of interference, restraint and coercion To the issues and the evidence in connection with these allegations we will now turn James L Skinner, an employee in the twist department, testified that, early in February, Supervisor Ben Russell' asked him what he thought about the organizational activity According to Skinner, after he had given the supervisor a noncommittal response, he asked Russell what he thought about it Skinner testified that the latter then told him that in his experience some plants had had violence when a union tried to get in, that in some places "they close down" and that "if the Union came in [to the Statesboro plants they would cut out the overtime " When on the stand, Supervisor Russell conceded that he had had a conversation with Skinner at the time and place in question and that it might have occurred during working hours He further conceded that he told the employee that from what he knew about the Union there "would be a lot of violence involved," but he denied having predicted that a union victory would result in a loss of overtime Upon an appraisal of all the circumstances here and the demeanor of these two witnesses in their appearance on the stand, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Skinner's version of this conversation is the more accurate Charles A. Gay, an employee, testified that on about February 12, Personnel Manager Carroll L Herrington asked that he come to the office and that while he was there the personnel manager asked "What do you boys want" and then, in a reference to the union handbills, said "I advise you to burn them or bring them to me " Gay testified that during the same conversation, Herrington asked whether Gay was going to the union meeting which was scheduled for that night According to Gay, when he answered this question in the affirmative, the personnel manager asked that he return the next day and report who was at the meeting and who had signed cards Gay testified that the following day Herrington questioned him as to the number who had attended the union meeting the night before and that the latter further asked whether those present were mostly Negroes or whites According to Gay, Herrington concluded the conversation when he (Gay) told him that he did not know the answers to his questions and that, in any event, he was not supposed to tell him Gay further testified that this same morning, Dan Rushing, dye house supervisor, approached him and asked whether Gay had attended the union meeting the preceding evening According to Gay, after answering in the affirmative, he cautioned the supervisor that it was against the law to ask such questions Gay testified that Rushing thereupon stated that he was sorry and questioned him no further Gay's version of his conversation with Rushing was both credible and undenied His testimony as to his meetings with the personnel manager, however, was contradicted Herrington testified that Gay approached his 'The supervisory status of Russell was conceded by the Respondent The Respondent made a similar concession as to all , except one , of the other individuals whom the General Counsel alleged as supervisors within the meaning of the Act Consequently , there will be no discussion of this matter hereinafter in this decision , except as to Joseph W Brown , the one individual whose supervisory status is in dispute office on various occasions and that at these times the employee volunteered information about the Union and averred that he himself did not intend to have anything to do with it Herrington could not recall the dates of any such conversations and testified that he paid no attention to the general comments about the Union which Gay customarily made during these encounters Herrington's characterization of Gay, which placed the employee in the role of a hypocritical busybody, did not square with the impression which Gay made while a witness for the General Counsel He was, throughout his appearance on both direct and cross-examination, a persuasive and convincing witness For that reason, it is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that his testimony must be, and it is, accepted as the more credible account of what was said during his conversations with Personnel Manager Herrington On February 15, Edwin Bachman, who was then plant manager for the Respondent, spoke about the union campaign to all of the employees at work that day Bachman spoke on three different occasions, in each instance to the assembled employees of the shift then on duty From the testimony of those present it appears that he gave substantially the same speech to each group Bachman told the employees that the Company planned to resist the Union by all possible, legal, means In connection with the authorization cards which the organizers were soliciting, he cautioned the employees that notwithstanding anything the union representatives might say, there would come a time when the cards would be laid on the table for all to see He further told the employees that anyone observed conducting union activities on the job would be discharged and that anybody found talking for the Union in the plant, or disturbing anybody on the job, would be dismissed 5 At the hearing Sheppard conceded that prior to Bachman's speech no rule had been posted which prohibited, under penalty of discharge, employee solicitation or discussion of union matters during working hours He further testified that the first time such a rule was even enunciated to anyone other than supervisors was in Bachman's speech Several employees testified, credibly and without contradiction, that the plant management often permitted solicitation of the employees during working time for such matters as a flower fund in the event of illness or death of a coworker or of a member of an employee's family, the sale of raffle tickets to support baseball and basketball teams, and appeals for blood donors for the bloodmobile Plant Manager Sheppard testified that he was aware of such activities in the plant He conceded that these solicitations were authorized by the management and that they were carried on during working hours Wayne E Moore, an employee in the spinning department, testified that on February 15, Supervisor Bill Hart asked what he thought of the speech which Plant Manager Bachman had just given According to Moore, in his reply he told the supervisor that he thought the Union was a good thing Moore testified that Hart thereupon told him that he was disappointed that Moore 'The foregoing summation of Bachman's speeches to the employees is derived from the mutually corroborative testimony of employees Roosevelt Love, Verdell Finch , James D Miller , Charles A Gay, Myrtle Marie Cribbs and Joe Oglesby , and of Enman J Sheppard The latter , who was present during Bachman 's speeches , was assistant plant manager at the time and later became plant manager when Bachman subsequently left the company employ Bachman was never called as a witness for the Respondent J. P. STEVENS & CO should feel that way According to the employee, Hart concluded the conversation by stating that if the Union came in the plant, he was "almost willing to bet that the Company would cut back the work to one or two days per week " Moore's testimony in this regard was credible It also was uncontradicted and undenied, for Hart, although a witness for the Respondent was asked no questions about this incident. Ronald D Bowen, a dyehouse employee on the third shift, testified that on the night of February 15 and after Bachman had made the speech described above, he was questioned about the Union by Dye House Supervisor Alvin Kicklighter According to Bowen, Kicklighter opened the conversation by stating that he thought Bachman had made a good point about the likelihood that the Union would have to put all the cards on his desk and disclose who had signed Bowen testified that the supervisor then stated that he would like to attend one of the union meetings himself According to Bowen, about two hours later, Kicklighter came back to where he was at work and questioned him as to whether he thought the Union would really help the employees Bowen testified that Kicklighter then told him that he had been requested by Plant Manager Bachman to ask that Bowen ascertain which employees were supporting the Union and which were not and that Kicklighter concluded the conversation by stating that he knew the names of all the employees who had been at the last union meeting Bowen testified that the following night Kicklighter questioned him about the Union on two different occasions The first time, according to the employee, Kicklighter asked whether he had heard any coworkers mention the Union and about two hours later he questioned Bowen as to whether he had heard anything about another union meeting When called as a witness for the Respondent, Kicklighter denied that he had ever been instructed by Plant Manager Bachman to ask that Bowen report to him about the Union On the other hand, on cross-examination, Kicklighter conceded that he had questioned Bowen as to whether he had been to any union meetings and that he also had asked the employee to let him know who was attending the meetings Bowen was a credible, albeit a very reluctant witness He was called as a witness for the General Counsel and appeared at the hearing only after the General Counsel secured a court order enforcing the subpoena which had been served on him At the time of the hearing he was still working in the dye house under Kicklighter's supervision In view of these circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that, insofar as there is a conflict between the testimony of Bowen and Kicklighter, the testimony of the former is worthy of greater credence During this period the union organizers frequently stationed themselves at the junction of the plant access road and U S Highway 301 The junction was at a distance of less than a mile from the plant itself Employee James D Miller testified that on about February 16, he met Union Representative Estes Riffe at this point and spent about 30 minutes talking with him about the campaign According to Miller, shortly after he began this conversation with Riffe, an automobile drew up to a point about 50 yards away and parked along the road where he and Riffe could be observed at close range Miller testified that there were two men in the car, Enman Sheppard, the assistant plant manager, and Erquitt Marsh, the payroll manager According to Miller's credible and uncontradicted testimony, neither Sheppard nor Marsh left the car Instead they remained in that spot 257 for approximately 20 minutes and in plain view of him and Riffe The Respondent never called Marsh as a witness Sheppard, of course, did testify, but was asked no questions about this incident Charles Gay testified that on about February 22, Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens came to where Gay was working and asked what he knew about the rumors that were circulating in the plant When Gay asked whether Aikens was referring to the Union, the latter answered in the affirmative According to Gay, he then answered the plant official with an acknowledgement that he had filled out an authorization card and had attended union meetings Aikens categorically denied having discussed the Union with Gay, but the testimony of the latter was more credible Employee Roosevelt Love testified as to a conversation had sometime in March with Plant Manager Sheppard According to Love, he asked Sheppard whether the plant would close if the Union came in, and Sheppard replied that he was unable to answer that question Love also testified that he asked whether the employees would keep whatever benefits they had if the Union did not succeed in coming in, and that Sheppard assured him that the employees would not lose any benefits under those circumstances Sheppard gave no testimony as to this meeting with employee Love Employee James D Miller testified that early in March he went to see Superintendent Paul Aikens and, after telling him that he had signed a union card and was a member of the organizing committee, he complained to Aikens that fixers in the card department were getting 8 cents an hour more than those in the spinning department According to Miller, Aikens then told him "If 8 cents is all that is bothering you, I will lay my job on the table for an 8 cent raise [for you] if you will back out from that union activity " Aikens denied that he had promised Miller a raise on condition he cease his union activity, but he conceded that he might have asked Miller whether a raise would satisfy him and keep him happy Miller was called to the stand several times during the extended hearing He was a very persuasive witness who impressed the Trial Examiner with his candor and honesty In connection with this incident it is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Miller's version of the conversation with Aikens is the more accurate " Employees Roosevelt Love and Joe Oglesby testified that on about March 10, they asked Bill Hart, Bob Buckalew, and Bob Stepto, all three of whom were card room supervisors, as to the validity of rumors that the mill would close if the Union came in Love testified that Hart told them that the employees would have to ask higher authorities for an answer to that question and that Buckalew told them of his personal experience at another plant where the advent of a union had resulted in closure Stepto, however, according to Love, answered their question with an emphatic statement in the affirmative as to the prospects of the plant's closing should the Union organize the employees Oglesby testified that Stepto said that if the Union won, "J P Stevens will throw away this plant dust like I am throwing away that nickel " Both 'Miller also testified that on the same day as this incident Aikens arranged for him to meet with Plant Manager Sheppard and that at this time, he asked the latter whether the mill would close if the union came in The General Counsel apparently relies upon Miller's testimony to establish that Sheppard answered this question in the affirmative In fact, however, Miller testified that Sheppard stated that the plant would close down only if the Union, after coming in, asked for higher wages than the Company could afford to pay 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Love and Oglesby were credible witnesses and their testimony in this regard was neither contradicted nor denied by Hart, Buckalew or Stepto On April 22 to 23, a Board-conducted election was held at the plant Employee James D Miller testified that shortly before the election, Supervisor Bill Hart told him "J D , I've got a little pull out here If you will back out of this Union . If I can help you in any way, or if there is anything bothering you, I will see if I can get it for you " Hart denied that he had made any such promise to Miller and denied that he ever discussed the Union with the employee He conceded, however, that he had had a discussion with Miller about the wage rate which Miller was getting as a fixer As to this conflict, it is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that here, again, Miller was more credible than the supervisor Verdell Finch, an inspector on the second shift, testified that, about two weeks before the election, Robert Foisey, quality control supervisor, told her that if the Union came in the plant would close According to Finch, Foisey told her that Stevens had 74 plants, none of which was organized, and that the Statesboro mill "was just too small to, and too new, to carry a Union " Finch testified that Foisey concluded the conversation by questioning her as to how she planned to vote in the election Finch's testimony was credible, and it was neither denied nor contradicted, for Foisey was not called as a witness Mrs. Finch further testified that at a time shortly before the election, employees who were opposed to the Union were discussing the question as to what the Company might do if the Union won the election According to Finch, Supervisor Ben Russell was present, and, despite the fact that it was during worktime, Russell made no effort to suppress the talking Instead, according to Finch, Russell joined in the discussion and predicted that "if the Union came in, the plant would close down " Russell denied that he had ever made such a prediction as that which Mrs Finch attributed to him On the other hand, he testified that he did not know her very well and he conceded that he could not recall any such conversation as that she described Finch was a witness called by the General Counsel after the subpena enforcement proceedings She was still in the Respondent's employ and when she eventually took the stand, her testimony impressed the Trial Examiner as being frank and honest Under the circumstances, it seems most unlikely that she would fabricate a purported conversation with Russell It is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that, in fact, she did not do so, and that her testimony in which she attributed to Supervisor Russell the threat of a plant closing was credible Mrs Finch also testified that on about April 19, and while in the plant smoking room, she had a conversation about the Union with Superintendent Paul Aikens According to Finch, when she asked Aikens whether he thought the mill would close if the Union came in, he answered her in the affirmative and added that the Company was already "moving things out " Finch testified that shortly thereafter she asked the same question of Personnel Manager Herrington According to Finch, Herrington agreed with the forecast made by Aikens and told her that he thought that the advent of the Union would result in plant closure Aikens denied that he had made any such prediction to Finch, although he conceded that he had discussed the Union with her on at least one occasion Herrington on the other hand, neither denied nor contradicted Finch's testimony It is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the conversations occurred substantially as she testified. Myrtle Marie Cribbs, an employee in the spinning department, testified to a conversation had about April 20 with Plant Manager Sheppard According to the employee, she questioned Sheppard as to whether he had assured employee James D Miller that the plant would not close if the Union won the election. Cribbs testified on direct examination that the plant manager told her she was mistaken, that he had told Miller that he felt sure the plant would close if the Union sought to secure higher wages than Stevens was paying at its other plants. On cross-examination, however, Mrs Cribbs agreed that a more accurate rendition of what Sheppard had said was that "if the Union came in and forced the Company to pay higher wages than [it paid in its other plants that would close it down " James D Miller testified that on April 25, and after the Union's defeat in the election that week, Plant Superintendent Aikens told him that he had heard that Miller had been active in supporting the Union, but that now that "the damn Union had come and gone he didn't want to hear me say anymore about it" Miller's testimony as to this conversation was credible and was not denied or contradicted by any testimony given by Aikens Roy E Chester, an employee in the twisting and winding department, was called as a witness for the General Counsel When questioned as to whether he had talked with Supervisor Robert Foisey on about February 19, Chester averred that he could not remember any such conversation Chester had previously given a signed affidavit to a field examiner during the General Counsel's investigation of the case The affidavit was dated February 27, 1968, and bore a signature which Chester identified as his own The employee conceded that the affidavit "looks like a statement I signed " After Chester acknowledged having signed the affidavit, but continued to testify that it did not refresh his recollection, the General Counsel offered the affidavit under the doctrine of past recollection recorded for the truth of the matters related therein At the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this offer After a consideration of the issue here involved, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the affidavit should be, and it is, received, as affirmative evidence of the conversation in question. N L R B v J C Penney Co , 384 F 2d 479, 484 (C A 10). Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed ), Vol 111, Sec 734, 754, Jones on Evidence (4th ed ) vol 11, Sec 974 In his affidavit, Chester averred that on February 19, Supervisor Foisey asked him "Did you get anything out of the meeting'"" and that on the following day Foisey told him "the bad things about unions He told me about some plants that had closed down because the union was trying to get in." Presumptively, the General Counsel is relying on the question attributed to Foisey as having referred to a union meeting. In the context of the entire affidavit, this presumption has some support. On the other hand, standing alone as it appears in the one paragraph on the issue, the question is rather ambiguous If Chester's recollection had enabled him to testify about this interrogation, he might have cleared up this ambiguity On the record as it stands, however, the portion of the affidavit in question will not support the contention of the General Counsel that on February 19, Foisey unlawfully interrogated Chester as to his union activities On February 21, the Union filed a representation petition in which it sought a Board-conducted election in a production and maintenance unit J P Stevens & Co , J. P. STEVENS & CO. Inc., Case 10-RC-7342 It was undenied that on about March 12, while the representation matter was pending, the Respondent unilaterally granted an 18-minute lunchbreak and various other benefits to the employees involved in the representation proceeding A number of employee witnesses testified that on about March 1, management officials met with groups of employees from each shift and volunteered to hear any complaints they cared to present James D. Miller, an employee in the spinning department , testified that along with half the employees in his department , he attended a meeting in the plant office at which Assistant Manager Sheppard and Payroll Manager Erquitt Marsh were in charge According to Miller, Sheppard and Marsh opened the meeting by stating that they would listen to any of the problems which the employees wished to present , that they would take notes on the complaints , but that they could not answer or discuss any of them Miller, an employee of the Respondent for over six years, testified that this was the first meeting of its kind he had ever been asked to attend Myrtle Marie Cribbs, another employee , testified that at the meeting for employees in her department, Marsh was accompanied by Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens According to Mrs Cribbs , Aikens and Marsh told those present that Plant Manager Bachman wanted to find out why the employees were so dissatisfied From the record , it appears that the employees complained primarily about the plant practice of requiring the employees to eat lunch at their machines without the benefit of any lunch period , the lack of any sheltered walkway to the parking lot during inclement weather and the number of soft drink machines which were inoperable It was undenied that in mid-March and about 2 weeks after these meetings with the employees, the management notified the employees that henceforth they would be permitted an 18-minute lunchbreak on each shift, that during this period they could shut off their machines, and that, instead , of having to eat at their duty stations, the employees thereafter could sit down at tables and chairs which were being provided for this purpose The employees were also informed that during rainy weather they would be permitted to use various passageways through the plant which would enable them to reach the parking lot with a minimum of exposure In addition, more coke and vending machines were installed and the periods on each shift when smoking was permitted were -xtended As found earlier herein, on February 15, Plant Manager Bachman announced that any discussion of the union or solicitation on its behalf within the plant was forbidden and would be cause for discharge The General Counsel presented many witnesses who testified credibly and without contradiction that, notwithstanding this rule, no sanctions were imposed on employees who were opposed to the Union and who actively engaged in anti-union discussions and activities during working hours Joe Oglesby testified that , about 2 weeks before the election , employees Hubert Jenkins , Carl Andrews, and Woody Royal sought to enlist his support in a campaign against the Union Roosevelt Love, whose testimony corroborated that of Oglesby, testified that during this period Jenkins came to him during working hours and solicited his signature on a list of employees who planned to vote against the Union Love and Oglesby reported this incident to Supervisor Bill Hart, and, in doing so, told the latter the names of the employees engaged in the antiunion solicitation Hart disclaimed all knowledge of the alleged antiunion activities and declined to say what, if 259 anything, he would do about the protest from Love and Oglesby The latter two employees testified that thereafter the antiunion activities of Royal, Jenkins, and Andrews continued unabated Verdell Finch testified that she voiced a similar complaint to Plant Superintendent Aikens and Supervisor Ben Russell about antiunion activities during working time in her department According to Finch, notwithstanding her protest to the management, there was no slackening of the antiunion discussions during working hours Early in March, James D Miller, Jerry Gerrald, Charles Nessmith, Joe Beasley, and Floyd Miller, all of whom were prounion, asked for a conference with Assistant Plant Manager Sheppard. At this meeting, Miller and his associates presented to Sheppard a list of 17 employees who were engaged during working hours in a campaign against the Union, and they asked why, if the Company would tolerate such activity, they, in turn, could not engage in the same type of effort on behalf of the Union Sheppard declined to grant the request, declared that there would be no campaigning of any kind inside the plant and promised that he would talk to the employees on the list Miller testified that subsequent to this meeting with the management, the antiunion activities of the employees whose names had been reported to Sheppard continued