Sylacauga Garment Co.

SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 501 Sylacauga Garment Company and International La- dies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 10-CA-10018 and 10-CA-10171 April 10, 1973, the day she agreed to return to work after Respondent's original offer of recall The Remedy proposed by the Administrative Law Judge is hereby modified to limit the computation of her backpay to April 10, 1973 May 9, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party also filed exceptions and a brief in support thereof. 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 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3 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 and hereby orders that Respondent, Sylacauga Garment Company, Sylacauga, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 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 his findings 2 Chairman Miller would not base any violation findings on Respon- dent's exhibition of the film titled "The Springfield Gun"-one chararter- ized by the Administrative Law Judge as containing essentially the same message as "And Women Must Weep " See Heckethorn Manufacturing Co, 208 NLRB No 46, wherein a showing of the latter film was found by a unanimous panel not to constitute an 8(a)( 1) violation, even in a context of other 8(a)(1) violations 3 We agree with the conclusion that Felicia Hudson was laid off on March 8, 1973, because of her union activities The Administrative Law Judge's Decision, however, fails to limit the computation of her backpay to DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed by International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Union, on February 27, 1973, an amended charge filed by the Union on March 22, 1973, and a second amended charge filed on May 21, 1973, in Case 10-CA-10018, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director of the Board's Region 10, issued a complaint against Sylacauga Garment Company, re- ferred to herein as the Company, on June 6, 1973. Thereafter, upon a further charge filed on May 21, 1973, and an amended charge filed on June 20, 1973, a second complaint was issued against the Company in Case I0-CA-10171 on June 29, 1973,1 together with an order consolidating Cases 10-CA-10018 and l0-CA-10171. Both complaints alleged that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, referred to herein as the Act. The Company filed a timely answer to each complaint, denying the commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing on these cases was held at Sylacauga, Alabama, on July 31, August 1 and 2, and September 4, 5, and 6. Upon the entire record in the cases and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the briefs submitted by the General Counsel and the Charging Party,2 I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Sylacauga Garment Company, the Respondent, is an Alabama corporation, with its office and place of business located at Sylacauga, Alabama, where it is engaged in the manufacture of clothing. The Company annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Alabama. The Company admitted in its answers, and I find, that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Company admits, and I find, that International I Hereinafter all dates will refer to the year 1973 unless otherwise specified 2 Respondent did not file a brief. 210 NLRB No. 84 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, the Union, is a labor IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ISSUES The Union began an organizing campaign among the Company's 400 or 500 plant employees on January 15, which eventuated in a Board-conducted election on August 23. The issues presented are whether the evidence shows that in opposing the Union's efforts, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union activity, membership, and sentiment, and the union activity, membership, and sentiment of other employees. (b) Threatening employees with plant closure and other economic reprisals if the Union succeeded in organizing them. (c) Threatening employees with discharge if they supported the Union. (d) Granting a wage increase with the intention of inducing the employees to reject the Union. (e) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities. (f) Creating the impression among its employees that it was keeping their union activities under surveillance. (g) Soliciting employees to report the union activities of fellow employees to the Company. (h) Harassing employees concerning their work perform- ance because they engaged in union activity. (i) Showing its employees a motion picture film entitled "The Springfield Gun" by which it threatened its employ- ees' physical and economic security if the Union's campaign succeeded. (j) Threatening employees with more stringent enforce- ment of company rules because they engaged in union activity. (k) Warning employees that it was futile to support the Union; and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by: (a) Refusing to hire employees Ida Mae Harrison, Brenda Oden, Geraldine Woodyard, and Katherine Oden because of their union activity. ,b) Discharging employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and Annie D. Harvey because of their union activity. (c) Laying off the following employees because of their union activity: A. The Union's Campaign On January 15, Union Organizer Mavous Speegle and two other union representatives distributed leaflets to company employees at the entrance of the Company's Sylacauga plant. The front cover of the leaflet bore the bold lettered inscription "IT'S YOUR RIGHT TO JOIN THE UNION." The back cover contained a print of a union authorization card which could be cut out. Thereaft- er, on instructions from the Union, Speegle telephoned company employee Carolyn King on January 28 and arranged for a meeting with company employees to be held on January 30 at the Coffee Pot Restaurant in Sylacauga. Speegle appeared at the Coffee Pot on September 30, where she was met by employees Carolyn King and Bettye Dowdy. The two employees conducted Speegle to the home of Bettye Dowdy's sister, where the meeting had been relocated. Speegle told the 15 assembled company employees about the benefits which could be expected from union representation. She solicited their expressions of interest in supporting a union organizing campaign at the company plant . It was agreed that a similar meeting would be held at 4 p.m. on February 2 at the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall in Childersburg, Alabama, some 10 miles from Sylacauga. Notice of the February 2 meeting was dissemi- nated by telephone and at the plant by word of mouth. Thirty to 35 employees attended the February 2 meeting which began shortly after 4 p.m. Speegle again discussed the benefits of union representation and distributed union leaflets to the employees . Speegle held a similar meeting with employees at a nearby restaurant on February 7, and a second meeting 2 days later at the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall. Thereafter, the Union held meetings with company employees almost weekly, until about June 20. At the February 9 meeting, the Union began soliciting signed authorization cards. On March 1, the Union advised the Company's plant manager, Collis Pridgen, by telegram, of the names of the 22 employees constituting the Union's plant organizing committee. Beginning on March 5, members of the organizing committee began wearing plastic badges inscribed "ILGWU Organizing Commit- tee." The Union's campaign culminated in a Board-held representation election on August 23 at the Company's Sylacauga plant.3 B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Surveillance Sundae Roberts Felecia Hudson Queen Ester Harvey Joyce W. Wood Ardelia Harvey Annie Ruth Murphy (d) Transferring employee Annie Faye Oden to more onerous work because of her union adherence. I find from the credited testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Bettye Dowdy and Jeanette Butts that at approximately 4:30 p.m. during the February 2 union meeting, Plant Manager Pridgen drove along the highway (U.S. Route 280) past the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall. I also find from their testimony that Pridgen drove past the hall at 10 to 15 miles per hour, looking in the direction of the 3 The election results were not revealed on the record of this proceeding. SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. hall and the dozen or so cars parked in the adjacent parking lot.4 Plainly, Pridgen's conduct amounted to surveillance. A further incident of company surveillance occurred during the February 9 union meeting. According to the credited testimony of General Counsel' s witnesses Grover Parker and Sara Nell Bums, Company Supervisor Ilene Wesson circled the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall in a pickup truck while the meeting was in progress, and in the process drove through the parking lot adjacent to the building. Wesson corroborated their testimony and admit- ted that she drove to the hall expecting to find the meeting. By thus engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activity, the Company violated Section 8(axl) of the Act. Lube Devices, Inc., 197 NLRB 770 (1972), enfd. 481 F.2d 1407 (C.A. 7, 1973). 2. Plant Manager Pridgen's meetings On Monday, February 5, Plant Manager Pridgen summoned employees in groups of 12 to meetings in his office lasting about 15 minutes.5 Pridgen told at least two of these groups that he knew of the February 2 union meeting at the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall; that there would be no union at the Company's plant; that 90 percent of the employees were happy and that 10 percent were not, and that these 10 percent weren't happy at home and wouldn't be happy anywhere. He also announced the resumption of employee "gripe sessions" with management. At the conclusion of his remarks, Pndgen solicited questions from the employees. Employee Bettye Dowdy asked him: "[I If this union couldn't help us, why was he fighting it [?]" Pridgen replied by asking how she would "like a lady coming into your house and tell you how to wash your dishes, how to make your beds and so on?" Employee Sandra Hanna answered that she wouldn't mind so long as it would do her any good." Employee Lois Veleta McDaniel remarked to Pridgen that "if a contract was made, if he signed it, he'd have to go by it." Pridgen's response to this was that a union wasn't going to tell him what to do and that "he would close the doors before the union would come in." Pridgen's remarks at the February 5 meetings violated the Act in two respects. First, in light of employee knowledge that he had in fact engaged in surveillance of the February 2 meeting, his assertions that he knew of their meeting were likely to bring home to listening employees that the Company was keeping their union meetings under surveillance. Accordingly, I find that by Pridgen's remarks about the February 2 union meeting the Company gave the 4 Pridgen did not deny Dowdy's and Butts' testimony . Instead, he answered "No," to the following leading question by company counsel: "Did you on February 2 or at any other time drive down 280 toward Birmingham knowing a union meeting was going on, for the purpose of spying on that meeting9" Plainly, this dialogue leaves open the possibility that Pridgen conducted the reconnaissance described by Dowdy and Butts. S My findings of fact regarding this meeting are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of employees Bettye Dowdy, Veleta McDaniel, and Janette Butts In contrast to their attempts to provide a complete statement of what was said at the meetings they attended, Pridgen's testimony was somewhat vague as to details. Further , employees Ingram and Helm, and Supervisor Machen, who were called by Respondent as witnesses to the February 5 meetings, did not corroborate Pndgen's denials that he threatened plant closure or remarked about the February 2 union meeting. Thus, under cross-examination, employee Ingram conceded- "I 503 impression that it was engaged in surveillance of its employees' union activity and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, a Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 187 NLRB 661, 666, enfd. 473 F.2d 374 (C.A. 5, 1973). Similarly violative of Section 8(a)(l) was Pridgen's threat to "close the doors" rather than bargain with a union. Transway, Inc., 160 NLRB 838, 853 (1966), enfd. 410 F.2d 368, 370 (C.A. 5, 1969). 3. Interrogation It is undisputed that on January 16, Company Supervisor Bessie Machen approached employees Veleta McDaniel and Sandra Hanna at the plant and, in an obvious reference to the Union's leaflets, asked if they had obtained "any of that good material that was handed out the day before." McDaniel replied "No, but I wished I did." I also credit McDaniel's testimony that Machen asked McDaniel: "Well how do you feel about the Union?" The latter replied that she thought it was the best thing that could happen to the plant .6 At the end of the workday on January 16, the Company distributed a leaflet to its employees which advised them: "It is your right not to join the union." Employee Carolyn King upon receiving a company leaflet looked at it and said, "[T]hey could take those and ram them." With that, she balled the leaflet up in her hand. All of King's reactions to the Company's leaflet were witnessed by Eugenia McLain, the wife of Company Personnel Manager Boyce McLain. The following day, Boyce McLain sum- moned King to his plant office and questioned her about her reaction to the company leaflet. He asked if she had made a statement about the leaflet and asked her to repeat her remarks. King refused the requests.? I credit Veleta McDaniel's testimony that on February 6, the day after Pridgen's group meetings, McLain, in the course of reprimanding employee McDaniel, asked her "how far was [she] in this union business." McDaniel replied that "it was [her] private right and [she] did not have to tell him." 8 Supervisor Laverne Leonard approached employee Ada Lawson on February 12, at the plant, and asked her if she belonged to the Union. Lawson answered: "No, no one belonged to it yet." When Leonard asked if Lawson had attended any union meetings, Lawson admitted that she don't remember everything that was said, no I don't remember everything." (Tr. 914) Employee Helm could only remember that Pridgen said "we did not want a union " (Tr. 915) Supervisor Machen's testimony regarding the February 5 meeting was similar to Helm's. (Tr 1014) 6 Machen denied questioning McDaniel and Hanna In contrast with Machen, who appeared reluctant to testify, McDaniel impressed me as an honest witness trying to give her full recollection Accordingly, I have credited McDaniel's account of this conversation. r My findings regarding this incident are based upon employee King's uncontradicted testimony. s McLain denied asking this question. However, he does not deny having a conversation with McDaniel on this date . In light of this circumstance, and my impression that McDaniel was a reliable witness, I have rejected McLain's denial. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had. Leonard also asked if Lawson believed the Union could help the employees and Lawson answered, "yes. "9 On March 16, McLain came to Lawson's work station and asked her "how was the program going." After she answered "fine," McLain inquired as to whether she had been to "any of the meetings lately." Lawson replied that she had been unable to attend. Three days later, McLain again asked Lawson "how was it going?" When she responded, "[S]o far, so good," McLain asked if she was "really serious about this." Finally, he asked Lawson, who had been wearing a union organizing committee badge since about March 5, "Ada, where is your badge?" Lawson smiled and answered that she usually lost it on weekends, but expected to find it that evening.10 Supervisor Bessie Machen brought employee Joyce Wood to McLain's office on February 28, apparently to discuss Wood's production. McLain joined the discussion and asked Wood: "Where did we lose you to the outsiders?" Wood responded: "What do you mean, the union?" When McLain answered "yes," Wood explained that she came from a union town, that her father was "a union man," and that she had "always been for the union and always would be."" Further incidents of interrogation included Supervisor Machen's March 5 encounter with employee Annie Ruth Murphy. In her testimony, Machen admitted that upon seeing Murphy's union pin that day she asked Murphy what it meant. Employee Wood's credited and undenied testimony reveals that on the same day Machen upon noticing Wood's union pin asked Wood the same question. I also credit the testimony of employees Felecia Hudson and Sundae Roberts which shows that on March 8 Supervisor Cliff Shelnutt asked Hudson and Roberts why they had signed union cards.12 Four days later, Boyce McLain asked job applicant Mrs. Willie Jo Palmer how did she and her husband "feel about the union." Although her husband was a union committeeman at nearby Georgia Marble Co., she said: "We don't."13 A final incident of interrogation occurred on April 18 while Boyce McLain interviewed job applicant Katherine Oden. I credit Oden's undisputed testimony that during the interview McLain asked her if she knew any of the girls who worked at the plant, if she knew any of them who were for the Union, and whether she planned on joining the Union. In determining whether the foregoing instances of interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I have looked to the Board's doctrine in Blue Flash, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, 593-594 (1954). Accordingly, I have consid- 9 1 do not credit Leonard's denials regarding this alleged incident Unlike Lawson, Leonard did not impress me as a candid witness i' McLain did not dispute Lawson's credited version of these two incidents Further, McLain admitted asking her where her badge was on one occasion 1i McLain substantially corroborated Wood's credited version of this conversation 12 Shellnutt does not impress me as a reliable witness. Under cross- examination, his flat denials were diminished by answers which reflected considerable uncertainty He also appeared reluctant to provide details of his admitted conversations with these two employees. In contrast, Hudson and Roberts impressed me as conscientious and reliable witnesses 13 I have credited Palmer's straightforward detailed version of her interview with McLain. In contrast, McLain's account was vague and reflected uncertainty as to what was said by the parties to this encounter. 14 McLain denies making these threats to Carolyn King, Ardelia Harvey, ered the interrogation against the background of unlawful surveillance, Pridgen's February 5 threat to close the plant rather than bargain with the Union , and the numerous other unfair labor practices found below, which include the discharges and layoffs of union adherents. In light of such manifestations of union animus, I find that the foregoing instances of interrogation interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the right to support the Union's organizing effort, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N. L R. B. v. Cameo, Incorporated 340 F.2d 803, 804-807 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 382 U.S. 926 (1965), enfg. 140 NLRB 361, 362 (1962). 4. Threats I also find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) by the following threats: On January 17, and again on February 7, Personnel Manager McLain warned employee Carolyn King that the Company would close the plant before having a union. McLain also warned on both occasions that "anybody found participating in union activities or signing cards would be discharged." About 2 weeks later, Personnel Manager McLain told employee Ardelia Harvey that McLain's former employer had responded to a union campaign by loading its machines on a truck and hauling them "to another town." McLain added "that would be what would happen here if we tried to get a union in this plant." Again, in late February, McLain warned employee Queen Ester Harvey that the [C]ompany couldn't operate under a union and "if a union came in it would close the doors." McLain again threatened plant closure, when he called Ardelia Harvey to his office on February 26. On that occasion, he told her that the Company's owners were Jews; that they had borrowed $ 2 million from Jewish millionaires who would insist upon getting their money back "if a union came in," and that "the garment factory couldn't afford to pay it back and so they would have to close." See N. L R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., supra at 616--620.14 Supervisor Ilene Wesson approached employee Annie D. Harvey at the latter's work station on February 8 or 9 and began discussing the Union. is Wesson's final comment in the discussion was that "if the plant closed . . . because of the union she would hate to see anybody go around hungry...." I find Wesson's comment was intended as a threat of plant closure in reprisal for employee support for and Queen Ester Harvey He admits to conversation with King "around January or February" and with employees "since the first of this year." However, he cannot recall their exact dates His accounts of these conversations are also vague . In light of my findings above that McLain engaged in interrogation violative of Sec 8(aX1) dung this period, my impression that McLain was not candid when testifying about these incidents, and the honest and forthright demeanor of the three employee witnesses, I reject his denial and credit the three employees. is My findings as to this incident are based upon Harvey's credited testimony. In rejecting Wesson's denial that she made the threat, I have considered her admission that she discussed the union with all the employees under her supervision, including Harvey, her hostile attitude toward employee support for the Union as shown by her admitted surveillance of the February 9 union meeting, and, the comparative demeanor of the two witnesses. SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. the Union. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575,616-620(1969). On February 12, Supervisor Laverne Leonard asked employee Ada Lawson: Do you know the union will take away your holiday pay from you and that you will have to start the plant over as if it was just built[?] Leonard's remarks were designed to instill in Lawson's mind "a fear of economic suffering and loss of benefits as a result of selecting the Union." Louisiana Manufacturing Company, 152 NLRB 1301, 1303 (1965), enfd. in pertinent part 374 F.2d 696, 701-703 (C.A. 8, 1967). Accord: Hickman Garment Company, 184 NLRB 864 (1970); Carnation Company Distribution Center, 183 NLRB 1096, fn. 1, (1970).16 As the Board declared in Louisiana Manufacturing, supra, "This type of campaign propaganda is not protected by Section 8(c) since it is at best a thinly veiled threat of reprisal." In the context of unlawfully interrogating employee Felecia Hudson, as found above, Supervisor Shelnutt showed her a book of company rules on March 8 and warned "that he was going to take the Company rules and go by them as though they were union rules...." Shelnutt went on to warn Hudson that the Company had "enough" to fire her "on quality." A bit later in their discussion, Shelnutt repeated his threat to "go by" the company rules "as though they were union rules," adding "we're going to go by seniority and lay you off." Five days later, Shelnutt warned employee Willie Jo Palmer that "if anyone approaches you with the union, we will have to fire both parties." 17 5. The no-talking rule and its enforcement It is undisputed that on February 7 Supervisor Machen brought employee King to Personnel Manager McLain's office where she received a written reprimand for talking. McLain also gave King a printed statement of company rules which included the following prohibition: (5) Talk,ng, chatting, or visiting during working time is forbidden except where necessary in the performance of such work or in matters relating thereto. Each employee is required to stay at his or her work place' during working hours. According to King's uncontradicted and credited testimo- ny, McLain revealed that his main purpose in calling her to his office was to tell her "not to try to inform anybody about the union." He warned that he would fill out a reprimand slip each time he caught her talking. Finally, McLain raised his hand and said, "If I have to fill out a stack this high, I'm going to fill out one everytime I catch you with your mouth open." is My findings regarding Supervisor Leonard's conduct on February 12 are based upon Ada Lawson's credited testimony. As previously stated in connection with my finding that Leonard unlawfully interrogated Lawson on that date, Leonard did not impress me as a candid witness 17 I have previously indicated that, unlike witnesses Hudson and Roberts, Shelnutt does not impress me as a reliable witness I also find Wilke Jo Palmer a more straightforward witness and credit her testimony 505 According to employee Joyce Wood's credited testimo- ny, on the same day, McLain issued a written reprimand to her for leaving her work station and chatting during working hours. In the course of this encounter, McLain warned her to keep the Company's rules "handy." In what I find is a reference to the Union's organizing campaign, McLain stated that "since this other thing came up he had to crack down on the rules, the men from Birmingham had told him to crack down on the rules." He also warned Woods that her talking to employee King "was going to stop." When Wood asked if she could talk to King about work, McLain told him "he wasn't being unreasonable." 18 McLain issued a reprimand for violation of the no- talking rule to employee Janette Butts on February 19. Butts complained that "everybody else talks, why did he see me talking." McLain responded: "[B)ecause you was the one we were looking at." He also referred to the Union when he pointedly remarked that "some outsiders were trying to tell our girls what to do." 19 From the foregoing, I find, as alleged by the General Counsel, that by McLain's words and deeds the Company threatened more stringent enforcement of its rules to inhibit union activity and adherence among the employees. By such conduct, the Company further violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Unimasco, Inc., 196 NLRB 400 (1972). 6. The wage increase It is conceded that on April 2 the Company announced a 30-cent hourly wage increase to its employees, effective April 16. As a result of this announced increase, the Company's minimum hourly wage rate was increased to $1.90 and its piece rate rose to $2.23 per hour. Wallace P. Dodson, a vice president of Simon and Mogilner, the firm which owns the Company, conceded that this increase was the largest single increase for the Company since 1960. He also admitted that the April 16 increase was a departure from Simon and Mogilner's policy of maintaining the Company's hourly wage at the Federal minimum level. According to Dodson, the Company's two most recent increases prior to April 16 were granted in June 1972 and June 1971, respectively. In each instance, the increases were 5 cents for some job classifications and 10 cents for the others. Dodson also testified that the April 16 wage increase resulted from Simon and Mogilner's decision to raise wages at all of its five plants including the Company's Sylacauga plant; that the raise was motivated by a desire to soften the blow of inflation on their employees and to improve the competitive position of the five plants in their respective labor markets; and that Simon and Mogilner determined that the increase could be passed on to their customers. However, the Company produced no evidence to corroborate Dodson's testimony regarding motivation for the raise. The General Counsel contends that the April 16 wage over Shelnutt's denial 18 McLain's recollection of this encounter was limited to a denial that he warned of a crackdown on company rules In contrast, Wood appeared to be recalling the encounter in detail as it occurred and she impressed me as a reliable witness 19 My findings as to the February 19 incident are based upon Butts' uncontradicted testimony 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD increase was granted expressly to interfere with the Union's organizing campaign, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Company seeks to defend the increase on the basis of the business considerations proffered by Vice President Dodson. However, after weighing the evidence on the record as a whole, I reject the Company's defense as pretextual and find instead that the unlawful design has been shown.20 The timing of the increase and its announcement in the midst of the Union's organizing campaign, the Company's demonstrated union animus, and the admitted departure from an established wage policy provide strong support for the General Counsel's contention. In sharp contrast, the defense lacks evidentiary substance. The Company has been content to produce Dodson's bare testimony and nothing more. Nor do the simultaneous wage increases at Simon and Mogil- ner's four other plants disturb my finding. For, in light of the record as a whole, I am convinced that Simon and Mogilner utilized the four other wage increases to mask the real purpose of the increase at the company plant. In sum, the April 16 wage increase was designed to suggest to the Company's employees "that the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and which may dry up if not obliged." N. L. R. B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964). Accordingly, I find the increase and its announcement violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Tidelands Marine Service, Inc., 339 F.2d 291, 293 (C.A. 5, 1964); N.L.R.B. v. Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc., 412 F.2d 94,97 (C.A. 2, 1969). 7. "The Springfield Gun" Credited and uncontradicted testimony establishes that in March, the Company showed its employees an antiun- ion film entitled "The Springfield Gun." The General Counsel alleges, and the Company denies, that by exhibition of this film the Company threatened its employees' "economic and physical security" and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1). The film was not made available for viewing by the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding. Instead, the General Counsel, without objec- tion by the Company's counsel, presented the testimony of employees who had viewed the film when the Company showed it at the plant in March. I have credited the following testimony of employee Janice Barnes which provides the clearest and most detailed version of the film: A. Well, it started off, there was a car driving down the road and you could just see the seat of the car and there was a gun laying on the seat and the man reached over and picked up the gun, loaded it and he drove up to this house and you could ist see one window, the light in the window and, he shot through the window and there was a scream and he drove off real fast, threw the gun out in the weeds and then the narrator said this is where it all began, here in Springfield on Divide Street. He said this is an appropriate name because that's what had happened , the town had been divided, it had put neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend becuase of the strike at the Royal Typewriter Company. And it showed this little boy sitting in the backyard in a swing and he said that he could no longer run and play with his friends because he'd been left with an inoperable bullet in his brain, and they flashed newspaper clippings on the screen about strikes and things like that. And they had different people telling about their experiences with the union. There was a school teacher that had belonged to a teacher's association and when it became like a union she decided she didn't want to belong anymore so they fired her from her job and she said it wasn't because she wasn't qualified, it was just because she didn't want to join a union, and there was a man that worked for the aerospace industry that belonged to United Auto Workers and they said that if one of the companies was on strike that they had to pay into a strike fund every week while they were on strike whether they wanted to or not, they just took it out of their check. And grape pickers, there was this man and a woman standing there and they said that the union had tried to come in but they didn't want it and their bosses didn't want it but they told them if they didn't go union they would boycott the grapes and they would lose their jobs and everything and since they had had to go union that they weren't making as much money and they didn't like it but they were forced to join anyway. There were other examples of it but it was all pretty much the same, people had lost their jobs because they didn't want to loin the union and when it ended the narrator said that the Boston Gun could be the Chicago Gun-the Springfield Gun could be the Boston Gun, the Chicago Gun, it could be you. He said support your national right to work law. The issue presented here is controlled by the Board's consistent holdings that the exhibition of the antiunion film "And Women Must Weep" to employees "against the background of demonstrated union animus is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." (Citations omitted) Spartus Corporation, 195 NLRB 134, 135, fn. 5 (1972), enforcement denied in pertinent part 471 F.2d 299, 300 (C.A. 5, 1973). In the Board's view, the "real theme" of "And Women Must Weep" is "that unions cause violence, hatred, distrust and community upheaval and the real warning of the film is that if you bring a union into a town, you subject it to the possibility of just those things." Southwire Company, 164 NLRB 1018, 1021 (1967). The Board has also declared that exhibition of "And Women Must Weep" in the context of employer threats of plant closure and other unfair labor practices constitutes "a clear threat of reprisal or force against the employees if they [choose] the Union as their bargaining representative." Spartus Corporation, supra at 135. Here, against a similar backdrop of union animus, "The Springfield Gun" carries the same messages, particularly in its dramatization of the strike at the Royal Typewriter Company. Accordingly, I find that the showing of "The Springfield Gun" interfered with, coerced, and 20 "[T The Board may consider facts and incidents compositely and draw inferences reasonably justified by their cumulative effects " Shattuck Denn Mining Corp v. N G.R. B., 362 F.2d 466,469 (C.A. 9, 1966). SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. restrained employees in their Section 7 rights and thus violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Southwire Company, supra at 1021. Accord: Spartus Corporation, supra at 135, fn. 5. C. Discrimination 1. Discharges a. Lois Veleta McDaniel Lois Veleta McDaniel's credited and uncontradicted testimony shows that, except for a 1-month break in July 1972, she was employed by the Company from April 1971 until her discharge on February 12, 1973. It is also undisputed that at the time of her discharge McDaniel had been a production employee under Bessie Machen's supervision since July 1971. As found above, McDaniel first revealed her union sentiment to the Company in mid-January when she told Machen she "thought [the Union] was the best thing that could ever happen to the plant." It is undisputed that during the same week McDaniel executed an authorization card which she mailed to the Union, and that she attended union meetings on January 30, February 2, February 9, and, thereafter, attended most of the union meetings. As found above, during one of Plant Manager Pridgen's February 5 meetings, McDaniel spoke out, telling him that "if a contract was made, if he signed it, he'd have to go by it...." I have also found that on February 6 Personnel Manager McLain asked McDaniel "how far was [she] in this union business." Her reply was that "it was [her] private right and [she ] did not have to tell him." At this same February 6 confrontation, also attended by Machen, McLain issued a written reprimand to McDaniel for "getting up from [her] machine before 5 and getting [her ] coat and also sewing before work time." 21 McDaniel responded that her jacket was near her machine and that she had put it on, gone for a drink of water and "turned around and came back." As for "sewing before work time," McDaniel had done just that "since the day [she] was hired," and she complained that the reprimand was ..not right." In her testimony, Machen, McDaniel's immediate supervisor, conceded that prior to February 1973 McDan- iel had received no reprimands. In her testimony, Machen also conceded that McDaniel may have worked on unrecorded time for a year and a half prior to her February 6 reprimand, but she, Machen, "had not noticed her" until that day. On February 8, the Company transferred McDaniel from serging sleeves, which she had been doing for 7 or 8 months, to a straight-needle machine. The Company had attempted to employ her as a straight-needle operator when she was first hired in April 1971. On that occasion, McDaniel could not do the work, and after 2 days the Company transferred her to other work. On February 8, as a straight-needle operator McDaniel made only 6.5 hours 21 Company rule I fixes 7 a.m. as the start of the workday Company rule I(a) prohibits employees from entering the production area prior to 7 a.m. "without special written permission signed by the plant manager " 507 of production. The Company's standard daily production rate is 9.5 hours. On the following Monday, February 12, Bessie Machen directed McDaniel to accompany her to McLain's office. When the two arrived at his office, McLain complained that McDaniel "didn't make production Thursday (Febru- ary 8)." McDaniel admitted that she had not and when questioned as to why not, added that she had been "on a new job, new operation for 1 day. She complained that she couldn't make production in 1 day on a "new operation." At this, McLain showed her the Company' s rules, pointing out rule 12 which provided that "[inlability or failure to cooperate in meeting production standards ..." was ground for discharge. McLain admittedly issued a written reprimand to McDaniel for poor production during this meeting. He also asked McDaniel if she had "been talking." When McDaniel denied that she had talked, Machen reported, "Well, there's two girls saw you talking." When McDaniel persisted in her denial, McLain said, "Well, Bessie if she wasn't talking, she wasn't talking." He then told McDaniel that on the previous Friday he had visited the nearby nonunion Avondale textile mill at Sylacauga, and "they said they were going to get rid of some of their employees for participating in activities." McDaniel said she had heard nothing about it and went back to work. At or about 4:45 p.m. on February 12, Supervisor Machen again took McDaniel to McLain's office. McLain again asked McDaniel why she hadn't "made production." Her response was that she had been on her newjob only 2 days and "couldn't make it" in that time. She rejected his suggestion that she had "other things on [her] mind." Machen commented, "I have got to have production, Mr. McLain." At this, McLain left his office and returned with her personnel record. He announced: Good production worker, good quality, good attend- ance . . . . [w ]hat's happened to you? McDaniel answered that "nothing happened to [her]" but that she couldn't make production in 2 days on an entirely different job. At this, McLain told her that the Company had given her a 35-percent allowance towards the 9.5 hours production standard.22 McDaniel again protested, "Well I can't help it, I can't make it." McLain gave McDaniel an opportunity to resign, and McDaniel refused. When McLain instructed Machen to put "terminated" on McDaniel's reprimand slip, Machen objected saying, "This is one of my best girls, I hate to see her go... "Machen finally stamped "terminated" on the slip, but only after McLain suggested that if Machen "couldn't do what she had to do" he would "get somebody that can... . McLain asked McDaniel if she wanted to talk to Plant Manager Pridgen. When she said "yes," McLain left his office briefly. When McLain returned, he announced that Pridgen wasn't available and asked McDaniel for whatever comment she wished to make. McDaniel complained that she "hadn't been treated fair," adding, "I know one thing, 22 According to Machen, the Company's policy is to grant such an allowance to employees who have been transferred to a new production job until they achieve standard production of 9.5 hours. 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD you have just fired one of the best workers you have ever had." McLain answered, "I know it." Before McLain asked her to leave his office, McDaniel told him, "It all boils down to one thing, I believe one way and you another." As McDaniel was leaving, Machen said, "I am so sorry," to which McDaniel replied, "I know you're sorry." McDaniel went to her machine, got her belongings, and left the plant 23 b. Bettye Dowdy Bettye Dowdy's employment with the Company began March 1971 and ended with her discharge on February 13. Her first contact with the Union occurred on January 16, when she received a union leaflet outside the Company's plant. She attended the January 30 union meeting at her sister's house and the February 2 and 9 union meetings at the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall. Bettye Dowdy gave the Union her signed authorization card at the February 9 meeting. Between February 7 and 9, she handed out union meeting notices to employees in the plant cafeteria during lunch. As I have found above, Dowdy attended Pndgen's February meeting, during which she asked Pridgen why he was against the Union. I also credit her testimony that she also asked Pridgen, "[If ] he had ever stood at the place of his business downtown ["Mens World"] and counted the union dollars that come into his store...." On February 8,24 the Company transferred Dowdy from a serging machine on the knit shirt line to the embroidery line, where she had never worked. Dowdy remained on the embroidery line until her discharge. Before getting into production, Dowdy received 30 minutes' to 1 hour's instruction on her new job from Annie Ruth Murphy. However, Dowdy was unable to "make production" on the embroidery line. On Monday, February 12, Supervisor Machen took Bettye Dowdy to McLain's office, confronted her with the fact that she had not made production on February 8, and asked whether she could "make production." Dowdy replied that she "couldn't on that job...." McLain asked Machen "what she wanted to do...." and asked her to read the Company's rule 12 which sets forth "[in]ability or failure to cooperate in meeting