The Independent, Inc.

808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Progress-Index, Petersburg Division of The Inde- pendent, Inc. and Warren B. Crowder. Case 5- CA-6404 August 9, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On April 30, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Jen- nie M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. General Counsel filed a mem- orandum in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and in reply to Respondent's excep- tions and brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. ORDER on January 3, 1974, presenting allegations that, The Pro- gress-Index, Petersburg Division of The Independent, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent, committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent filed an answer denying that it committed the violations of the Act alleged. Upon due notice, the case lWas tried before me at Petersburg, Virginia, on February 19 through 21 and on February 25. Representatives of the Respondent and the General Counsel were present and participated in the hear- ing. The Charging Party was present throughout1he hear- ing. Based on the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I JURISDICTION Respondent, a Virginia corporation, is engaged in the business of publishing and distributing newspapers in and around Petersburg, Virginia. During the preceding 12 months, a representative period, Respondent derived from such operations gross revenues in excess of $200,000 and purchased and received materials and supplies valued at more than $20,000, in interstate commerce, from points located outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is now, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the'National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, The Progress-Index, Peters- burg Division of The Independent, Inc., Petersburg, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed 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 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, el seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Based on charges filed on November 5, 1973,' and amended on December 20, a complaint issued II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Respondent admits, and I find, that Petersburg Typo- graphical Union No. 26, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is now, and has been during all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Whether Respondent interrogated and/or threatened employees with loss or reprisals for union activity. 2. Whether the Charging Party was given notice of termi- nation because of his concerted activity-efforts to secure payment for overtime worked by him and other employees, or for union activity. 3. Whether the Charging Party's termination date was accelerated because he filed a charge against Respondent. B. Background Respondent publishes a daily newspaper in Petersburg, Virginia. Employees in the composing room and pressroom Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1973. 212 NLRB No. 126 THE PROGRESS-INDEX 809 have been represented by the Union for a number of years. Newsroom employees, including news reporters, sports- writers, and photographer-technicians, have not been repre- sented by any union. There has been intermittent discussion among newsroom employees about seeking union represen- tation and several contacts were made by various employees trying to interest the Newspaper Guild in organizing and representing them. Reporter Martha Hendricks dates her knowledge of such discussions among newsroom employees from the summer of 1970, with specific reference to the Guild in the spring of 1973. Other witnesses, all hired subse- quent to Hendricks, testified that they became aware of discussions among employees about unions or with refer- ence to the Guild, shortly after the respective employment date of each. Sometime in March 1972, before Harry L. Marsh, Jr., became sports editor, he attended a meeting related to activity on behalf of the Guild, with Warren B. Crowder and three 'reporters who have since left the Respondent's employ. None of the reporters who were known by witnesses to have contacted the Guild are cur- rently employed by Respondent, but there is no specific evidence that their leaving Respondent's employ and their union activity were `related. Concurrent with the filing of the original charge herein, the Union filed a representation petition, and has since been certified after a consent election. C. The Alleged 8(a)(1) Conduct The General Counsel asserts that in the latter part of May the publisher, Rufus Josey, interrogated and threatened re- porter Martha Hendricks concerning union organizational activities. Hendricks testified that she had been told by the managing editor, James B. Anderson, that she was to re- ceive a raise in pay. Assuming it would be the usual $5 a week generally given by Respondent, Hendricks asked An- derson if they would make it a $10 raise. Several days later she was told she was wanted in Josey's office. When she arrived around 2:30 p.m., Anderson was there also. Josey and Anderson said they wanted to discuss her "attitude" which they considered bad. Josey reviewed her employment history throughout which she had received raises regularly, which she acknowledged. After Anderson left for an appointment, Hendricks and Josey continued their conversation which lasted until 4:30 p.m. During this latter period, according to Hendricks, Jo- sey asked her if she had heard of any efforts to organize a union in the newsroom. Hendricks told Josey she had not. Although she had, Hendricks testified she did not reveal this to Josey because from the time she was employed she had been warned by fellow employees not to talk about unions where management could hear it. When Josey raised the question, Hendricks recalled that shortly before Marsh had warned her to mention union only to people she knew she could trust because management was against unions? After her reply, Josey stated that he would like to get his hands on the ring leader.3 Josey recalled the conversation with Hendricks. He testi- fied that Anderson "came'>to him saying that Hendricks had great potential but Anderson was concerned about her atti- tude. Neither Josey nor Anderson denied Hendricks' testi- rnonylthat the indicator of "attitude" was her request for a larger raise. Josey acknowledged that after Anderson left the subject of union activity came up in his conversation with Hendricks. Josey identified the context as follows: He asked Hendricks about morale in the news department. She reported it was good, although there was some griping. He then commented that some 18 months or 2 years previous a reporter had been discharged for incompetence and there was some unrest on the staff. He told Hendricks that some 6 or 8 months later he heard that this reporter had shown some interest in organizing the news department and he, Josey, hoped that at the present time there was no feeling in the news department that they needed a union to look after their interests. Josey did not recall what precipitated the subject of "staff morale," and further testified that, to the best of his memory, this was all that was said regarding a union. Hendricks further testified that she was disturbed by being called to Josey's office for criticism of her attitude because she had asked for a larger raise and told her family and several other persons about this encounter. She testified that she related the incident to reporter Arthur Gary Sulli- van as late as October as a warning to him when he came to her and asked how she felt about unions. At that time, because Sullivan was new on the staff, she told him that management was against unions and related to him warn- ings she had received from other employees, recounting her conversation with Josey as substantiation of her belief in the truth of those warnings. Sullivan corroborated this conver- sation stating that Hendricks told him that her conversation with Josey left her with the impression that persons associat- ed with organizing a union would be discharged. Hendricks' demeanor was open and sincere. She dis- played no inclination to venture beyond her specific recol- lection, stating only that there were a few other things said by Josey leaving her with the impression that Josey had heard rumors about union activity, but she could not recall them. Hendricks, presently on a temporary leave of ab- sence, is still employed by Respondent and testified pur- suant to a subpena. There is nothing in the record that would suggest any personal motive that might affect her testimony. Testimony of Sullivan regarding their October conversation lends support to Hendricks' testimony as to what occurred in her conversation with Josey, and Josey's testimony does not directly contradict that of Hendricks. His