as before Sheppard testified that after Miller and his group met with him he spoke to some of the supervisors and told them that the antiunion campaigning of the named employees should be stopped He conceded, however, that he had no recollection of ever calling any of the employees involved to his office Concluding Findings On February 15, Plant Manager Bachman announced to all employees that thereafter any solicitation or discussion of the Union on company premises was prohibited and that those who did so would be subject to discharge. About April 25, and after the election, Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens, upon hearing that employee James D Miller was still talking for the Union, thereupon informed Miller in the most emphatic terms that he was to engage in no more such discussion It is clear from the record that the rule which Bachman promulgated to the employees on February 15 was applicable to the employees at all times while they were in the plant, regardless of whether they were at their machines or on their own time in nonworking areas on the premises The Respondent's announcement of this rule was made at the very outset of the Union's organizational campaign. Notwithstanding its prohibition on the discussion of, or solicitation for, the Union in the plant, the Respondent, both before and after February 15, permitted a variety of solicitations to be made of the employees while they were at work Furthermore, there was substantial evidence, as found above, that antiunion groups of employees were permitted to engage in discussion and activities opposed to the Union without being reprimanded The Board and the courts have held that an employer may not prohibit employees from soliciting for the Union on their own time in nonworking areas of a plant unless it can be shown that special circumstances made the rule necessary in order to maintain production or discipline. Ridgewood Management Company, Inc v N L R B, 410 F 2d 738 (C A. 5), SNC Manufacturing Co, Inc, 174 NLRB No 31, Sparks Nugget, Inc, 161 NLRB 1195, 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1196, Stoddard Quirk Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 615, 616-623; Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, 698-699, enfd 289 F 2d 177 (C.A. 5), N L R B v United Aircraft Corp , 324 F 2d 128, 130-132 (C A 2), cert denied 376 U S 951 The Respondent here made no attempt to establish any such special circumstances which justified the imposition of this rule Consequently, in view of the fact that the rule was announced immediately after the Union initiated its organizational efforts, the fact that the rule was applied to prohibit prounion activity, but was not enforced as to antiunion activity or as to solicitations unrelated to the union campaign, and the fact that the rule applied to the employees even when on their own time in nonworking areas of the plant, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the rule in question, and the Respondent's enforcement thereof, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The Trial Examiner likewise concludes and finds that it was a violation of the same section of the Act for the Respondent in mid-March, and while an employee election was pending, unilaterally to grant a luncheon break and other benefits to the employees in the unit involved in the representation proceeding. The Trial Examiner further concludes and finds that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the actions and conduct of its supervisory personnel as set forth below (1) Supervisor Ben Russell's interrogation of employee James Skinner early in February as to his union sympathies and Russell's statement that "if the Union came in [the Statesboro plant] would cut out the overtime " (2) Personnel Manager Carroll L Herrington's interrogation of employee Charles A Gay, on about February 12 and 13, as to Gay's knowledge of union activities among the employees, as well as Herrington's request that Gay report to him on what had occurred at the union meetings (3) Supervisor Dan Rushing's interrogation of employee Charles A Gay on about February 13, as to whether Gay had attended a union meeting the night before (4) Supervisor Bill Hart's interrogation on about February 15 of employee Wayne Moore as to his union sympathies and Hart's prediction that if the Union succeeded in organizing the employees "the Company would cut back the work to one or two days per week " (5) Supervisor Alvin Kicklighter's interrogation of employee Ronald D Bowen, on about February 15 and 16, as to the latter's knowledge of union activities among the employees and Kicklighter's request that Bowen report to the Respondent on the union activities of his coworkers (6) Supervisor Alvin Kicklighter's creating the impression of surveillance of employee union activities by telling employee Ronald Bowen that a report had come to the management as to the identities of all those employees who attended the union meeting on February 15 (7) The surveillance on about February 16 by Assistant Plant Manager Enman J. Sheppard and Payroll Manager Erquitt Marsh of the meeting which employee James D Miller had with Union Representative Estes Riffe on the plant access road (8) Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens' interrogation on about February 22, of employee Charles Gay as to the union activities and sympathies of the latter (9) Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens' promise to employee James D. Miller, made in March, that the latter would get a raise if he would withdraw from the Union. (10) Supervisor Bob Stepto's prediction on about March 10 to employees Roosevelt Love and Joe Oglesby that the plant would close if the Union was successful in organizing the employees (11) Supervisor Bill Hart's promise to employee James D Miller shortly before the election that he would "help" Miller provided that the latter "back out of this Union " (12) Supervisor Robert Foisey's questioning of employee Verdell Finch as to how she was going to vote and his prediction, voiced to her about the middle of April, that "if the Union came in the plant would definitely close down " (13) Supervisor Ben Russell's forecast made to employee Verdell Finch and several other employees shortly before the election that if the Union won, the plant would close down (14) Personnel Manager Herrington's statement to employee Verdell Finch shortly after April 19 that he thought the plant would close if the Union was successful in its campaign to organize the employees, and a similar threat made to this employee by Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens during the same period C The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3), Contentions of the Partier, Findings and Conclusions with Respect thereto 1. Wayne Connor a The supervisory status of Joseph W Brown In its answer, the Respondent initially conceded Brown's supervisory status. After the hearing had been in progress for sometime, the Respondent, in effect, moved to amend its answer so as to deny that Brown was a supervisor at the time in question This motion was granted. Several witnesses for the General Counsel referred to Brown as an assistant foreman in the maintenance department during the period immediately prior to Connor's discharge This was denied by the Respondent According to the latter, it was not until after Connor's termination that Brown was promoted to supervisor The Respondent contends that before his promotion Brown was only a leadman Brown testified that he was a leadman in the maintenance department for about 2 years During that period Jerry Hynco was the departmental supervisor Plant Manager Sheppard testified that shortly after Bachman's speech to the employees on February 15, Hynco went on a leave of absence and that Brown took over Hynco's duties According to Brown, he was promoted to supervisor on February 23. Brown testified that as a leadman he did not attend meetings of the supervisors, discipline employees, make any decisions on promotions, demotions, or pay and that he worked at manual labor about half of the time On the other hand, Brown testified that when Hynco was out of the plant, or off duty, he assigned work orders to the men in the department and that if they had problems they came to him for assistance Brown testified that if, at such a time, overtime became available he selected those to whom such work was given Brown further testified that when Hynco was on vacation, he filled in the timecards for the employees and that the plant superintendent approved them. Plant Manager Sheppard testified that, even as a leadman, Brown had prerequisites substantially above J. P. STEVENS & CO those of the rank and file in the maintenance department Thus, Brown was on a salary, whereas the other maintenance employees were not Although Brown punched a timeclock, this was done only to keep account of the hours he worked ' Brown received a 2-week vacation each year, whereas the employees received l week He also had sick leave benefits, but the employees had none Along with Hynco, Brown also had a key to the departmental office and a desk in that office Brown never gave an answer when questioned on cross-examination as to how much he was paid when still a leadman When pressed for a response he evaded answering and never disclosed what he was paid for regular time or overtime He was likewise evasive when testifying as to the extent of his authority when Hynco was out of the plant or on vacation Although he was very specific in testifying that he was not promoted to supervisor until February 23, he had an extremely hazy recollection as to when it was that Hynco went on a leave of absence Sheppard, of course, had conceded that Brown took over Hynco's duties when the latter went on leave 8 For the hearing in the unfair labor practice case, the Respondent prepared lists of all employees in the unit on each of four different dates from February 17 to April 22 Brown's name does not appear on any of these lists Most significantly, it does not appear on the list of employees in the unit as of February 17 This would tend to prove that even as of the latter date, the Respondent itself no longer considered Brown a leadman and a member of the unit The Respondent never offered any documentation or personnel records to support, or corroborate, Brown's testimony as to when it was that he officially assumed the duties of a supervisor Nor was any evidence supplied as to what difference, if any, there was in Brown 's salary before and after February 23 In view of Brown's extreme reluctance to answer any questions about his salary before and after he took over Hynco's position and his lack of candor generally, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that, at least for some while prior to February 23, and at all times material herein, Brown had a supervisory status within the meaning of the Act b Connor's work history and discharge, findings and conclusions with respect thereto Wayne Connor was hired by the Respondent in February 1962 After approximately two years in the shipping department, he transferred to the maintenance department where he remained until February 16, 1968, when he was discharged Connor's starting wage was $1 15 per hour At the time of his termination he was receiving $2 16 per hour In the maintenance department Connor worked under Jerry Hynco, the departmental head, and Joseph W Brown, Hynco's assistant Connor was among the first of the employees to become active in the Union He signed a card late in January and shortly thereafter he began soliciting his coworkers to join the Textile Workers Early in February, 'As a leadman , Brown received overtime pay equal to one and one half his regular salary 'Sheppard also testified that the Board had ruled that Brown was "eligible to vote" in the election This statement was ambiguous at best The Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election included leadmen in the voting unit The plant manager may have meant that if Brown had been a leadman at the time of the election he could have voted There was no evidence , however, that Brown ever voted or even attempted to cast a challenged ballot 261 Connor met Union Representative McIver on the access road leading to the plant and the latter gave him a supply of authorization cards Connor testified that during the next few days he secured from 12 to 13 signed authorization cards from his fellow employees He estimated that during this period he talked with approximately 50 of the employees about the Union Connor attended the two union meetings held on February 12 and 15 and signed up as a member of the employees' organizing committee. Connor's union activities did not go unnoticed On about February 8, Connor met McIver on the access road near the plant and spent several minutes discussing the organizational campaign while Mclver handed out leaflets to the Respondent's employees who were going to, or leaving, the plant It was undenied that while this conversation was in progress, Supervisor Hynco drove up, stopped for a leaflet and left Brown also appeared on the scene and parked his car near the side of the road for several minutes before driving away. Connor testified that the day after his conversation with Mclver, Brown came up to him at work and told him "Wayne, you had better not be going around and talking for the Union because if you do, you are going to get fired, because everybody in the front office knows you were out on the road yesterday talking to the Union " According to Connor, later that same day, Brown questioned him as to how many in the maintenance shop were for the Union Connor testified that he told Brown that he thought everyone was Charles L Nessmith, also an employee in the maintenance department under Hynco and Brown, testified that on this same day, Brown told him that the day before he had seen Connor on the road, talking with a union representative According to Nessmith, Brown concluded the conversation with the comment that if Connor "didn't watch it he would get fired, if he kept talking " Nessmith testified that on February 17, and the day after Connor's termination, he had a conversation with Brown wherein he inquired as to why Connor had been discharged According to Nessmith, Brown told him that "he didn't know what they put down, but . he knew why that he had told him a couple of days before that if he (Connor) didn't quit messing with the Union he would lose his lob " Jerry Gerrald, another employee in the maintenance department, testified that on about February 18, he complained to Brown about Connor's discharge According to Gerrald, Brown replied that he had tried to tell Connor "a week or so ago [that] if he didn't shut his mouth he was going to get fired " Gerrald testified that, in concluding this same conversation, Brown told him that Connor "would not be the only one" to get fired. At the hearing, Hynco testified that he knew about the union activities in which the employees were engaged and that he assumed that Connor was involved Brown denied having made any of the antiunion comments attributed to him by the employees quoted above, gut he conceded that he might have seen Connor talking with McIver on February 8 Both Nessmith and Gerrald were still working at the plant and under Brown's supervision at the time they testified, a factor which was reflected in their reluctance to testify about Brown when on the stand Nevertheless, their testimony, as well as that of Connor, was credible, whereas Brown's denials were not The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the various conversations with Brown, related in the testimony of 26 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Connor, Nessmith and Gerrald set forth above, occurred substantially as those employees testified Connor testified, credibly and without contradiction, that at the end of his shift on February 16, Supervisor Hynco sent him to the office of Personnel Manager Herrington According to Connor, Herrington told him that he was being discharged for having had to do over two jobs that day and for having violated a safety rule At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Respondent stated that Connor was terminated because his attitude toward supervision was unsatisfactory, because his work was unsatisfactory and because he had disobeyed orders shortly before his discharge Supervisor Hynco, however, testified that the sole reason for Connor's dismissal was his violation of a safety rule on February 16 As described by Hynco, on the day in question, Connor and a fellow employee, one Malcolm Mock, were at work on a kettle in the dye house Hynco testified that when he inspected the job while the repair work was still in progress he discovered that there was no safety tag on the electric motor to prevent other employees from inadvertently starting the machine According to Hynco, when he admonished Connor about this deficiency, the latter told him that the job was almost completed Hynco testified that about 45 minutes later he returned to this location and discovered that the job was not finished, that the current was on and that there was still no safety tag on the electric motor Hynco thereupon prepared a termination slip for Connor in which he set forth the details described above At the hearing, the Respondent introduced two other written reprimands which appeared in Connor's personnel file One, dated July 13, 1965, and prepared by Hynco, alleged that Connor was insubordinate and had threatened Hynco with bodily harm if the latter discharged him This reprimand bore Connor's signature and an acknowledgement that he had read it The other reprimand offered in evidence was dated October 28, 1967 In this document, likewise prepared by Hynco, the latter alleged that on an occasion of that date, when Hynco admonished Connor for wasting time by drinking coffee in the shop, the employee became abusive and used foul language in expressing his disdain for the plant and Hynco This reprimand was not signed by Connor, although there was a line on it for the employee's signature Moreover, there was no evidence that the employee himself was ever shown this particular written reprimand At the time of the incident on February 16, Connor was working on the kettle in the dye house along with Malcolm Mock When on the stand, Hynco at first referred to Mock as Connor's helper Later, during his cross-examination, however, he conceded that Mock was classified as a general mechanic, the same as Connor, that Mock drew the same rate of pay as Connor, and that he had the same duties and responsibilities as Connor He further conceded that Mock was not, in fact, subordinate to Connor at the time in question Hynco likewise admitted that, notwithstanding Mock's joint participation in, and responsibility for the repair work which lead to Connor's dismissal, he had said nothing to Mock about noncompliance with plant safety rules Connor may have had an abrasive personality which Hynco found difficult in 1965 and again in 1967, as reflected in the reprimand notices It also appears that a plant safety rule was violated on February 16, 1968 The record establishes, however, that this latter violation was incurred on a job on which Connor and Mock were coworkers There is no requirement in the Act, that an employer be evenhanded in meting out discipline to his employees In the present instance, however, the contrast between the immediate dismissal accorded Connor and the admitted total lack of any admonition to Mock is strong evidence that the real reason for Connor's discharge was not the one offered by the Respondent 9 In view of the disparate treatment accorded Connor, the animus toward the Union displayed by the Respondent as soon as the organizational campaign began, Supervisor Brown's warning to Connor that the plant management knew of Connor's involvement in the campaign and that he would get fired if this continued, Brown's reiteration of this warning about Connor in a conversation with employee Nessmith that same day, and Brown's statement, subsequent to Connor's termination to both employees Nessmith and Gerrald that Connor had been discharged for "messing with the Union," the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent's real motivation for Connor's dismissal was his union activities In discharging him for this reason, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act It was likewise a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, for Brown to interrogate Connoi as to his union activities, threaten Connor with discharge for continued association with the union organizers, voice the conclusion to other employees after Connor's termination that the dismissal had resulted from Connor's identification with the Union, and predict that Connor "would not be the only one" to meet the same fate 2 William Gary Akins Akins was employed from May 1965 until March 1, 1968, on which latter date he was discharged Initially he worked in the twisting department under Supervisor Bill Hart where his rate of pay was $1 60 an hour When terminated Akins was in the production control department under Supervisor Walter Pease For some while he had been on a salary, originally at $72 per week and by the time of his discharge at the rate of $86 per week On February 15, Akins attended the union meeting held at Cooperville There he signed an authorization card and joined the organizational committee During the next 2 weeks he attended three more organizational meetings Just before the end of his shift on March I, Supervisor Pease called Akins to his office and told him that he was being discharged for not getting along with the supervisors, for being out too much on weekends and for talking too much At the hearing, Pease testified that at the conclusion of his statement to Akins the employee protested that he was being discharged "because of the Union " Pease did not voice any denial of Akins' comment. Instead, according to Pease himself, he only said, "Now, Gary, you said that, I didn't " Akins testified that on an occasion late in January, when he was in the production control office both Supervisor Pease and Personnel Manager Herrington spoke to him about the Union According to Akins, Pease told him that although the Union had launched an "'The abruptness of a discharge and its timing are persuasive evidence as to motivation " N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co , 242 F 2d 497, 502 (C A 2), cert denied 355 U S 829 See also N L R B v Dorn's Transportation Company . Inc, 405 F 2d 706, 713 (C A 2), N L R B v Svnionc Mfg Co , 328 F 2d 835, 837 (C A 7) J P. STEVENS & CO. 263 organizational campaign, since Akins was on salary, this should not affect him Akins testified that before concluding the conversation, Pease asked him to let them know if he saw any group of people talking about the Union and Herrington commented that the Union was no good for the town, the community or the employees Akins testified that immediately after he attended the union meeting on February 15, Pease came to question him as to whether he had been to any meetings. According to Akins, after he answered this question in the affirmative, Pease questioned him as to the number of employees in attendance. Akins testified that during the course of their discussion he told the supervisor that he had signed up as a member of the organizing committee According to Akins, about a week later, Pease told him that he had been hearing "bad things" about him, that Akins had been talking too much and that he should be careful as to what he said Akins testified that his supervisor reminded him that he was on a salary rather than an hourly paid employee and that he (Pease) would hate to see him "get in trouble." According to Akins, thereafter, and until the time of his dismissal, Pease frequently questioned him as to whether he was being careful of what he said. Akins' testimony as to the meeting with Herrington and Pease was credible His testimony with respect to the comments he attributed to Herrington was undenied, for the personnel manager gave no testimony as to this meeting Pease denied that he mentioned the Union to Akins or that he interrogated the employee about his union activities His general denials, however, were unconvincing and the Trial Examiner concludes that the conversations with Akins occurred substantially as the employee testified Pease prepared a "termination of employment" form that is dated March 1, and which lists four reasons as grounds for the employee's dismissal These were (1) In November 1967 he had started Akins on an assignment which involved passing colors for the dye house and that in January the employee indicated that he did not want to continue this particular work; (2) Akins had worked only three full Saturdays out of eight on which the plant had operated since January 1, (3) On January 29, Akins had called and said that he would have to go home because of illness in his family, and (4) On February 15 Akins had asked to work a double shift on the following Friday night and this request had been rejected At the hearing, Pease listed some of the foregoing as reasons for the employee's termination, but he added others Thus, in his oral testimony, Pease stated that Akins was terminated for (1) absenteeism, (2) not carrying out his job properly, (3) not turning in his reports, (4) the complaints of supervisors that he was not getting production figures to them on time; and (5) sleeping on the job When questioned as to why all of the foregoing did not appear on the termination form, Pease's only explanation was that there was insufficient room on the paper to include all the reasons Pease conceded that the only written reprimand he ever prepared on Akins was the termination sheet described above. He testified that on numerous occasions from December to March he had verbally reprimanded Akins for tardiness and sleeping on the job, but he conceded that none of these alleged verbal reprimands was ever reduced to writing for Akins' personnel file He also conceded that one of the items that appeared on the termination form, namely the incident about passing colors, was unrelated to the decision to discharge the employee. Akins testified that he never stayed off work without having called in or without having secured permission to do so in advance The Respondent offered various time records on the amount of hours which Akins worked during the period in question, presumptively, to bolster Pease's testimony as to Akins' alleged absenteeism. Pease conceded that Akins did call in at times, and he admitted that, in any event, at no time