Greenwood Mills

GREENWOOD MILLS 75 Greenwood Mills and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case 11-CA-5332 April 16, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On December 19, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Almira Abbot Stevenson issued the attached Deci- sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and to adopt her recom- mended Order as modified herein. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for the reasons stated by her, that employee Allen Newsome was discharged by the Respondent for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We also agree with her conclusion that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by Finishing Department Foreman Dix's statements to employees that implied a threat to deprive employees of benefits they then enjoyed if they exercised their rights to be represent- ed by the Union. We find merit, however, in General Counsel's excepting to her failure to find additional violations of Section 8(a)(1) in the conduct of Foremen Dix and Southern as described in the following incidents. The Administrative Law Judge found that on May 21, 1973, Foreman Dix, while in the work area of employee Horton, opened the drawer of a work desk located there and, after seeing some union authoriza- tion cards within, approached Horton and asked him if the cards were his. In her opinion this inquiry by Dix was not intended, or understood, as a means of ferreting out information regarding Horton's union i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings. 2 Dix explained his motivation in the following colloquy with the General Counsel: activity nor did it have a restraining effect on Respondent's employees exercise of Section 7 rights. We disagree. The record shows that sometime earlier that day, Respondent's assistant supervisor of finishing, Chris Binnicher, while looking through the sane work desk, had seen a pile of union authorization cards in the drawer. Pursuant to Respondent's instructions to "keep his eyes and ears open and report back anything he might hear about the union," Binnicher reported this information to Dix, his immediate superior. Dix, upon receiving this information, admittedly "went over there to see for himself, opened the drawer, and [as Horton] was standing right beside of [him] asked him `were they his?' " Horton replied, "No, they are not mine. I don't have any." At that point the conversation ended and Dix subsequently reported his find to Respondent's department superintendent, Coleman Doss.2 From the foregoing facts, it seems clear to us that Dix was actively seeking to ascertain additional information for Respondent concerning the union activities of its employees, a purpose that was wholly consistent with Respondent's above instructions. As the General Counsel points out in his brief, Dix, unlike Binnicher, did not inadvertently see the union cards while going through the desk for some business reason. Rather, he deliberately sought to confirm Binnicher's report and to find out which of the employees may have placed the cards in the desk. In light of Dix's admission at the hearing that he was seeking out employee violations at the time he checked the drawer for union cards-a course of action used by Respondent to support its discrimina- tory discharge of Newsome-we cannot subscribe to the Administrative Law Judge's characterization of Dix's conduct as no "more than a non-coercive attempt to discover the ownership, not otherwise apparent, of property not owned by the Employer discovered on the plant premises." We cannot ascribe such an innocent purpose to Dix's inquiry of Horton. Indeed, Dix's own testimony precludes our so finding. In any event, we find that this obvious interrogation of an employee concerning his organiz- ing activities, in the absence of any proof of a legitimate business interest, interfered with and restrained the free exercise of employee rights under Q Well, why were you so interested in union cards? A Well, at the time, I didn't know whether that was a legal violation or not, by the cards being there , and I wanted to see if they were there, and then report it Q. You were looking for violations, weren't you? A. I was looking for union cards. They were there. Q. And violations by these employees, you were looking for that too, weren't you? A. Any violations 210 NLRB No. 15 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Section 7 of the Act and, accordingly, violated Section 8(a)(1).3 We also disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Foreman Frank Southern's statement to employee Thomas Irick, that "because of a few people, the plant may close," was noncoer- cive in nature. While Southern did not explicitly use the word "union," the timing and context of his remark could have had only one meaning and message. Thus, the remark was made on the first day that Respondent saw the authorization cards in the plant and came on the heels of Southern's admitted admonishing of employees that Respondent was 100 percent against the Union and would do everything it legally could to keep the Union out. In this context, we find that Southern's statement constitut- ed an unlawful threat of plant closure and as such was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, Greenwood Mills, Orangeburg, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision as so modified: 1. Add the following paragraphs as 1(c) and 1(d) and reletter paragraph 1(c) as 1(e). "(c) Unlawfully interrogating its employees regard- ing their union activities. "(d) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right of self organization by threats of plant closure." 2. Substitute the attached notice for the notice of the Administrative Law Judge. 