version of what was said ,by him with respect to unions appears more likely to be the part he happens to remember. The fact that Hendricks was upset by this incident and related the experience to other persons over a period of time would tend to imprint the conversation in her memory. I do not regard their separate versions of this lengthy conversa- tion as mutually exclusive, and credit Hendricks that Josey made the statements regarding unions related by.her, as well son questioned the inclusion as it brought her hours for the week into over- 2 At that tune Marsh was sports editor, a supervisory position. time for pay purposes. Later Anderson reported to Hendricks he had had a 9 Hendricks further testified, without contradiction, that she included the conversation with Josey about this time and that Josey was furious and said time spent in Josey's office as working time on her weekly timecard. Ander- this was an example of her bad attitude 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as those statements Josey testified to. On the basis of the credited testimony, I find that Josey interrogated Hendricks concerning the union interest and activity of her fellow employees, and conveyed an implied threat that anyone trying to organize a union would be discharged. I further find that this occurred in the latter part of May 1973, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' On June 12, a number of newsroom staff members, to- gether with their supervisor, City Editor William E. Eng- land, worked late tabulating the election returns for the Petersburg City Council. Between 11:30 and midnight, after most of the returns were in and their work was substantially completed, the group engaged in social drinking and discus- sion on topical subjects in the course of'which reporters began questioning England about policies of the Thompson newspaper chain, of which the Respondent is one. According to reporter William A. Eby, he asked England if there were any unionized news staffs at other Thompson newspapers. England informed the group that to his knowl- edge there was only one organized news staff of the chain in the United States and that it was already represented by a union when Thompson purchased the paper. Eby asked, "What if we tried organizing a union here?" and England replied: "There will be no organizing or no union" in a Thompson newspaper. Reporter Cynthia Mae Wornom, who was also present, testified that in response to a question "what about unions," England told them that where newsrooms had tried to orga- nize, at at least two other Thompson newspapers, the news staff had been discharged but he did not say which newspa- pers were involved. She further testified that one of the reporters, and she believed it was Eby, then asked, "what about a union here," and England replied that if they at- tempted to organize a union they would all be fired, and so would Anderson for allowing it. Sullivan who was also present in this session, and who was a witness in this case, did not testify concerning what was said by England on this occasion. England testified that on the occasion referred to he was fielding questions from the reporters about the Thompson chain policies, and that the subject of unions was mentioned when one of the reporters asked him about his personal plans. In response to this question he told the group of a possible opening for managing editor at the chain's Adri- 4 The initial charge herein was filed on November 5, 1973 The allegation in the complaint reads: "on or about the latter part of May 1973, the exact date being presently unknown . . " The Respondent 's answer enters a general denial of'this section of the complaint . In his opening statement, the General Counsel referred to this incident only as having occurred in "May, 1973" and failed to establish the date more precisely through the witnesses. Nor was a more definite date suggested by testimony elicited by the Respon- dent or by documentary evidence suggested by the testimony. Although in his opening statement Respondent's attorney referred to all of the 8(a)(l) allegations with regard to preserving a position taken on the basis of Sec. 10(b) in preliminary motions, he specifically stated in that connection that "It is true that they occurred within the 6 month of the charge .. " I accept this statement, in light of Respondent's failure to present documentary evi- dence-the overtime record-presumably in its possession , and the failure to raise the matter in its brief, as a concession that the first incident subject of an 8(a)(l) allegation did occur "in the latter part of May, 1973," and that it is not time-barred by Sec. 10(b), despite the General Counsel's failure to establish this affirmatively. enne, Michigan, paper. In this connection, England asserted he related the problems current at that paper involving a strike during which the company brought in new equipment and was hiring new people instead of trying to negotiate a strike settlement. England recalled that it was Wornom who asked what would happen if the reporters at The Progress- Index formed a union, and that he said "We won't even talk about that. . . . There is no need to have a union here when reporters negotiate their own salaries. I don't see any reason to pay union dues to have somebody else do something you can do for yourself." England testified that this was the extent of his comments about a union. Although on cross- examination England testified that Wornom's question came out of the blue, he later corrected this to conform with his testimony on direct examination that Wornom's ques- tion followed his discussion of the Adrienne situation. Eng- land added that he told her he did not think they needed to consider that, stating, "I believe that is what I said," and that she made no reply. Josey testified that he was aware of two Thompson chain newspapers in the United States where newsrooms were organized and knew that the one in Pennsylvania was orga- nized after it was under Thompson ownership but he did not know if this was true of the other which he identified as located in Ohio. He did not mention the Adrienne, Michi- gan, paper, nor does it appear whether the newsroom em- ployees at Adrienne were already organized when they struck or were attempting to organize. In this respect Eng- land testified that he learned of the Adrienne situation through Josey and by talking with an official of Thompson in Chicago. England was not asked whether he knew of any Thompson chain newspaper where newsroom employees tried and failed in their organizing efforts. Eby and Wornom both identify the reporter raising ques- tions about unionization as Eby. The recollection with re- spect to their own participation in presenting these questions to their supervisor is more likely to be specific in this respect and, therefore, more accurate than that of the supervisor who was responding to' such questions from a group of five reporters in an informal gathering. I find that England was mistaken in his testimony that it was Wornom who raised the questions. There is also the impression left from England's testimony indicating that he tended to con- fuse this conversation as to what he had said about the Adrienne, Michigan, situation with a later, more private, discussion involving Eby and Sullivan. England's own version of his statements to the group of employees discloses' that he used this question-and-answer session to convey a firm official attitude against reporters organizing and toward negotiating with union representa- tives. Other testimony, including that of Josey indicates how difficult it was for employees to come by information con- cerning the representative status of newsroom employees at other chain newspapers. Both Eby and Wornom are still employed by Respondent and testified under subpena. Neither was in the hearing room for any significant period other than during their own testimony, and therefore testified from their independent recollection without stimulation from the recounting of others. The evident level of intelligence of both is such that it is doubtful either misunderstood what was said by Eng- THE PROGRESS-INDEX 811 land, and I am convinced that differences in their testimony is the result of variance in the clarity of their memory: Wornom displayed a more ready recall and her demeanor was sincere and matter of fact. I credit her testimony. Accordingly, I find that England told the group of news- room employees on June 12 that attempts to organize a union by news staffs at two related newspapers had resulted in discharge and that if they attempted to organize a union they would all be fired . Respondent thereby engaged in threats of discharge violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Eby and Sullivan went with England to the Playboy Pizza Den after work on or about July 26 where