Synadyne Corp.

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Synadyne Corp. and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 15-CA-6035 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE March 14, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On November 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order. 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 the Respondent, Synadyne Corp., Jackson, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 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 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings. The Administrative Law Judge finds, and we agree, that Green's and Garner's protests concerning the substitution of a lottery for a paid half-day holiday on Christmas Eve were connected to complaints made by the employees at an earlier meeting with Respondent's vice president and therefore did constitute protected concerted activity . Accordingly, we do not find it necessary to pass on her alternative conclusion that even if this connection did not exist the discharges would be unlawful because Respondent believed that Green and Garner had already engaged in or might soon thereafter engage in a concerted effort to remedy their grievance and for this reason discharged them. In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we note that in sec. 11. A, par 2, she inadvertently referred to Poole as Respondent 's president rather than as its vice president . This minor misstatement does not affect our conclusion herein NANCY M. SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding was heard at Jackson, Mississippi, on July 13- 16, 1976, inclusive, pursuant to a charge filed on March 10, 1976, and amended on April 9, 1976, and a complaint issued on May 17, 1976. The issues presented are whether Respondent (a) threatened employees about union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act); (b) interrogated and threatened employees about protected concerted activities and gave employees the impression of surveillance over such activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; (c) discharged employees Barbara (Bobbie) Adams, Georgia Williams, Minnie Garner, Gloria Green, and Jeanette Vaughn because of their protected concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act; and (d) discharged employee Alice Greenwood because of her union sympa- thies and/or to discourage union and other protected concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by Respondent and by counsel for the General Counsel (the General Counsel), I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is a Mississippi corporation with offices and place of business located at Jackson, Mississippi, where it is engaged in the manufacture of wire harnesses and electrical components. During the 12-month period preced- ing the issuance of the complaint, a representative period, Respondent purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped directly to it from points located outside Mississippi. During the same period, Respondent sold and shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 to points located outside Mississippi. I find that, as Respondent concedes, Respon- dent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction over its operations will effectuate the policies of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The October 1975 Meeting Regarding Alleged Racial Discrimination and Other Grievances; Alleged Unlawful Threats, Interrogation, and Impression of Surveillance During the period involved herein, Respondent em- ployed about 220 plant employees, 180 to 200 of whom were on the day shift. About 60 percent of the plant employees were black. Although several blacks had the title 228 NLRB No. 93 SYNADYNE CORP. 665 of supervisor, only one black supervisor was on the day shift.' About 9:15 a.m. on a day in early October 1975,2 black employees Williams and Maggie Sparkman organized the black day-shift employees into a group to protest alleged racial discrimination by Respondent. After black employee Joan Laury had said no to the inquiries of black employees Jeanette Vaughn and then Williams about whether Laury was going to the meeting, Williams said that if Laury and another black employee named "Shirley" did not go to the meeting they were not black or supporting the blacks but were white instead, and that they were "scared" because they had a "position," meaning inspectors' jobs. Almost all the day-shift black employees, about 100 in all, eventually gathered in the plant directly outside the office of Company President Poole. Some of the employees knocked on the door of Poole's office. When Poole opened the door, employee Charles Mayfield asked Poole to come out, that the employees had problems they wanted to discuss with Poole. Poole thereupon walked outside his office to meet with the group. Poole, who is white, asked what was wrong and who was going to be the spokesman for the meeting. Mayfield replied that the employees had called the meeting because they felt that black employee Lynda Montique, who had worked under white Supervisor Shirley McMullen, had been fired for no reason. The employees also questioned other recent discharges. Some employees, including Wil- liams, asserted that McMullen was a supervisor who particularly discriminated against blacks. Day Plant Superintendent Mary Gibbons, who is white, asked some of McMullen's black subordinates whether this was true. Some said yes and some (including Laury) said no.3 Gibbons said that Montique deserved to be fired. Employ- ee Williams said that Montique had had a doctor's excuse for her absence. Poole agreed, but said Gibbons had found out that after leaving the