production standards" as a ground for discharge. Finally, Machen filled out a reprimand slip and that ended this confrontation. This was the first written reprimand Respondent had ever issued to Dowdy. Late in the morning on February 12, Quality Control Supervisor Gary Hays, and an inspector, Clams Gnce, checked Dowdy's work. Hays complained that her stitches were bad, that her work "had raw edges and the machine was chewing the end of it...... At this, Grice advised Hays that another employee's bundle was worse and that Hays "should look at it." After lunch, that same day, Machen conducted Dowdy 23 My findings as to the conversation and events of February 6, 8, 12 which concerned McDamel's discharge are based upon her largely undisputed testimony. Where issues of credibility have been raised by conflicting testimony, I have credited McDaniel, who of the three impressed me as the most reliable witness. Her full forthright testimony in detail contrasts sharply with the vague, uncertain, and, at times, reluctant testimony presented by McLain and Machen regarding details of events and conversations with McDaniel. to McLain's office where they were met by Hays and McLain. McLain asked Dowdy to identify a bundle of shirts on McLain's desk. She looked at it and stated that she was uncertain because it didn't have a ticket on it. Hays then said it was her bundle and asked her if she couldn't "do better than that." McLain asked Dowdy if she "had any comment " At this, Gary Hays remarked, "[Y ]ou can't tell me that if she was sitting out there with her mind on her work that she would be doing this kind of work.... " Machen then filled out a second reprimand form and the meeting ended. Toward the end of the workday, on February 13, Machen took Dowdy to McLain's office. McLain told Dowdy that she had not achieved satisfactory production on the previous day. He asked her if she could make production. After Dowdy answered that she could not make production , McLain asked Machen what she intended to do. Machen replied: "If Bettye can't make production, I've got to let her go...." Finally, Machen told Dowdy "they would have to let [her] go. McLain then filled out a form and asked Dowdy to sign it. She refused, whereupon McLain invited her to talk to Plant Manager Pridgen. Dowdy responded that she had nothing to say to Pridgen, and then walked out of McLain's office, picked up her belongings near her machine , and left the plant. c. Annie D. Harvey The Company employed production employee Annie D. Harvey from July 1971 until February 26, 1973, when she was discharged. Throughout her employment, Harvey was under Ilene Wesson's supervision. Harvey's participation in union activity began with attendance at the January 30 meeting . Thereafter, she attended the union meetings of February 2 and 9. On February 8, Harvey handed out notices of the February 9 meeting at the plant, in the bathroom and on the line at the breaktime.25 As found earlier in this Decision, on February 9, Ilene Wesson, in the course of some antiunion remarks to Harvey threatened that the plant would close in reprisal for a successful union campaign. On February 20, Personnel Manager McLain gave Annie Harvey a reprimand for failing to make production.26 When he asked Harvey why she hadn't made production, she told him "that [she] could make production when [she] got up enough speed but that morning [she] didn't get up enough speed." She also remarked that she "would rather make $ 1.93 an hour than $ 1.63 an hour." McLain warned her that if she received a third reprimand, she would be discharged. It is undisputed that on previous occasions, when Harvey's production was below the Company's standard, she was neither called to McLain 's office nor reprimanded. On the morning of February 26, shortly after the 9;30 a.m. breaktime, Harvey's job assignment was changed 24 My findings regarding Dowdy's February 8 transfer and the ensuing events preceding her discharge are based upon her credited and uncontrad- icted testimony. 25 This chronology of Harvey's employment and union activity is based upon her credited and uncontradicted testimony. 26 My findings of fact regarding the events and conversations of February 20 and 26 regarding Annie Harvey are based upon her uncontradicted and credited testimony. SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 509 from binding to sewing down lace, work she had never performed. As Ilene Wesson showed Harvey how to perform her new task, on two of three garments, the necks on the garments were stretching. Wesson assured Harvey that she, Wesson, would ask the quality inspector to press one of the garments to see if the defect could be eliminated. Wesson added that she would inform Harvey of the results. After waiting for some time, Harvey became impatient, and called Inspector Louise Patton to her machine. Patton checked Harvey's work, said "she didn't think anything could be done about stretching the necks ... and did not complain to Harvey about the prod- uction. Shortly thereafter, Harvey noticed Patton and Personnel Manager McLain looking at her and talking. Patton returned to Harvey's work station, looked through Har- vey's bundle of garments twice, and instructed Harvey to redo "whatever needed to be redone...." Harvey complied with Patton's instruction. After lunch, that same day, Patton picked up Harvey's bundle and took it away. Later in the afternoon, Ilene Wesson came back to Harvey with the bundle and directed Harvey to accompany her to McLain's office. There, McLain and Wesson told Harvey that her quality was bad and remarked that she was a good operator. Wesson stated that she was sure that Harvey could do better work. Inspector Patton was also present and remarked that Harvey's quality had been good theretofore and expressed dismay at the poor quality of Harvey's work that day. Wesson and McLain instructed Harvey to go back to work and redo all of her bundles. Wesson complained that she was losing money because of Harvey's faulty work. That same afternoon, after reworking her bundles, Harvey called Inspector Patton over to check the last bundle. Patton checked and announced that she hadn't found any flaws. Harvey "told Patton she had to find something wrong with that one because she had found something wrong with all the rest of them." After Patton repeated her favorable appraisal, Harvey replied "that there were a lot of snakes in the grass" in the plant, but that Harvey "didn't know she was one of them." To this Patton replied, "Annie, I got a boss," and terminated the encounter. Late in the day, about 4:40 p.m., Supervisor Wesson took Annie Harvey to McLain's office. There, in the presence of Inspector Patton, Wesson complained to McLain that Harvey had called Patton "a snake in the grass" and that she Wesson would not tolerate such conduct on her production line. McLain told Harvey, "You know this means your termination," recounting that this was her third reprimand. McLain gave Harvey an opportunity to resign. She refused to resign and he terminated her. d. Carolyn King Carolyn King began working for the Company in June 1968 and was discharged on February 27, 1973. At the time of her discharge, King was under Bessie Machen's supervision. King's involvement with the Union began on January 16, when she received a union leaflet. On the same day, she received the Company's leaflet which stated "it is your right not to join the Union." As found above, King's adverse remarks regarding the company pamphlet were the subject of her interrogation by Personnel Manager McLain on January 17. During that same confrontation, I have also found that McLain warned "that the plant would close before having a union" and that "anybody . . . found having a card or participating in the union's activities would be discharged." It is undisputed that 2 days later King telephoned the Union's Birmingham office and requested that a union representative be sent to Sylacauga. And that, on January 28, Union Representative Mavous Speegle contacted King and arranged for the January 30 union meeting. In the meantime, on January 18, Supervisor Machen told King that Plant Manager Pridgen had asked Machen "did she suppose that [King] would go to the union" and that she, Machen, had replied that "she didn't think so..... At this, King complained that Machen "had no business telling [Pndgen] that, because [Machen] didn't know what [King] was going to do...." Machen then added that she had told Pridgen that King "could be pushed into doing it." After a further exchange, Machen asked King "to trust her to help [King]."27 King's union activity continued in February. She attended the union meeting of February 2 at the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall. On February 5, she attended one of Plant Manager Pridgen's meetings. Four days later, she signed a union authorization card. As I have found above, on February 7, McLain summoned King to his office where he told her "that talking was to be cut out," gave her a copy of the Company's rules, and directed her "not to try to inform anybody about the union." McLain also warned her "that the Company would close before having a union and that anybody found participating in union activities or signing cards would be discharged." McLain gave King a written reprimand and warned her that she would receive a reprimand every time he saw her talking. Prior to February 7, King had received one reprimand in her 4-1/2 years with the Company. I also credit King's testimony that at the February 7 meeting with McLain King asked him "if he was trying . . . to tell [her] how to think. . . ." McLain's reply was that he wasn't speaking for himself but only for the Company. It is undisputed that on February 13 McLain summoned King to his office and issued another reprimand to her for talking. King complained that there were over 400 other employees in the plant and McLain wasn't cracking down on the rules with the rest of the people. McLain replied that "he only saw what he wanted to see. It is also undisputed that when King arrived at work on February 26 she found her serging machine had been "pushed back" and replaced by a straight-needle machine. Prior to this event, King had worked as a serger on the woven shirt line for about 4-1/2 years. King also noticed that the serging machines previously assigned to employees 21 My findings as to King's January 18 conversation with Machen is witness. based upon King's testimony. King impressed me as the more candid 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Janette Butts, Joyce Wood, and Ardeha Harvey had been pushed off the line and replaced by straight-needle machines. That morning King, Butts, Wood, and Ardelia Harvey were assigned to straight-needle machines under an instructor, Nellie Sallas . After Sallas had given the four employees about 1 hour of instruction, Bessie Machen directed that the instruction cease, and stated that McLain "had said to put the girls on the machines then." Salas gave the four employees scraps to sew on their machines and stayed with them "about an hour or so." Then the four were put on regular production. Later that same day, McLain told Salas that "these four girls were troublemakers, they worked for the union and that he wanted them out of the plant." McLain also instructed Sallas "to go back where they were and sit them down to the machines, make it rough on them and-let them alone." 2s Sallas usually took at least 1 week to complete the training of straight-needle operators . However, in the face of McLain's order, she gave the four employees only "a half a [sic I day." 29 It is undisputed that on the morning of February 26, after King had begun production on the straight-needle machine, Quality Inspector Clams Grice and Quality Control Supervisor Gary Hay checked King's bundle of shirts. It is also undisputed that Grice told King to redo the bundle because of defective work. King's uncontradicted testimony also shows that Gnce repeatedly checked King's bundle during the day and each time found some defective work. After each inspection, Grice required King to redo the defective production. Finally, during the afternoon, Supervisor Machen inspected King's bundle of shirts and told her that "except for the coming out too far on some of the collars, that the bundle looked good." Machen instructed King to go through the bundle again and correct the collars. At the end of the day, King "was in the process of redoing the bundle." Thus, instead of her usual quantity of production in excess of the Company's 9.5 hour daily production standard, which she made as a serger, she was credited with only .3 hours of production on the straight- needle machine. On the morning of February 27, King arrived at work and found her bundle gone. She obtained another bundle and began working at her straight-needle machine. During that morning, Supervisor Machen conducted King to McLain's office. There, McLain confronted King with a bundle of shirts and accused her of ruining 16 shirts. After a discussion about the shirts, McLain asked Machen "what did she intend to do with an operator that didn't seem to have her mind on what she was doing." McLain suggested that "maybe she's got her mind on her church activities or something...." King asked: "Who said I go 25 McLain denied that he named the four employees as troublemakers or told Sallas he wanted to get nd of them However, he did not deny meeting with Sallas on February 26. Nor did he provide his own version of their conversation . I have also considered my previous findings showing McLain's propensity for threatening employees with discharge in the course of his antiunion campaign Finally, by her demeanor, Sallas, who was a company employee at the time she testified, impressed me as a more objective and reliable witness Accordingly, I credit her account of McLain's remarks to her on February 26 zs Supervisor Machen testified that she knew that Sallas took "more than a day" to train the four employees However, Machen's testimony contains to church[?]" McLain retorted with "well you're right, she's got her mind on some outside activity , I don't know what it is." After further discussion with King about her alleged faulty work, and this her third reprimand , McLain offered her the choice of resignation or discharge . When King refused to resign, McLain discharged her.30 B. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that the discharges of employees Lois Veleta McDaniel, Bettye Dowdy, Carolyn King, and Annie Harvey were motivated by antiunion considerations, rather than the lawful reasons urged by the Company. From my analysis of the record as a whole, I find that the Company terminated the four employees as part of its campaign to defeat the Union's organizing campaign. There is ample circumstantial evidence of the Company's illegal motive. First, the four discharges occurred during the Union's organizing campaign . Further, by the time of their discharges, employees McDaniel, Dowdy, and King had made clear to the Company that they supported the Union. As for Harvey, little more than 2 weeks before her discharge, Supervisor Wesson singled her out for an antiunion discourse and confronted her with a threat of plant closure if the Union's organizing campaign succeed- ed. From Wesson's conduct, I find that the Company at least suspected Harvey of prounion sentiments. I have also considered significant in this respect the timing of Wesson's conversation with Harvey which occurred at about the time Harvey was openly engaged in handing out notices of the union meeting of February 9 at the plant. That the Company was likely to view union adherents with hostility is shown by its rampant antiunion campaign, much of which was directed at these four employees. I have found that the Company coercively interrogated employ- ees, threatened them with termination and economic reprisal, engaged in surveillance and conveyed the impres- sion of surveillance, threatened to make their working conditions more onerous by strict enforcement of company rules, and later granted an unlawful wage increase. Such "anti-union bias and demonstrated unlawful hostility are proper and highly significant factors for Board evaluation in determining motive" (N.L.RB. v. Dan River Mills, Inc., 274 F.2d 381, 384 (C.A. 5, 1960)), particularly where, as here, the Company's "coercive conduct . . . broke every rule in the books." N. L. R. B. v. Durant Sportswear, 358 F.2d 729, 730 (C.A. 5, 1966). Finally, the Company's inclination to resort to unlawful discharge in its antiunion campaign was made clear by McLain's statement to employee Sallas on February 26, identifying King and three other employ- ees as "troublemakers" inasmuch as they worked for the no explanation of how she obtained the knowledge. Also, Sallas, the instructor, was better able to know how much time she spent with the employees. Finally, of the two, Sallas for reasons already stated , impressed me as the more reliable witness. Accordingly, I credit Sallas' account of the training provided the four employees on February 26. My remaining findings regarding the four employees' reassignments and training on February 26, are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of employees King and Sallas. 30 Except as previously noted, my findings regarding the events of February 26 and 27, including King's discharge, are based upon her uncontradicted and credited testimony. SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. Union, and declaring that he wanted them "out of the plant." 31 In defense of its conduct, the Company points to the three reprimands it issued to each of the four employees as the true motivation of their discharges. However, examina- tion of the proffered reasons for the reprimands reveals them as pretextual. The evidence strongly suggests that the Company issued the reprimands in support of a plan to get rid of four union adherents. Thus, the Company issued two reprimands to McDaniel on February 12 for low production. On the same day, the Company issued one reprimand for low prod- uction and another for poor quality to Dowdy. The four reprimands came but 2 working days after the two employees had been transferred to single-needle machines and only 1 week after both had voiced prounion sentiments at one of Plant Manager Pridgen's antiumon meetings. Added to these incriminating circumstances are other facts which reveal the Company's plan. The Company was well aware that McDaniel, who was a good producer, and one of Machen's "best girls" on her current work, could not do single-needle work. Dowdy, who had never previously been reprimanded for low production, had not worked on a single-needle machine for the past year, and had no experience on the embroidery line to which she was now assigned. Nevertheless, 2 working days after their respec- tive reassignments, both were summoned to McLain's office, apprised of the Company's production rule, and reprimanded for not making production on February 8. The Company made no effort to help these employees achieve competence in their new jobs, but seemed more interested in creating reasons to get rid of them. Similarly, King and Harvey were transferred to single-needle machines on February 26 and were given only scant training. On the same day, Harvey was reprimanded twice for defective quality. One day later, the Company reprimanded King for defective quality. In sum, I find that the Company transferred these four employees to unfamil- iar work and afforded them a minimum of training to satisfy its announced policy that upon receipt of a third reprimand an employee was to be discharged. I also find, as alleged by the General Counsel, that Dowdy's transfer to single-needle work on February 8, and the reprimand for low production which the Company issued to her on February 12, constituted harassment violative of Section 8(a)(1). Sarkes Tarzian Inc., 149 NLRB 147, 153 (1964).32 Analysis of the remaining reprimands shows that in its anxiety to be rid of these four union activists, petty infractions which would otherwise have gone unnoticed were seized upon and treated as serious misconduct. Thus, for almost a year and a half, Veleta McDaniel had broken the Company's rules by beginning work 15 minutes early. It is indeed noteworthy that her immediate supervisor, Machen, did not take note of this phenomenon until February 6, the day after McDaniel's encounter with Pridgen over the Union, when that day's 15-minute 31 As found below, the Company violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by laying off Joyce Woods on March 5, and Ardelia Harvey 9 days later. The fact that the Company did not discharge or lay off Butts does not aid the Company's defense . For, "a discriminatory motive otherwise estab- lished, is not disproved by an employer's proof that it did not weed out all union adherents " Nachman Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 421 (C A. 7, 511 violation was embodied in a written reprimand. In that same reprimand, the Company accused McDaniel of getting up from her machine before 5 p.m. and getting her coat, when in truth she had left her work only to get a drink of water and return. That the Company was paying special attention to union adherents is clearly shown by Carolyn King's exchanges with McLain when he reprimanded her on February 7 and 13 for talking. In the first incident, McLain counseled her against talking to other employees about the Union, adding that he would fill out reprimands against her whenever he caught her talking. Six days later, McLain again reprimanded King for talking. King asked him why she had been singled out among those of the Company's 400 employees who were talking during work. McLain made clear his attitude, when he responded that he wasn't looking at the others and saw only what he wanted to see. Finally, the Company's compulsion to rid itself of Annie Harvey is shown by her minor clash with Inspector Louise Patton, the final ground for her third and final reprimand. Even if Harvey's conduct might otherwise be acceptable ground for her discharge, it cannot help the Company's defense. Harvey's verbal attack on Inspector Louise Patton was a direct consequence of the Company's unlawful scheme to rid itself of a union adherent. This factor combined with the minor nature of the infraction per- suades me that the Company seized upon the "snake-in- the-grass" incident as a fortuitous event which could be used to mask the real reason for Harvey's discharge. In sum, I find that the Company's proffered defense leaves undisturbed the strong evidence supporting the General Counsel's contention that the four terminations were motivated by union animus. Accordingly, I find that the Company violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act when it discharged employees Lois Veleta McDaniel, Bettye Dowdy, Carolyn King, and Annie Harvey. 2. Layoffs a. The facts (1) Joyce Wood The Company hired employee Joyce Wood on February 3, 1970. She was employed initially on Bessie Machen's knit shirt line, and except for brief periods of layoff remained in that job until her last layoff on March 5 .33 By the time of the hearing in this matter, the Company had recalled Wood. Wood's union activity began when she attended the Union's February 2 meeting. Thereafter, she attended all of the union meetings, and was listed as a member of the organizing committee in the Union's March 1 telegram to the Company. On March 5, the day of her last layoff, she wore a union pin at work. On at least one occasion in late January or early February, employees Wood, Carolyn King, Ardelia Harvey, and Nadine Middleton talked about 1964). 32 As the complaint did not allege that the treatment of other employees constituted harassment, I have made no other findings in this regard. 33 Except as noted hereafter, my findings regarding Wood's March 5 layoff are based upon her uncontradicted testimony. 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union and looked at union pamphlets during lunch in the plant lunchroom, about 10 feet from where Supervisors Bessie Machen and Ilene Wesson sat. On February 7, Machen came to where Wood and Carolyn King were working, held up a company rule book, and showed them rule 5 which prohibits employees from chatting during worktime. When Wood asked for a copy of the company rules, Machen directed her to the office, where Wood obtained a copy. Later the same morning, after Wood went to the cafeteria, Machen took her to McLain's office. Machen reported Wood for leaving her work station without asking permission. As I have found earlier, McLain then asked Wood if she was aware of the company rule in that regard and if she had a copy of the Company's table of rules. When she said "yes," he warned her to "keep them handy." As found above, McLain warned Wood of more stringent enforcement of company rules to combat union activity among the employees. I also credit Wood's testimony that McLain "went on to say he didn't know which way I was and Bessie said she didn't think I was involved." McLain remarked that Wood was "an intelligent person and he couldn't change [her] mind anyway." As found above, McLain showed Wood the Company's rule 5, proscription against talk during working time, and warned her that "this talking to Carolyn King was going to stop." Finally, under McLain's instruction, Machen drew up Wood's first written reprimand, citing Wood "for leaving [her] work station without permission." On February 26, the Compa- ny transferred Wood and Carolyn King from serging operators to single-needle work. After about 1 hour's instruction from Nellie Sallas, Wood was assigned to sew down collars, work she had never done before. Later that same day, McLain referred to Wood as one of the four "troublemakers" working for the Union whom he wanted "out of the plant." Wood admittedly failed to make satisfactory quantities of production on February 26, 27, or 28. On the afternoon of February 28 Bessie Machen brought Wood to Personnel Manager McLain's office. When McLain inquired as to the reason Wood was there, Machen produced time sheets. McLain, after studying the sheets counted "eight people not making production" and sought Machen's explanation. He also observed that Wood had not made production since February 26. McLain discussed Wood's low prod- uction and suggested that she step up her production soon and showed her the rules. He issued a reprimand to her and asked her how many times had she been to his office. She answered "two." At the same meeting, McLain told Wood that he "understood when the outsiders came in that he was going to be the first one to go...... Wood said she didn't know, and that she hadn't heard that. At this, McLain remarked, "Well it was about to die down this weekend would 34 I have based my findings of fact on Wood's testimony, which has in considerable portion been corroborated by McLain Where McLain contradicted Wood, I have credited her For, of the two, Wood impressed me as a more reliable witness because of her full forthright presentation 35 I do not credit Machen's testimony to the effect that Wood asked to be laid off on March 5 Instead, I credit Wood's denial that she requested the layoff Machen's testimony was generally uncertain on the subject of Wood's March 5 layoff. On the other hand, Wood testified with conviction. probably be the last meeting." He added his expectation that "everybody would leave town and go back where they came from...: . McLain went on to ask Wood about her husband's work, how well he was doing, where she and her husband lived, and, whether she wanted her job. He told her "they were hiring people in Talladega" and offered to help her obtain employment there. Finally, as found above, he asked: "Where did we lose you to the outsiders[?]" When Wood asked if he meant the Union, McLain said "yes." At this, Wood told him that she came from a prounion family and a "union town," and that she was prounion.34 On March 5, when Wood arrived at work, she was reassigned to her old serging machine. That day she made about 11.5 hours production. As I have found, prior to the start of work that morning, Supervisor Machen noticed Wood's "ILGWU" button and asked what the letters meant. Employee Janette Butts who was standing nearby answered "International Ladies Garment Workers Union." About 15 minutes before the end of the workday, Machen laid Wood off, effective March 6. When Wood asked about returning to work on March 7, Machen replied, "No, I'll call you when I want you to come back in, we don't have any work." The Company recalled Wood on March 20. The full complement of employees under Machen's supervision is between 60 and 70. At the time of Wood's layoff, the Company laid off "several" other employees on Machen's line.35 (2) Felicia Hudson The Company hired Felicia Hudson late in 1971. At the time of her layoff on March 8, she was employed in Cliff Shelnutt's pressing department. On February 21, Felicia Hudson was directed to go to Plant Manager Pridgen's office. There, Pridgen told Hudson that he had been informed that she had been handing out union cards. Hudson denied that she had engaged in such activity. Hudson also denied Pridgen's further assertion that she had been reportedly attending union meetings. Pridgen then asked if Hudson had heard or knew of the girls who had been "fired" for participating in union activities. Hudson said she knew of one, Veleta McDaniel. Pridgen then asked Hudson where she had heard about McDaniel. Hudson answered to the effect that she had heard it in discussion in a plant restroom. At this, Pridgen asked, "Well you have had nothing to do with it whatsoever at this point?" After Hudson said, "No, sir, nothing," Pridgen sent her back to work.36 As I have found above, on March 8, Cliff Shellnutt asked Hudson why she had signed a union card, warned that the Company had enough to fire her on poor quality, and threatened stricter enforcement of company rules in reprisal for the employees' union activity. I have also found from Hudson's credited testimony that Shellnutt told her Further, on the basis of comparative demeanor, I am convinced that Wood is a more reliable witness. 