they were togeth- er for about 3 hours having pizza and beer and talking about a wide range of subjects. In the course of their discussion concerning mechanical changes being made at some of the other Thompson chain newspapers , and concerning work- mg conditions at The Progress-Index-mcluding such mat- ters as mileage and overtime-Eby testified that he asked "what if" there were to be a unionization attempt at The Progress-Index. England replied that any attempt to union- ize would result in getting fired. Eby did not recall that England said anything to indicate that he would do the firing, or that he would cause those persons organizing a union to be , fired. Sullivan testified that he was the one who broached the union topic at the July 26 gathering at the Playboy Pizza Den and that England said it was something they should not talk about, but anyone organizing a union would be fired. It was Sullivan's recollection that Eby encouraged him not to pursue the subject. - England recalled that the subject of unionizing at the Progress-Index came up at the Playboy Pizza Den, and that it was raised again in the context of his own career plans. He told Sullivan and Eby he had received a couple of offers within the Thompson organization, one at Adrienne, Michi- gan, and another in Lafayette, Louisiana, and he told them about the strike situation and trouble at Adrienne , restating much the same thing he had told the group on June 12. England asserted that is was Eby who asked what would happen if they formed a union at the Progress-Index and that he replied he did not know. Eby persisted, "What do you think might happen?" and he replied, "I couldn't say. I don't think we even ought to get into that." Whereupon Sullivan laughingly , said, "We will probably all be fired," and they all laughed and went on to other subjects. The conversation which Eby related as having occurred over pizza and beer, and his participation as the questioner on matters regarding unionization, is significantly similar to what Wornom placed as occurring on June 12 . Since Wor- nom was not a participant at the Pizza Den, I am forced to conclude that Eby, too, confused the two similar conversa- tions with England, at both of which he was present. Eby, several times, stated his recollection with caution and some uncertainty with respect to details. England places in this conversation the comment that they would probably all be fired, but attributes this to a joke made by Sullivan. On the other hand, Sullivan's recollection that it was he who asked the question about organizing, and that after England's re- ply Eby discouraged him from pursuing the subject, has the ring of truth. I credit Sullivan's testimony as the accurate reportage of this incident and find that England again threatened discharge as the price of any union organizing effort. Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Around 10 am. in early November, after Respondent had received the Union's demand for recognition as representa- tive of the news staff, Anderson called photographer Robert E. Kennedy into his office and asked him directly, "Have you joined in with the union?" Kennedy replied "yes." After some other conversation Anderson returned to the union subject stating he was sorry to hear about "this thing" be- cause they were "just forming a real good staff at the news- paper"; they were working smoothly as a team; they had a good group all the way through the reporters; the paper was getting out with good ,pictures, good reporting, and good story count; all this could change and they could not have the close liaison if the Union came in that they then had. At a later point in a 20-minute conversation, Anderson asked Kennedy whether he felt that Anderson was harass- ing him. At the end of the conversation, Anderson stated again he was sorry for the things that had happened because he had plans for the staff and now "this" changes ev- erything. Anderson gave no testimony concerning this con- versation. Asking an employee whether he has joined the Union in circumstances where employees are organizing, and a recog- nition demand has just been made, is unlawful interrogation absent special reasons and safeguards not present here. I find that the other statements made by Anderson in this conversation were not unlawful. In my opinion, they do not constitute threats to make changes in retaliation for union activity but rather are an expression of disappointment on the part of Anderson that he may have to deal with or through the Union and of his fear that this would affect the smooth working operation of his staff. This, however, does not excuse the unlawful interrogation, and I find that Re- spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Discharge of Warren B. Crowder The General Counsel alleges that the notice of termina- tion given Crowder on October 30, effective November 30, was because Crowder had engaged in protected concerted and/or union activity and the termination of Crowder of November 9, effective immediately, was because he filed the charges in this case with the National Labor Relations Board, and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. The General Counsel asserts that the reasons given by Respondent for Crowder's dis- charge, namely, his poor attitude and inadequate work per- formance are pretextual, relying primarily on Crowder's employment record and the timing of the notice and final discharge in relation to the Union's request for recognition and Crowder's filing of the charges with the National Labor Relations Board, respectively. For animus, the General Counsel relies upon the separate instances of unlawful inter- rogation and threats alleged as independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Specific examples of Crowder's attitude and work perfor- mance cited by Respondent were his attire, his failure to learn additional job skills on his own in order to qualify himself for higher positions, his lack of qualifications or 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sufficient experience to fill the position of assistant sports editor, his claiming overtime worked which had not been approved in advance, his claiming mileage for use of his own private automobile to go on assignments without first attempting to secure a company car, and his slowness in completing writing assignments. Crowder was employed by Respondent 5 in May 1972 as a sports writer-photographer. His entrance salary was $90 for a 40-hour week. Crowder received one $5-a-week raise after 3 months and another at the end of 1972. In April or May 1973 he received a $7.50 increase, and in August he was given a $17.50-a-week increase bringing his salary to $1'25 which was his salary as a sports writer when his em- ployment was ended on November 9. When he was hired, Crowder took the place of two part- time employees in the sports department. He covered sports events during weekdays and went on photographer assign- ments on weekends. In August 1972, weekend photography work was reassigned so that Crowder could be utilized more fully as a sports writer. In August 1973, Crowder was as- signed additional duties generally performed by the assis- tant sports editor of layout work, headline writing, regular desk duties, and relieving Marsh on the latter's days off. From the time Crowder was employed, Marsh directly supervised his work, at first as assistant sports editor and for the most part as sports editor. Marsh testified that he had been very surprised during the first few months of Crowder's employment because Crowder had displayed ability far exceeding that of a beginner and superior to that of any part-time sports writer they had employed. Marsh stated that within a few weeks Crowder's work was equiva- lent to one who had been in the job 4 to 6 months. When Marsh became sports editor in July 1972, Crowder, who had been employed for only 2 months, asked Marsh to recom- mend him for the assistant sports editor position. Marsh declined, explaining that the job of assistant editor was entirely different from the sports writer-photographer work Crowder had been doing. He told Crowder the job required knowledge and ability to perform such skills as picture crop- ping, page layout, copy editing, copy measuring, headline writing, and writing cut-lines with pictures. Marsh told Crowder he did not believe Crowder was yet ready for such work, but if he wanted to advance Crowder would have to take the initiative and learn all those elements of dummying a newspaper page. Shortly thereafter Crowder came to Marsh and asked to be shown the various procedures and to learn the basic principles involved in editor work. Marsh continued for some time instructing Crowder in those skills so that Crowder, according to Marsh, needed only practice to improve his speed in performing such work. 5 Crowder and Marsh had known