doctor, Montique had taken additional time off to buy a car. Williams said that Respondent was discriminating against the black employ- ees by requiring all of them to bring in a doctor's excuse when they were absent for medical reasons, while not always requiring such excuses from whites. Poole replied that he did not know about that. Gibbons said that black employee Laury had been absent without having to bring in a medical excuse.4 1 However, all but one of the leaders were black Moreover, although no white employees worked directly under black supervisors , many white employees were working under black leaders 2 My finding as to the date is based on the testimony of former leader Alice Norma Coleman and employee Williams. I do not credit the testimony of Company Vice President H Tate Poole and several other witnesses called by Respondent that this meeting occurred on November 11. I disbelieve such testimony for demeanor reasons, and because all these witnesses except Poole gave the November I I date in response to a leading question on direct examination or, in the case of Supervisor Sylvia Langford, after inspecting a suggestive document . The significance of the date will appear infra, sec Ii, B, 8, b s Prior to this incident, Vaughn had been driving Laury to work. Shortly thereafter, Laury went on the night shift for 2 weeks. She credibly testified that when she returned to the day shift, Vaughn said that she was not going to pick up Laury any more because she "had been going back and telling Mary and them things on them ." However, I credit Vaughn's testimony, partly corroborated by Laury, that Vaughn dropped Laury as a rider partly because she was frequently late and thus made the whole carpool late to Williams told Poole that McMullen had set too high a production quota on the Murray harness line. Poole replied that Williams should not really be concerned with that problem, because she did not work on that line, but that "the quota that we had given the girls was something less than their demonstrated past experience, and even then they were getting less than half of the quota." Employee Betty Brister said that "she could easily get the quota if she wanted to but she just didn't want to." Employee Mattie Wilson said that she thought she was being treated "unfair." Poole suggested that she find another job. Williams said that there were more white supervisors than black supervisors and there was no one with a higher position that black employees could talk to. Poole said that the employees could come in and talk to him any time they wanted to. Williams said that a lot of the black employees would talk only to blacks and were afraid to talk to him. Poole asked if the employees would talk to her, and she said yes. He asked if she had any problem talking to him, and she said no. Poole said that he would work this problem out. Poole mentioned an individual, identified in the record only as Leroy, who was then the only black supervisor on the day shift, and further stated that there were black supervisors on the night shift. Williams said that "Leroy ... will tell us that he doesn't have any authority, that he is just like us" and that Leroy's department consisted entirely of blacks. Williams further stated that she felt Poole was discriminating against blacks because they got harder jobs than whites and did not get promoted, and that black employees had to work under white supervisors but white employees did not have to work under black supervisors. Poole said that many whites were working under black leaders. Poole further stated that he had offered inspecting jobs to Celestine Moore (inferentially, nee Madison) and Williams, both of whom had rejected such jobs, and that Ethel Lewis had quit an inspecting job. Williams said that Lewis had quit that job because, unlike white employees, she would have to wait for 3 months at $2.55 an hour before she received an increase to the $2.75 inspector's pay. Williams then asked Lewis why she had quit her inspecting job. Lewis replied that she had quit that job because she had to work 3 months before she could get inspecting pay. Poole replied that he did not know work. Vaughn testified that she had dropped Laury from the carpool because she had failed to tell Vaughn about the shift change. I accept Laury's testimony that she did notify Vaughn, but conclude that Vaughn either did not hear her or forgot about the notification. 4 My finding that this complaint was made at this meeting is based on the testimony of former leader Coleman, Vice President Poole, Plant Superintendent Gibbons, and employee Laury. My finding as to its substance is based on the testimony of Williams (who, however, attributed this complaint and Poole's response to a conversation, discussed lnfrq immediately after the meeting), Coleman, and Laury Coleman did not relate Poole's response. My finding as to his response is based on Williams' testimony. Poole testified that Williams named one white employee who had allegedly not had a doctor's excuse, and that Supervisor Langford thereupon produced that employee's excuse. Gibbons gave similar testimony, except that she said Williams named two employees and Langford produced two excuses. In view of company witness Langford's failure to corroborate the foregoing testimony of either Poole or Gibbons, and for demeanor reasons, I discredit Poole's and Gibbons' testimony in this respect. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anything about her having to wait 3 months before she got inspecting pay.5 Poole asked Williams whether she wanted to be a supervisor. She said no, but others wanted to do this and were not asked. A number of employees complained about wages, and Poole said that he could not afford to pay any more, that Respondent's labor rate was already so high that Respondent was seriously considering whether or not it could continue operations.6 Toward the end of this meeting, employee Whitlock remarked that she felt that if the employees had a union, "everyone could speak their piece without being afraid." Poole replied, "We don't need a union, because if we get a union this plant would definitely go bankrupt, because we don't have any money to support a union. This is my plant and no one will tell me how to run it. I will run it the way I want to run it." 7 Five or ten minutes later, Poole called Williams, Moore, and Lewis into his office. He testified that he selected them because they had been "most vocal members at the meeting" and because each worked in a different depart- ment. Poole said, "What the hell is going on out there? ... he didn't know, with everybody coming at him at once." Williams and Lewis related certain alleged instances of racial discrimination by management. Poole disclaimed knowledge of most of these events. Poole then said, "Who the hell was it out there that mentioned a union?"8 Williams untruthfully said that she did not know. Poole said that "we just is working ourselves . . . if we had a union then we would have to shut down the whole plant and nobody would have a job." Moore said, "I don't know who mentioned a union because I didn't mention a union. I don't want a union. A union would mean that I would have to pay union dues and have to strike when I don't want to.,, Poole said, "We couldn't afford a union anyway," and that he did not want "anything like that to happen again." He asked whether they could stop "it" from happening. Williams said that a lot of people in the plant had problems, and some people were "scared" to come to him with their problems. Poole said that no one should be "scared" to come to him, and that employees should come to his office when they wanted to. Poole said that he 5 My findings in the last five sentences are based on a composite of Coleman's and Adams' testimony, and of credited portions of Poole's and Williams' testimony For demeanor reasons, I do not credit Williams' uncorroborated testimony that Gibbons then pronused to pay Lewis $2.75 an hour For demeanor reasons, because of other evidence that Williams was in fact offered the opportunity to bid for an inspector 's job, and absent other evidence that she was offered a leader 's job, I do not credit Poole's testimony that the discussion related to a leader's job. I do not regard Coleman's credited testimony about Poole's equivocal reply as rendered less credible by Poole's testimony that Lewis had previously told him she wanted to quit the job because it was too boring (an explanation she might have regarded as more acceptable to Poole than to Williams ), particularly smce he testified that he really did not know whether Lewis ' starting and final rates and the interval between them were the same as those afforded white employees 6 Up to this point, my findings about what was said at this meeting are based on a composite of the testimony of claimant Adams, Supervisor McMullen, and employee Laury, and of credited portions of the testimony of claimant Williams, former leader Coleman, Vice President Poole, Day Plant Superintendent Gibbons, Supervisor Langford , and employee Alice Ruth Whitlock I have attempted to describe the events in a likely sequence, but in many respects the record fails to show what the sequence was. 7 My findings in this paragraph are based on the testimony of Coleman, who prior to the hearing had resigned her job as leader and, so far as the record shows , had no interest in the proceeding. Her testimony in this needed somebody that he could count on to tell him what was happening in the plant and see that everyone was "satisfied," and that he could use Williams, Moore, and Lewis if they did not "mind." They replied that they did not mind. Poole said that after he had made them monitors, employees could tell them what was going on in the plant and the monitors could tell him, without (if they preferred) letting anybody else know that they were talking to him. Williams and Lewis said that they did not mind his repeating what they had to say. Poole said that "he did have employees that come to him and they tells him things," and that "whatever goes on in the office stays in the office." 9 Thereafter, Williams told the employees that Poole had said that he needed someone on each line "so the peoples can talk to and that they won't have to be going around spreading rumors." A couple of weeks after appointing the monitors, Poole went through the plant and asked them if they had any "problems." They said that they did not. On another occasion, he called them into his office and told them that certain employees were going to receive wage increases, without, however, naming them. In late November 1975, Williams telephoned John Davis, a representative of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, which filed the instant charge in March 1976 . A week or two after Williams' and Adams' December 18 discharge, they met with Davis for the first time . There is no contention or evidence that before receiving the charge , Respondent knew about Williams' or Adams' contacts with the Union. B. Activities in Connection with Long Holiday Weekends, Holiday Pay, and Overtime Pay,' Alleged Unlawful Threats and Interrogation; Allegedly Unlawful Discharges 1. The Thanksgiving Day weekend Respondent's plant usually operates Monday through Friday. However, in 1975 the plant operated on the Saturday before Thanksgiving and was completely shut respect is corroborated by claimants Williams and Adams. Poole and