36 Pndgen testified that he had no recollection of any conversation with Hudson He also denied making the remarks attributed to him by Hudson. However, in light of Pndgen's other attempts to kill union activity among his employees by engaging in unlawful surveillance, giving the impression of such surveillance, and making a threat to close the plant, I discredit his denial. SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 513 "we're going to take these union rules and . . . we're going to go by seniority and lay you off . . . and call someone in with more seniority than you have...: . At this, Hudson remarked that she probably would not be recalled and asked, "Why don't you go ahead and fire me...." Shelnutt said he wouldn't fire her adding, "I'll let you resign...." With that, Shelnutt laid Hudson off. The Company attempted to recall Hudson by telephone on April 2. However, she was not at home. About I week later, Hudson returned the Company's call and agreed to return to work the following day. However, Hudson did not report for work as agreed. She did not get in touch with the Company until about 4 or 5 days later. At that point, the Company told Hudson that it had obtained a replacement for her and not to report to work. (3) Queen Ester Harvey The Company laid off employee Queen Ester Harvey from Supervisor Wesson's production line on February 22 for 2 days and again on March 7 for 15 days. The evidence of Queen Ester Harvey's union activity is undisputed. She attended all of the Union's meetings, handed out meeting notices in February, and was listed as a member of the plant organizing committee in the Union's March 1 telegram to Plant Manager Pridgen. Finally, on March 5, Queen Ester began wearing a union button at the plant. It is also undisputed that in later February, following Harvey's return from her February 22 layoff, Supervisor Wesson approached her with a coupon booklet bearing the following caption on its cover: Union Promises WARRANTY COUPONS (Get Them In Writing) Each of the six coupons inside the booklet contained a guarantee with a signature line at the bottom for a union organizer and a line for the date of the signature. The guarantees included a wage increase in the Union's first contract with the Company, strike compensation from the Union, no union fines or assessments, no special job security for stewards or union officials in the event of a layoff, reinstatement rights following a strike against the Company, and no layoffs or terminations by the Company because of a lack of work. On the inside of the booklet's back cover was the following: UNLESS A UNION ORGANIZER HAS SIGNED each coupon, you should- VOTE NO37 Harvey did not answer Wesson's suggestion that if a union representative signed all six coupons Queen Ester should join the Union. Later, on the same day, Wesson took Queen Ester to Personnel Director McLain's office. There, in Wesson's presence, McLain began telling Queen Ester that he was not attempting to persuade her not to join the Union, but wanted her to make up her mind without "any outsiders" influencing her. Harvey assured him that if she joined the Union it would be her independent decision. In the course of this same conversation, as I have found above, McLain twice threatened closure of the plant if the Union organized the Company's employees. On March 7, Supervisor Wesson came to Harvey, laid her off without giving any reason, and assured her that she, Wesson, would recall her. At the time of her layoff, Harvey had just begun work on a bundle of garments and had a two-bundle backlog, all of which amounted to about I hour's work. Fifteen days later, the Company recalled Queen Ester Harvey. I find from Wesson's uncontradicted testimony that her usual production line force ranged "from 30 to 38" and that by the time of Queen Ester Harvey's layoff Wesson had laid off 10 to 15 operators for lack of work. I also find from Supervisor Wesson's, testimony as corroborated by Queen Ester, that since prior to February 22 Queen Ester had on occasions requested layoffs when she learned that her production line was running out of work. (4) Sundae Roberts The Company hired Sundae Roberts in August 1972 as a presser. Clifford Shelnutt was Roberts' supervisor at the time of her layoff on March 8. According to Shelnutt's undisputed and credited testimony, his department's maximum strength was 54 employees. As of March 8, about 7 employees in addition to Roberts were laid off and only 35 employees were employed in Shelnutt's depart- ment. Roberts attended union meetings on February 2 and February 22. On March 8, Shelnutt called Roberts into a room at the plant where he first asked her "why [she] had left the Company and where they had failed [her]." He also asked why she had signed a union card. Shelnutt began the discussion with some antiunion and racist comments and then asked Roberts how long she had been employed. When Roberts answered, Shelnutt declared his intention of laying her off instead of another employee with greater seniority. At this, Roberts protested that there were other company employees with less seniority than she had who were still working. Shelnutt responded that he let her work because she needed the job. He added that the employees with less seniority than she had also needed theirjobs, "but were loyal to the Company." Shelnutt went on, stating that: [H]e'd waited a week for [Roberts] to come to him and say [she] had made a mistake and that [she ] was sorry and [she] wanted to be for the Company as it stands and he'd give [her] more than a chance to work and be fair about it and said he was disgusted with [her] and he'd given her a chance to be fair about it and that he was going to lay [her] off... . 37 Wesson testified that she discussed the coupon book with all employees under her supervision. 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By early April, Roberts had obtained another job and at that time declined the Company's offer of reinstatement.38 (5) Ardelia Harvey The Company hired Ardelia Harvey in January 1969. Three months later, Harvey was laid off for 6 or 7 weeks. She then returned to the Company and quit after about 2 weeks. In June 1970, Harvey returned to the Company's employ. Thereafter, except for a layoff from February 21 to February 26, a 1-1/2-day layoff in 1972 and I week's absence in 1970, Harvey worked for the Company until her layoff on March 14. From late 1970 until her layoff, Harvey was under Bessie Machen's supervision. Ardelia Harvey's union activity began about January 16, when she asked Carolyn King to call the Union and request more of the pamphlets which union representative had distributed near the plant on January 15. On February 7, she attended an employees' meeting called to organize the February 9 union meeting. On February 8, Harvey distributed union meeting notices in the Company's cafeteria during lunch hour . Bessie Machen saw the notices in Harvey's hands but did not see her passing them out. Harvey's name appeared on the union organizing commit- tee list sent to Plant Manager Pridgen on March 1.39 As previously found, on February 22, and again on February 26, Personnel Manager McLain singled out Ardelia Harvey for threats of plant closure if the Union succeeded in organizing the Company's employees. I have also found above that Ardelia Harvey was also one of the four "troublemakers" working for the Union whom McLain wanted "out of the plant." On March 12, Harvey told McLain that she planned to go on maternity leave commencing March 19. McLain asked her to sign a blank leave form which he said would not be completed until she brought in a "doctor's excuse." The leave form shows, however, that McLain authorized maternity leave from March 26 until July 24, notwithstand- ing Harvey's failure to furnish the Company with a supporting statement from a doctor. Just before the work bell sounded, on the morning of March 14, Supervisor Machen came to Ardelia Harvey's work station and laid her off without giving her any reason 40 However, Harvey's maternity leave began on March 26 and was extended from July 24 to July 30, at her request. She returned to work at the Company on July 31. (6) Annie Ruth Murphy The facts regarding Annie Ruth Murphy are undisputed. Annie Ruth Murphy, a company employee since 1964 or 38 My findings as to Roberts' layoff, except as specifically noted, are based upon her testimony. Shelnutt admitted talking to Roberts on March 8 and larag her off that same day. When examined as to his conversation with k 'bents, Shelnutt began his testimony with . "The best I recollect at this time .. " And then testified only that he "called her in to explain to her that she could sign up for her unemployment or partial benefits." On direct examination by company counsel, Shelnutt did not contradict Roberts' detailed version of the incident but only denied the incriminatory portions of her account Later, on cross-examination, referring to the same incident, Shelnutt conceded. "I don't recall the full conversation that was carried on that afternoon .. " (Tr. 974) In the face of Shelnutt's concession, and my assessment of the demeanor of the two witnesses, I have concluded that Roberts is the more reliable witness 1965, was laid off on March 19. At the time of her layoff, Murphy was under Bessie Machen's supervision. Murphy's union activity began on January 30, when she attended the first union meeting. Her name appeared on the list of union organizing committee members sent by the Union to Plant Manager Pridgen on March 1 . On March 5, Murphy began wearing a union pin to work. Supervisor Machen noticed Murphy's union pin on March 5 and asked her what it meant. In a second incident in March, Machen disclosed to Murphy that Machen's sister-in-law, who worked in Talladega, Alabama, and was a union member, "had a wreck in Talladega and . . . they charged her up with it because of her being in the union at Talladega." Shortly after the Company's workday began on Monday, March 19, Supervisor Bessie Machen escorted Murphy to McLain's office. After asking about Murphy's daughter, McLain told her: "Well, I'm going to send you back home ... you might be a case of having the mumps ." Murphy sought to correct McLain by assuring him that it was her "little girl" who had the mumps and that she, Murphy, was "ready to come to work." At this McLain said, "Well we're going to have to let you go home cause there's not any work on the line." The Company recalled Murphy little more than 2 weeks later. b. Analysis and conclusions Between March 5 and March 19, the Company laid off union supporters Joyce Wood, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Sundae Roberts, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy. The complaint alleges that the five layoffs were motivated by union animus and therefore violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. The Company argues that these five layoffs were part of a larger temporary seasonal reduction-in-force dictated by a lack of work. However, I find from the record as a whole that, while the reduction in force may have been warranted by a lack of work, the selection of these six employees was part and parcel of the Company's effort to eradicate employee support for the Union. All six employees were known to Respondent as leading union adherents well before March 5, the date of the first alleged unlawful layoff. Thus, about 4 weeks before her layoff, Wood discussed the Union with other employees and looked at a union pamphlet 10 feet from where Supervisors Wesson and Machen were seated. At about the same time, Machen and Personnel Manager McLain sought to restrict Wood from communicating with other employees during working hours by more stringent enforcement of company rules. In this context, McLain 39 My findings as to Ardelia Harvey's employment history are based upon a composite of Supervisor Machen 's and Harvey's testimony My findings regarding Harvey's union activity is based upon her credited and uncontradicted testimony. 