one another as children in school and for some time Crowder had been attending games with Marsh, using press credentials and performing miscellaneous services , as well as calling in re- ports on minor sports events even though he was not employed by Respon- dent. Crowder had made known to Marsh his interest in employment in the sports department of Respondent and was with Marsh when the latter learned that there would be an opening for which Crowder could apply Marsh coached Crowder on what to say on an interview with Managing Editor Anderson which the sports editor would arrange. Thus, despite his protestation to the contrary, Marsh was instrumental in Crowder's employ- ment. In July 1973, Crowder learned that Richards, who had been hired the preceding July as assistant sports editor, was leaving. He again came to Marsh seeking opportunities to perform the various tasks of the assistant editor work, ob- taining any needed instruction from Marsh in performing such duties. Marsh observed that during August Crowder appeared to be putting forth a real effort to gain skill in these various procedures.' In September when Marsh spoke to Anderson about a replacement for Richards, who left in August, Marsh told Anderson that Crowder had been trying hard and been picking up in his work. Anderson, however, decided to hire Clark, an applicant who had a degree in journalism, with the intention of moving him to the news department when an opening occurred, and to divide the salaries of Richards and Crowder between Crowder and Clark, thus enabling him to hire Clark at a rate below'the entrance salary for news reporters, and to give Crowder a $17.50 raise along with the added duties. Crowder was told that he and Clark would be equals and the one that showed the greater ability would become the assistant sports editor. All newsroom employees keep their own time records and fill in d report of their time for the preceding week each Monday at 7 a.m. These are submitted to Anderson, who must approve them before they are sent to payroll. Ander- son kept a close watch on cost items, and overtime in partic- ular, frequently disallowing such claims for various reasons. As a result dissatisfaction with Respondent's overtime poli- cy as applied by Anderson was frequently expressed and discussed among employees. Marsh testified that he had heard complaints about overtime and that the employees were working but not claiming overtime worked simply be- cause they realized it would be too much trouble to claim and would probably be disallowed anyway. Anderson had been disallowing any claim for time re- quired in traveling to and from an assignment even when the reporters were using the company cars. He told Crowder that he had checked with the Wage Hour Board and he did not have to pay reporters for the time required to go to the locations of events they were covering even though he had assigned them to go. This was the basis for most of Crowder's overtime disallowances. On October 3 or 4, Crowder called the Wage Hour Board, explained the situa- tion, and was told that under the circumstances described the Company was liable for compensation for driving time. Crowder did not confront Anderson with this information but, thereafter, told Clark and Sullivan of his conversation with the Wage Hour representative. The three also dis- cussed the overtime problem generally and decided that in the future when they worked overtime they were going to claim it. Marsh left for his vacation on October 13, leaving Crow- der and Clark to put out the Saturday afternoon and Sun- day papers and cover the weekend sports events. On Monday, October 15, both Crowder and Clark claimed ov- ertime on their time reports. Anderson immediately chal- lenged their claims and disallowed time from the cards of both. Anderson testified he called the two into the sports cubicle and stated that he was not accusing them of any- 6 Crowder worked the sports editing by himself the last week of August and the second and third weekends in September when March had to be away. THE PROGRESS-INDEX 813 thing but that there was a marked similarity on their over- - time claims and that they had not received advance approv- al for overtime as Marsh had not requested it before he left on vacation. According to Anderson, he also told them that he could not understand their not being able to do the work they were assigned within the allotted hours, that the pro- ductivity of the department was low, and that if they could not do the work there would be some changes made. Later that morning Crowder went to Anderson's office to go over the planned feature events for the ensuing week and asked for Anderson's approval for overtime. Anderson told Crowder that when it became necessary he would assign overtime and then they would get it. Crowder expressed the opinion that Anderson had been unfair with respect to Clark's overtime claim since Marsh had been gone , necessi- tating extra work by both of them .7 Crowder also pointed out that the overtime matter could have been discussed after the 10 a.m. deadline for sports copy instead of during the early morning when they were rushed. Anderson replied that perhaps he had overreacted. On Wednesday, October 17, in accordance with the cus- tom in the sports department, Crowder conferred with An- derson with respect to the schedule for the following week. Anderson eliminated most of the proposed attendance of events, requiring the sports department to take their stories from the wire services. Marsh called Crowder by telephone that day and Crowder told him of Anderson's reaction to their overtime claim and that both he and Clark were think- ing of quitting. Marsh asked Crowder not to do anything foolish and to wait until he returned. Crowder told Marsh of the information he had received from the Wage Hour representative, both with respect to the travel time Ander- son had been disallowing and concerning another matter on which he had made inquiry on Marsh's behalf. Crowder also stated that Anderson had been very hostile and that he, Crowder, had started to prepare a resume for the purpose of making inquiries for another job. He asked Marsh to assist him in this respect . Marsh indicated he would do so upon his return. After this conversation with Marsh, Crow- der began placing phone calls to acquaintances at other newspapers inquiring of job vacancies. On October 22, Anderson summoned Crowder into his office to discuss Crowder's claim for 10 hours of overtime which Crowder had reported that morning, for the previous week's work during which he had been unable to take a day off because of Marsh's absence.8 Anderson told Crowder 7 With respect to Clark's claimed time, Crowder recalled that Anderson had taken away the travel time to and from the game Clark covered and a half hour because Clark admitted he had eaten a sandwich in the pressbox while he was reviewing statistics Crowder's recollection failed with respect to any time disallowed on his claim until he was shown the card He then recalled that he had not agreed with Anderson but regarded the amount of time questioned (1-1/2 hours) too insignificant to argue about 8 Employees in the sports department generally work 5 days a week with Sunday and 1 day off Marsh usually took Saturday, and either Clark or Crowder would take Monday with the other choosing another day In dis- cussing Crowder's overtime, Anderson stated that from 7 a.m. to 12 noon was too long to get out a newspaper Crowder reminded him that the deadline was 10 a in. and that after that he opened mail, handled calls, planned future stories, and performed general routine and back shop work , that this was what they had always done, and that it was Anderson's directive that they stay "on the desk" until noon. Anderson retorted they did not have to spend so much time in the'back shop Crowder stated that this was the way it had that he thought there was a conspiracy to turn in overtime claims, that he regarded Crowder's attitude as bad, and that Crowder should be willing to do whatever work there was to be done without regard to how long it takes-concluding that those were the people who get promotions and get ahead.