was Akins' salary reduced because of unexcused absences during any of the weeks from December to March. Yet Pease himself had to approve all salary payments made to Akins From the record, it is obvious that the supervisor never saw fit to withhold any salary from the employee during the period in question Under these circumstances, Pease's testimony that Akins' absenteeism and failure to work on Saturday constituted a problem was most unconvincing Bill Hart, supervisor of the yarn room, and Bob Stepto, assistant supervisor, testified that when Akins was in the yarn room he was lax about getting production reports out to them, that he had been absent at times, and that they had found him asleep on several occasions. According to Hart, this conduct on Akins' part continued over a period of 3 to 4 months Hart conceded that notwithstanding this catalog of the employee's deficiencies he had never given Akins a reprimand or warning, or disciplined him Moreover, Stepto likewise conceded that no reprimands were prepared on Akins, notwithstanding a requirement in the Respondent's supervisory manual that verbal reprimands be reduced to writing for the employee's personnel file The Respondent was, indeed, free to discharge Akins for such reasons as inefficiency, absenteeism, or sleeping on the job. The testimony as to his efficiency, however, was hazy and largely unspecified. The charges as to absenteeism were substantially refuted by the fact that throughout the period in question, Supervisor Pease regularly authorized the full payment to Akins of his weekly salary It is too clear for argument that no employer should be compelled to tolerate an employee's sleeping on the job Although at the hearing the Respondent offered testimony that this was one of the grounds for Akins' dismissal, at the time Pease prepared the termination form, sleeping on the job was not even listed as a reason for the employee's discharge In the light of this fact, it is the Trial Examiner's conclusion that this last alleged dereliction on Akins' part was an afterthought and played no part in Akins' termination. When the Union first arrived on the scene, Supervisor Pease told Akins that as a salaried employee he should not be affected or involved in the union campaign and, further that he should report to management whenever he observed a group of employees talking about the Union. Notwithstanding this advice from his supervisor, on February 15, Akins attended a union meeting, signed an authorization card and joined the organizing committee. All of these developments came to the Respondent's attention during the course of the interrogation to which Pease subjected the employee on the following day. Thereafter Pease cautioned Akins that he was hearing "bad things" about him, that Akins was "talking too much" and that he would hate to see Akins "get into trouble " In view of this background, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the real motivation for Akins' dismissal was his union activities and not the shifting reasons assigned in his termination form and in the testimony of Pease, Hart and Stepto. The discharge of Akins was, therefore, discriminatory and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3 Truman Delano Cribbs Cribbs was hired in January 1967 to work in the card room at Sl 40 an hour Thereafter, he was promoted to fixer, notwithstanding the fact that several in the card room had more seniority than he At the time of his discharge on March 26, he was earning $2 35 an hour Plant Superintendent Paul Aikens described the position of fixer as a high classification among the employees and conceded that Cribbs was well qualified and a good worker Cribbs signed a union card early in February He joined the organizing committee as soon as it was formed and thereafter actively participated in the union campaign He testified, credibly and without contradiction, that twice in mid-February, he was questioned about his views on the Union by Bill Hart who was then his supervisor The second of these occasions occurred shortly after Bachman spoke to the assembled employees about the Union Hart called Cribbs into his office to question him on this subject Cribbs told him that he was in favor of the Union and that he thought it would be helpful to the employees His supervisor disagreed. On about March 1, when Bob Stepto replaced Hart as supervisor of the card room on the third shift, Cribbs and two of his coworkers went to Stepto and told him that they had signed union cards Cribbs also told the new supervisor that he was a member of the employees organizing committee.'" At the end of his shift on March 26, Cribbs was told that Plant Superintendent Aikens and Supervisor Stepto wanted to see him When Cribbs reported to the plant office, Aikens told him that the management had reports that Cribbs had been threatening employees because they would not sign a union card, that this had occurred on the job and that something would have to be done about it. Cribbs denied that he had ever threatened anyone and asked for the names of those whom he had allegedly threatened The supervisors, however, refused to reveal the name of any complainant. Cribbs conceded that he had talked with his fellow employees about the Union on breaktime He also conceded that on one occasion he had tried to induce an employee named Bobby Howard to join the Union and, in jest, had signed Howard's name to an authorization card, but when Howard objected he had torn up the card in Howard's presence Aikens informed Cribbs that he could not discuss the Union even on break time and that because of the report that Cribbs had been threatening employees, he would have to be discharged immediately " At the hearing Aikens testified that the employee whom Cribbs allegedly threatened was Monroe Ellis, a coworker with Cribbs in the card room Aikens testified that Ellis had reported this threat to Leadman Woody Royal, who, in turn, reported it to Supervisor Stepto who, in turn, reported it to Atkens Aikens conceded that he made no investigation of the charge attributed to Ellis. Instead, he promptly fired Cribbs Royal testified that at the end of the shift on March 25, Ellis reported to him that Cribbs had told him that unless he signed an authorization card he would be fired if the Union came in to the plant According to Royal, he promptly referred the matter to Stepto The latter testified "The foregoing findings are based on the credible , undenied testimony of Cribbs Both Hart and Stepto testified at the hearing , but neither of them gave any testimony in conflict with Cnbbs on the foregoing chronology The foregoing findings are based on the credible , undemed testimony of Cribbs that he and Aikens thereupon called in Cribbs According to Stepto, he was convinced that when Cribbs mentioned the incident with Howard, about which Cribbs testified fully at the hearing, he was convinced that Cribbs "had been threatening employees in the card department, interfering with their jobs and so forth." Stepto testified that at this point, he and Aikens decided that Cribbs should be dismissed immediately Stepto admitted, however, that during the confrontation with Cribbs, Ellis' name was never mentioned He also conceded that prior to discharging Cribbs he never spoke with Ellis about the alleged threats Ellis was produced at the hearing as a witness for the Respondent He was a totally incredible witness According to Ellis, Cribbs told him that "if I didn't sign one of them cards I'd lose my job and there'd be trouble " At first he testified that Cribbs had come to him in this fashion "a couple of times " Later he testified that this had happened three or four times According to Ellis, he told Cribbs "I did not believe in Union, I didn't know nothing about it and I was not signing something I didn't know nothing about " Ellis testified that he thereupon reported the matter to Leadman Royal and the latter promised that he would talk with Cribbs On cross-examination, Ellis at first denied that he had ever signed a union card Later he testified that he was unsure as to whether he had ever done so Still later he conceded that after Cribbs had talked to him, but before the election he had, indeed, signed a card Much later in the hearing Estes Riffe and Wayne Connor credibly testified that Monroe Ellis had signed an authorization card for them when they had called on him at his home They further testified, credibly and without contradiction, that Truman Cribbs was not with them at the time and that no threats of any kind were made to the employee. This card, which was received in evidence, is dated March 6, approximately three weeks before Ellis reported to Royal that Cribbs was allegedly threatening him to secure his signature on an authorization card Cribbs was an employee with an excellent work record, as the plant superintendent frankly admitted After the union drive began, his support of the campaign was open and well known It strains credulity to accept the Respondent's explanation for his discharge There is, of course, no requirement in the Act that an employer accord an employee all the elements of due process before a dismissal for cause On the other hand, to discharge peremptorily an experienced, highly paid employee on the basis of allegations made by an unnamed accuser is not normal 1I In the present instance, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that in view of the findings set forth above, the termination of Cribbs was motivated by a desire on the part of the Respondent to rid the plant of an active union adherent, rather than for the reason which it offered as an explanation By his discharge the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Cf NLRB v. Burnup and Sims, Inc , 379 U S 21, 22-23 "Cf. E Anthony & Sonsv NLR B . 163 F 2d 22, 26(CADC ),cert denied 332 U S 773, where the Court there said, in sustaining the Board's finding of a discriminatory termination " these employees had been long-time, responsible and faithful employees All were discharged summarily , without preliminary warnings, admonition or opportunity to change the act or practice complained of Such action on the part of an employer is not natural " See also United Stater Rubber Company v N L R B . 384 F 2d 660, 662 (C A 5), where the court stated "Perhaps most damning is the fact'that both Brewster and Morales were summarily discharged after reports of their misconduct without being given an J P. STEVENS & CO. 265 4 Mary Frances Bradley Mrs Bradley was never employed by the Respondent It is the contention of the General Counsel that as an applicant for employment she would have been hired by the Company but for her identification with certain of the leaders in the organizational campaign This allegation is denied in its entirety by the Respondent Bradley testified that prior to 1968 she applied for employment at the Statesboro mill on several occasions. According to Bradley, in doing so she filed an application which required, along with the information customarily requested on such a form, that she name all relatives then working at the plant Bradley included in this listing the names of Truman Delano Cribbs, her brother, and Charles Waters, a brother-in-law in December 1967, Bradley had an interview with Personnel Manager Herrington at which the latter told her that it would be impossible to employ her until she lost some weight Herrington testified that she weighed approximately 240 pounds at the time. On April 30, Bradley returned to Herrington's office to renew her request for employment She testified that at this point she had lost approximately 80 pounds and that she told Herrington she was back because she desparately needed a job and she had heard that the Company was hiring employees on the midnight shift According to Bradley, after Herrington told her that only one new employee had been hired recently, he then questioned her as to whether she was, in fact, related to Truman Cribbs and Charles Waters Bradley testified that shortly after this conversation with Herrington she went to the office of William Bowen, Mayor of the City of Statesboro According to Bradley, she felt that an appeal for his assistance might help her prospects, because the mayor had aided others in getting employment with the Respondent, including Waters, her brother-in-law Bradley testified that the mayor asked her how she felt about the Union and that after she expressed her opposition to it, he told her that he was not for it, either, that "We don't need it and if it comes to town the plant will close, and I know what I am talking about." According to Mrs Bradley, he thereupon volunteered to contact Herrington on her behalf She testified that he then interrupted their conversation and while she remained at his desk he placed a telephone call to Herrington According to Bradley, Mayor Bowen told the personnel manager that she needed a job and that he would appreciate it if Herrington would help her get employment Bradley testified that, after concluding this telephone call to the plant, Mayor Bowen turned to her and said "Mary Frances you know you have some people out there that are red hot for the Union " She conceded that this was true of both her brother, Truman Cribbs, and her brother-in-law, Charles Waters According to Bradley, after she had made this acknowledgement, the mayor told her "We don't want it We don't need the Union, and I know what I am talking about It would cause them to move or to close down " In concluding the conversation, Mayor Bowen promised that he would talk to Herrington again later that week " Bradley testified that on May 6, she returned to the plant and talked with Herrington once more According to her, the latter declared that no job was available either then or in the foreseeable future and that there was "no need in wasting [her] time" with further inquiries Bradley was never employed During the latter part of April and early in May the Respondent was hiring employees and it was undenied that several women were hired during that period Herrington testified that when Bradley came to see him in December 1967, she had weighed about 240 pounds and that he told her then that he could not hire her because she was overweight Herrington acknowledged that when she returned in April she had lost some weight, but he gave various reasons for not employing her at that time According to the personnel manager, the Company hired women as spinners, winders and twisters Herrington testified that, in his opinion, Bradley was not agile enough to be a spinner, she was too tall to be a winder and she was too heavy to be a twister He conceded that if she lost more weight she might have been satisfactory as a twister, but that in April the Company was not hiring twisters. According to Herrington, "she was too heavy and too tall, she just wasn't suitable for the departments in which I had vacancies." During the month that elapsed from April 30 to May 31 the Respondent hired 23 new employees, of which number 9 were women 1° Of these, Fannie Bryant, was hired on April 30, the day that Herrington told Bradley there was nothing available for her Another, Lessie Overstreet, was hired on May 2 A third, Vicki Bragg, was hired on May 6, the day that Herrington told Bradley that she was wasting her time making further inquiries One of the women hired during this period was Kay Bonette, who was hired on May 30 as a winder. Herrington had testified that agility was one of the qualities which he sought in an applicant for such a position Bonette's employment application disclosed that she was 5 feet 2 inches tall and weighed 170 pounds When questioned as to how he satisfied this requirement in an applicant with such height and weight proportions as that of Mrs Bonette, Herrington testified that he "judged her . muscle tone" and concluded that she was a satisfactory prospect for a winder's position At the time Bradley originally applied for a job, both Cribbs and Waters were employed in the plant, and she listed them on her application as relatives After the Union began its campaign, both of them became active on its behalf As found above, on March 26, the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Cribbs for his part in the organizational drive On April 23, and immediately after losing the election, the Union filed the charge in Case 10-CA-7323 wherein it alleged, inter alia, that Cribbs had been discriminatorily terminated Thereafter on April 30, when Bradley had an interview with Personnel Manager Herrington he questioned her as to her relationship with both Cribbs and Waters When Herrington gave her little encouragement that she would ever be hired, she went to Mayor Bowen and sought his aid After expressing his own opposition to the Union and after being assured by her that she also was opposed to the Union, he telephoned Herrington Immediately upon concluding the telephone conversation with the personnel manager, he told her that he had just learned that she had some relatives at the plant "that are red hot for the union ." and then closed the discussion with a reiteration of his own opinion that opportunity to explain or give their versions of the incidents " "Herrington never denied having had such a conversation with Mayor Bowen "These were Fannie Bryant, Lessie Overstreet, Vicki Bragg, Zella Sprague, Margie Deal, Kay Bonette , Rosie Ellis , Shelby Hill, and Brenda Braxley 266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the arrival of the Union might cause the mill "to move or to close down " In the light of the foregoing and the fact that during this period the Respondent hired a number of women for openings at the plant, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that, on the evidence in this record, the Respondent denied employment to Bradley, on and after April 30, 1968, not because she was overweight, too tall, or lacking in agility for the openings available, but because of her close relation to Cribbs whom it had discriminatorily terminated only a short while before, and because of its manifest hostility to the Union By its refusal to hire Bradley for this reason, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) Phelps Dodge Corp v N L R B, 313 U S 177, 187, N L R B v American Compress Warehouse, 321 F 2d 547, 549-550 (C A 5), cert denied 375 U S 968, N L R B v East Texas Steel Castings, 211 F 2d 813, 8 18-8 19 (C A 5). The Representation Proceeding On February 21, 1968, the Union filed a representation petition seeking an election for the employees in a production and maintenance unit at the Statesboro plant On March 26, after a hearing on this petition,15 the Regional Director for the Tenth Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in J P Stevens & Co , Inc , Case 10-RC-7342. Pursuant to this decision, an election was held at the plant on April 22 to 23 At that time, in a unit of approximately 330 eligible voters, 110 cast ballots for the Union and 198 cast ballots against it 16 Thereafter, the Union filed timely objections to the election On May 2, the Regional Director issued a Supplemental Decision wherein he found that the Employer had failed to submit the requisite eligibility list prior to the election The Regional Director thereupon ordered that the aforesaid election be set aside and that a second election be conducted among the employees in the unit here involved Case lO-CA-7450 Upon a charge duly filed and served," the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 10, issued a complaint dated October 4, 1968, wherein it was alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent denied all allegations that it had committed any of the alleged unfair labor practices A motion by the General Counsel to consolidate Case 7450 with Cases 7261, 7323, and 7364, was granted by the Trial Examiner in an order dated October 22, 1968 As noted earlier, the trial of the issues with which the complaint in Case 7450 was concerned, began on December 10, 1968, and was concluded on February 7, 1969, after an extended recess necessitated by the illness of counsel The Evidence as to the Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(5), Findings and Conclusions with Respect thereto I The appropriate unit In his decision in Case 10-RC-7342, the Regional "The hearing was held on March 18 "There were 2 void and 14 challenged ballots I'The charge was filed on August 15, 1968 Director found that all production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom employees, dyehouse employees, quality control department employees, production control department employees, and specifically including sample clerks and clerk-typists or clerks in said departments, leadmen, and fixer-leadmen, but excluding office clericals, industrial engineering department employees, personnel office employees, professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit. At the trial in the complaint proceeding, the Respondent offered no evidence that would tend to prove any change of circumstances or any other intervening fact which would necessitate a modification in the unit determination of the Regional Director Accordingly, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the unit described above was, at all times material herein, appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 2. The demand for recognition and issues as to whether the Union had a majority By letter dated February 17, 1968, the Union, wrote to Plant Manager Edwin Bachman that the Textile Workers had been designated as the bargaining agent by a majority of the employees in a unit made up of the production and maintenance employees at the Statesboro plant, excluding office clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors "' The letter contained a demand that the Union be recognized as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit It further stated that if the Company had a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority We hereby offer to submit the authorization cards signed by your employees to a representative of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or to any other disinterested third party mutually agreed upon, in order that our majority status in the bargaining unit may be verified, by having the signatures of the authorization cards checked with your payroll records by such third party In a letter, dated February 20, Plant Manager Bachman acknowledged receipt of the Union's demand for recognition and stated that circumstances that had come to the Company's attention indicated that a majority of the employees did not desire union representation. The letter also rejected the Union's proposal that a third party card check be utilized to resolve the majority question Bachman concluded his response with the statement that he assumed the Union would refer the matter to the National Labor Relations Board for its disposition The General Counsel contends that this initial request for recognition was a continuing demand and that it was subsequently restated on several occasions prior to the election in April The record supports this contention At the representation hearing held on March 18, Albert Horn, the union representative at that proceeding, stated to Respondent's counsel that the Union had a substantial majority among the employees in the unit and that its demand for recognition, made previously, was a continuing demand. "This was substantially the same unit grouping which the Regional Director subsequently found appropriate in the decision described above J. P. STEVENS & CO. McIver testified, credibly and without contradiction, that on April 20, in a preelection conference, he met with Personnel Manager Herrington and Plant Superintendent Aikens to discuss the eligibility list for the voting According to McIver, he proposed to Herrington and Aikens that, since an overwhelming majority of the employees had signed authorization cards, all the problems connected with an election could be avoided if the Company would recognize the Union. McIver testified that the plant officials ignored his proposal McIver further testified that on the morning of April 22, and just before the balloting began, the Board agent conducting the election asked him and the company representative present whether they had anything to consider before opening the polls. According to McIver, whereas he again requested that the Company recognize the Union at that time, the management officials present made no response. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Union's demand for recognition and bargaining, first made in its letter of February 17, 1968, was a continuing demand and that it was renewed thereafter, as described above, on March 18, and April 20 and 22. Further, this demand was rejected by the Respondent in its letter of February 20 and at all times subsequent thereto The parties stipulated as to the admission of four different lists which set forth the names and classifications all employees in the appropriate unit as of February 17, March 18, and April 20 and 22. According to these exhibits, on February 17, there were 347 employees in the unit, on March 18, there were 341 On April 20 and 22 there were 323 To the question as to whether the Union did, in fact, have a majority in the unit on any, or all, of these dates, we will now turn. a The dive to secure authorization cards The Union distributed two types of cards during the course of its campaign at the Statesboro plant. The first of these read as follows Type A TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA Affiliate of the AFL-CIO and CLC (Date) 196- I hereby join with my fellow workers at the mill in organizing a union in order to better our conditions of life and secure economic justice, as is my right under the laws of the United States To this end I declare that the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO and CLC, shall be my representative in collective bargaining over wages , hours and all other 267 conditions of employment . I make this pledge of my own free will in the conviction that the united action of all workers through unions of their own choosing is the way to achieve the liberty of the individual for the benefit of all MILL DEPARTM ENT NAME- SHIFT (Do not print) ST. AND NO CITY PHONE- The second card used by the Union read as follows Type B TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA Affiliate of the AFL-CIO and CLC (Date) 196- I hereby accept membership in the Textile Workers Union of America of my own free will and do hereby designate said Textile Workers Union of America as my representative for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other conditions of employment, MILL DEPARTMENT. SHIFT NAMF (Do not print) ST. AND NO CITY HOME PHONE NO. The foregoing are worded unambiguously and on their face clearly set forth a purpose to designate the Union as the signatory's collective-bargaining agent As such, they do not have any of the limitations or disabilities which the Board and the Courts have attributed to so-called dual purpose cards The type of authorization here involved, therefore, is the kind of which the Board stated in Levi Strauss & Co . 