40 Machen testified that she laid Harvey off on March 14 because "we were out of work" and Harvey wanted to draw some unemployment relief before her maternity leave began Harvey denied requesting a layoff Machen's narrowly drawn testimony lacks detail as to the circumstances in which the asserted request was made . This factor and my overall impression of her pursuade me that she is not a reliable witness . In contrast Ardelia Harvey impressed me as a conscientious witness trying to remember the conversations and events in which she participated . I have therefore credited Harvey's denial SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. and Machen's professions of uncertainty about Wood's union sentiment on February 7 reflected their suspicions. Finally, on February 26, McLain revealed that he was no longer in doubt as to Wood's union activities, when he counted Wood among the four "troublemakers" working for the Union whom he wanted out of the plant and whom he suddenly transferred to straight-needle work to fulfill that desire. On February 28, McLain by his unlawful interrogation confirmed what he already knew when Wood declared her allegiance to the Union. McLain also revealed that he was thinking in terms of Wood's job when he asked her whether she wanted her job and then offered his help in finding employment for her elsewhere. The next day, March 1, the Company received the Union's telegram announcing the names of its organizing committee, one of whom was Wood. Finally, on the very day of her layoff, Wood appeared at work wearing a union pin, which was noticed by Supervisor Machen. Similarly, pnor to laying off Ardelia Harvey, Queen Ester Harvey, and Annie R. Murphy, the Company was well aware of their union activity. It knew from the Union's telegram that all were on the Union's organizing committee . Further, on March 5, prior to their layoffs, Queen Ester Harvey and Murphy wore union buttons at the plant. On that day, Machen asked Murphy what the button meant. Ardelia Harvey was one of the four "troublemakers" mentioned by McLain on February 26. Further, during February and early March, the Company directed antiunion remarks at the four, individually, and unlawfully threatened the Harveys with plant closure if the union campaign succeeded. Company knowledge of Roberts' union sentiment is shown by Supervisor Shelnutt's interrogation of Sundae Roberts immediately pnor to her layoff on March 8, in which he asked why she had "left the Company" and why she had signed a union card. It is also clear from the same conversation that Respondent selected Roberts for layoff because she was prounion. For, when Shelnutt informed Roberts of his intention of laying her off, and she protested that there were others with less seniority available for layoff, Shelnutt revealed the Company's motive. He pointed out that they had permitted her to work because she needed the job, and then remarked that those with less seniority than she also needed their jobs, "but were loyal to the Company." He also complained that he had waited 1 week for Roberts to renounce her allegiance to the Union and "be for the Company"; that "he was disgusted with [her] and he'd given her a chance to be fair about it and that he was going to lay [her] off. ..." In short, Shelnutt's remarks convince me that Roberts' layoff violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Shelnutt's remarks to employee Felicia Hudson on March 8 revealed the Company's motive in laying her off. On that occasion, immediately after asking Hudson why she had signed a union card, Shelnutt warned that the Company had enough ground for firing her for poor quality and threatened stricter enforcement of the Compa- ny's rule to thwart union activity at the plant. Shelnutt then +' I also find Plant Manager Pridgen's remarks to Hudson on February 21 that he had been informed of her union activity at the plant and her attendance at union meetings were designed to give the impression that the 515 told Hudson "we're going to take these union rules and ... we're going to go by seniority and lay you off . . . and call someone in with more seniority than you have...." After a further exchange, Shelnutt laid Hudson off. Here, as in the case of Sundae Roberts, I find the Company punished Hudson for her union adherence by selecting her for layoff, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 4i I am also pursuaded that the Company was hostile toward the union activity and sentiments of Ardelia Harvey, Joyce Wood, Annie Ruth Murphy, and Queen Ester Harvey. I have previously found the Company's animus revealed by the discharges of four leading union advocates in February, the March 8 layoffs of Roberts and Hudson, and numerous violations of Section 8(axl) between mid-January and April. More particularly, Per- sonnel Manager McLain made plain the Company's attitude toward Ardelia Harvey and Joyce Wood on February 26, when he voiced his desire to rid the plant of them and two other employees because of their union activity. About the same time, Personnel Manager McLain sought unsuccessfully to persuade Queen Ester Harvey to desert the Union by addressing antiunion remarks includ- ing unlawful threats of plant closure to her individually. Supervisor Machen also attempted to discourage Annie Ruth Murphy from supporting the Union in early March. The timing of Wood's layoff on the day she began wearing her union pin and the close timing of Queen Ester Harvey's layoff only 2 days after she began wearing a similar pin are circumstances which lend further support to my finding of unlawful motivation as to the selection of Ardelia Harvey, Joyce Wood, Annie Ruth Murphy, and Queen Ester Harvey for layoff. The credited testimony showing that when Supervisor Wesson's production line ran out of work Queen Ester Harvey requested layoff does not provide the Company with an excuse for Queen Ester's March 7 layoff. First, this proffered reason is rendered suspect by Wesson's failure to mention it at the time she laid Queen Ester off. More important there is no showing that Queen Ester requested the March 7 layoff. Ardelia Harvey's request for maternity leave does not provide an excuse for her layoff on March 14. First, Ardelia's request was not given as the reason at the time of her layoff by Supervisor Machen. Further, Machen testified that lack of work was the reason for Ardelia's layoff. Finally, the Company's grant of maternity leave to Ardelia Harvey was not to be effective until March 26. In sum, I find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by selecting Ardelia Harvey, Joyce Wood, Annie Ruth Murphy, and Queen Ester Harvey for layoff in reprisal for their prounion activity and sentiment. I further find with respect to Ardelia Harvey that her unlawful layoff ended on March 25, the day before her maternity leave began. Company was keeping her union activity under surveillance Accordingly, I find that by these remarks the Company violated Sec. 8(aXl) of the Act 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Annie Faye Oden's transfer a. The facts It is undisputed that Annie Faye Oden has been a company employee since September 9, 1969, and that prior to Oden's transfer on February 20 she had worked for Supervisor Wesson. Oden first learned of the union activity at the plant on February 7, when employee Carolyn King told her about a union meeting. On February 8, Personnel Manager McLain warned Oden "not to take any papers from anyone talking about the union and not to discuss the union .... "42 It is undenied that in the same encounter, McLain asked Oden to let him know if anybody talked to her about the Union. Supervisor Thompson's uncontradicted and credited testimony reveals that on the evening of Saturday, February 10, she received a telephone call from a person she believed was Oden. The caller threatened Thompson with physical punishment for engaging in surveillance of the Union's meeting. When Thompson protested that she did not know what the caller was referring to, the caller scoffed and renewed her threat. Thompson admittedly reported the incident to Supervisor Wesson. On the morning of February 15, Supervisor Wesson escorted Oden to McLain's office. There, Wesson com- plained to McLain that it had been reported to her that Oden had been making threatening phone calls. Oden protested that she didn't have a telephone. Wesson insisted, however, that "the girls were telling her that [Oden] was the one that was calling because they recognized [her] voice...." Oden warned that if she found out who was lying about her "[she] would kill 'em 'cause I know I hadn't been making any kind of threats." Following this exchange, McLain asked Oden what she had been doing. When Oden asked him what he meant, he said "your church activities." Oden replied "What?" McLain smiled and said nothing. Later in the morning, Oden was again summoned to McLain's office. This time, Wesson complained to McLain that Oden's production and quality were "bad." After Oden conceded that her bundle of halters, then being examined by McLam, was defective, Wesson remarked: "She should be doing better than she's doing `cause her mind is other places not on her work" Wesson declared that she "didn't need [Oden] on her line" and that she wanted "to get rid" of her. McLain asked Wesson if she had enough work to occupy Oden for the remainder of the day. When Wesson said she could provide Oden with work until noon, McLain directed that Wesson do so and send Oden home at noon. McLain also told Oden to come back to see him on Monday. When Oden returned to work on Monday, McLain could not find work for her and sent Oden home until the 42 1 do not credit McLain's denial that he warned Oden against accepting "union material" and discussing the Union with others He admitted having "three to four" conversations with Oden "[s lince the first of the year." However, as usual, his testimony does not provide details of these conversations. 43 My findings of fact regarding the events of February 15 and thereafter following day. When Oden came to the plant on Tuesday, McLain told her that Wesson didn't want her "for personal reasons" and transferred Oden to the pants line, under another supervisor. Oden worked on the pants line for 2 or 3 weeks where she suffered a loss in pay.43 b. Analysis and conclusion The issue presented here is whether Annie Faye Oden's transfer was motivated by the Company's belief that she was for the Union. The Company introduced testimony to show that union considerations played no part in the decision to send Oden to the pants line. After considering all of the circumstances surrounding Oden's transfer, I find the transfer to be in reprisal for Oden's apparent alignment with the Union. The first glint of company concern about Annie Faye Oden's allegiance occurred on February 8. For, on that date, McLain singled Oden out for a warning against taking union literature or discussing the Union, and sought to enlist her as an informer against fellow employees who might voice support for the Union.44 However, I have little doubt that Supervisor Thompson's report of the February 10 phone call convinced the Company that Oden was an active union adherent. That factor taken, together with the Company's frequently demonstrated union animus and the quick timing of Oden's removal from Wesson's line, provides strong evidence of unlawful motive . Also significant in this regard are McLain's facetious questions on the morning of February 15 about Oden's outside activities, and Wesson's remarks that afternoon that Oden's "mind is other places, not on her work." Against the backdrop of the Company's identification of Oden as a union activist, as reported by Supervisor Thompson, McLain's questions and Wesson's comment reveal a preoccupation with Oden's union activity. The Company claims that Oden's transfer was in response to her own request. McLain and Wesson testified that Oden made such a request on the afternoon of February 15. Oden's testimony is that Wesson demanded Oden's removal from the production line. As I have previously stated, neither Wesson nor McLain impressed me as reliable a witness. In contrast, Oden appeared to be a more forthright and candid witness. Further, Oden would be more likely to remember the detail of this incident which seriously affected her employment than would the two supervisors whose personal concerns were not in- volved. I therefore reject the Company's defense as being without evidentiary support . In sum, I find that the Company transferred Oden to the pants line where she suffered a loss in pay because it believed she was engaged in union activity. By such conduct, I find the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Varo, Inc., 425 F.2d 293, 301-302 (C.A. 5, I970) 45 are largely based upon a composite of Oden's and McLain's testimony. Where there were conflicts, I have credited Oden 44 I find that by this solicitation the Company violated Sec . 8(aXl) of the Act N L R B. v The Borden Company, 392 F 2d 412,413-414, fn. 2 (C A. 5, 1968) 45 1 also find Oden's transfer was unlawful , without regard to the relative SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 517 4. The refusals to hire a. The facts (1) Ida Mae Harrison and Brenda Oden No evidence was presented regarding the Company's alleged refusal to hire Ida Mae Harrison on March 8, or its alleged refusal to hire Brenda Oden on March 29. (2) Geraldine Woodyard46 Geraldine Woodyard applied for a job at the Company in August or September 1972. After passing the State Employment Service test, she presented herself at the plant and was advised that Company was not hiring, but would call if they needed her. Woodyard sought employment at the Company again in November 1972 on employee Carolyn King's advice that the Company was interested in hiring her. On this occasion, McLain told Woodyard that the Company's training personnel were busy, but that he would send for her later through King. However, the Company did not send for Woodyard. Thereafter, Woodyard assisted the Union's campaign on three occasions. At the end of a workday in late February, Woodyard helped Union Organizer Speegle and employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and Anme D. Harvey distribute union leaflets to employees as they left the plant. Again in March, and on one other unspecified occasion, Woodyard distributed union leaflets near the plant entrance, along with Speegle and the same four employees. On one occasion, Woodyard noticed Boyce McLain standing at a plant door, looking in her direction. He remained at the doorway for 5 or 10 minutes. Woodyard again sought employment at the company plant during the first week of April. However, her effort failed again. While holding her earlier application in his hand, a company representative told her that the Company wasn't hiring, that if the Company needed her it would call her, and that she should not come to the plant until she received such a call. According to employee Joyce Wood's uncontradicted and credited testimony, in mid-April, when Plant Manager Pridgen announced the new wage increase, he asked employees to help the Company recruit 100 new employees. (3) Katharine Oden47 Katharine Oden applied for employment at the Compa- ny on April 13, on the advice of employee Willie Mae Shepard that the Company was