- Crowder told Anderson they did not consider ,it a conspiracy but that several of the employees had decided' that from then on when they were required to work overtime they would turn in their claim and expect to be paid for it. Anderson replied that this conspiracy was obviously more serious than he thought, and that this was something he would have to think about. He told Crowder he would speak to Crowder further about it in a couple of weeks and, in the meantime, Crowder had better behave himself or he might be looking for another job. Marsh testified that when he arrived at the office on October 22 Anderson told him there had been trouble while he was away about overtime and he told Anderson that Crowder reported he and Clark had been accused of getting together on the timecards. Anderson then stated he had decided, even though it was football season, to call Crowder in and fire him. Marsh further testified that when Crowder emerged from Anderson's office around noon Crowder told Marsh he wanted Marsh's help in getting another job. Anderson testified that on the morning of October 22, he told Marsh he was going to give Crowder notice and Marsh protested it was a bad time because the sports department was busy, but if that was Anderson's decision he would prefer that Anderson pay the man off rather than have him remain on the job after receiving notice. With respect to the conference with Crowder, Anderson testified he closed the door for privacy and then told Crowder he did not believe Crowder had a future in the newspaper business, particular- ly with the Respondent; that the sports department was hurting and that Crowder was being given a month's notice. Crowder asked him to extend the time because Crowder had a chance for a job around the first of the year. Anderson told Crowder he knew Crowder was thinking of the year- end bonus and that he could make no decision on this and "would have to check on that." He then told Crowder that in about 2 weeks he would reevaluate the situation and make a determination whether or not Crowder could stay longer than a month. Anderson stated that he always gave employees a month's notice, but he remembered what Marsh had said about an employee becoming worthless after he received notice and he felt that if in 2 weeks Crow- der showed he would make an attempt, then Anderson would give him longer, which together with his vacation time would bring him closer to the time Crowder would be going on the other job. Anderson denied that he discussed the subject of conspiracy although he did recall that he referred to the overtime Crowder had just turned in for the preceding week as an example of what he called Crowder's bad attitude. After Crowder left his office, according to Anderson, he called Publisher Josey because Josey keeps records in his always been done . Anderson then turned to the subject of attitude, which embraced accusations of clock watching with insufficient concern about doing things for the Company. Crowder expressed his willingness to work and his expectation to be paid for it At this point Anderson raised the conspiracy accusation 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD office of all the people in Anderson's department. When he received no answer, Anderson assertedly "jotted a memo to Josey," then took it to Josey's office. In this memo, Ander- son inquired for authority to pay Crowder a year-end bo- nus. The next morning Anderson spoke to Josey in person and Josey approved, placing a notation and date of October 23 on the bottom of Anderson's memo and handing it back to Anderson. The memo, so noted, was received into evi- dence. There had been talk about union representation among the newsroom staff from the time Crowder was first em- ployed. Crowder had discussed with Marsh the subject of seeking union representation and had attended a meeting with him and a group of employees for that purpose, before Marsh became a supervisor. Sometime in April or May 1973, prompted by another such conversation with Marsh, Crowder called the Newspaper Guild in Washington, and was told that someone would contact him later because at that time they were involved with a strike at an Alexandria, Virginia, paper. Crowder did not hear from the Guild and did not have sufficient information on which to proceed. Thus, early in October, in another such discussion, Marsh suggested to Crowder that he call the Guild office again and obtain information as to the procedures employees would be required to follow to bring the Guild in as their represen- tative in the newsroom of Progress-Index. Crowder made several such calls and was given to understand that because of the small size of the newsroom the Guild would not be interested in representing them unless they would organize the rest of the newspaper, i.e., the business office, advertis- ing, mailroom, and circulation department, as well as the newsroom. Crowder discussed this with Marsh and together they concluded there would not be sufficient support among the more comprehensive group, and that they should look for a union that would be willing to represent only the newsroom. In the course of these conversations Marsh sug- gested that Crowder might go to the "back shop," where the employees were represented by Local 26, ITU, and ask the local president, Manley Drumheller, if that Union would help them organize. As an alternative to the Guild had not yet been located, Crowder did not act on this suggestion until October 25, on which date he spoke to Drumheller while he was in the shop in connection with the sports page layout. Crowder asked Drumheller whether the ITU would be sympathetic and help in any way they could if the news- room employees were to try to organize a union. In the course of this conversation, Drumheller learned that they had no particular union and mentioned that the ITU was in the process of opening a new associate membership ar- rangement which would cover newsroom employees. Con- sequently, Jimmy Woad, International representative of the ITU, contacted Crowder that night and a meeting with newsroom employees of Respondent was set for the follow- ing afternoon at Crowder's apartment. The entire news staff, the sports staff, and the photographer attended and all signed membership applications. The meeting lasted about 3 hours. In the middle of the meeting, Marsh called Crowder to inquire how things were going. Crowder told Marsh they were still in the middle of the meeting and he would tell Marsh about it later.9 When he returned to the group, Crow- -der reported that the call had been from Marsh. There followed discussions of whether Marsh should be told any- thing further about their activity and a discussion of wheth- er Marsh and several others would be eligible for inclusion or would be excluded as supervisors. Many of the employ- ees present already knew of Marsh's interest and that he knew of their activities. Later that evening Crowder told Marsh that the employees had signed to join the ITU and that the Union would be sending a letter to the publisher either Saturday or Monday. On October 29, the Union's recognition demand was mailed to Respondent and the latter sent its response on October 30, suggesting that the Union pursue the Board certification procedure. That morning Crowder told Marsh that Mr. Josey had received a bombshell in the mail, the Union's demand letter. At about 10 a.m. on October 30, Anderson summoned Crowder and Marsh to his office. When they entered, An- derson asked Crowder what was his understanding of their previous conversation of October 22. Crowder told Ander- son it was understood that Anderson was going to take several weeks to think over the conspiracy matter and then talk to him about it. Anderson said that was not correct, and asked Crowder if he did not remember that Anderson had given him notice on October 22. When Crowder indicated he had no such understanding, Anderson turned to Marsh and said, "I should have had somebody else in here to witness that. I just knew he wouldn't understand." Ander- son then turned to Crowder and said, "Well, I am giving you notice. Your attitude is bad." Anderson went on to tell Crowder he was too worried about the clock, about over- time, he was not interested in the job, that his main concern was money. A discussion followed in which Crowder de- fended the necessity for his concern for compensation and reminded Anderson of incidents when he had been re- proached by Anderson for doing stories and taking pho- tographs on his own. Anderson° told Crowder he had talked to Marsh who told him that the sports department needed an assistant sports editor and he did not think Crowder was ready to do that job. Crowder reminded Anderson that late in August when Richards left and Anderson hired Clark he had called Crowder into his office and told Crowder that he would be getting a raise and that in 2 or 3 months he (Anderson) would decide which of them should get the number twojob, indicating that it would go to whichever one showed more ability. Crowder questioned Anderson why, if in August he considered Crowder's 18 months of experience and Clark with no experience a sufficient prereq- uisite for the job, he now suddenly decided upon the neces- sity for so much experience. Anderson stated he just changed his mind and it was going to be that way. Crowder then reminded Anderson that he was not hired as an assis- tant sports editor and asked why he was being fired because he did not now qualify to receive that job. Anderson replied, "Well, I just don't like your attitude." 