172 NLRB No. 57. An employee who signs such a card may perhaps not understand all the legal ramifications that may follow his signing, but if he can read he is at least aware that by his act of signing he is effectuating the authorization the card declares The union solicitation for employee signatures on the authorization cards began the latter part of January At the behest of Harold McIver, on January 24, two organizers under his direction , Estes Riffe and Robert Best, went to Statesboro, where they began distributing 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union leaflets to all employees entering and leaving the plant. Riffe and Best left Statesboro immediately after passing out the leaflets to employees on all three shifts The leaflets in question consisted of a folded sheet on which an organizational appeal and a statement as to the advantages of a union were directed to the Stevens' employees An imprinted authorization card appeared on one corner of the sheet The latter was of the first type reproduced above The leaflet urged the Stevens' employees to fill out this card and mail it back to the Union in an envelope that was attached to the leaflet McIver testified that as a result of this pamphleteering, the Union received approximately 70 of these cards in the mail. On February 8, McIver, Best and Riffe arrived at the access road to the Statesboro plant and renewed their leaflet campaign. This time they distributed another pamphlet which also had an authorization card attached, along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope. McIver testified that approximately 30 more signed cards were received as a result of this distribution All three organizers testified that in handing out their leaflets on January 24 and February 8 they had little, or no, time, to engage in any discussion with the employees as the latter drove by in their cards while entering or leaving the plant The union representatives testified credibly that, in substance, all that was said to the employees was that if they wanted a union, they should sign the card on the leaflet, or attached to it, and mail it back to the Union All three testified, credibly, that they did not mention an election to any of the employees Shortly after the second distribution of leaflets, McIver mailed a letter to all who had signed cards wherein he announced that the Union would hold an organizational meeting on February 12, at the Cooperville Community Center On February 12, McIver held two separate meetings in order to accommodate all the employees on the three different shifts In each instance, McIver talked at length on the steps the Union proposed to follow in organizing the employees Initially, he pointed out the necessity of as many employees as possible signing the authorization cards. He told the employees that when a majority of them had signed cards, the Union would write the Company, advising it that on the basis of the cards it represented a majority and wished to bargain, on their behalf Mclver told the employees that the Union would suggest to the Company that if it doubted the Union's majority, a disinterested third party, such as a minister or a representative of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, could examine the cards and ascertain their authenticity. McIver told the employees that whereas many employers would recognize a union upon proof of a card majority, in the light of his experience with Stevens, he did not anticipate that their employer would accord such recognition. McIver told those present that if the Company rejected the Union's demand for recognition, the Union would petition the Labor Board for an election. In his talk to the employees he emphasized that by signing the cards the employees were giving the Union authority to represent them and that they were proving their support for the Union He further stressed that the union representatives had not come to secure an election but to organize the employees and secure bargaining rights on their behalf at the Statesboro plant McIver likewise solicited the help of those present in securing more signed authorization cards from their coworkers. He also distributed copies of an organizing committee sheet and read to them the four lines which appeared at the top 19 During the course of the campaign, approximately 153 employees signed these sheets On February 15, McIver held two further meetings in Cooperville with the employees on the different shifts He testified that a total of approximately 120 attended At the meetings on this date, McIver again reviewed the procedure which the Union proposed to follow in securing recognition as their bargaining agent That same day, as found earlier herein, Plant Manager Bachman delivered a speech about the Union to all of the employees in which he told them that there would come a time when their authorization cards would be laid on the table for him to see Several employees questioned McIver as to this threat to the confidentiality of their cards In response to such questions, McIver told those present that the only occasion when authorization cards would be disclosed would be in a situation where a majority of the employees had signed cards and thereafter the employer illegally destroyed this majority by unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion At this time, McIver again stressed the significance of the employees' signing cards, and the fact that this action demonstrated the support of the individual for the Union. Mclver credibly testified that at no time during these meetings did he, Riffe or Best tell the assembled employees that the authorization cards would be used only to secure an election." A number of union meetings were held subsequent to February 15 and many union leaflets were distributed to the employees. One of these was passed out to the employees shortly after February 21 when the Union petitioned for a Board-conducted election. This reviewed the fact that the Union had requested that the Company recognize it on the basis of a card majority It also reiterated the proposal that the Company could designate a disinterested third party to determine the Union's majority claim by checking the authenticity of signatures on the cards. The pamphlet concluded with an outline of representation procedures whereby the Company could agree to a consent election or wait for the Board to direct an election "The heading at the top of this document read as follows I hereby authorize the Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, to use my name for the purpose of organizing Gulistan Plant - J P Stevens & Co , Inc This will include sending my name to the National Labor Relations Board as a Voluntary Organizer Also to be used in the signing of Union leaflets "This finding is based upon some of the most controverted testimony in the record McIver testified that prior to the outset of the campaign at the Statesboro plant, the Union had held a meeting at its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina , and there reviewed the practices that would have to be followed in soliciting cards According to McIver , at this time he and his associates were apprised of the problems connected with solicitation of cards for dual purposes and they were specifically instructed to advise the employees that the primary purpose for signing a card was to organize the Union and not to obtain an election McIver, Riffe, and Best were mature, experienced , union leaders who had spent many years in organizational activities Their testimony on this issue was credible and it successfully withstood an extended and searching cross-examination Moreover, their testimony as to what was said at the meetings on February 12 and 15 was corroborated by that of many employees who were present Eg Floyd Miller, Jack Bowen, Robert A Lee, Johnnie Hall, Addie 0 Jackson, Gerald Graham, Roosevelt Love, John W Mills, Charlie C Sheffield, Connie B Dixon, Johnnie Hall, and many others Whereas some of those present testified that at these meetings McIver and his associates told the employees that the cards would be used only to obtain an election (e g , Don Hughes , William H Simmons , and various others) the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that this latter testimony was totally and completely incredible J. P. STEVENS & CO. Shortly before the election on April 22 and 23, McIver sent a letter to all who had signed cards wherein he told the employees involved, inter alia, that any who wished to withdraw his membership or have his name removed from the organizing committee could do so at a meeting scheduled for April 20. In a subsequent leaflet, distributed on the eve of the election to all employees at the plant, the Union claimed that no employee had withdrawn from the Union and that, at that time, 80 percent of the employees in the plant had signed membership cards This same leaflet also contained the names of 147 employees who had enlisted as members of the voluntary organizing committee. b Cards signed on or before February 17 (1) Cards as to which there was no dispute The cards of the following named employees were signed on or before February 17, the signatories testified to having signed the cards, or a witness to the signature testified, and there was no testimony or evidence, that the employee was told that the card would be used solely for the purpose of getting an election. Gary Akins Robert L Andrews Shelton Bacon Jack F. Bazemore Marion Beard Earl Gene Berry Larry Berry Laurie Blitch Wendell Bragg Gertrude Brown Helen Brown Charles H. Conner Wayne Connor 2i Jesse Covington Myrtle Marie Cribbs Truman Delano Cribbs 22 Thelma Driggers Gladys Dyches William English 2l Charles A Gay Sam Graham Freddie Joe Grant Randall Groover Betty J. Gross Patsy Hagan Dell L. Hendley, Jr. Donnie Hendley Bernard Hendrix Calvin C. Hendrix John F Hill L. D. Hill James F Hodges William C Hodges Agnes Hollingsworth" David Hood Enoch Howard Jerry Jones James Larry Kingery Jimmy Kingery Naomi F Lanier Eria La Cue Ebenezer Lee Robert A Lee Mattie Mae Lewis Jimmy F. Lesley Jeannette Littleton25 Reba Lott Burdessie Love Grady Love Roosevelt Love Fred C. Lovett Jake Lundy James McCall Alfred McCollum Ted W McCorkle Harold D. McCray Annette McLaughlin B F McMillan William H. McMillan Thelmon B. McPhatter Jeroline Miles Andrew C Miller, James D. Miller Roger D Miller John W. Mills Betty Mincey Ernest T. Mock Stevie Motes Charles Nessmith Isaac Parrish Christine Prince Jr. Bernie Lee Robinson Aubrey Scott William E. Sheley Joyce Skinner Lee Swenson Smith Elwood M. Thompson Margene Thompson Charles A. Waters J. T. Wells John D. West Doy Woods "Although Connor was discharged on February 16, this termination, as found above, was discriminatory Consequently, Connor remained an (2) Other cards signed prior to February 17 269 The cards of the following named employees should be counted for the reasons set forth below. Fred Bazemore testified as a witness for the Intervenor. According to Bazemore, he signed his card at the union meeting of February 15 and at that meeting McIver said that the card "was for to get election . get so many of 'em that they was gonna put a petition in Atlanta." On the other hand, on cross-examination, Bazemore conceded that he may have misunderstood and that McIver may have said that after the Union secured a majority and the Company refused to recognize it, he (McIver) would go to Atlanta and file a petition for an election Jessie Robert Bazemore testified that he received his card from one of the union organizers in January, that he brought it home and that his wife read it to him. Bazemore testified that at his request his wife thereupon signed the card and mailed it to the Union The card was dated January 29. On cross-examination, Bazemore testified that at the time he had his card signed, either Wayne Connor or Truman Cribbs had handed him a leaflet and told him that the Union wanted the cards signed to get an election This last testimony was not credible. Connor credibly testified that he did not become active in distributing leaflets until after his discharge on February 16 Cribbs credibly testified that he did not engaged in any solicitation on behalf of the Union until after he signed a card on February 5. Charlie Beasley signed his card at the meeting of February 15. He testified that either McIver or Riffe handed the card to him and told him "We're trying to organize a union." According to Beasley, he heard no mention of an election until considerably after this meeting Joe E Beasley signed a card that is dated January 24 He testified that he received it from one of the organizers who was passing out leaflets that day and that all that was said to him by the organizer was "Let's mail these things back in and get the campaign going." George Bland signed a card at the first union meeting on February 12. He conceded that he signed the card, but testified that he did not read it. He further testified that, during the meeting, McIver told those present that "if they could get enough people--about fifty-one or two percent to sign cards, they'd hold election." Apart from the fact that McIver's testimony as to what occurred at this meeting has already been found to reflect accurately what was said, Bland's testimony was not credible. While on the stand he displayed an air of casual indifference that bordered on the contemptuous His card should be counted Jack Bowen received his card from McIver at the union meeting on February 15 and signed it there Bowen testified that, in his speech to the employees, McIver emphasize that by signing authorization cards they were giving their full support to the Union According to Bowen, McIver told them there could be no partial employee within the meaning of the Act and his card must be counted "Since Cribbs' discharge on March 1 was discriminatory , as found earlier herein , Cribbs, like Connor, remained an employee for all purposes "Estes Riffe credibly testified that he saw English sign a card at the union meeting on February 15 This testimony was uncontradicted and undenied "At the time of the hearing this employee had married and testified as Agnes Hollingsworth Miller "At the time of the hearing this employee had remarried and appeared as Jeannette Littleton Wise 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supporters of the Union any more than a woman could be just a little bit pregnant Ronald D Bowen received a card from the union organizers on January 24, the first day they appeared at the plant. Bowen filled in the card, signed it and mailed it back to the Union. Thereafter he attended several union meetings, signed up as a member of the voluntary organizing committee and acted as one of the union observers at the election After the Union lost the election and after the hearing began in Case 7261, et al , he was subpoenaed as a witness for the General Counsel, but failed to respond until directed to do so by a court order enforcing the subpoena. Later, at the hearing in Case 7450, Bowen appeared as one of the intervenors At that time, on cross-examination by the Respondent, Bowen testified that the union organizers gave him to understand that if the Union was to come into the plant it had to win an election. On the basis of the early portion of the chronology set forth above, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Bowen signed the authorization card of his own free will and that his actions for a period of several months thereafter confirm that he intended to give the Union his complete support. It is the further conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the effect of the Respondent's interference, restraint and coercion, found earlier herein, are illustrated by Bowen's conduct subsequent to the election and his testimony many months later as to his "understanding" of what the union representatives meant The Court's language in a similar case is applicable here. we have here the classic case of employees testifying under the eye of the company officials about events which occurred almost a year before and prior to the activities which were subsequently found to constitute unfair labor practices. It is certainly conceivable that those same threats and benefits which shook an employee's original support for the union, also altered that employee's memory as to events which occurred before the presentation of such threats and benefits By the time of the hearing the employees may well have changed their mind with respect to union affiliation, but the crucial question in a refusal to bargain case is whether the Union had the support of a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit at the time the request to bargain was made, and not whether that support remains intact some ten months later International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v N L R B, 392 F.2d 801, 807-808 (C.A D.C ). Riley Brannen testified that he attended the union meeting on February 15, that he had Larry Kingery, a fellow employee, fill out a card for him, that he then signed the card and that thereafter he had his wife mail the card to the Union. Charles Brown signed a card at the union meeting on February 15 He was one of the intervenors at the hearing in Case 7450 and, in response to a question as to the purpose for which he had signed a card, testified that he had done so "to get an election to organize a union " Whereas this last statement in itself is ambiguous, Brown also testified that in McIver's speech, he told the employees that a union could be recognized on the basis of a card majority and that some employers did so There was no dispute as to whether Brown could read, nor any claim that he had not read the card. Earlier herein it was found that the cards were direct and unambiguous in setting forth that by the act of signing an employee designated the Union as his bargaining agent. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Brown's card must be counted.26 Roy E Chester was a supervisor and a very reluctant witness when called by the General Counsel early in the hearing He conceded that he signed an authorization card and that he was a rank-and-file employee until promoted to supervisor in July 1968 Chester's card was dated February 12. Wayne Connor credibly testified that Chester signed the card when Connor visited him at this home. Clyde Cone, Jr , signed a card that is dated February 7. He testified that he received it from one of the union organizers when pamphlets were being handed out on the highway. Cone denied that he ever read the card On the other hand, he testified that the organizer who handed it to him told him that it was a union card, and that thereafter he personally filled out the entire card and mailed it back to the Union. Cone also conceded that at a union meeting which he subsequently attended, an organizer explained the significance of the authorization card and that he never thereafter sought to withdraw his card He likewise conceded that at the same meeting he signed the organizing committee sheet. Cone's testimony that, notwithstanding having filled out the entire card, he never read it, was unconvincing. Even accepting his statement in this regard, it is apparent from the rest of his testimony that when he admittedly learned the purport of the card his subsequent course of conduct constituted a ratification of his signing of the authorization. Gordon Cone, Sr , appeared and testified that on about February 9 he filled out and signed the authorization card attributed to him. The Respondent endeavored to attack the authenticity of Cone's signature by offering various personnel records which were signed by a "Gordon E. Cone." The signatures on these`records do, indeed, differ substantially from that which appears on the authorization card. On the other hand Cone was examined as to his signature on the card on both direct and cross and throughout the examination credibly maintained that the signature thereon was his and, further, that he had filled out the entire card The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Cone's card should be counted. Remer Cone testified that he could not read, but that he realized the card which had been handed to him by an organizer was a union card. According to Cone, he took the card home, and asked his wife to fill it out and sign it for him Cone testified that his wife did so, and that she later mailed it to the Union In the absence of any misrepresentation by union agents, Cone's card must be counted. Jessie B Crosby was one of the intervenors in Case 7450. She acknowledged that she signed her card on about February 7, and that she read it before filling it out and signing it . She further testified, however, "I didn't understand I was joining a Union 'cause I thought before you joined something it had to be there already " On the other hand, Mrs. Crosby did not testify to any misrepresentation by the union organizers that would have caused her to be misled Under these circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the card should be counted as a valid designation. Glenda Davis was a witness for the intervenor. in Case 7450. She acknowledged having filled out a card and ""Where a card on its face clearly declares a purpose to designate the union, the card itself effectively advises the employee of that purpose, and particularly so where , as here, the form of the card is such as to leave no room for possible ambiguity " Levi Strauss & Co , 1712 NLRB No 57 J. P. STEVENS & CO. 271 having signed it at the union meeting on February 15. According to Davis, McIver told them at this meeting that the card was only for an election Earlier herein, McIver's denial that he made such a statement was found credible Davis also testified that she did not read the card This statement, however, was hardly credible in view of the fact that she conceded having filled out all the blanks on the card before she signed it. Tending to establish that the signing of the card was no isolated act on her part, Davis likewise conceded that after the initial union meeting she attended five or six more organizational meetings and that at one of them she had Linda Bolton, a coworker, sign the organizing committee sheet on her behalf In view of the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Davis' card was a valid designation Henry Davis testified that he signed a card at the union meeting on February 15 According to Davis, at this meeting McIver told those present that "if we sign the cards -- had to have so many, then they'd go to the Company to recognize the Union, and then if they didn't recognize the Union, they would file for an election at the plant Connie C Dixon signed a card at the union meeting on February 15. She denied that there was any mention of an election by the organizers who spoke at this meeting According to her, there was never any mention of an election until sometime later "when the election was fixin' to be held " Ruth A Durden acknowledged having filled out and signed a card on February 15 According to her, James D Miller and Wayne Connor, two fellow employees, came to her home and Miller told her "come on and sign the card, that they only needed a few more to get this certain percentage so they could file for an election " Durden testified that she thereupon signed the card "so they could file to have an election " Miller credibly testified that he had made no such statement to her According to Miller, he and Connor talked with her at her home and in the presence of her husband Miller testified that while he and Connor were there, Durden's husband, who had once been a union member, urged his wife to sign the card At the hearing, Durden testified that prior to signing the card she had attended a union meeting but that she had asked no questions while there because "I knew what the Union was about." On the facts surrounding the signing of this card, it is apparent that there were no misrepresentations by the Union, that Durden knew what she was doing when she filled out the card and signed it and that it, therefore, constituted a valid designation Ralph Evans acknowledged having signed a card on about February 16 He at first denied that he had read the card, but he later amended this statement by admitting that he had read part of the card but that he could not remember precisely how much He also conceded that after signing the card he subsequently signed the organizing committee sheet. Evans testified that he gave the card to Wayne Moore, a fellow employee, after the latter told him that the card was to "get an election at the plant " Evans was not a credible witness, but even assuming that Moore made the statement attributed to him, the Board has held that "The fact that employees may be told that an election is contemplated or that the card will make an election possible does not. vitiate unambiguously worded authorization cards in the absence of an expressed representation that they will be used only for an election. McEwen Manufacturing Company. 