3 Chairman Miller disagrees with his colleague's reversal of the Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions concerning Dix's asking Horton if the cards belonged to him. For the reasons enunciated by the Administrative Law Judge in recommending dismissal of this allegation, and those that follow, he would find that the General Counsel has not satisfied his burden to establish that Dix's conduct in this incident violated the Act. Like the Administrative Law Judge, he believes there is insufficient evidence to establish an element of restraint or coercion in Dix's question to Horton. Whatever Dix's purpose in searching the desk, in the Chairman's view it does not automatically follow that the subsequent interrogation of Horton about the ownership of the cards found there tended to coerce that employee. Dix had a lawful right to look through the desk as it was the property of Respondent. That he discovered what he was looking for-union cards-does not subvert the lawfulness of such conduct, nor does it render unlawful his unobtrusive questioning of an employee working in the immediate vicinity of the desk about his possible property rights to the cards. When the employee replied the cards weren't his, Dix did not pursue the matter further He is unwilling on the state of this record to find that unlawful interference with employee rights has been established by the evidence. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, at which all parties were permitted to introduce testimony, it was found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act. We were ordered to assure our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for supporting Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT threaten to deprive you of benefits if you exercise your right to be represent- ed by Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees about their union activities or sympa- thies. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with plant closure for engaging in union activity. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer Allen Newsome immediate and full reinstatement to the job he held prior to his discharge on May 22, 1973, or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL make whole Allen Newsome for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his discriminatory discharge, plus interest at 6 per- cent per annum. GREENWOOD MILLS (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 919-723-2300. GREENWOOD MILLS 77 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALMIRA ABBOT STEVENSON, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Orangeburg, South Carolina, September 13, 14, 25, and 26, 1973. The original charge was filed by the Union and served on the Respondent May 24, 1973; the amended charge was filed by the Union June 8 and served on the Respondent June 12, 1973. The complaint was issued July 31, 1973. The issues are (1) whether the Respondent coercively interrogated its em- ployees, threatened them, restricted them from talking to one another in the plant, and discriminatorily enforced its work rules in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended; and (2) whether the Respondent discharged employee Allen Newsome on May 22, 1973, because of his union activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, or for cause. For the reasons given below, I conclude that the Respondent committed the 8(a)(3) and one of the 8(a)(1) violations, but did not commit the remaining 8(a)(1) violations alleged in the complaint. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the Respondent and the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent is a South Carolina corporation engaged at its Orangeburg, South Carolina, plant here involved in the dying and finishing of textiles. During the preceding 12 months the Respondent received goods and raw materials directly from outside the State of South Carolina valued in excess of $50,000, and sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of South Carolina. I conclude that the Respon- dent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent admits, and I conclude, that the Charging Party Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Section 8(a)(3) Violation • Discharge of Allen Newsome' 1. Facts Allen Newsome was previously employed by the Res- pondent from 1965 to 1967. He returned August 1, 1968, i There is conflicting testimony regarding some of the relevant incidents surrounding Newsome's discharge. In resolving these conflicts, I have not credited the entire testimony of any one witness As to each such incident, I have taken into consideration the apparent interests of the witnesses, the probabilities in light of other events; corroboration or lack of it, and consistencies or inconsistencies within the testimony of each witness and between the testimony of each and that of other witnesses with similar apparent interests. The credibility of two witnesses merit particular comment. James Gay was an unusual witness in that he was a top and worked at the Orangeburg plant until the discharge here involved May 22, 1973. Newsome was a frame- inspection operator on the first shift. Frank Southern, foreman of the inspection department, was Newsome's immediate supervisor. Southern was responsible to James Gay, who, until his own discharge May 21, 1973, for the stated reason of "errors in his department," was superin- tendent of the inspection and packing department with a complement of 78 or so employees. Over Gay was Howard Pinner, plant manager, who was responsible to Lestor Heaton, director of finishing. Foster Boone was plant personnel manager, and B. W. Whaley was director of industrial relations for all plants. Newsome described himself, as Quality Control Techni- cian T. W. Copeland described him, as an expert inspector, one of the best in the department. Gay and Southern described him as average, or pretty good. Gay said that after the union movement began Newsome became an excellent employee. As of the beginning of 1973, Newsome had been given one