9 Marsh admitted making the phone call to Crowder's apartment on Octo- ber 26, but asserted it was merely to leave a message for Sullivan, the nature of which he could not recall. Marsh denied that he knew there was a union meeting in progress, or that he had been involved in the conversations with Crowder concerning the Guild I do not credit Marsh in this respect THE PROGRESS-INDEX 815 Anderson then pulled out his calander and asked when Crowder could find another job. Crowder, who had been looking since the October 15 encounter with Anderson, re- plied it would be around the first of the year . Anderson protested that this would be too long and stated he could let Crowder stay until November 30, and at that time, with his vacation time he would get about 4 weeks of pay. Then Anderson added : "This is not a threat, but you are going to need a reference from us to get a job, and if you go back out there and stir up any more trouble with those people before November 16, I am going to give you 2 weeks notice .... " Crowder testified he did not understand this to mean that he would still have 2 weeks after November 16. Crowder testified that Marsh did not participate in the con- versation except at one point when Anderson asked him what he thought and Marsh said, "Well naturally Crowder did not have as much experience as somebody that had been in the business for 10 years like Dad did, or somebody who had been in the business 5 or 6 years." Crowder further testified that after this meeting he and Marsh went to lunch together at which time they discussed the meeting with An- derson. Marsh said that it was a shame ; everything had been going very well, they had been getting a lot of compliments, and were not having problems. Marsh also stated that An- derson had tried to get him to "put the screws" on Crowder to say some critical thing about Crowder's work, but he was not doing so because he was not going to get caught in the middle. Marsh quoted Anderson as opening the meeting with the statement : "Harry, I have gotten the two of you together to work out the date when Warren will be leaving," he then turned to Crowder and said, "You understand, we will try to work with you and then you will be gone." Crowder protested he had no such understanding, that he had under- stood Anderson to have given him a warning on October 22. Anderson stated, "I gave you notice and told you that we were going to work out the dates, and that is what we are going to do now." There followed a 45-minute discussion on why Crowder was being fired. Finally, Anderson refused to discuss it further, stating they were not there to argue but to set up a date. He told Crowder the date would be around the first of December and, if Crowder was worried about his Christmas bonus, Anderson thought he could get Crowder his Christmas bonus and Crowder would be paid through the first of the year. Anderson asked Marsh if this was all right with him and Marsh replied that it was if Crowder would work. Anderson told Crowder that if he refused to do his work or caused any problems then he would be terminat- ed on the spot with a 2-week notice but that he would pay him for those other weeks that he had due. After Crowder left, Marsh remained and told Anderson he did not approve of what Anderson was doing and did not like the idea of firing somebody then allowing them to remain for a long period of time; it was his experience that this did not work. Anderson stated that if Marsh had any problems and if Crowder refused to do his work to let him know and he would end it right there. Anderson testified that he opened the October meeting with the statement : "Now, I said that within a couple of weeks I would make the decision whether Warren would stay longer or not, and I want to come down to make the decision right now as to what we are going to do and what date we are going to set," and it was at this point that Crowder differed with him as to what had occurred on October 22. Anderson gave Crowder notice of termination effective November 30. Then they discussed what vacation time Crowder had coming and Marsh stated it was 3 weeks because Crowder had not taken a vacation. There was dis- cussion calculating that with vacation time and the bonus the pay would take Crowder into January when he had a job possibility. Then, thinking Crowder might "lay down on the job," Anderson added he was specifying that he still could give Crowder a 2-week termination any time prior to the middle of November. On Monday, November 5, Crowder accompanied the union officials to the Regional Office of the Board to file the representation petition and while there filed the charge herein. Crowder received in the mail on Thursday, Novem- ber 8, his copy of the Board's letter notifying Respondent of the charge. Early Friday morning, November 9, Ander- son came to the desk where Crowder was writing sports page headlines for that day's issue of the newspaper and said he wished to speak to Crowder when the latter was finished with what he was doing. When Crowder entered Anderson's office, Anderson handed him the written notice of discharge and told him to fill out a timecard for the week. When he did so, Anderson gave Crowder a check. By this letter Crowder was terminated effective November 24 but not to report to work after November 9. The check was for $742.46. It is not clear whether this included the year-end bonus. Clark testified that after Crowder received his 30-day notice Clark made known his concern that his job, too, might be in jeopardy because he had been involved in the overtime claim and had been called "on the carpet" along with Crowder. Marsh invited him to lunch and assured him that he was not in the same category as Crowder; that he was in reasonably good standing with the Company; and that the matter with Crowder had been building up over a long period of time and had'nothing to do with overtime or the Union. Clark stated this took place after the activity with the ITU commenced and after the letter was sent to the Respondent by the ITU. According to Marsh, during their mid-week conference following the October 22 conversation between Anderson and Crowder, Anderson told Marsh that he had given Crowder a couple of weeks and had made a decision to reevaluate him. Anderson later told him Crowder had come to work several days "real sloppy," and Anderson felt they would have to get together and determine exactly when Crowder would be leaving. On Monday, October 29, Ander- son approached Marsh stating he wanted to get together with Crowder to set the date Crowder would leave and Marsh told him Crowder was not working that day. Anderson testified that after Crowder was given notice on October 30 Marsh reported that Crowder was being sarcas- tic, and had disappeared from the office for a time. After Crowder had appeared at the office wearing a jersey which Anderson had requested him not to wear to the office over a year before, Anderson decided to request from Josey per- mission to discharge Crowder immediately. He did so on November 7. Josey told Anderson to wait and they would 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discuss the matter with the industrial relations representa- tive of the parent company who was arriving the next day to advise them in connection with the representation claim of the Union. On November 8, Anderson was told to have the accountant draw up a check for Crowder when he ar- rived the next morning and for Anderson to write a dismiss- al letter and give both to Crowder as soon as he arrived the next morning. Anderson obtained the check from the ac- countant at about 8:30 the next morning and thereafter delivered both to Crowder. Anderson acknowleged his mis- take as to date of dismissal notice stated in the letter and that his failure to sign the notice was an oversight. On November 9, an official notice was given the news staff stating that all overtime would have to' be cleared in advance.