172 NLRB No. 99 Edward L Fanning did not testify and no one testified as to having witnessed the signing of the name that appears on the card The card is dated February 8 and on its back appears the stamp of the Tenth Regional Office indicating that it was received there at 1 05 p m on February 21, when the Union submitted the necessary authorization cards to establish the requisite showing of interest at the time the representation petition was filed Roosevelt Love testified that in his work as a fellow employee he had seen Fanning sign his name frequently and that, in his opinion , the signature on the authorization card in question was that of Fanning . Several personnel documents from the Respondent ' s files which admittedly bore Fanning' s signature were offered in evidence The signatures on these documents appear to be identical with that on the authorization card The Respondent offered no evidence to the contrary At the hearing , the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the offer of this card It is now received in evidence Further , the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that this card, so identified , is a valid designation and should be counted. Frances Floyd and Jacqueline Lowery All of the authorization cards were printed on blue paper, as were the cards bearing the signatures of these two employees Floyd and Lowery conceded that the handwriting and signatures which appeared on these respective cards were their own However, they testified that they thought that the cards they had signed were white Floyd's card is dated January 25, the envelope in which it was received by the Union is postmarked January 26 , and the authorization card was backstamped by the Tenth Region Office at 1 06 p m , February 21 Lowery's card is undated, but the envelope in which it was received by the Union is postmarked February 8, and the card bears a backstamp of the Tenth Regional Office as 1 08 p m , February 21 Both cards were the type which appeared in the Union 's early leaflet to the employees , and both witnesses remembered having cut them out and mailed them back to the Union Under these circumstances, it must be held , as the Trial Examiner now holds, that the subjective recollection of these witnesses cannot negate their objective act of having signed these cards on or before February 8 They, therefore, must be counted Jerry E Gerrald signed a card and then turned it in at the Union meeting on February 15 He testified that McIver told those present that a majority would have to sign the authorization cards and that thereafter the Union would write the Company requesting recognition According to Gerrald , McIver told the employees , that if that did not bring recognition , the Union would then petition for an election Gerrald denied that McIver or anyone else present said that if enough cards were signed the Union would merely use them to get an election Gerald Graham signed his card at the union meeting on February 15 His testimony as to what was said at that meeting corroborated the testimony of Gerrald set forth above Dovis L Gwinnette testified that she signed her card at the union meeting on February 12. She testified that at that time McIver told the employees present "get the majority of cards signed, and if the Company would negotiate with us, there wouldn 't be no election, but if they didn't they [the Union] would call an election " Johnnie Hall signed his card at the union meeting on February 15 According to Hall , McIver told the employees at that time that "if he could get the majority to sign cards that the Company may recognize [the Union] by letting a minister come in and check [the 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cards, but if [the Company wouldn't], that they would have to file a petition for an election " Mae Nessmith Hendrix27 signed a card on January 26 On cross-examination by counsel for the Intervenor she testified that she signed it to get an election On the other hand, she had testified earlier that she read the card before signing it and that prior to signing the card she had talked with no union representatives. Finally, on redirect, she testified that she signed the card before she heard any talk in the plant about an election Her card should be counted Don Hughes signed a card at the union meeting on February 12 Although he denied having read the card before signing it, he conceded having filled out most of the card himself On further examination as to this issue, he conceded that he at least "glanced over it enough to fill it out " Hughes testified that McIver told those present that the cards would be used only "to call for an election" and that "the election would decide whether we had a union or not, that was the only way to get it in." On this issue, Hughes was totally incredible Earlier herein, it was found that McIver made no such statements as Hughes would attribute to him. Hughes' card should be counted Addie 0 Jackson signed her card at the union meeting on February 15 She testified that the organizer told them that "in signing the card, we would be signing the card to organize the union he said that if received enough signed cards, we could - it would have to be the majority that he would take the cards to the Company, and if the Company recognized the cards, then the Union could go in on the cards, but, if not, then he would file a petition for an election and that an election would be held." Eddie Jones was an intervenor and on examination by Counsel for the Intervenors he testified that he signed a card "to have an election " On the other hand, he testified that he received his card from one of the organizers about February 8, that he read the card, understood what it was, filled it out and signed it and thereafter mailed it back to the Union He further testified that between the time he received the card and the time he mailed it he had no conversation with any union organizer Jones' card should be counted. James Jones2e had his wife sign a card for him on February 9 Jones testified that the union organizer who gave him the card did not mention an election, but merely told him at the time "fill 'em out and get 'em in "29 Sue H Jones signed a card dated February 16 At the hearing she appeared as one of the intervenors and testified that she did not read the card before signing it She further testified that James D Miller, a fellow employee, told her at the time she signed the card that "we don't need but just a few more and we'll have enough to file for an election." Miller, on the other hand, denied having made this statement to Jones His denial was credible Notwithstanding Jones' initial testimony that she "This card is signed "Mae Nessmith " Mrs Hendrix married subsequent to executing the authorization "At the hearing the Respondent contended that Jones was not a member of the unit because he was a boilerman - watchman Jones, however, testified that he was not reclassified to the latter job until sometime in March This testimony is corroborated by the employee lists which the Respondent supplied On these lists for February 17 and March 18, Jones is classified as a waste collector and as a member of the unit "Jones testified that he subsequently signed another card that was given him by a fellow employee and that on this latter occasion his coworker told him that the card was only to get an election This card, however, was never offered in evidence had not read the card, she conceded that she had filled out the entire card in her own handwriting, that she subsequently attended a union meeting and that she also signed up as a member of the organizing committee. In view of these circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Jones' card should be counted Ozell Lawrence signed a card dated February 8 He testified that he filled out the card and mailed it to the Union He also identified the envelope in which it was sent. This latter bears a postmark of February 10 On cross-examination by Counsel for the Respondent, Lawrence testified that before he signed the card he heard McIver say that when a majority had signed the cards "he'll file a petition with the Labor Board for election." Earlier, however, Lawrence testified that it was McIver who gave him the card initially and that the union organizer said nothing to him at that time. Later in the hearing, Lawrence testified that McIver made the remark in question at the second union meeting The latter was held on February 15, and several days after Lawrence had mailed the card to the Union Under these circumstances, the statement attributed to McIver, even if true, would be irrelevant Lawrence's card should be counted Tommy Lewis signed a card dated February 12. Lewis testified that he read it and then filled it out before signing the card On cross-examination by Counsel for the Respondent, Lewis testified that at the union meeting of February 12, McIver said that the Union would have to have enough cards to get an election. On redirect examination, however, Lewis further testified that McIver told those present that "if they got enough cards signed that they'd take 'em to the Company and ask the Company to recognize 'em and . if they didn't, then they'd hold an election " Lewis' card should be counted Doy Love's card is dated January 31. He testified that the union representative who handed him the card, urged him to sign it to help "recognize the Union." According to Love, it was not until some time after he had signed the card that he learned that it could also be used to help the Union get an election Gerald McMillan signed a card that is dated February 7. McMillan testified that he received the card from McIver when leaving the plant with several coworkers According to McMillan, McIver told him that if the cards were signed, "we wouldn't be obligated to anything any farther than having an election." McMillan's testimony in this connection was contradicted by McIver The latter credibly denied having made any such comment to McMillan or anyone else in the car Mover's denial was corroborated by the testimony of Jerry Jones, the driver of the car in which McMillan was a passenger According to Jones, the union organizer said nothing as he handed leaflets and authorization cards through the car window In any event, McMillan testified that he read the card, that he understood it and that he filled it out completely before signing it Under these circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes that the card should be counted. Ike McNeely's card is dated January 25 McNeely testified that he received the card from one of the union representatives who was handing out leaflets near the plant He testified that he read the card, filled it out completely and then signed it, without having had any conversation with a union representative. McNeely testified that later he attended about three union meetings and that at one of them he heard McIver say that a petition would be filed for an election when he had enough cards McNeely could not recall at which meeting it was that he heard this remark. It was undisputed that the first J P STEVENS & CO. 273 union meeting was held on February 12 Even if true, the comment attributed to McIver could have no relevance as to a card that was signed on January 25 J C Marsh and Glenda Marsh The cards of these employees, husband and wife, are dated February 14 and 13 They received the cards from Jesse Covington, a fellow employee Both were intervenors at the hearing Each one testified as to not having read the card before signing it. On the other hand, each one testified to having filled out all the blank spaces on the card before signing the authorization and turning it over to Covington Mrs Marsh testified that she heard that the purpose of it was to obtain an election, but she conceded that this was not until after she had signed the card. Marsh testified that a few days before signing his card he heard some of the employees say that there would be an election if a majority signed the cards Marsh conceded, however, that when Covington handed him the card, he asked him to sign and said nothing else while Marsh filled out the card and then returned it to Covington The testimony of both Marshes that they had not read the cards before signing them lacked any persuasiveness in view of their admittedly having filled out the cards in their own handwriting prior to signing them Here, again, in line with controlling authority, the objective act of signing the cards is conclusive and requires that they be counted The Trial Examiner so finds Claudie Martin appeared at the hearing and testified that he had his daughter fill out and sign his card It was dated January 27 Martin testified that he received the card from one of the organizers outside the plant and that at that time the union representative said nothing to him and his coworkers other than to advise them "to send them [the cards] in to organize the Union " At the hearing on December 11, 1968, Martin's card was received in evidence without objection by Counsel for the Respondent On February 7, 1969, and before the close of the hearing, however, the Reporter stated that he was unable to find this particular authorization card Whatever the reason for what appears to have been the inadvertent loss of this exhibit, the Trial Examiner concludes that Martin's card, about which the employee testified, credibly and without dispute, and which card was received in evidence, should be counted J0 Floyd Miller" signed a card at the union meeting on February 12 According to Miller, McIver told them at this meeting " get the union cards signed you had to have 51 percent, the majority of the cards signed ..then they would take 'em to the company sometimes they would recognize the cards and accept the union cards. if they didn't, they would apply to the Labor Board for an election .[or] they could bring in a third party to check the cards out - a preacher or somebody else " Hubert Miller, Jr Miller's card is dated February 8 He testified that he authorized Joel Oglesby, a fellow employee, to fill out the card and sign it for him while they were driving home from work one day He testified that Oglesby never mentioned an election at the time According to Miller, he first heard about the possibility of an election when he subsequently attended the union meeting on February 12, and at that time he signed a JOtn a stipulation , received by the Trial Examiner on May 29, 1969, counsel and representatives for all parties agreed that , in lieu of the missing exhibit, Martin 's testimony could be utilized in arriving at a decision as to the authenticity of his authorization card The aforesaid stipulation is hereby received as Joint Exhibit I "On the Company 's records , Miller was listed as "William F Miller second card The only card offered and received in evidence, however, was the card which Miller had authorized Oglesby to sign for him on February 8 This should be counted Wayne Moote signed a card at the union meeting on February 15 Although Moore testified that at this meeting McIver told them that when a majority of the employees signed cards , the Union would petition for an election, this type of testimony has already been found incredible insofar as it attributed to McIver' s speech a statement that the sole purpose of the cards was to secure an election Moore also testified that he never read the card he signed and endeavored to give the impression that he really never understood what it meant It was undenied, however, that during the union campaign, Moore was active in soliciting his coworkers to sign authorizations and at one time he and James D Miller, a fellow employee who was also an active union campaigner, went to the office of Plant Manager Sheppard to speak on behalf of those employees who were supporting the Union Moore also conceded that he signed the organizing committee sheet and that he never tried to revoke his card In the light of these facts, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that on February 15, when Moore signed the card, he fully understood that the primary purpose of that act was to help in organizing the Union Accordingly , Moore's card should be counted Joel Oglesby and Sidney Bazemore Cards for these two employees were dated February 8 Oglesby testified that on that date he, Bazemore and Hubert Miller, J r , were leaving the plant in the same car when union organizers McIver and Riffe handed them authorization cards and leaflets According to Oglesby, shortly thereafter he announced to his companions that he intended to sign his card immediately , and that Miller thereupon told him to sign a card for him as well so that when they reached the town of Portal , Georgia, they could mail the cards. Oglesby testified that he then signed a card for himself and one for Miller and that when they reached Portal, Bazemore likewise asked that Oglesby sign a card for him. According to Oglesby . Miller then left the car and mailed all three cards Oglesby's testimony was credible and it was corroborated by Miller, when the latter testified Bazemore , however, denied that he had authorized anyone to sign his card, although he conceded that at the time in question he was riding to work with Oglesby and Miller and that all of them received union literature on about the day in question Bazemore testified on December ll, 1968 After he left the stand, Oglesby was called as a witness The latter testified that during the noon recess he was approached by Bazemore at a cafe near the courthouse in Statesboro , that Bazemore mentioned the fact that Oglesby had signed his card and that Bazemore concluded the conversation with the declaration " I'm got going to say anything about you signing my card and I'm gonna try and get out of this mess - if you don't " Oglesby's testimony was credible and it was never contradicted by any subsequent testimony by Bazemore In the light of all the circumstances here present, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the cards of both Oglesby and Bazemore should be counted 31 Jerry Potter signed a card dated February 7 Potter testified that he received the card from Riffe3J as he was leaving the plant and that the organizer told him that "At the hearing , the Trial Examiner ordered that Bazemore's card be placed in the rejected exhibit file This ruling is now withdrawn and Bazemore's card , marked G C Exh 22-96 , is hereby received "Potter did not identify Riffe by name, but described him as "the big 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "they were down here, gonna try to get a Union in but they had to get enough to get an election in 1134 Although Potter testified that thereafter he "just glanced over" the card before signing it, he carefully filled out the entire card in his own handwriting. Likewise, relevant is the fact that Potter subsequently attended the union meeting on February 15 and there signed up as a member of the organizing committee. Potter's card should be counted Willie D Robinson signed a card that was dated January 26. Robinson testified that he received a leaflet from McIver which had the card imprinted on it, that he cut out the card, filled out all the blanks on the card and then mailed it to the Union He testified that although he did not read the entire card he "read enough to know it was a union card." According to Robinson, McIver was the only organizer who spoke to him before he filled out the authorization and that all McIver said was to urge him to fill it out and mail it back to the Union Robinson testified that before he signed the card, Wayne Connor and Charles Waters, fellow employees, told him to sign the card and help bring on an election This last testimony, however, was not very persuasively given and was made even less convincing by Robinson's concession, on further examination, that at the time he signed the card he had not seen either Connor or Waters handing out cards or participating in any prounion solicitation Under these circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Robinson's card should be counted Woody Royal signed a card at the union meeting on February 15. According to Royal, both McIver and Riffe spoke at this meeting and "said something to the effect that the cards was only to get an election " Royal's testimony to this effect was not credible and it was contradicted by that of many others who were at the meeting, as found earlier herein Of some significance as to Royal's intentions was the fact that at this same meeting, Royal also signed up as a member of the organizing committee The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that as to any tabulation of the card signatories in February and March, Royal's card should be counted. On the other hand, whether it should be counted beyond that point is open to question Royal was promoted to a supervisory position shortly after the election and at the election he acted as an observer for the Company Whereas, all the credible evidence indicates that he executed the authorization card and signed the organizing committee sheet in good faith, at some later point he obviously changed his mind as is manifested by his having been selected as a company observer at the election David Rushing, signed a card that is dated January 25. He testified that he received the card from one of the union organizers as he was getting off his shift and that he signed the card within fifteen minutes after getting it and without any discussion with the union organizers According to Rushing, "I read most of it, I guess - most of it I could read, I read by the dash lights " Rushing did not go to any union meetings and, apparently, took no active part in the subsequent union campaign. He was an intervenor at the hearing and, when questioned by Counsel for the Respondent, testified that he thought the purpose one," a term that many witnesses used in describing Riffe who was tall and rather portly "As found earlier, Riffe credibly denied that he told any of the employees that the Union was soliciting cards only to get an election Moreover, Jerry Jones, in whose car Potter was riding at the time , testified that the organizer said nothing to them as he handed the employees the union cards and leaflets of the card was to hold an election On further examination as to the basis for this assumption, he conceded that the card, which he had read, did not mention an election,JS and that prior to signing the card he had heard no conversation about an election at the plant In view of Rushing's frank testimony as to the occasion on which he signed the card, the fact that the card made no mention of an election and his concession that he had heard no discussion of an election in the plant at that time, the Trial Examiner concludes that an employee election was an afterthought to this witness Accordingly, his card must be counted Charlie C Sheffield signed a card that is dated February 9 He testified that he received his card from McIver when the latter was distributing cards and literature on the plant access road Sheffield attended the union meeting on February 12 He testified that McIver did not mention an election at this meeting and that it was not until "about March" that he first heard McIver mention the subject at a union meeting According to Sheffield, at meetings prior to that time, McIver told the employees that the Union could come in without an election and on the basis of signed cards alone Otha Smith identified a card dated February 8 as having been signed on his behalf by a fellow employee. Smith testified that he received the card from McIver when the latter was passing out union cards and leaflets on the plant access road According to Smith, McIver told him "Y'all sign these cards and get 'em in, and we're trying to organize a union out there " Smith testified that although the card was not read to him, he knew that it was a union card and that he authorized a coworker to fill it out and sign it for him Smith's card should be counted Sammy Strouse signed a card at the union meeting on February 15 Strouse testified that McIver told those present that the "the first step toward organizing a union was to sign the cards " According to Strouse, McIver further told them that after a majority of the employees signed cards "the company would be notified they would have a chance to honor the cards or not If they did not then the cards would be carried to the Labor Board and filed for an election " Charlie S Tucker At some point after the election, but prior to the hearing, Tucker died. Two cards bearing the signature "Charlie S Tucker" were offered One card was dated February 8 and had a backstamp indicating that it was received at the Tenth Regional Office of the Board at 1.08 p.m on February 21 when the Union filed its petition for an election The other card was dated February 15 The General Counsel offered two documents from the Respondent's personnel files, an employee's personal history statement and a withholding exemption certificate, both of which bore Tucker's signature. A comparison of the signature which appears on these last mentioned documents and that which appears on the authorization cards indicates that they were all written by the same individual At the hearing, ruling was reserved on the offer of Tucker's cards and the personnel records.16 These are now received The card which is dated February 8 will be counted. "Rushing signed a Type A card , reproduced, supra Of course, neither the "A" nor the " B" type card mentioned an election "These exhibits are numbered as follows General Counsel's No 252 (card dated February 15), No 252 (a) (card dated February 8), No 252(b) personal history statement, and No 252 (c) withholding exemption certificate J. P. STEVENS & CO. Freddie Wiley identified a card which was signed for him by a fellow employee and dated February 7 Wiley testified that he received the card from McIver as the latter was distributing cards and literature outside the plant and that all that McIver said to him at the time was "fill the card out and mail it in " According to Wiley, he had Clyde Cone, a coworker, sign it for him and thereafter that same day he himself mailed the card to the Union He also testified that he knew that the card in question was a union authorization card although Cone did not read it to him. Wiley attended the union meeting on February 12 and testified that at this time Mclver said that the only purpose of the cards was to obtain an election Earlier, it was found that on the basis of credible evidence, McIver made no such statement Here, however, and in any event, Wiley's testimony in this connection is irrelevant with respect to his card which was signed five days before he attended the meeting in question Accordingly, his card should be counted Jimmie Williams identified a card which he signed and dated February 8 Williams testified that he received the card from McIver on the highway outside the plant. According to Williams, at that time, Mclver's only comment was that he "wanted to get the cards signed to organize a union . " Williams testified that he had no other contact with McIver prior to filling out the card and sending it to the Union He also testified that a few days prior to the time he had filled out another card and mailed it in to the Union Moreover, Williams testified that after the Union began holding meetings he attended five or six. The card which Williams signed on February 8 should be counted Regis Wise signed a card that is dated February 17 She testified that Wayne Moore gave her the card in the plant parking lot, and that although she did not read it at that time she knew it was a union card and signed it then. She further testified that Moore had talked with her about the Union earlier and that he had told