written warning, for being absent without permission on Labor Day, September 4, 1972, which was not a plant holiday. Newsome had been offered a better paying job, as measuregraph operator, in mid- November 1972. He was again offered that job toward the end of February 1973, but turned it down on both occasions because it was a second-shift job. In late March or early April, 1973, Newsome complained to Foreman Southern that the Company's promotion of a laboratory employee to foreman-trainee discriminated against Newsome and other employees who were in Newsome's opinion qualified for the job, and that Newsome was going to write to the Labor Board about it. As a result, Newsome was called in, once to meet with Personnel Director Boone and Superintendent Gay, and, again, to meet with Boone, for discussions. At these meetings, management explained the Company's policies on promotions and other matters to which Newsome had objections such as holidays, vacations, and fringe benefits. Boone also informed Newsome he had a right to take complaints to the Labor Board, and offered to obtain the address for him. Still not satisfied, Newsome thereafter consulted some library books on labor matters, and concluded from his reading that the employees of the plant needed a union. After talking it over with several other employees, Newsome drafted a letter to the Charging Party expressing interest in unionization. He and four other employees- -John Carr, Leon Felder, Thomas Irick, and Curtis Murph-signed and mailed the letter April 12, 1973. International Representative Evans Hamilton contacted Newsome by telephone April 26, 1973, and thereafter met twice, April 27 and 28, with employees interested in organizing the plant. Personnel Director Boone and other management official who got on the stand and blew the whistle on the Respondent After considerable thought I have concluded that Gay determined to tell the truth regarding Newsome 's discharge and did so. When analyzed in light of the aforementioned factors, the testimony by Allen Newsome stands up very well by comparison with that of many other witnesses with respect to most, if not all, of the events related to his discharge In the instances where I have relied on his testimony I conclude that he stuck to the truth . Testimony in contradiction to that upon which my factual findings are based has been carefully considered but discredited. 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD management officials learned something about this letter but they had no specific information on it. On April 25, Newsome received another written warning for being absent without excuse on April 21 , 1973, the Saturday of Easter weekend. At the weekly Tuesday 8 a.m. inspection department s^eeting held by Foreman Southern on May 1, reminded his employees that they were supposed to rmsain in their own work areas and were not to visit and talk with employees in other departments . On that same day, May 1, Newsome obtained permission to leave the plant at 10 a.m. to make an appearance in court. On his way Ater, Newsome passed by the dyeing department. SeDonald Marchell at work there, Newsome ap- proached him and asked whether he was interested in a union or wanted to join other employees at their meetings with the union representative. Marchell replied in the negative. Newsome then made a few remarks about his prospective court appearance and, after what he described as a conversation which lasted a total of 30 seconds, left the plant. Marchell reported this incident to his own supervisor and the information was bumped up to all management officials including Director of Finishing Heaton and Director of Industrial Relations Whaley. Although the incident was not mentioned to Newsome by any member of management, Heaton immediately called the first of a series of meetings held twice a week throughout May with management and supervision , and, upon occasion, with counsel, to discuss the union activity in the plant. Heaton informed Gay of Newsome's approach to Marchell, and ordered Gay to tighten up on the rules prohibiting loose motion by employees' wandering about the plant talking to other employees. Instructions were also issued that supervisors were to interview their employees individually and inform them, among other things , that the Company did not want a union and would do all it legally could to keep the Union out of the plant. Supervisors were to keep their eyes and ears open, and pass along any information received regarding employee union activity. Heaton told Gay that "We had to get Allen Newsome out of the plant and that I would have to get something legally to let him go." No disciplinary action was to be taken against any union leaders, however, without checking with Heaton. Gay passed the information and instructions received from Heaton down to Foreman Southern, and from that time on both Gay and Southern watched Newsome closely so as not to miss any infraction he might commit. Southern also immediately called an extra safety meeting May 3 and repeated his instructions to employees of May 1, adding that if he caught them interfering with employees in other departments, he would take some action. Southern and other foremen under Gay instituted a series of meetings with the employees under their supervision, on an individual basis. Southern told his employees, among other things, that the Company was opposed to unionizism and would do everything within its legal rights to keep the Union out. About the same time, May 3, International Representa- tive Hamilton was replaced by International Representa- tive George Justice as the Union's organizer for this plant. Justice held meetings with plant employees Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week but one during May. Newsome attended all meetings and acted as the chief contact between the Union and the employees. About May 8, Foreman