hiring new employees. Training Supervisor Alice Thompson met Oden in Person- nel Director McLain's office and told her to obtain a form showing that she had passed a test administered by the Alabama State Employment Service. Oden had passed the test in 1971 and obtained the requested form which she brought to Thompson on April 17. Thompson instructed Oden to return on the following day for an interview with Boyce McLain. As previously found, in the course of the April 18 interview, McLain asked Oden if she knew any of the girls who worked at the plant; if any of them were for the Union; and, whether she planned to join the Union. It is undenied that Oden replied that she knew nothing about the union sentiment of any company employees, and that she refused to divulge her own attitude toward the Union. McLain closed the interview by directing Oden to return the following day, April 19, for a test to be administered by Training Supervisor Thompson. The following day, Thompson administered a dexterity test to Oden. After telling Oden that she had passed the test, Thompson advised Oden not to wait for a call from the Company because "they need to get in some new machines." The Company never called Katharine Oden. b. Analysis and conclusions The record is bare of any evidence regarding Ida Mae Harrison and Brenda Oden. Therefore, I shall dismiss the allegations that the Company unlawfully refused to hire them. With respect to the remaining allegations, I find that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof. Thus, the record evidence does not establish that the Company was aware of Woodyard's union activity when it refused to hire her in early April. The credited evidence shows only that Woodyard engaged in union activity near the plant in February, March, and on one other occasion not fixed in time, and that on one of these occasions McLain looked at her for a few minutes. Finally, nothing occurred when she sought employment at the plant in April which showed company knowledge of her union activity. In short, the General Counsel has not shown that McLain identified Woodyard as a union activist prior to her quest for employment in early April. As for Katharine Oden, there is no evidence of her participation in union activity or any expression of union sentiment. Instead, the record shows only an equivocal response to McLain's question as to her attitude toward union membership. While that answer may have aroused McLain's suspicions, his request on April 17 that she return for a test on the following day and the treatment she received from Supervisor Thompson on April 18 rebut that inference. In any event, the record does not establish that the Company withheld job opportunities from either Geraldine Woodyard or Katharine Oden when they applied for work in April. Joyce Wood's undenied testimony shows the Company's intent to hire additional employees in April. However, there is no probative evidence to show that the Company hired additional employees at or about that time. The General Counsel attempts to sustain his contentions through the testimony of Katharine Oden and Geraldine Woodyard. However, their testimony is wholly inadequate. Katharine Oden's testimony that Willie Mae Shephard told her the Company was hiring suffers from the fatal infirmity of being hearsay. Similarly, without probative force is Woodyard's hearsay testimony that "some friends" told her at an unspecified time that a girl identified only as "Geraldine" was working at the Company's plant. Wood- desirability of the new job. N L.RB v. J W Mays, Inc, 356 F.2d 693, undented testimony. 697-698 (C A 2, 1966). 47 The facts regarding Oden's application are undisputed 46 Except as noted, my findings regarding Woodyard are based upon her 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD yard also testified that once while handing out union pamphlets she saw another girl identified as "Connie" leaving the plant. Woodyard also testified that this incident occurred 3 weeks after "Connie" and she had conversed about getting jobs there, but before Woodyard's first visit to the plant in April. However, the evidence does not establish that the Company employed "Connie." Finally, there is no evidence showing that "Connie" was in fact working at the plant on that occasion, or that she was observed leaving or entering the plant on more than the single occasion described in Woodyard's testimony. In summary, I find no showing that Woodyard or Oden suffered disparate treatment at the Company's hands. After considering the record as a whole, I find the evidence inadequate to sustain the allegations that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to hire Katharine Oden or Geraldine Woodyard in April. Accordingly, I shall dismiss those allegations. Big Y Supermarkets, 173 NLRB 405, 406 (1968). V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record, I make the following conclusions of law: 1. Sylacauga Garment Company is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging and refusing to reinstate employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and Annie D. Harvey because of their union activities or support for the Union and thereby discouraging employees from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By laying off employees Sundae Roberts, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy and refusing to recall employee Felicia Hudson because of their union activity or support for the Union and thereby discouraging employees from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. By transferring Annie Faye Oden to a less desirable job, because of her suspected union activity and thereby discouraging employees from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. By interrogating employees concerning their own and other employees' union activities and sympathies; threatening employees with discharge, plant closure, and other economic reprisals if they supported the Union; granting a wage increase for the express purpose of inducing employees to reject the Union; engaging in surveillance of employees' union activity and creating the impression that it was engaged in surveillance of its employees' union activity; threatening its employees with more stringent enforcement of Respondent's rules because they supported the Union; exhibiting the film "The Springfield Gun" to its employees; asking employees to report the union activities or sentiment of fellow employees to Respondent; and by harassing employees to discourage their union activity, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8. Respondent has not, in violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act, discriminated against Ida Mae Harrison, Brenda Oden, Geraldine Woodyard, and Katha- rine Oden. 9. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and Annie D. Harvey, I find it necessary to order the Respondent to offer them full reinstatement, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from the date of discharge to the date reinstatement is offered. I have also concluded that the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against employees Sundae Roberts, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy by laying them off. My conclusion regarding Ardelia Harvey's layoff was that her unlawful layoff began on March 14 and ended with the inception of her maternity leave on March 26. Further, Respondent has recalled Sundae Roberts, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy. Accordingly, I shall order the Respondent to offer reinstatement to Felicia Hudson . I shall also order the Respondent to make whole Sundae Roberts, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's discrimination against them. Such backpay shall be computed as described earlier in this section. Since I have found that on February 20, 1973, the Respondent unlawfully transferred Annie Faye Oden, I find it necessary to order the Respondent to offer her reinstatement to the job from which she was transferred on that date, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the unlawful transfer, with backpay computed in the manner prescribed in Woolworth, supra and Isis Plumbing, supra, from the date of her unlawful transfer to the date reinstatement is offered. In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices in which the Respondent has engaged, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. See N.LR.B. v. SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 519 Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). I shall also recommend that Respondent forthwith cease and desist from exhibiting to employees or prospective employ- ees the film entitled "The Springfield Gun." Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 48 Respondent Sylacauga Garment Company, Sylacauga, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharg- ing, laying off, transferring, or otherwise discriminating against employees in any manner with regard to their hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment because of their support for, or activity on behalf of , a union. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, or sympathies, or those of other employees. (c) Threatening employees with discharge, plant closure, or other economic reprisals if they support a union. (d) Granting wage increases or other benefits to dissuade employees from supporting or joining a union. (e) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities. (f) Giving employees the impression that their union activities are being kept under surveillance. (g) Threatening employees with more stringent enforce- ment of plant rules because of their support for, or activities on behalf of, a union. (h) Showing employees or prospective employees the film entitled "The Springfield Gun." (i) Asking employees to report the union activity or union sentiments of fellow employees. (j) Harassing employees in reprisal for their union activity or sentiment by issuing written or oral reprimands concerning their work performance. (k) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or 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 employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, Annie D. Harvey , and Felicia Hudson immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if these positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Offer employee Annie Faye Oden reinstatement to the job from which she was transferred on February 20, 1973, or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. (c) Make the following named employees whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section herein entitled "Remedy": Carolyn King Joyce Wood Annie D. Harvey Annie Faye Oden Queen Ester Harvey Lois Veleta McDaniel Annie Ruth Murphy Felicia Hudson Bettye Dowdy Ardelia Harvey Sundae Roberts (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 records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its Sylacauga, Alabama, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 49 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon- dent 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. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint be dismissed in all other respects. 48 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 Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 49 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we, Sylacauga Garment Company , violated the National Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice. The law gives you the right To form, join, or help unions To choose a union to represent you in bargaining with us To act together for your common interest or protection 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To refuse to participate in any or all of these things. The Board has ordered us to promise you that: WE WILL NOT interfere with your rights. WE WILL NOT ask you whether you are a union member, or are helping the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (ILGWA), or any other union. WE WILL NOT ask you whether other employees are members of, or are helping, the ILGWU or any other union. WE WILL NOT ask you about your union sentiments. WE WILL NOT keep your union activity under surveillance. WE WILL NOT create the appearance that your union activity is under surveillance. WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge, plant closure, or stricter enforcement of plant rules because you are a member of ILGWU of any other union or because you are helping ILGWU or any other union. WE WILL NOT show the film entitled "The Springfield Gun" to you or prospective employees. WE WILL NOT use job assignments and reprimands to harass you because you are a member of ILGWU or any other union or because you are helping ILGWU or any other union. WE WILL NOT increase your wages or grant other benefits to you for the purpose of persuading you to stop supporting ILGWU or any other union. WE WILL NOT discharge you, lay you off, transfer you to other jobs, or otherwise discriminate against you because you are a member of ILGWU or any other union, or because you have supported ILGWU of any other union. WE WILL NOT in any other way interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in exercising the rights guaran- teed to you by the National Labor Relations Act. The National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and Annie D. Harvey; by laying off Sundae Roberts, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy; and by transferring Annie Faye Oden to a less desirable job. We have recalled Sundae Roberts, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy. WE WILL offer to reinstate Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, Annie Harvey, and Felicia Hudson to their former jobs without any loss of seniority or other rights. WE WILL reimburse Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, Annie D. Harvey, Sundae Roberts, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy for any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of our discrimination against them, together with 6- percent interest. WE WILL reinstate Annie Faye Oden to the job from which the Board found she was unlawfully transferred. WE WILL reimburse her for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against her, together with 6-percent interest. Dated By SYLACAUGA GARMENT COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.