her that "to get the Union in the plant, we would have to have the majority of the people sign cards, and they would be presented to the Company, and if the Company did not recognize it, we'd have an election, and knowing J. P Stevens, they wouldn't recognize it, and we would have an election, and that would determine if the Union would come in " Wise's card should be counted. Jerry Woodcock identified a card which he signed on about February 14." He testified that he signed the card the same day that he received it from Wayne Moore, that Moore said nothing to him at the time, that the latter "just handed me the card and I signed " Woodcock's card should be counted. Thomas Davis signed a card that is dated January 27 He testified that his wife read the card to him along with a union leaflet which he received from Otha Smith, a fellow employee, and that he had his wife sign the card for him the same day he got it Davis further testified that he signed the card "cause he (Otha Smith) say they was gonna have election " At the time he signed the card on January 27, there had been no mention of an election in any of the union leaflets or by any of the organizers The first union meeting was not held until over two weeks later When questioned as to whether he attended any union meetings after signing his card, Davis refused to answer The Trial Examiner concludes that Davis was not a credible witness with respect to the statement he "Although the card bears no dates. Woodcock testified that he signed it about two days after the union meeting on February 12 275 attributed to his coworker and that Davis' card should be counted (3) Certain cards mailed to the Union January 29 to February 14 Durrell Rushing signed a card that is dated January 25. He testified that he received a leaflet with an imprinted card from one of the organizers as he left the plant, that shortly thereafter he cut out the card, signed it and mailed it to the Union Rushing conceded that he never spoke to McIver or Riffe and that he attended no union meetings. On cross-examination he volunteered the statement "I signed the card for the sole purpose of having an election only " Walter Smith signed a card that is dated January 29. He testified that after getting the leaflet and card, he read them both, then cut out the card, filled it in and mailed it According to Smith, he received the card and leaflet from McIver and at the time the latter told him that "they had to have a certain number of cards in before they could file a petition for election " Council Taylor Lee's card is dated February 2 He testified that after receiving the card and leaflet on the highway he brought them home and had his daughter fill out the card and sign it for him. According to Lee, he knew the card was a union card when he asked his daughter to take care of it for him. Lee testified that although the union organizers said nothing to him when he first met them on the highway, on a later occasion McIver spoke to him and said "hurry and get the card off so we can get an election and get a union out there." Bobby Key had his wife sign a card for him that is dated February 8 He testified that he received the card on the access road from either McIver or Riffe and that at the time nothing was said about the purpose of the card He further testified, however, that a couple of days later Mclver told him that he should "mail it [the card] in so we can get an election." Jesse D Glisson had his wife sign a card for him that is dated February 8 He testified that the union organizer who handed the card to him on the highway urged him to sign it and send it back because it was necessary to "get a majority of cards signed and sent back in. . [to] hold an election " Lester Parker had his daughter sign a card for him that is dated February 9. He testified that a union organizer, whom he thought to be Riffe, told him "Fill out the card and get it in we'll see can we have an election out yonder to see if we can organize the union " Bernard T Hendrix signed a card that is dated February 14 He testified that at the time he received the card he was told "cards was for to have an election " Dollie Dyches signed a card that is dated February 14. She testified that she received the card from the organizers out on the highway and that, although they did not say anything at that time, the next day or two, they told her "sign 'em and get 'em, where we can have enough to have a election for the Union." As found earlier, on January 24, union organizers Riffe and Best spent a day in the vicinity of the plant, and passed out leaflets to the employees on each of the three shifts It was undisputed that only one type of leaflet was used. A copy appears in the record. The printed material on the leaflet recounts the history of the Union's campaign against Stevens at plants in other areas and dwells, in particular, on the significance of J P Stevens & Co v. N L R B, 380 F.2d 292 (C.A 2), cert. denied 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 389 U S. 1005. It concludes with an appeal to the employees to organize and urges that they fill out and mail an imprinted authorization card that appears on the pamphlet. In the last paragraph above this card there appears the words We pledge that as soon as a clear majority of fellow workers in your plant mail us their signed cards we will demand that J P Stevens commence collective bargaining No where in either the leaflet or in the imprinted authorization card is there any mention of an election On February 8, Riffe, Best and McIver spent another day on the access road, again contacting the employees on each of the three shifts This time they passed out authorization cards and attached business reply envelopes to facilitate return of the cards to the Union. Earlier herein it was found, on the basis of credible testimony by McIver, Riffe, Best and many of the employees, that none of the three organizers mentioned the prospect of an election during their solicitation on January 24 and February 8 In fact, very few words of any kind were spoken as the employees drove by in their cars Insofar as anything was said by the union representatives it was to emphasize the necessity of the employees signing the cards promptly in order to organize a union at the Statesboro plant The foregoing findings and conclusions are made by the Trial Examiner notwithstanding the testimony of some of the employees that in the latter part of January and the first two weeks of February 1968, the union representatives told them in words, or in substance, that the cards would be used only to secure an election It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner, based on the findings set forth above, and on the demeanor of the last mentioned witnesses when they appeared and testified in December 1968 and February 1969, that their testimony in this regard was hazy, inaccurate and incredible It is likewise the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that their afterthoughts, as reflected in this testimony, do not vitiate the objective act of having signed the cards Accordingly, it is found that the cards of Durrell Rushing, Walter Smith, Council Taylor Lee, Bobby Key, Jesse D Glisson, Lester Parker, Bernard T Hendrix and Dollie Dyches constitute valid designations which should be counted (4) Additional cards signed at the meeting on February 12 Jack Cannady , Jimmy C Miley and Cliff Rucker signed cards at the union meeting on February 12. Cannady testified that he understood the card was "to get an election ," Miley testified that McIver said that he wanted the employees to sign the card "to have an election" and, according to Rucker , McIver urged them to sign the cards "so he could have an election " All of them signed the " B" type cards which have only four lines of type whereby the signatory accepts membership in the Union and designates it as his collective -bargaining agent. Both Cannady and Rucker recalled hearing McIver tell them that lust as there was no such thing as a woman being a little bit pregnant , an employee was either for the Union or not for it. Both Cannady and Miley acknowledged having filled out the entire card in their own hand before signing it . Rucker, an illiterate , testified that he signed his card although he did not fill it in. Rucker further testified that after this particular meeting he attended approximately four other meetings during the course of the organizational campaign As found earlier, McIver and Riffe credibly testified that they did not tell any employees at this meeting that the cards would be used solely to get an election or that they were to be signed in order to get an election Here, again, on the basis of present Board case law, the overt act of signing the card on the part of each of the foregoing employees must be considered determinative McEwen Manufacturing Company, 173 NLRB No 99 Accordingly, the cards of Cannady, Miley, and Rucker must be counted (5) Additional cards signed at union meeting on February 15 Several of the employees who signed cards dated February 15 testified that at the union meeting on that date, McIver, or Riffe, told them that the purpose of the cards was to have an election According to Argentine Raymond, "so they could file a petition for the election", Wmard 0 Burke, "to get enough signed cards for an election", Jerry Collins, the cards were for an "election", Veronica Keel, "sign [cards] 'cause they were gonna have election", Rosa L Lewis, "sign the cards so they could hold the election at J P Stevens", Carolyn Lovett, card "was to get an election", John C Mills, purpose of card was "to organize for an election", James Pounds, "hurry up and get 'em signed in, so they could have an election", and Linda M Bolton, "if we'd sign enough cards to have the election that would decide whether the union'd come in or not" Some of the foregoing, such as Bolton, Lovett and Raymond testified that they never read the card although they acknowledged having filled out the entire card in their own handwriting All of the above-named employees conceded that at the union meeting of February 15, they had, in fact, signed the cards which were received in evidence As was the case with respect to testimony of the meeting held three days earlier, the Trial Examiner found credible the denials of McIver and Riffe that on February 15 they had ever told the employees present at the meeting that the cards would be used solely to get an election. Consequently, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the cards of the following named employees must be counted Linda M Bolton, Wmard 0 Burke, Jerry Collins, Veronica Keel, Rosa L Lewis, Carolyn Lovett, John C. Mills, James Pounds, and Argentine Raymond. (6) Additional cards signed on February 14, 15, 16, and 17 Jack Bragg signed a card that is dated February 15 He testified that McIver handed him the card and told him that the purpose of it was to get an election. Although Bragg testified that he did not read the card before filling it out and signing it, he conceded that McIver read the card to him Mclver's earlier denial that he told any of the employees that the sole purpose of the card was to get an election has been found credible, supra Bragg's card should be counted. Ruth J Kendrick signed a card dated February 16 She testified that she filled it out and signed it after James D. Miller, a fellow employee, told her that "they only lacked a few more so we could get election in the plant." The card in question was a "B" type Kendrick conceded that she read the card and she specifically recalled the first line which stated "I hereby accept membership in the Textile Workers Union of America of my own free will " Mildred J. P. STEVENS & CO. 277 G. Bailey signed a card dated February 17 She testified that employee James D Miller told her that the card was needed so that the Union could go to the Labor Board for an election She likewise testified that he further told her that the Union was a good thing and that it would help the employees Bailey conceded having read the card before she signed it, as she candidly explained "I'm sure I musty read it all very briefly and hurriedly - I had to [to] fill it out " Bailey never sought to withdraw her card The statements quoted above which Kendrick and Bailey attributed to Miller were credibly contradicted by that employee when he took the stand The cards of Kendrick and Bailey should be counted Several other cards here in issue were signed between February 14 to 16 They were solicited by employee Wayne Connor who, according to the signatories, told them that the purpose of the card was to get an election Thus, the following statements were attributed to Connor, bN Marv B Bolton "sign that card to have an election Larry Finch "he needed some more [cards]'fore they could file for an election ", Malcolm Mock "we had to get enough of a majority of 'em signed, where we would apply for election". Charles Stewart "sign a card they could send in for an election", and Walter V Street "card was to give the Union authority to have election " Bolton further testified that she never read her card, notwithstanding the fact that she filled out the entire card in her own handwriting Finch attended no meetings prior to signing the card, but did attend some thereafter He conceded that before signing his card he "might" have read the union leaflet that was distributed prior to that time, and he also conceded that at a union meeting some time later McIver told all present that anyone who wanted to withdraw his card could do so, but that he did not take advantage of this opportunity Connor credibly testified that he had never told Finch that the purpose of the card was to get an election According to Connor, Finch's principal concern at the time was whether Plant Manager Bachman would ever see his card. Connor testified "I told him I didn't think that Mr Bachman ever would get ahold of it, because the Union had the cards And so he said he would sign the card, so he took it around the corner and signed it " Mock, an illiterate, acknowledged that Connor had read the card to him, specifically recalled hearing the words "I hereby accept membership in the Textile Workers Union of America of my own free will" and testified that he understood that language. Although Stewart testified that he did not read the card before signing it, he acknowledged having gone to union meetings before he signed and stated that he attended several thereafter He further testified that he never attempted to get his card back In addition to the testimony of Street which is quoted above, that employee also testified " the' reason I finally signed its [the cards was to try to help the workin' conditions there in the shop, with the men I had to work for ." Connor specifically denied having told any of the foregoing employees that the purpose of the card was to get an election As to the occasion when Street signed a card, Connor further testified, credibly, that Street "asked me for the union card, I didn't offer him the union card to start with." On the basis of the foregoing findings, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the cards of the following named employees constitute valid designations and should be counted Mary B. Bolton, Larry Finch, Malcolm Mock, Charles Stewart and Walter V Street James R Akins, also known as "Randy" Akins, signed two cards, one dated February 15 and the other dated February 26 Wayne Connor credibly testified that he secured the second card from Akins and witnessed its signing on the latter date According to Connor, when he first approached Akins to sign a card, the employee protested that he had already signed one Connor testified that he then asked Akins if he would sign another card, since at the moment there was no record of the first authorization According to Connor, Akins thereupon signed another card On cross-examination, Connor testified that he later learned that McIver, who was out of the area at that time, had the first card with him At the hearing, when shown this first card Connor identified the signature as that of Akins This latter card is dated February 15 and also bears a stamp on the back indicating that it was received at 102 p m on February 21 in the Tenth Regional Office Upon the foregoing facts, the Trial Examiner concludes that both cards were valid designations and that the card dated February 15 should be counted for the purpose of determining the Union's majority, or the lack thereof, on February 17 Several other cards that were received in evidence are in a different category. The issues with respect to these cards are set forth below Rochel E Bland signed a card dated February 16 Bland testified that Larry Skinner, a fellow employee, came to his home and told him that "they didn't need but 10 more to have enough to have an election so I signed " According to Bland, he did not read the card before signing it Harry Dyches signed a card dated February 15 Dyches testified that the card was given to him by Bobby Joe Roberts, a coworker, who told him "it was an election card, for me to sign it, send it in, where we would get an election " According to Dyches, he did not read the card and it was never read to him before he signed it Florence Hendrix signed a card dated February 17 Hendrix testified that Bill English and Marcel Thompson, two fellow employees, brought the card to her home and told her that it was only for an election. She testified that before signing the card, she neither read it nor had it read to her Neither Skinner, Roberts, English nor Thompson testified with respect to any of the foregoing incidents. Consequently, the testimony of Bland, Dyches and Hendrix stands undenied and uncontradicted. Under these circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that these three cards should not be counted. Cf Levi Strauss & Co, 175 NLRB No 57 (Thompson) (7) Cards offered without testimony of signatory or witnesses to the execution thereof The General Counsel offered nine cards which bore signatures that purportedly were those of Edward English, James Hagan, Margaret B. Lanier, Rufus Lott, Larry F. Mans, Irma C. Palmer, Gilmore Claude Reddy, Edward Thompson, and Donald Wilson The foregoing names were those of employees in the unit on February 17 Je None of these individuals appeared at the hearing to testify. The General Counsel asserted that they had been subpoenaed but had failed to respond Thereafter the General Counsel was unable to produce any witness who could testify that he had seen these authorizations executed. Union Representative McIver was asked about several, but frankly conceded that he was unable to recognize the signatures in question and that he had no "At some time after February 17, however , English apparently was 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knowledge of any of the circumstances surrounding their execution The General Counsel thereupon offered in evidence, along with the authorization cards bearing the names of above-described employees, a photostatic copy of the employment application and the withholding exemption certificate for each of these individuals The latter documents had been secured from the Respondent's personnel files and both the employment application and the exemption certificate bore the signature of the employee At the hearing, the Trial Examiner rejected the offer of these exhibits " In his brief the General Counsel urges that this ruling be reconsidered. In support of this argument several cases are cited, including Combined Metal Mfg Corp , 123 NLRB 895, 896-897, Philamon Laboratories, Inc , 131 NLRB 80, 87, enfd 298 F 2d 176 (C A 2), cert denied 370 U S 919, and Heck's, Inc, 166 NLRB No 32, fn. I These are authority for the proposition that the Trial Examiner is vested with discretion to make signature comparisons in a case such as the present where documents of unquestioned authenticity from an employer's personnel records are available for such comparisons Upon consideration of the foregoing cases, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the original ruling, rejecting the exhibits in question, must be withdrawn, and the exhibits admitted Accordingly, they are hereby received '0 An examination of these exhibits and a comparison in each instance of the signature on the authorization card with the signature which appears on the employment application and on the withholding exemption certificate of the employee by that name, establishes, in the judgment of the Trial Examiner, that in the absence of any countervailing evidence, that the nine authorization cards were signed by the employees whose names appear thereon There remains, however, the question as to when these cards were signed The cards bear various dates from January 25 to March 28 One, that of Larry F Muns was undated As noted earlier, there was, of curse, no oral testimony offered as to when these cards were signed The General Counsel contends that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that the date of each card was the date, on or about which, the authorization was signed That, however, is a presumption that the Trial Examiner in this instance is not prepared to make On the other hand, the cards of Larry F Muns and Irma C Palmer bear on their reverse sides the stamp of the Tenth Region, indicating that on February 21, they were delivered to that office in support of the Union's terminated for he does not appear on the list of eligibles in the unit which the Respondent supplied for March 18 "On April 22, 1969, on the assumption that the original authorization cards of the foregoing named employees which had been offered at the hearing , had been lost, the General Counsel filed a motion to substitute photostatic copies for the original exhibits Subsequent to the submission of this motion, the Reporter located the exhibits in question Consequently, insofar as the pending motion of the General Counsel requires action, it is hereby denied **The exhibits which are now received bear the following numbers G C Exhs 22-253, 22-253 (a), 22-253 ( b)(Edward Thompson ), 22-254, 22-254 (a), 22-254 (b) (Rufus Lott), 22-255, 22-255 (a), 22-255 (b) (Gilmore Reddy), 22-256, 256 (a), 22-256 ( b) (Irma C Palmer), 22-257, 22-257 (a), 22-257 (b) (Larry Mons), 22-258, 22-258 (a), 22-258 ( b) (Margaret Lanier), 22-259, 22-259 (a) 22-259 ( b) (James H Hagen), 22-260, 22-260 (a), 22-260 (b) (Edward English ), and 22-261, 22-261 (a), 22-261 ( b) (Donald H Wilson) representation petition Two others, those of James H Hagen and Edward Thompson likewise bear the Regional Office stamp, with the date of February 28 The Board has held that such stamp imprints constitute valid evidence that such cards were signed on or before the date indicated by the stamp mark Combined Metal Mfg Corp , 123 NLRB 895 Accordingly, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the cards of Larry F Muns and Irma C. Palmer should be counted as valid designations on and after February 21, and the cards of James H Hagen and Edward Thompson as valid designations on and after February 28 The other cards which do not bear such a backstamp, viz, those of Edward English, Margaret B. Lanier, Rufus Lott, Gilmore Claude Reddy and Donald Wilson will not be counted for any purpose James Larry Skinner A card bearing the name of this employee and dated February 10 was received in evidence Skinner testified at the hearing on October 29, but did not appear as a witness in Case 7450 Presumably, he was still an employee at the time of the latter hearing since his name is on the list of Intervenors in Case 7450 11 Wayne Connor testified that he received the foregoing card from another employee, that he had not seen Skinner sign the card and that he could not recall who had given it to him Connor, however, testified that on the basis of his knowledge of Skinners' handwriting, he recognized the signature on the card as that of James Larry Skinner On the other hand, Martha Fay Marsh, also an employee and a sister of Skinner, testified that she did not recognize the signature in question as that of her brother, notwithstanding the fact that she had seen him sign his name many times Connor impressed the Trial Examiner as a completely frank and honest witness throughout his extended appearance on the stand In this instance, however, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the testimony of Mrs Marsh as to the identity of the signature is entitled to greater weight than that of Connor Finally, as to this card there was no clear evidence as to whether it was signed on the date it bore, since Connor was not questioned as to when he received it and the card bears no backstamp of Region 10 Under these circumstances, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that this card should not be counted (8) The Union's majority status on February 17, 1968 A tabulation of the authorization cards discussed above discloses that, as of February 17, 169 employees had signed valid designations of the Union as their collective-bargaining agent " At that time there were 348 employees in the appropriate unit " The requisite majority, therefore, would have been 175 Since the Union lacked six valid cards of having attained that number, it must be, and is, found, that, as of the date of the initial demand for recognition, the Union did not have a majority within the unit The various lists of eligibles which the Respondent supplied contain the name "Larry J Skinner," but not a James Larry Skinner On the other hand , on the list of their clients supplied by Counsel for the Intervenors, there appears the name James Larry Skinner For the purposes of this discussion it will be presumed that "James Larry" and "Larry J " are one and the same "For a recapitulation of the names of the employees whose cards make up this total , see Appendix A, infra "See Appendix B There were 347 names on the list submitted by the Respondent However, the name of Wayne Connor was not included Since it was found earlier that Connor was discriminatorily terminated on J. P. STEVENS & CO. 279 As found earlier, the Union's demand was continuing and was renewed at various times during the succeeding 2 months Consequently, it is necessary to consider the validity of various additional authorization cards which employees signed during the period from February 18 to March 18 To the issues in this connection we will now turn c. Cards Signed After February 17 and on or Before M arch 18 (I) Cards as to which there was no dispute The cards of the following named employees were signed after February 18 and on or before March 18, the signatories testified to having signed the cards, or