Southern approached T. W. Copeland, who, as indicated, was a quality control technician; he was responsible for spot checking the work of frame-inspector operators. Although Copeland was a friend of Newsome's and had lunch with him, Copeland never signed a union card nor attended a union meeting. On this occasion, Southern asked Copeland why he could not find something wrong with Allen's cloth. Southern had never before made such an inquiry of Copeland about the work of any employee. During the following week, employee Cynthia Martin, who worked next to Newsome, motioned to Newsome to come to her machine. Newsome stopped his machine and walked over to her, a distance of 6 or 7 feet. The record does not reveal what they talked about, but Newsome returned to his work after a few seconds. A short time later, Southern came up to Newsome and asked him whether he had been talking to Martin. When Newsome said yes, Southern warned him about leaving his machine to talk to other employees while they were working and told him it was not to happen again. No written warning was given to Newsome, nor was he told that a written warning was being prepared. However, Southern put one in his file, countersigned in the usual manner by Gay, Boone, and Plant Manager Pinner. The infraction was reported to Heaton and Whaley. On May 16, at a management meeting, the Respondent's counsel asked Gay how the Union was progressing in his department which was considered the main area of union activity. Gay replied that it could be as high as 50 percent. When asked whether Newsome was doing a good job, Gay replied that he was. After counsel stated his information indicated that Newsome was the head of the union activity in the department, Heaton stated, "We will have to get Allen out of here." Gay left on vacation that day, and was discharged upon his return May 21. At a union meeting Sunday evening, May 20, Interna- tional Representative Justice gave out authorization cards to Newsome and others. Newsome signed one and returned it to Justice, and took a supply of cards to work with him on the morning of May 21. He obtained a few signatures in the canteen before 8 a.m. Although he carried cards in his shirt pocket that day, he was careful to conceal them from view. The next day, May 22, Newsome carried the cards visibly in his pocket, as he believed he had been observed passing them around in the canteen anyway. He was right, as information that he possessed cards reached Plant Manager Pinner and Director of Finishing Heaton without delay. About 3 minutes before 8 a.m. on May 22, Newsome approached John Carr, who was nearing the end of his stint on the third shift in the packing department. As Carr apparently had finished his work and was not doing anything, Newsome motioned to Carr to join him saying, "Let's go to the canteen." Carr replied, "OK." The two started for the canteen, where Newsome planned to give Carr some union authorization cards. However, Carr's GREENWOOD MILLS 79 foreman, Ken Jeffcoat, caught sight of them and told Carr it was, not 8 o'clock yet and to go back to work; he told Newsome he was not supposed to be there and to get out of the area. Jeffcoat reported the incident to Southern and Boone. At 10:30 that morning, Newsome was brought before John Carlisle, assistant plant manager (who did not testify), Boone, and Southern . There he was terminated for the stated reason of interfering with the work of three employees-Donald Marchell, Cynthia Martin, and John Carr. Southern testified that Newsome's record, which was reviewed before the decision to discharge him, also revealed that Newsome did not like to work on holidays and had received warnings for refusing to do so, and that Newsome did not like the Company's policies on promo- tions. Boone testified that he mentioned the two absence warnings to Newsome after Newsome voiced the suspicion that his union activity was the real reason for the discharge. 2. Conclusions The facts, as revealed by the credited testimony detailed above, clearly establish a horn-book pretext discharge. Newsome was an experienced, efficient, senior employee who had been offered a better paying job even though he occasionally betrayed a weakness for laying off on holidays. He had also shown an interest in improving conditions in the plant, which although disliked had been dealt with by management in a not altogether unenlight- ened manner. But when he initiated and led the move to bring a union into the plant, management suddenly saw Newsome only as the "ringleader" of the union movement which could be crushed by getting rid of him. Orders went out to watch his every movement and report every infraction, and the orders were meticulously carried out. Failing in its effort to find errors in his work, the Respondent hoarded its collection of minor infractions. Then, on the very day after Newsome brought union authorization cards into the plant, another infraction fell into its hands. Although equally minor, it was considered to be enough, when added to two others, to cover up the real motive. Newsome was summoned, his transgressions spread before him, and he was given the sack. When charged with treating him unlawfully, the Respondent threw in his absences which had not been included among the reasons stated to Newsome at the time of his discharge. I conclude that the Respondent discharged Allen New- some for the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act? B. The Section 8(a)(1) Violations Paragraph 8(a) of the complaint alleges that Finishing Department Foreman H. J. Dix coercively interrogated an employee concerning possession of union authorization cards on May 21, 1973. In support of this allegation the General Counsel relies on an admission by Dix that on that date Dix opened a desk drawer which was near the work station of employee Thomas Horton, and seeing some union authorization cards in the desk , asked