-Marsh testified that such notice was merely a re- minder of the existing policy. Crowder testified that in each conversation with Ander- son wherein money was involved, whether it was when he asked for a promotion or a raise which he did on several occasions or when discussing his claims for overtime or mileage, Anderson always raised the question of attitude. Marsh asserted in his testimony that Crowder would at- tempt to gain added skills and put forth effort when a job opening was in sight but between times would revert to just doing his job rather than practicing to gain skill and speed in work required of an assistant sports editor. Anderson testified, with respect to Crowder's attitude, that when Richards was hired in 1972 he told Crowder about the dedication that was required in the newspaper field. Anderson stated he had a similar conversation with Crowder when the latter had approached him for a raise. In July 1972 and on one prior occasion, he had spoken to Crowder about his attire and told him to wear a shirt and tie to work. Again in the spring of 1973, he talked to Crow- der about applying himself to become more important to his editor and learn to do more tasks to help his editor. At that time Anderson pointed out to Crowder that his was not really a job in which one could make enough money to support himself or in which there was a future, and suggest- ed that Crowder get a moonlighting job. In June 1973, and again in August, Anderson questioned Crowder's mileage claim for use of his personal car and was told by Marsh that company automobiles were not readily available and Crowder's car was air-conditioned whereas the company cars were not. Anderson spoke to Crowder and told him he would have to first request a company car before mileage would be allowed. Except for areas in which the facts might tend to reveal a certain duplicity on his part, Marsh appeared to attempt an accurate recollection of events and statements made on specific occasions. Thus, he clearly did not wish to be asso- ciated with Crowder's initial employment and with recom- mending Crowder for promotion and, above all, he did not want to be revealed as having encouraged, been interested in, or even possessed knowledge of the union organizational interests and activities of the employees. Anderson, on the other hand, impressed me as a particu- larly unreliable witness, substantially unable to separate his own attitudes, reasoning, and thinking processes from what actually happened and what was stated. He seemed con- cerned with casting everything in a light most favorable to him in order to justify his own conduct. I am convinced that Anderson purposefully encompassed in his recital of the October 22 conversation with Crowder statements and events that were related to the October 30 conference in order to establish that he gave notice to Crowder at the earlier date before Crowder's contact with the ITU and before the Union organized the employees. Both Marsh and Anderson related alleged conversations between themselves in an attempt to establish Anderson's version of the timing of the initial discharge notice to Crow- der and as proof of his inadequacies. Such conversations, I find, are of little, value to serve these purposes as they were private communications between management officials which were clearly self-serving in character. This testimony did, however, reveal by the extent of their inconsistencies that much of such testimony was not based on actual events. Anderson's memo to Josey and the dating of the latter's notation thereon gives me great pause. On its face it would appear to be documentary verification of Anderson's ver- sion of his conversation with Crowder on October 22. How- ever, the authenticity of at least the dates on the document is suspect. The testimony is that Respondent does not make written records of evaluations, recommendations, or similar personnel matters, and that the few written communications which occur because of inability immediately to make per- sonal or telephonic contact ,are as a ,rule thrown in the wastebasket after communication is established. If this was the circumstances which brought about the Anderson mem- orandum to Josey dated October 22 concerning Crowder's year-end bonus, as Anderson asserts, there is no explana- tion as to why it was found necessary to date it as if it were to establish a record for posterity, or why, after Josey spoke to Anderson in person about the question raised and gave his verbal approval, he also found it necessary to-write his approval at the bottom of the memo, date and initial it, and then return the memo to Anderson, who then kept it. Of course, no copy was provided Crowder although he was the person most involved. I am also mindful that no records, not even this document, were submitted to the General Counsel pursuant to the latter's subpena for such documents, and that the representation was made to him that Respondent kept no such records. All of these circumstances cast doubt upon the authenticity of the document in question. This doubt is strengthened by Respondent's own witness, for Marsh, who was not present at the October 22 conference, in relating the contents of the October 30 conference places that date as the one in which Anderson mentioned the year- end bonus and stated he "thought" he could get this for Crowder. If the matter had been brought up at the October 22 meeting and Anderson acted on it as promptly as his memorandum and Josey's initialed note would suggest, there is no explanation for Anderson's uncertainty at this late date. In all the circumstances, I find the Anderson memorandum regarding the bonus of no value in determin- ing the issues involved in this case, and no support for Anderson's credibility. Accordingly, I accept Anderson's testimony only where it reveals information against his own interest or where it is consistent with the weight of credible testimony. I discredit Marsh specifically with respect to those areas identified above, and otherwise weigh his testimony in the light of the THE PROGRESS-INDEX 817 credited testimony of other witnesses and the probabilities inherent in the entire record. On the basis of his demeanor and substantial corrobora- tion by other credited witnesses, as well as the probabilities when all the credited testimony is considered, I find Crow- der a credible witness, and that, for the most part, he pre- sented an accurate and straightforward account of the relevant events. I accept Crowder's version of the October 22 conference with Anderson and find that the statements made by Ander- son to Crowder at the end of that meeting constituted threats of job jeopardy for Crowder's part in engaging in a suspected conspiracy to claim overtime, which I find was protected concerted activity. Accordingly, I hold that Re- spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent's asserted reasons for giving Crowder a notice of discharge do not withstand scrutiny. Except for the so-called overtime conspiracy, the matters alleged ex- isted concurrent with Crowder's advance iii wages and re- sponsibilities. The wearing of a casual shirt had occurred at least twice before over Crowder's 18 months of employment and Respondent admittedly did not have a set rule gov- erning attire. Perhaps Crowder approached Anderson more frequently for a raise, which the evidence discloses was, to Anderson, the equivalent of a bad attitude, but there is no indication that he did so since his last raise of $17.50, which was an amount far in excess of any raise Anderson had ever given an employee in the sports department. Moreover, there is no indication that Respondent regarded asking for a raise as a dischargeable offense. The matter of Crowder's having used his personal car and claiming the mileage was something that had been dealt with in the summer and had become past history as it too preceded Crowder's $17.50 raise. So far as Crowder's alleged failure to take the initia- tive and learn new skills is concerned, the record indicates the contrary to be the case. When, after 2 months on the job, he learned that this was expected of him he promptly learned such skills from Marsh. That he possessed them is demonstrated by the fact that even before such additional duties were assigned to him along with the $17.50 raise, Crowder handled the entire sports department alone for a full week in August and for 2 weekends in September. Even for the week preceding his discharge, he not only was per- forming the assistant sports editor's duties but had taken on those of the editor as well. Attempts to show that he was deficient in this respect revealed that with his meager experi- ence he was making no more, and no more serious, errors as the sports editor than his counterpart and predecessors had made. Thus, allegations as to his lack of qualifications for the assistant editor's job also fall on the basis of the same evidence. 