a witness to the signature testified, and there was no testimony or evidence that the employee was told that the card would be used solely for the purpose of getting an election Eugene Bazemore" Melba Mangrum Howell Berry Martha Fay Marsh Rosa Byrd Lillian Messex James F Bunch Robert Mills Vera F Bunch Gordon Mincey Freeda Daggers d5 Shelvy J Morgan Monroe Ellis John T Parker Verdell Finch Lamar Rountree Jeannette Harley Lavinia P Salyer Grace Hollingsworth Mary Sanders Evelyn Jones Hugh G. Strickland Harry J McMillan, Jr. Norman Wells Donald R Woodcock Earlier in this decision it was held that, four other cards constituted valid designations and should be counted in this period These were the cards of James H Hagan, Larry Muns, Irma C Palmer, and Elwood Thompson (2) Other cards signed after February 17 and on or before March 18 The cards of the following named employees should be counted for the reason set forth below J C Brown signed a card that is dated February 19 Brown testified that a union organizer handed him the card when he stopped along the highway near the plant, that he read the card, that he understood the card and that he filled it out and signed it in response to a question from Counsel for the Respondent, Brown testified that he understood that if "there was enough cards they'd hold an election at the plant " However; Brown conceded that he had no conversation with the union organizers and that he did not get such information from them or from the one .vho gave him the card G W Johnson signed a card that is dated February 22 Johnson testified that he filled out the entire card and signed it after Wayne Moore, a fellow employee, told him that the card was for an election. On the other hand, Johnson conceded that he also heard that there might come a time when the cards could be used to make the Company recognize the Union even without an election Johnson's card should be counted. February 16, his name must be added to the list "Bazemore' s card does not bear a date However , the reverse side of the card has a time stamp of Region 10 indicating that it was received there at 103 p in , on February 21 On the Company's records, Daggers was listed as "Betty F Daggers Ida Ann McGahee signed a card that is dated February 23 She filled out the entire card and signed it, but testified that although she read the first few lines on the card she only "glanced over" the rest of the language According to McGahee, Roosevelt Love, a fellow employee, gave her the card and, in doing so, asked that she sign it "so we can get that old union man in here and get that election and get it over with " Love subsequently testified as to the occasions when he had sought to persuade Mrs McGahee to sign a card He credibly denied having told her that she should sign to help get an election According to Love, he told her that "if she signed it [the card] she was signing it to organize the Union, to get a union in the plant " Doyle Sapp A card bearing the purported signature of this employee and dated February 12 was offered in evidence by the General Counsel Sapp did not appear as a witness. According to the General Counsel, it was his understanding that Sapp had left the State and had left no forwarding address. Roosevelt Love, a fellow employee, testified that over a period of three months he frequently and daily had seen Sapp sign production cards on the fob, and that in his opinion the signature on the card was that of Doyle Sapp. This card also has on its reverse side the time stamp of the Tenth Region indicating that it was filed there at 10 28 a m on February 28 At the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the offer of this card It is now received The Trial Examiner also finds that this card should be counted as a valid designation on and after February 28 The signatories to a number of cards which bore various dates between February 22 and March 11, and which McIver had solicited, testified that he had told them, in one fashion or another, that the purpose of the card was to get an election Thus, Mclver was alleged to have said, according to Janiea A Lanier, Ji , "if we'd enough signed we'd have election", DeWitt Love, Jr , "if the people would sign the cards that then they could take those cards and get an election with them", Marian McGrady, "when he got enough signatures, there would be an election", Thomar Mock, "Come on and sign . let's get an election", Sallie Ward, "he was trying to get enough majority of people to sign . he say somethin' about film' a petition [for] election". Doris Peacock, cards "were to have an election", Emma McKeehan, "everybody had done signed the card, except just a few, and he wanted my signature to help finish up the cards, to get an election Alva Lee Anderson, "just sign it [the card] to have the election", and according to Gene T Dixon, Mclver and Wayne Connor told him they "had 85 percent and he was wanting to get as much as he could for an election " As found earlier, the Union filed a petition for an election on February 21, and immediately thereafter announced this fact in a leaflet distributed to all the employees Some of the above witnesses, such as McGrady, conceded, on cross-examination, a complete awareness of the fact that an election petition had been filed before McIver ever came to their homes On cross-examination, Ward conceded that when McIver visited her on March 5, he did not mention a "petition," but that it was she who initiated the subject and thereafter when she endeavored to question him about the pending election he suggested that she get the answers by coming to the Union meetings All of the above-named employees conceded that they had, in fact, signed the cards which were received in evidence 280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McIver credibly denied having told any of the foregoing named employees that the purpose of the card was to get an election For him to have uttered the statements attributed to him by these witnesses, after the Union had filed its election petition and widely publicized that fact, would have been totally unexplicable In any event, and on the basis of the cases already cited in connection with this issue, McEwen Manufacturing Company, 172 NLRB No 99, Levi Straucc & Co . 172 NLRB No 57, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the cards of Alva Lee Anderson, Gene T Dixon, James A Lanier, Jr , DeWitt Love, Jr , Marian McGrady, Emma McKeehan, Thomas Mock," Doris Peacock, and Sallie Ward should be counted Wilber Bryant A card dated February 20 and marked with an "X" beside Bryant's name was received in evidence after considerable testimony was adduced as to the circumstances in which it had been secured McIver testified that he discussed the Union with Bryant at a restaurant on the highway near the plant, that after he had answered Bryant's questions and read the card to him, the latter, an illiterate, asked that McIver fill out the card and sign it for him, after which Bryant placed an "X" beside the signature which McIver had written Mclver's testimony was corroborated by that of Ernest T Mock, another employee Mock testified that he was in the restaurant with Bryant, at the time McIver and Riffe arrived, that he heard the discussion between McIver and Bryant, that he heard Bryant ask that McIver fill out the card for him and that he saw Bryant put an "X" on the card. At the hearing, Bryant, one of the Intervenors, at first denied that he had ever authorized McIver to sign a card for him Later, however, he modified this to the point where he testified that he could not remember having put an "X" on the card and that McIver had told him that he needed signed cards "to have election " He conceded, however, that rather than sign his name, he customarily used an "X" instead of his signature Bryant also conceded that after this meeting with McIver and Mock, he attended several union meetings McIver and Mock gave the more credible account of this conversation with Bryant It is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that on February 20, when this encounter occurred, Bryant freely assented to sign a card and that, as McIver testified, it was Bryant that asked McIver to sign the card for him Accordingly, Bryant's card should be counted Several witnesses who signed cards on various dates between February 21 and March 16, testified that Union Organizer Estes Riffe told them that the purpose of the card was to get an election Thus, Riffe was alleged to have said, according to J W Mock, "purpose of signing the card was to hold an election that was the only purpose", Johnnie Pearl Tremble, "he had to have a certain percentage before they could file for the National Labor Board and. . for election", Hazel Brown, "if we get enough [cards] we could have an election...". Geneva Stephens, "around 80 percent" had signed, and Wendell McElveen, Jr. "sign the card and get it `cause they was fixin' to have an election " Several of these witnesses conceded, on cross-examination, that they knew that the Union had filed its election petition prior to the time they were asked to sign an authorization card Thus, Mock (who signed a card on March 16) admitted that he had seen the pamphlet that the Union distributed on about February 21 which was captioned "Union asks Government for vote at J P Stevens Plant" and which announced that the Textile Workers had filed a representation petition with the Board Mock also testified that shortly thereafter he saw a notice on the plant bulletin board wherein the Company promised that it would keep the employees advised as to developments with respect to the Union's petition On cross-examination, Mrs Tremble (who signed a card on February 22) testified that in her conversation with Riffe, he told her that "it had already been decided that there would be an election at the plant " Stephens (who signed a card on March 7) conceded that at the time Riffe contacted her, he "probably" told her that the Union had already filed an election petition Two of these witnesses testified that they discussed the advantages of a Union with the organizer before signing According to Tremble, she questioned Riffe as to "What was it [the Union] all about, and he told me that where we pay for insurance, we wouldn't have to pay for any " Brown, whose card was dated February 23, testified that she had signed another card on February 15 On this earlier occasion Joel Oglesby, a fellow employee had solicited her signature According to Brown, Oglesby told her at that time that the Union would mean "more money bring more money in all the checks would be a good thing in the plant and would bring better working conditions." Brown testified that on this earlier occasion, when she also had signed a card, there had been no mention of an election " Riffe credibly denied that he had told any of the foregoing employees that the purpose of the card was to secure an election On the basis of the foregoing findings, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the cards of the following named employees constituted valid designations and should be counted Hazel Brown, Windell McElveen, Jr, J W Mock, Johnnie Pearl Tremble, and Geneva Stephens Another group of witnesses who signed cards after February 21 and before March 18, testified that, in soliciting their cards, Wayne Connor told them, in effect, that the card was to be used only to get an election Thus, Connor was alleged to have said, according to John P Ivey, "if they got a certain number of cards, . they would file for an election", Jimmie Reddick, "sign to have an election", Thomas G Hendrix, "he lacked but a few more people so they could get an election". Glenda M Holloway, "he said it was only for an election", John H Sampson, "sign that card to get - to have election", and Eulis DeLoach, "they wanted to get enough [cards] to get an election " All of these cards were signed several days after the Union had actually filed its representation petition. That these witnesses fully realized that this step had been taken prior to their signing the cards was reflected in the testimony of several on cross-examination Thus, both Reddick and Ivey signed cards on February 24, three days after the Union filed its petition Reddick conceded that what Connor may have told him was "We want to get enough cards signed to win the election," and "Mock testified that when McIver came to his home , the union agent was accompanied by James D Miller , an employee well known to Mock Miller, when called as rebuttal witness, testified that Mock was a friend whom he knew well and that when they arrived at the home of the latter, Mock stated , " I've been waitin ' I've been thinkin' about it, but the right one just hasn ' t come along , but I'll sign it " "Brown testified that in addition to the cards signed on February IS and February 23, she signed a third on March 28 According to Brown, she signed the second card after being told by the organizers that the first card had been lost She testified that she signed the third when it was pointed out to her by the organizer that her signature on the second card had been printed rather than signed J. P. STEVENS & CO. Ivey conceded that Connor and the employee with him said that there would be an election Deloach, who had signed another card and mailed it to the Union before Connor asked him to sign a card on February 25, testified on cross-examination that Connor had said nothing about an election but that it was he who assumed that that was the purpose of the card As DeLoach put it, "That was my general idea " Connor credibly testified that he told none of these employees that the only purpose of the card was to get an election With respect to his conversation with Sampson, Connor testified that this employee told him that he was afraid to sign a card for fear the Company would discharge him According to Connor, "He asked me would Mr Bachman see the card cause in one of the speeches Mr Bachman [said] that later on the cards would be laid on the table and he thought Mr Bachman would get the cards before there was an election " Connor testified that after he assured Sampson that Bachman would not have a chance to see the cards before an election, Sampson signed an authorization The Trial Examiner concludes and finds, on the basis of the foregoing, that the cards of DeLoach, Hendrix, Holloway, Ivey, Reddick, and Sampson constitute valid designations and should be counted Daniel Dvches This employee signed a card that is dated February 21 According to Dyches, on an earlier occasion, Estes Rifte and Wayne Connor came to his house and sought to have him sign up as a member of the organizing committee, but that he had refused Dyches testified that one evening two or three days later, Wayne Connor, Charles Nessmith, and Randall Groover came to his home and sought to convince him that he should sign a card According to Dyches, Connor told him "the card's only to have an election at the plant " Dyches testified that when he continued to resist the suggestion that he sign, Connor suggested that they drive down the road some distance from Dyches' home and there Connor again urged him to sign the card According to Dyches, at that point, and in the darkness, he signed the card At the hearing, Connor denied having mentioned an election during this discussion and denied that he or any of his companions had threatened Dyches Whereas the latter sought to give the impression that he was pressured into signing the card, in this respect Dyches was not a convincing witness Admittedly, no physical violence occurred either then or later Dyches conceded that the three employees in question were friends of his and that this friendship continued after the card signing as it had existed before He further conceded that after signing the card, he went to two union meeting, at least one of them with Nessmith and Groover, and that he never attempted to revoke his card. Under the circumstances disclosed by the foregoing findings, and on the basis of the demeanor of these i witnesses, when they appeared and testified, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Dyches, in fact, was not coerced, that he signed the authorization card of his own volition, and that it should be counted as a valid designation Donald D Brannen This employee signed a card that is dated March 9 Brannen testified that he signed the card at the behest of Thelma Driggers, a coworker, and that Driggers told him "sign it for election - so we could have an election " Brannen was not a convincing witness in his appearance on the stand Further, in view of the fact that over two weeks before he signed the card, the Union had filed an election petition and thereafter had given wide publicity to this action, it seems most unlikely that Driggers would have made the comment which 281 Brannen attributed to her Finally, Brannen conceded that after signing the card he attended several union meetings and that on March 28, he signed the organizing committee sheet Under these circumstances, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Brannen was not led to sign the card by any misrepresentation, that he intended the consequences that would flow from the objective act of signing the card, and that his card must be counted as a valid designation The issues with respect to four other cards that were signed during the period from February 18 to March 18 must now be considered Math Brinson signed a card dated February 19 Brinson testified that Jimmy Lesley, a fellow employee, filled out it for him and that Lesley told him at the time that "they needed some more cards to have an election " Brinson testified that he knew the card was a union card, but that he did not read it before signing it Raye Joyce McCullough signed a card dated February 20 Mrs. McCullough testified that Bobby Joe Roberts, a coworker, asked her to sign the card and that he told her that "if we got a majority of the people to sign cards, the cards [would] call for election and the election would decide whether the Union went in and that would be it " According to McCullough, the following night she went to a union meeting and there signed another card, but that she never read either of the two authorization which she signed Neither Lesley nor Roberts testified with respect to any of the foregoing incidents Consequently, the testimony of Brinson and McCullough stands undenied and uncontradicted Under these circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that these two cards should not be counted Cf Levi Strauss & Co , 175 NLRB No 57 (Thompson) Martha Baker A card signed "Martha Baker" and dated February 26 was offered by the General Counsel. Baker, a member of the unit was not called as a witness Nor was any witness called by the General Counsel to testify as to the circumstances in which the card had been executed. James D Miller, a coworker, was called and testified that on the basis of his knowledge of Baker's signature, he believed that the signature on the card was that of Martha Baker. On the other hand, Miller conceded that Baker had not handed him the card, and he gave no testimony which would establish when the card had been signed. Moreover, there was no Regional Office time stamp on the back of the card Miller's testimony as to the identity of the signature was credible, but in the present state of the record there is no evidence independently of what appears on the face of the card to establish when it was signed. In the light of these facts, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that this card should not be counted Linda Strickland A card signed by Strickland and dated March 1 was identified by Reba Lott, a coworker The latter testified that at the time Strickland was not at work, but that "she was off to have her baby " Strickland's name does not appear on any of the lists of unit employees submitted by the Respondent. The General Counsel contends that Strickland was on maternity leave at the time in question, that she was still a member of the unit and that her card should be counted To support this contention, the General Counsel put on one witness, Jeannette Harley, who testified that she herself had been on maternity leave while a company employee and returned to her job without having to be rehired On the other hand, Reba Lott, also an employee and the one who 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD secured Strickland's signature on the authorization card, testified that she knew of no company policy on maternity leave The Respondent offered a separation notice on Strickland which is dated January 18, 1968, and which states that she quit without notice on January 17 and left the plant before the end of her shift Strickland herself never testified and there is no evidence in the record that she returned to work after the last mentioned date or that she ever attempted to do so The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the General Counsel's theory that Strickland was on maternity leave at the time she signed a card is not supported by the evidence in the record and that her card, therefore, should not be counted (3) The Union's majority status on March 18, 1968 A tabulation of the authorization cards discussed above, discloses that from February 18 to March 18, 56 employees signed valid designations of the Union as their collective-bargaining agent 18 Earlier herein, it was found that 169 employees in the unit had signed valid authorization cards on or before February 17. By March 18, one of these individuals49 was no longer in the Respondent's employ On the latter date there were 343 employees in the appropriate unit 50 The requisite majority therefore, would have been 172 At that time the Union had secured a total of 224 valid authorization cards from the employees then in the unit This was, of course, a substantial majority on March 18, when the Union renewed its demand for recognition The Trial Examiner so finds d. Cards signed after March 18 and before April 20 Since the Board may not agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that on March 18, the Union had a majority within the unit, it is necessary now to consider the validity of the remaining authorization cards which were offered and received (1) Cards as to which there is no dispute i ne cards of the following named employees were signed on or before April 20, the signatories testified to having signed the cards, or a witness to the signature testified, and there was no testimony or evidence that the employee was told by the solicitor that the card would be used solely for the purpose of getting an election Jackson Brinson Ahmedow Godbee Marvin Hendrix Mary Rieder Carnell Rushing (2) Other cards signed prior to April 20 Several of the employees testified that union representatives McIver or Riffe told them that the purpose of the cards was to have an election Riffe said, according to Ruby Mae Griner, that the card "was for election, and [the] more they could get signed up, the quicker they'd have election and election would decide whether they'd have a Union or not", Evelyn Y Lee, "if "For a recapitulation of the names of the employees whose cards make up this total , see Appendix C, infra "Doy Woods "There were 341 names on the list submitted by the Respondent However, this listing does not contain the names of Wayne Connor and William Gary Akins, both of whom, as found, supra, were discriminatorily terminated by the Respondent on February 16 and March 1, respectively enough of them would sign the card we would have election", Mclver said, according to Marie Peacock, "he'd like to get as many of us to sign the cards in order to get the plant to have an election", Wanda C Bragg, "they had to have 51 percent to sign a card to have an election", and Evelyn Futch, "purpose of signin' the card was to get an election " The cards of these five employees bore various dates from March 20 to March 27 This was subsequent not only to the Union's filing of its petition for an election, but also to the representation hearing on that petition which was held on March 18 Both events were widely publicized by the Union Lee conceded that at the time she signed her card, she knew that the Union had already filed its petition Peacock conceded that at the time she signed her card, Mclver "could have" told her that the Union had filed for an election Largely characteristic of this group, most of whom testified at the hearing that they did not read the card at the time they signed it, was Ruby Mae Griner This witness was called by the Intervenors and on direct examination testified that she read the card only insofar as it was necessary to locate the place to put in her signature and her address. The naivete as to organizational matters which she endeavored to convey on direct examination did not survive cross-examination During the latter, she conceded that she had been to several union meetings before she signed the card and several thereafter In fact, she could only recall having missed one of the numerous meetings which the Union held during its campaign She also signed the organizing committee sheet and she was listed as one of the volunteer organizers in the bulletin which the Union distributed to all the employees on the eve of the election Finally, she conceded that she never tried to get her card back Earlier, it was found that both McIver and Riffe credibly testified that during their solicitation of the employees they had never told them that the cards would be used solely to get an election. In accordance with the disposition of similar questions presented earlier in this decision, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the cards of these five employees, viz, Ruby Mae Griner, Evelyn Y Lee, Marie Peacock, Wanda C Bragg, and Evelyn Futch must be counted There remain six other cards which were received and which must now be considered Mavis Cobb signed a card dated March 27 She testified that Joel Oglesby, a fellow employee, solicited the card and told her "Sign the card and help us get an election " She also testified that she did not read the card before she signed it On the other hand, she conceded that she filled out the entire card in her own handwriting Oglesby testified, credibly, that, during this discussion, he asked Cobb "to sign a card to organize" and that he had talked about the election Cobb conceded during her examination that before she signed her card she had heard that an election was already scheduled in the plant At the hearing, Cobb was a voluble, opinionated and incredible witness On the basis of the foregoing findings, the Trial Examiner concludes that there was no misrepresentation to