Horton if the cards were his. Horton replied, according to Dix, that, the cards were not his, that he did not have any cards with him. In my opinion, Dix's inquiry was not intgnded, or understood, as a means of ferreting out information regarding Horton's union activity, nor did Dix's question tend to have such a restraining effect . In all the circum- stances, including Horton's response, I conclude that the probative evidence fails to establish more than a nonceoer- cive attempt to discover the ownership, not otherwise apparent, of property not owned by the Employer discovered on the plant premises. Accordingly, I recom- mend that this allegation be dismissed. Paragraph 8(b) alleges that on May 24, 1973, Foreman Dix threatened employees with elimination of benefits if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative. In support of this allegation the General Counsel replies on the testimony of Foreman Dix to the effect that after being instructed at supervisors' meetings to do so, he called the employees under his supervision into his office one by one and talked to them about how the Company felt about a union, and told them that it did not want one, and would fight it by all legal means; and that, in addition, he talked to employees from time to time on the floor and told them "pretty much the same thing" he had told them in the office, that "the company was against the union, the union couldn't do them any good, they may lose some of their benefits, but you couldn't promise them anything." I find that this statement, by Dix's admission made to many employees under his supervision, was an implied threat to deprive employees of benefits they enjoyed if they exercised their rights to be represented by the Union. I conclude that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Paragraph 8(c) alleges that Foreman Frank Southern on May 1, 3, and 9, 1973, and Assistant Finishing Foreman Chris Binnicker, on May 23, 1973, restricted employees from talking to each other in the plant because of the union activities of the employees. The General Counsel contends that these alleged violations were a direct result of Director of Finishing Heaton's instructions to Superintendent Gay, about May 1, which, I have found, were to tighten up on the rules prohibiting loose motion by employees' wander- ing about the plant talking to other employees. (1) As to the alleged violation by Foreman Southern on May 1, the General Counsel relies on the testimony of Allen Newsome (supported by Thomas Irick and to some extent by Leon Felder) that Southern told employees, at the regular weekly Tuesday morning inspection depart- ment meeting held on May 1 at 8 a.m., that there was to be no talking on the job. However, consistent with my finding above regarding this incident, I find that these witnesses interpreted Southern's remarks on this occasion over broadly. Southern's actual statement was, as testified to by Southern and John Carr, that employees were to remain in their work areas and were not to visit and talk with employees in other departments. In any event, I find, consistent with the facts set forth above, . that the 2 The cases relied on by the Respondent are distinguishable for the absence therefrom of direct credible evidence of discriminatory motivation. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent did not acquire specific knowledge of any union activity among its employees until it received the report of the Newsome-Marchell incident after 10 a.m. on May 1. It is clear therefore that Southern 's statement was not related in any way to the union activity, but was merely a reminder of a previously existing plant rule. Accordingly, I recommend that this allegation be dismissed. (2) With regard to the alleged violation by Foreman Southern on May 3, the General Counsel has reference to the special safety meeting called on that date by Southern after Superintendent Gay informed him of the Newsome- Marchell incident, and told him, as Gay and Southern testified and as found above, to tighten up on this rule. I find that Allen Newsome was mistaken about the scope of this proscription also, and that Southern told the employ- ees, as he testified, that he would have to take further action if they did not stay in their department and not interfere with employees in other departments. In all the circumstances relevant to this statement, including the fact that Southern merely repeated the plant rule about which he had just reminded the employees 2 days previously, prior to company knowledge of the union activity, I find that the statement, and the vague reference to taking further action if the rule were not obeyed, did not interfere with the employees' exercise of Section 7 rights, and conclude that it did not violate Section 8(axl). (3) Regarding the alleged violation by Southern on May 9, the General Counsel relies on the warning given to Newsome for talking with Cynthia Martin discussed above. However, the warning was based not so much on the fact that Newsome talked to Martin as it was on his stopping his machine, leaving his station, and talking with her (however briefly) while she was working. The Respon- dent's fault was in relying on this incident as a pretext for discriminatorily discharging Newsome, and not that it restricted employees from talking to each other in the plant because of their union activities . Accordingly, I shall also recommend that this allegation be dismissed. Paragraph 8(d) of the complaint alleges that on May 21, 1973, Foreman Southern threatened to close the plant because of the employees' activities on behalf of the Union. In support of this contention Thomas Irick testified that on this date he called Foreman Southern to his machine to inspect the cloth because Inck thought it was biased. Southern looked at the work and while he was doing so, he said, "because of a few people, the plant may