10 Moreover, Clark who was supposedly in compe- tition with him for assistant editor was retained even though he had no knowledge or skill in this area. The fact that Marsh had reported Clark's writing ability superior to Crowder's is of little relevance since Anderson intended from the beginning to place Clark on the news staff. Finally, it is asserted that he was too slow, yet there is no showing that he was unable to meet the established deadline. Ac- cordingly, I must conclude that the reasons advanced by Respondent for Crowder's discharge were pretextual. Respondent's union animus is demonstrated by the vari- ous conduct found above to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1). With respect to knowledge, at first Anderson denied he had any suspicion of union organizing activity in the newsroom' at any time prior to Crowder's termination on November 9. He later testified that he first learned of union organizing activity 'shortly after the October 30 conference with Crowder and Marsh. He relates this to a call from Josey on the direct line just before they finished, their con- ference, and testified that when they finished he went to Josey's office at which time Josey handed him the letter demanding recognition and stated, "Your reporters are or- ganizing." There is no question of Marsh's knowledge of the employ- ee activity from the very beginning, and the fact that Crow- der not only told him the letter from the Union was forthcoming but also announced to him that morning that Josey had received the letter. I attribute Marsh's knowledge to Respondent. He not only is an admitted supervisor but, by his own testimony and that of Anderson, was prone to discuss with Anderson every minute detail, even such mat- ters as when Crowder took 5 minutes to get a picture from the file for him and when Crowder used sarcastic language. The inference is that he likewise informed Anderson of what he learned concerning the union activity. Although it would appear that Anderson did have a real antipathy to Crowder, I find that the decision to discharge him grew out of Respondent's knowledge that Crowder was instrumental in organizing the newsroom employees on the preceding Friday. That Anderson may not have known that the demand letter had actually arrived is immaterial. Marsh, and presumably Anderson, knew it was coming if Crowder could be believed in his reports to Marsh. Accordingly, I find that the verbal notice of discharge was given to Crow- der on October 30, effective November 30, not on October 22, and was because of his union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.1[ Crowder's accelerated immediate discharge on Novem- ber 9 followed the very next day after Crowder received his copy of the National Labor Relations Board letter covering his unfair labor practice charge. I find no warrant for ac- cepting Respondent's assertion that it did not receive the National Labor Relations Board letter on the same day, particularly in view of the fact that the post office is across the street from Respondent's building. The assertion that Anderson decided to take such a drastic and precipitous action on the basis of Marsh's flimsy and petty complaints, and the fact that Crowder wore a sport shirt to the office one ie The asserted anxiety of Anderson and Marsh to hire a more experienced person for this job because of the pressures of work during the football season, and Marsh's repeated complaints that he needed more experienced help, hardly bear mention in light of the fact that, although Marsh denied Crowder the request for vacation time because of the football season, Marsh himself took a vacation as well as some weekends, leaving the work to Crowder and Clark 11 My conviction that the union activity was the real motive is based in part on the fact that both Crowder and Clark had been identified by Anderson as involved in the overtime conspiracy, yet Marsh could assure Clark that his job was not in jeopardy. Even were it to be found that the overtime incident was the real cause, the discharge for that reason would have been for protect- ed concerted activity in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) and would require the same remedy. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD day, variously identified as while Marsh was on vacation and as after October 30, are viewed as pretextual particular- ly in light of Anderson's repeated assertions that he always gave a 30-day notice and that he really wanted to give Crowder the year-end bonus because he wanted to be fair to Crowder. Significantly, although initially the discharge decision and the date of release were assertedly Anderson's, he now purportedly found it necessary to consult with Jo- sey. I believe the record supports the inference that it was Crowder's having filed the charge and thus caused more trouble, something Anderson had warned him against at the October 30 conference, that caused Respondent to advance the discharge date to November 9. Accordingly, I find that Respondent advanced the discharge date on November 9 in violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Progress-Index, Petersburg Division of the Inde- pendent, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Petersburg Typographical Union No. 26, Internation- al Typographical Union; AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercive interrogation of employees and threats of reprisals for union activity and for protected concerted ac- tivity, found above, Respondent has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employ- ment of Warren B. Crowder because of his concerted and union activity, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employ- ment of Warren B. Crowder because he filed a charge against the Respondent with the National Labor Relations Board, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. 6. The above-designated unfair labor practices affect commerce within the contemplation of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent illegally discriminated against Warren B. Crowder in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to one which is substantially equivalent thereto, without preju- dice to any seniority or other rights and privileges, and that he be compensated for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. Back- pay shall be computed in accordance with the formula and methods prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and payment of 6-percent inter- est per annum shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 176 (1962). In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices herein found, which clearly demonstrates a proclivity to violate the Act, Respondent shall be further ordered to cease and desist from "in any manner" infringing upon the rights guaranteed its employees by Section 7 of the Act. 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: ORDER12 Respondent, The Progress-Index, Petersburg Division of the Independent, Inc., Petersburg, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires, or those of fellow employees. (b) Threatening employees with discharge for engaging in union organizing activities and for engaging in protected concerted activities. (c) Discouraging membership in the Union by discharg- ing employees or otherwise discriminating in any manner in respect to their tenure of employment or any term or condi- tion of employment for engaging in protected concerted activity or union activity. (d) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em- ployees who have filed charges under the Act. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Warren B. Crowder immediate and full rein- statement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to one which is substantially equivalent there- to, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him with interest at the rate of 6 percent, as provided in the section above, entitled "The Remedy." (b) Post at its premises at Petersburg, Virginia, copies of the notice marked "Appendix."13 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of said 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 13 In the event that this 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 " THE PROGRESS-INDEX 819 employees are customarily posted . Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examining and copying, all payroll records and reports and all other records necessary to ascer- tain and compute the amount, if any, of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order , what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer Warren B . Crowder immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or its equivalent without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and compensate him for any loss of pay suffered by reason of his termination , with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. WE WILL _NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against our employees because of their concerted or union activity or because they file charges with the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union membership, activities, and de- sires or that of their fellow employees. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge for engaging in union activities or for engaging in protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Petersburg Typo- graphical Union No. 26, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. Dated By THE PROGRESS INDEX, PETERS- BURG, DIVISION OF THE INDE- PENDENT, INC. (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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, Charles Center , Federal Building, Room 1019 , Baltimore, Maryland 21201 , Telephone 301- 962-2822.