Cobb as to the purpose of the card and that she was not told that the sole purpose of the card was to get an election Accordingly, the card of Mavis Cobb should be counted. Lillie M Thorpe signed a card dated March 19 Maggie May Baldwin signed an authorization dated March 20, as did John Owens, and Joyce Morris signed one dated March 22 All of these cards were solicited by Wayne Moore. The latter said, according, to Baldwin, J. P. STEVENS & CO 283 that "if they got enough cards signed it would be an election", according to Thorpe, that the matter would be decided "only by election, because J P Stevens would not recognize [the union] no other way", and, according to Owens and to Morris, that the card was to be used to hold, or get, an election During the organizational campaign, Moore had been active among the prounion group of employees By the time of the hearing, however, he had become one of the prominent intervenors. On the stand, he testified that during his canvass of the employees he told them that the cards would be used only to get an election. This testimony by Moore was incredible and it was contradicted by that of several employees from whom he solicited authorizations Moreover, the testimony of Baldwin, Thorpe, Owens, and Morris, as set forth above, was neither frank nor persuasive However, in view of the fact that these cards would, in no event, be decisive as to the question of majority, the Trial Examiner concludes that, in view of the testimony of these witnesses, the cards of Baldwin, Thorpe, Owens, and Morris should not be counted Cleve Mincev signed a card dated March 19. Mincey had started to work at the Statesboro plant only the day before He testified that Thomas Davis, a coworker, gave him the card and said at the time that "everybody else was signin' these cards, it was for election, he wanted me to sign it, and I had just started . . he didn't read it and I didn't read it, 'cause I cain't read too good " Davis was never called to testify with respect to this incident. Mincey was a completely credible witness and very obviously knew little, if anything, as to what he was signing at the time the authorization card was proffered to him Consequently, and in view of these facts, the Trial Examiner concludes that Mincey's card should not be counted 3 The Union's majority status on April 20 and 225' Subsequent to March 18 and before April 20, 11 employees signed valid designations of the Union as their collective-bargaining agent 53 Earlier herein, it was found that, on or before March 18, 224 employees then in the unit signed valid authorization cards By April 20, 13 of these individualsS3 were either no longer in the Respondent's employ or not in the unit. The remaining 211, when added to the names of the 11 employees who signed cards between March 18 and April 20, made a total of 222 valid authorization cards on the latter date On April 20, there were 326 employees in the appropriate unit 51 The requisite majority at that time, therefore, would have been 164 Since the Union had secured a total of 222 valid designations from the employees then in the unit, when the Union renewed its demand for recognition on April 20 and 22, it had a substantial majority 5' Between April 20 and 22 there was no changes in either the number of employees in the unit or the number of employees who had signed valid designations "I e . Jackson Brinson, Wanda C Bragg , Mavis Cobb, Evelyn Futch, Ahmedow Godbee , Ruby Mae Griner, Marvin Hendrix , Evelyn Lee, Marie Peacock , Mary Rieder, and Carnell Rushing "I e , Laurie Blitch, James Bunch, Jack Bragg , Gerald Graham, Sam Graham, Donnie Hendley, James Jones , Jimmy F Lesley, Glenda Marsh, Lillian Messex, Larry Muns , Edward Thompson, and Donald H Wilson There were 323 names on the list submitted by the Respondent This list, however, did not contain the names of Wayne Connor , William Gary Akins, and Truman Delano Cribbs , all of whom, as found above, were discriminatorily terminated by the - Respondent during the period in question 4. Findings and conclusions as to the alleged unlawful refusal to bargain As found earlier herein, in a letter dated February 17, the Union requested recognition and bargaining as the majority representative in the appropriate unit The letter suggested that if the Company had a good faith doubt of the Union's majority, the latter would submit the authorization cards on which its claim was based to a representative of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or to any mutually agreeable third party In a letter dated February 20, the Respondent declined both recognition and the proposed third party card check, and suggested that the Union proceed to a Board election At the hearing, Enman J. Sheppard, who was assistant plant manager when the Union made its initial demand, testified that the Respondent's answer to the Union was reached after a conference in which Plant Manager Bachman, Personnel Manager Herrington and he participated According to Sheppard, the three officials concluded that the Union did not have a majority among the employees because the employees were confused as to the Union, some employees were reporting threats and harassment by the Union, some of the employees reported that they doubted the Union's majority, and, at other Stevens' plants where the Textile Workers had made similar claims, these claims had been proved baseless. It was found, supra, that on February 17, the date of the Union's initial demand, the Union did not have a majority of valid designations to support its claim. By March 18, and thereafter, however, when it renewed that demand for recognition, the Union had a very substantial majority The Respondent, on and after March 18, was obligated to recognize and bargain with the Union as the majority representative, unless it had a good faith doubt of that majority. At no time subsequent to the dispatch of the letter which it wrote on February 20, did the Respondent endeavor to establish that it had altered the basis for its rejection of the Union's request for recognition Accordingly, the issue as to the Respondent's good or bad faith must be viewed in the light of this position and the facts as disclosed in this record. Earlier, it was found that on February 16, the Respondent discriminatorily terminated Wayne Connor. This was several days before it received the Union's first demand for recognition. By March 18, when the Union made its second demand, the Respondent had discriminatorily discharged William Gary Akins and on March 26, it engaged in a similar violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in terminating Truman Delano Cribbs. Moreover, as found elsewhere in this decision, throughout the period from the very outset of the organizational campaign until after the election, every level of the Respondent's supervisory hierarchy was involved in numerous and continued acts of interference, restraint and coercion. In the light of these facts, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the Respondent's insistence on a Board election and its refusal to recognize the Union, at least on and after March 18, was motivated not by a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority, but rather by a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle and by a desire to gain time within which to destroy the Union's majority status. Joy Silk Mills, Inc v. N.L R B, 185 F 2d 732, 741-742 (C.A.D C.), cert. denied 341 U S. 941; N L R B v. Southeastern Rubber Mfg Inc , 213 F.2d 11, 14-15 (C.A 5) By this course of conduct, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act 2 All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom employees, dyehouse employees, quality control department employees, production control department employees, and specifically including sample clerks and clerk-typists or clerks in said departments, leadmen and fixer leadmen, but excluding office clericals, industrial engineering department employees, personnel office employees, professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 3 At all times since March 18, 1968, the Union has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 4 By failing and refusing at all times since March 18, 1968, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Wayne Connor, William Gary Akins, and Truman Delano Cribbs, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 6 By refusing to employ Mary Frances Bradley for discriminatory reasons, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 7 By engaging in interference, restraint, and coercion, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 8 The General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent interfered with, restrained or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights safeguarded by the Act, except by the specific acts and conduct found herein to have been violative 9 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , the Trial Examiner will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act in the particulars set forth in the Recommended Order . For the reasons which are stated in J P Stevens & Co , Inc , 167 NLRB No. 37, enfd . 406 F 2d 1017 (C.A 4), the Trial Examiner will recommend a broad cease and desist order. Where the recommendation is to make an employee , or employee applicant, whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of discharge or other discriminatory actions, the sum to be paid the individual shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F W Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, 717-721 It will also be recommended that the Respondent be required to preserve and make available to the Board, or its agents , on request , payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the computation of backpay due Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner hereby issues the following ORDER J P Stevens & Co , Inc , Gulistan Division, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall I Cease and desist from. (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union (b) Discharging, refusing to employ, or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment in order to discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization (c) Engaging in surveillance of employees' activity in respect to union organization or giving the impression thereof (d) Interrogating any employee concerning such union activity by him or other employees in a manner constituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (e) Threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they become, or remain, members of the Union or give any assistance or support to it. (f) Altering its working conditions for the purpose of defeating the organizational efforts of its employees, or of the aforesaid Union, or the efforts of any other labor organization of its employees. (g) Instructing employees to watch for and report to the Respondent the union activities of other employees. (h) Promulgating, maintaining, or enforcing any rule prohibiting employees during their nonworking time from distributing union literature, or discussing union activities in nonworking areas on company property (i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collective through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Wayne Connor, William Gary Akins, and Truman Delano Cribbs immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make each such employee whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner described in the section of this Decision entitled, "The Remedy " (b) Offer to Mary Frances Bradley employment as a spinner, winder, twister, or equivalent employment, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against her, in the manner described in the section of this Decision entitled, "The Remedy." J. P. STEVENS & CO. (c) Notify any of the foregoing 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 (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and the right to employment under the terms of this Order (e) Upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement The appropriate unit is All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom employees, dyehouse employees, quality control department employees, production control department employees and specifically including sample clerks and clerk-typists or clerks in said departments, leadmen, and fixer-leadmen, but excluding office clericals, industrial engineering department employees, personnel office employees, professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. (f) Inform employees of their rights under the Act and assure them that the Respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered herein to cease and desist, and that the Respondent will comply with the affirmative requirements of this order by mailing a copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix D"55 to each employee of its Statesboro, Georgia, plant and by posting copies at said plant, for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (g) Convene during working time, by departments and by shifts, all its employees in the plants where unfair labor practices have occurred and have either a responsible official of the Respondent, at departmental supervisor level or above, or a Board agent, read to said employees the contents of the attached Notice. (h) Upon request of the Union, immediately grant the Union and its representatives reasonable access, for a one year period, to its bulletin boards and all places where notices to employees are customarily posted (i) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith 56 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed insofar as they allege any "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 285 unfair labor practices other than as herein specifically found APPENDIX A Valid Authorization Cards Signed on or before February 17, 1968 Gary Akins James R. Akins Robert L. Andrews Shelton Bacon Fred Bazemore Jack F. Bazemore Jessie R. Bazemore Sidney Bazemore Mildred G. Bailey Marion Beard Larry Finch Francis Floyd Charles Gay Jerry E. Gerrald Jesse D. Glisson Gerald Graham Sam Grahm Freddie Joe Grant Randall Groover Betty J. Gross Charlie Beasley Joe E. Beasley Earl Gene Berry Larry Berry George Bland Laurie Blitch Linda Bolton Mary Bolton Jack Bowen Ronald Bowen Jack Bragg Wendell S Bragg Riley Brannen Charles Brown Gertrude Brown Helen Brown Winard 0 Burke Jack Cannady Roy E. Chester Jerry Collins Clyde Cone, Jr. Gordon Cone, Sr Remer Cone Charles H. Connor Wayne Connor Jessie Covington Myrtle Marie Cribbs Truman Delano Cribbs Jessie B Crosby Glenda Davis Henry Davis Thomas Davis Connie C Dixon Thelma Driggers Ruth A. Durden Dollie Dyches Gladys Dyches William English Ralph Evans Edward L. Fanning Dovis L Gwinnette Ratsy Hagan Johnnie Hall Dell L Hendley, Jr. Donnie Hendley Bernard Hendrix Bernard T Hendrix Calvin C. Hendrix Mae Nessmith Hendrix John F. Hill L D Hill James F Hodges William C. Hodges David Hood Enoch Howard Don Hughes Addie O. Jackson Eddie Jones James Jones Jerry Jones Sue H Jones Veronica Keel Ruth J. Kendrick Bobby Key James Larry Kingery Jimmy Kingery Naomi F. Lanier Eria La Cue Ozell Lawrence Council Taylor Lee Ebenezer Lee Robert A. Lee Mattie Mae Lewis Rosa L Lewis Tommy Lewis Jimmy F. Lesley Jeannette Littleton Wise Reba Lott Burdessie Lobe Doy Love 286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A. (cont'd ) Doy Love Grady Love Roosevelt Love Fred C Lovett Carolyn Lovett Jacqueline Lowery Jake Lundy James McCall Alfred McCollum Ted W. McCorkle Harold D. McCray Annette McLaughlin b. f. mcMillan Gerald McMillan William McMillan Ike McNeely Thelmon B. McPhatter Glenda Marsh J. C Marsh Claudie Martin Jerolene Miles Jimmy C Miley Agnes Hollingsworth Miller Andrew C. Miller, Jr. Floyd Miller James D Miller Hubert Miller, Jr. Roger D. Miller John C. Mills John W Mills Betty Mincey Ernest T. Mock Malcolm Mock Wayne Moore Stevie Motes Charles Nessmith Joel Oglesby Lester Parker Issac Parrish Jerry Potter James Pounds Christine Prince Argentine Raymond Bernie Lee Robinson Willie D Robinson Woody Royal Cliff Rucker David Rushing Durrell Rushing Aubrey Scott Charlie C. Sheffield William E. Sheley Joyce Skinner Lee Swenon Smith Otha Smith Walter Smith Charles Stewart Walter V. Street Sammy Strouse Elwood M Thompson Margene Thompson Charlie S Tucker Charles A Waters J. T. Wells John D West Jimmie Williams Regis Wise Jerry Woodcock Doy Woods Freddie Wiley APPENDIX B Employees in Bargaining Units as of February 17,1968 Frances P Akins Gary Akins James R. Akins Sydney E Aldrich Alva L. Anderson Robert L. Andrews Carl W. Andrus Shelton Bacon Mildred G Bailey Martha L Baker Maggie M. Baldwin Eugene N. Bazemore Fred V. Bazemore Jack F. Bazemore Jessie R Bazemore Sidney S. Bazemore Annie M. Beard Betty J Beard Marion R Beard Charlie Beasley Joe E . Beasley Mack Bell Earl G Berry Howell Berry Larry Berry Rita L. Bird George Bland Rochel Bland Laurie Blitch Linda M. Bolton Mary B. Bolton Jack A. Bowen Johnny J. BOWEN Ronald D. Bowen Bill Bragg Jack Bragg Wanda C. Bragg Wendell L Bragg Marjorie B Brannen Riley B. Brannen Eldon C Brant Jackson E Brinson Math Brinson Billy Brown Charles F. Brown Gertrude Brown Hazel Brown Helen V Brown Jacqueline H Brown John C. Brown Shirley G. Brown Wilma L. Brunson Wilber C. Bryant Floyd Bunch James F, Bunch Vera F Bunch Wmard 0 Burke Rosa N. Byrd June M. Callaway Jack G. Cannady Harold Carrington Janell E Chester Mildred E Chester Roy E Chester Mavis M. Cobb Jerry Collins Ruby D Collins Clyde Cone, Jr. Gordon E. Cone Remer H. Cone Charles H. Conner Wayne Connor Jessie T Covington Myrtle M. Cribbs Truman Cribbs Jessie B Crosby Glenda F. Davis Henry A Davis Sara B. Davis Thomas Davis Lois L Deal Eulis DeLoach Ned G. DeLoach Charles B. Dixon Connie C. Dixon Gene T Dixon Leona G. Dixon Betty F. Daggers Thelma J Driggers Ruth A. Durden Daniel L . Dyches Dollie G. Dyches Gladys D. Dyches Harry J Dyches Shirley B Edwards Claudie B. Ellis Monroe Ellis Rolfe Ellis Edward English William English Ralph W. Evans, Jr. Maggie Faglier Hilda B. Falligan Edward L Fanning Larry Finch Verdell Finch Willie L Fincher Frances S Floyd Lila D. Freeman Aubrey Futch Evelyn H. Futch Charles A. Gay Marble B. Gay Jerry E Gerrald Jessie D Glisson Samuel L. Glisson Ahmedow B Godbee Gerald Graham Sam Graham Freddie J. Grant Ruby M Griner Randall A Groover Betty J Gross Betty J, Gunter Dovis L. Gwinette James H. Hagan Louis L. Hagan Patsy T; Hagan Pearline B Hagan Eleanor C. Haire Johnny Hall Virginia A. Hall Douglas Ham, Jr. Julia Hamilton Jeannette S. Harley Shirley G. Harper Ruby L Harris Dell L Hendley Donnie Hendley Bernard Hendrix Bernard T . Hendrix Bernice R. Hendrix Calvin Hendrix Carol D Hendrix Florene D Hendrix Joann W Hendrix Mae A. Hendrix Marvin Hendrix Thomas G Hendrix Uldine H Hendrix Annie M Henry John F Hill L. D. Hill Jacqueline J. Hodges James F . Hodges William C. Hodges Grace E Hollingsworth Mary Agnes Hollingsworth Mary Ann Hollingsworth Glenda M Holloway David Hood J. P STEVENS & CO. 287 APPENDIX B (cont'd ) Jimmie Reddick Walter V Street Gilmmore Reddy Hugh G Strickland W ll C S Mary D. Rieder i iam tringer Bernie L Robinson Sammy Strouse Jimmy 0 Hood Johnnie 0 MCGalliard Marion M Robinson Sara M Tankersley Enoch M Howard Nellie B. McGalliard Robert H Howard Marian B McGrady Willie D Robinson Lamar Rountree Edward Thompson James W Howell Emma J. McKeehan Wilton M Rowe Elwood M. Thompson Josie M. Howell Annette K McLaughlin Woody Royal Harold Thompson Don F. Hughes Benjamin F. McMillan Margene L Thompson John P. Ivey Gerald L. McMillan Cliff Rucker . William E Thompson Addle 0 Jackson Harry McMillan Carnell S. Rushing Lillie M Thorpe Jeanette M. Jackson William H. McMillan David D Rushing Johnnie P. Tremble Ike McNeely Durell Rushing Charlie S. Tucker David H. Jenkins Jerry Rushing Earl K Underwood Hubert P. Jenkins Thelma B McPhatter Lavinia P. Salyer Ted W Vickery Jr. G. W. Johnson, Jr. Melba W. Mangrum Sampson John H Johnson Lethia L Glenda Marsh . Sallie T. Ward . Eddie Jones Jake C. Marsh Mary D Sanders Charles A Waters Evelyn M. Jones Martha F. Marsh Eddie Doyle Sapp Dorothy M. Waters James Jones Ralph Marsh Theresa Sapp Willa L Waters Jerry Jones Claudie Martin John T. Wells Marcella Sasser N W ll Sue H. Jones Lillian Messex Aubrey S Scott orman e s W t h D J Wesley Kearney Jeroline M. Miles Charles C. Sheffield es o n . W dd F l l Jimmy C Miley William E Sheley re ie ey i i W ll J Veronica W Kee d William H Simmons iams imm e i ld W D l Ruth J. Kendrick An rew C. Miller Joyce Skinner son ona i Bobby J. Key Hubert Miller, Jr. Larry J. Skinner t A Wil o E James L. Kingery James D Miller R Lee S Smith n rnes s W R B Jimmy A Kingery oger D Miller Otha Smith ise egis . James E Knight William F Miller Donald R. Woodcock Eria LaCue . John C Mills Walter Smith Jerry R. Woodcock Lanier James A John W Mills Joseph C Woodcock . . Ralph Spence Margaret Lanier Robert A Mills Doy Woods . Geneva F Stephens Naomi F. Lanier Betty D. Mincey Lena R Woods Charles L Stewart Gordon Mincey . Joanna B Stewart Ozell Lawrence . Morris Joyce C Ernest T. Mock , Council T Lee Jessie W. Mock APPENDIX C Ebenezer Lee, Jr. l Evelyn Y. Lee Ma colm L Mock Thomas F. Mock Alva L Anderson Marian McGrady Robert A Lee Shelvy J. Morgan Eugene Bazemore Emma McKeehan Jimmy Lesley Wayne E Moore Howell Berry Harry J. McMillan Mattie M Lewis Franklin E Morris Donald D Brannen Melba Mangrum Rosa L. Lewis Winnefred Morton J. C. Brown Martha Fay Marsh Tommy Lewis Grace L. Moseley Hazel Brown Lillian H Messex Jeanette Littleton Motes, Stevie Wilber Bryant Robert Mills James F Bunch Gordon Mincey Martha J Lott Larry Muns Vera Bunch J W. Mock Reba S Lott Barbara J NeSmith Rosa Byrd Thomas Mock Refus Lott Sara L. NeSmith Shelvy Jean Morgan Burdessie S Love Charles L Nessmith Eulis DeLoach Larry F. Muns Dewitt Love, Jr Latrelle J. New Gene T Dixon Doy Love, Jr. Joel M. Oglesby Freeda Driggers Irma C. Palmer Grady Love John K. Owens Daniel Dyches John T. Parker Roosevelt Love Irma C Palmer Monroe Ellis Doris Peacock Carolyn L. Lovett John T Parker Verdell Finch Jimmie Reddick Fred C Lovett Lawanda B Parker James H Hagan Lamar Rountree Jeannette Harley Lavinia Patsy Salyer Jacqueline C Lowery Lester Parker Thomas G. Hendrix John H Sampson Jake Lundy Isaac Parrish Grace Hollingsworth Mary Sanders James McCall Imogene A Payne Glenda M. Holloway Doyle Sapp Alfred McCollum Doris E Peacock John P. Ivey Geneva Stephens Ted W McCorkle Marie F. Peacock G. W. Johnson Hugh Strickland Mary L McCoy Jerry L. Potter Evelyn Jones Elwood Thompson Harold D McCray James H. Pounds James A Lanier, Jr. Johnnie Pearl Tremble Windell J McElveen Christine E. Prince DeWitt Love, Jr. Sallie Ward Raye J. McCullough Shirley Pughsley Wendell J McElveen, Norman Wells Ida A. McGahee Argentine L. Raymond Ida Ann McGahee Donald R Woodcook 288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX D 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 After a trial in which all sides had the chance to give evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board found that we, J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, and recommended that we be ordered to post this notice to inform our employees of'their rights. The Act gives all employees these rights To organize themselves To form, join, or help unions To bargain as a group through a representative they choose To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refuse to do any or all of these things The Trial Examiner also recommended that we be ordered to assure our employees. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights You are free to join the Textile Workers Union of America. AFL-CIO, or any other union, and by majority choice, to select any union to represent you in bargaining with us WE WILL NOT fire you, refuse to employ you, or punish you or treat you differently in any way because you join a union or favor a union WE WILL NOT spy on your union meetings or union activities. WE WILL NOT tell you to spy on each other and report to us who joins a union or works for it WE WILL NOT ask you anything about a union or who is in the union or who favors it. WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you, or punish you or treat you differently in any way if you join or work for a union, or vote for a union, or talk to other employees about a union. WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of jobs or the closing or moving of the plant or with any different treatment because you attend union meetings or engage in union activities or choose a union to represent you WE WILL NOT make you, or encourage or offer to assist you to, get out of a union. WE WILL NOT prohibit you from distributing union literature, or discussing union activities, during nonworking time in nonworking areas on company property The Trial Examiner for the National Labor Relations Board found that when we fired certain employees and refused to employ Mary Frances Bradley, we did this because they were for the Union The Trial Examiner found that this violated the Act As to the employees who were fired, We will give them back their jobs and seniority, and we will make up the pay they lost and also pay them 6 percent interest. The names of these employees are Wayne Connor William Gary Akins Truman Delano Cribbs As to Mary Frances Bradley, we will offer her a job as a spinner, winder, twister, or equivalent employment WE WILL also pay her for the wages lost and also 6 percent interest on this amount. WE WILL upon request, meet and bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, as your exclusive representative in the appropriate bargaining unit, regarding wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and sign our name to an agreement containing any understanding reached. The bargaining unit is All production and maintenance employees at our Statesboro, Georgia, plant, including shipping clerk, shipper-receiver, stockroom employees, dyehouse employees, quality control department, production control department employees, and specifically including sample clerks and clerk-typists or clerks in said departments, leadmen and fixer-leadmen, but excluding office clericals, industrial engineering department employees, personnel office employees, professionals, watchmen-boilermen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act J. P STEVENS & CO., INC., GULISTAN DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) Note. 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 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 730 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 526-5741, Area Code 404.