close." Southern could not recall this conversation but he denied threatening to close the plant because of employee activities on behalf of the Union. In the absence of a flat denial, I find that Southern made the statement attributed to him by Irick. However, there is no evidence that the statement was related to union activity. I conclude therefore that it did not tend to coerce employees or interfere with their Section 7 rights. Paragraphs 8(c)(4) and 8(e) through (h) all have to do with allegedly unlawful treatment of Marion Stanfield. Stanfield was hired in August 1971 and worked as a frame operator in the finishing department on the first shift until late May 1973, and on the third shift thereafter until he was terminated June 4, 1973, for nondiscriminatory reasons. He signed a union card and attended union meetings. On May 21 he began carrying visible authoriza- tion cards to work in his shirt pocket, and during breaks he distributed cards in the canteen, laid cards out on a canteen table, and talked to employees about the Union. Finishing Department Foreman Dix conceded that Stan- field had cards in his shirt for all to see, and Assistant Foreman Binnicker testified that Stanfield was the only union adherent in his department whom he knew about. Paragraph 8(cX4) alleges in effect that on May 23, Assistant Foreman Binnicker restricted Stanfield from talking to other employees in the plant because of his union activities. The record shows that Stanfield and Thomas Horton attended a 4 p.m. safety meeting at the end of the first shift on May 22. When the meeting, which lasted 10 or 15 minutes, was over, they stopped for several minutes to discuss a personal matter with David Small, who was working the second shift. The next morning Binnicker wrote a contact on Stanfield for interfering with another employee on his job. Horton received no repri- mand. Stanfield testified he had done the same thing many times and had not been disciplined for it . Binnicker testified that he gave Stanfield the warning because while sitting in his office he observed Stanfield talking to Small, and that Stanfield was the only employee he saw talking to Small. Binnicker also testified he did not allow any employee to interfere with an employee on another shift. Paragraph 8(hXl) alleges in effect that on May 23 Assistant Foreman Binnicker discriminatorily enforced a work-relief rule against Stanfield because of his union activities. Stanfield testified that by May 23 or 24 he felt there was pressure on him because he had pushed the Union and it had got to the point that he did not know what he could do and could not do, so he asked Binnicker who was supposed to relieve him when he went to the restroom or to the canteen for a coke; and that Binnicker replied his senior operator was supposed to do so. Stanfield protested that this had never been required before, as he and Thomas Horton, who worked next to him, had relieved each other. Binnicker responded, according to Stanfield, that "we don't do it like that anymore . . . its not like it used to be before. Its going to change, and change even more. Rules are going to be enforced." Horton supported Stanfield's testimony regarding past practice in this respect. Binnicker denied making the statement attributed to him by Stanfield. Paragraph 8(hX2),(3), and (4) allege in effect, that on May 24 and 31 the Respondent discriminatorily enforced the safety rule prohibiting employees from working with their shirttails out against Stanfield because of his union activities. The record shows that about 3 minutes after 8 a.m. on May 24, Personnel Director Boone and Foreman Dix observed that Stanfield's shirttail was out . Boone told Stanfield he was violating the safety regulations, and later that morning Dix wrote a contact on Stanfield for having his shirttail out in his work area. Stanfield testified that employees had been told at safety meetings how dangerous the machinery was and to be careful. However, he said, the employees had never been told it was against the rules to wear their shirttails out and he and other employees had done so in the past without comment from management. GREENWOOD MILLS at Thomas Horton testified that Stanfield usually works in his T-shirt, and that he came to work May 24 with his shirt out but was unbuttoning it, getting ready to take it off, when Boone approached him. Horton testified employees had been told there was a safety rule requiring employees to keep their shirttails in while working because the machines are dangerous and "might grab your shirt tail and drag you in"; and that employees had been warned about not following the rule. Dix testified that all the employees had been briefed on the safety rule, but Stanfield was the only employee to whom he gave a written warning, when he and Boone observed him violating the rule. Before that, Dix said, he told employees to put their shirts in; since then, he has seen no violators. The record also shows that on May 31 Binnicker wrote Stanfield another contact for violating the shirttail rule. Stanfield asked him what the difference was between a T- shirt and a regular shirt, and Binnicker replied that a T- shirt fits closely about the body whereas a regular shirt is loose and might get caught in the machinery. Stanfield asked, "Why didn't you tell me this before?" Binnicker testified that enforcement of the rule has no real problem except with Stanfield; and Stanfield's was the only written warning Binnicker gave because he was the only employee who wore his shirttail out. Paragraph 8(f) alleges in effect that Foreman Dix threatened Stanfield on May 24 with more stringent surveillance of his work because of his union activities. This allegation is based on Stanfield's testimony that after Dix gave him the contact that day for wearing his shirttail out, Dix told him the Company was going to catch him if he violated any more safety rules. Dix denied making this statement. Paragraph 8(e) alleges that on May 23 Binnicker threatened employees with more stringent enforcement of work rules because of their union activities. In support of this allegation, Stanfield testified that after Binnicker gave him the warning for talking to David Small and Stanfield had protested that he had done that kind of thing in the past and nothing had been done about it, Binnicker said to hum, "Well, it is not like it was before. It is like it is now, and the rules are going to be enforced" Binnicker denied it. After careful consideration, I have concluded that Stanfield was not a credible witness. Thus, Binnicker's testimony that he had never allowed employees to interfere with an employee on another shift seems more probable and had a more truthful ring than Stanfield 's testimony, unsupported by Horton, that he had been permitted to do so with impunity before management learned of his union advocacy. I am forced to the same conclusion regarding Stanfield's insistence, contrary to the position of the General Counsel and the more believable testimony of Horton, Dix, and Binnicker, that there had been no safety rule regarding shirttails prior to his first written warning therefor, and that he and other finishing employees frequently dressed in this manner while working around admittedly dangerous machinery. Stanfield's references to the great pressures on him during the 2 or 3 days after he brought union cards to the plant and his testimony regarding remarks allegedly made to him by Dix and Binnicker revealing a determination to single him out for observation, catch him violating its rules, and treat him discriminatorily were, I am convinced, figments of his imagination. Although it is clear that management was aware of Stanfield's union advocacy, there is no evidence that they determined to rid themselves of him, as they did of Newsome, in order to crush the union movement. Binnicker credibly testified that during the 8 or 9 months he supervised Stanfield, he considered him and one other the two below-level employees in the department and consequently he watched their work more closely than he did that of other employees. Stanfield himself testified that on an occasion in late May he refused , in an impertinent manner, Binnicker's direction that he not neglect one of his minor job assignments ; and he deliberately repeated the safety-rule violation for which he had been warned only a week before . In my opinion, Stanfield was a marginal employee and he knew it. Having a foreboding, which he hinted at to fellow employee Thompson, that he would eventually lose his job with the Company, he nevertheless could not or would not bring himself to conduct himself so as to prevent that eventuality. His testimony in this case was his way of trying to shift the responsibility for the inevitable outcome from himself to his Employer by relating his situation with Newsome's. I therefore conclude that the violations alleged in paragraph 8(c)(4), 8(e) through (f), and 8(h) are not supported by credible evidence, and recommend that they be dismissed. The conclusions reached above determine the outcome of paragraph 8(g) of the complaint, which alleges in effect that Binnicker threatened Stanfield with starting from scratch if the employees selected the Union as their bargaining representative . This allegation is based on the uncorroborated testimony of Stanfield whom I have discredited above, that Binnicker made such a remark to him at his machine on May 22. As against this testimony, I credit Binnicker's account of the conversation which he described as a discussion of the pros and cons of unionism. According to Binnicker, Stanfield told him, "Well, I feel like I need probably to go to the union because I don't have anything to lose," to which Binnicker replied that Stanfield ought to check his facts because the Union could only bargain on his behalf with top management, and from there it could go either way. I find that this statement by Binnicker, unlike Dix's blunter remark, sounds more like a description of possible bargaining strategy than a threat to discontinue existing benefits if the employees opted for union representation, and I conclude it was not violative of Section 8(axl). REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and, in view of the nature thereof, to cease and desist from infringing in any manner on its employees ' rights guaranteed by the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4). Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Allen Newsome, I also recommend that it be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or, if that job no longer exists, to a 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, plus interest at 6 percent per annum. F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 1((c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS The Respondent, Greenwood Mills, of Orangeburg, South Carolina, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union. (b) Threatening to deprive employees of benefits if they exercise their right to be represented by the above-named Union or any other union. (c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Allen Newsome immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job, or, if his job no longer exists, to a 3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be waived for all purposes. substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for his lost earnings in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "Remedy." (b) 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 records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Orangeburg , South Carolina, copies of the attached notice.4 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after bring duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 4 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."