Whitlock both denied that he threatened to close the plant if a union came in. Poole testified, however, that Respondent was then undergoing some financial difficulties, and that the thought of a union coming into the plant at a time when it had financial difficulties would be unsatisfactory to the plant. Moreover, Whitlock testified that she asked whether a union would help "our problems," and that Poole replied, "no, he only thought it would make it worse." Poole testified that he replied "that I didn't think it would." Both of them testified that she said she had worked at a plant with a piece rate system and asked whether Respondent could put in such a system, and that he replied this was "too expensive" (her version) or "would probably bankrupt our operation" (his version ). He, but not she, added the detail that she said her former employer was unionized . For demeanor reasons, I credit Coleman, Williams, and Adams, and discredit the testimony of Poole and Whitlock set forth in this footnote. 8 Whitlock had been working for Respondent for less than 2 months. 9 My findings about the discussions at this meeting are based on Williams' testimony, partly corroborated by company witness Moore. Lewis, who still works for Respondent, did not testify, nor was her absence explained. Poole testified that he assigned each of these three "the task of being spokesperson for the entire group that they were assigned to . . . I just asked them to be on the lookout for any kind of problems that they needed to communicate to me and let me know ." Neither Poole nor Moore was asked what, if anything, was said about unions during this conversation. SYNADYNE CORP. 667 down the Friday after Thanksgiving as well as on Thanksgiving itself. The employees who worked that Saturday were initially paid only straight time for those hours, even though the Saturday operations meant that most if not all of them worked more than 40 hours that week. Such employees, however, received holiday pay for Thanksgiving. The employees who did not work that Saturday received no pay for either Thanksgiving or the Friday after Thanksgiving. Respondent ordinarily gave holiday pay only to the employees who worked the working days immediately before and immediately after the holiday; and for purposes of Thanksgiving 1975 holiday pay, the Saturday before Thanksgiving was treated as if it were the first working day after Thanksgiving. At the hearing, and to some extent in the briefs, both parties litigated the extent to which this schedule was proposed by the rank-and-file employees and was voluntar- ily worked by them. Such issues have little relevance to this proceeding, except as to credibility matters. In this connection, I accept the testimony of Supervisors Langford and McMullen that the proposal originated with some rank-and-file employees. I also accept the testimony of Poole, Langford, and McMullen that, initially, Poole conditioned his agreement to this proposal on unanimous acceptance by the employees. However, I infer from the supervisors' coming to Poole with the proposal, and from the willingness of all three to entertain the possibility that all of the 180 day-shift employees would agree thereto, that these three members of management welcomed the prospect of a 4-day Thanksgiving weekend.10 However, Poole's general credibility is drawn into question by his testimony regarding subsequent events. It is undisputed that of the approximately 180 day-shift em- ployees, only about 97 signed an agreement to work that Saturday instead of the Friday following Thanksgiving. Nonetheless, Poole testified on direct examination that a "couple of days" after Langford and McMullen made this proposal, "They brought me a list with everyone's name in the plant that wanted to substitute the Saturday work for the Friday after Thanksgiving to be off for 4 days." Moreover, on cross-examination Poole replied "Right" to the question, "I think it was your testimony on direct examination that in order to work Saturdays and have long weekends it has to be a unanimous decision of everyone in the plant and everyone in the plant signed this list." When the General Counsel then pointed out that a significant number of the employees had not signed any of the eight documents (G. C. Exh. 3) constituting the list, Poole testified, contrary to his testimony on direct examination, that he had not seen the list until after the Thanksgiving holidays, and that his basis for putting the proposed schedule in effect was a supervisors' meeting where he 10 On cross-examination, Poole and Gibbons testified that the continu- ous plant operations effected by the Thanksgiving schedule did not save Respondent money as compared to shutting down for I day in the middle of the week However, Poole later explained a proposed like schedule for the week which included Thursday, January 1, on the ground that during a holiday people get drunk. Nor did the General Counsel specifically explore the question of whether management personnel welcomes a 4-day weekend for personal reasons. ii Poole testified that to his knowledge, there had never been any signed asked the supervisors whether they had anyone that dissented, and the answer was no.11 Each page of this agreement contains the following typewritten material: ATTENTION! SUBSTITUTING SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22 FOR FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28 GETTING PAID FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28 FOR SATURDAY NOVEMBER 22NDs WORK, YOU WILL BE OFF NOVEMBER 27, 28, 29, AND 30. YOU WILL GET PAID FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28 FOR HOURS WORKED SATURDAY NOVEMBER 22 FOR REGULAR TIME. HOURS WORKED SATURDAY NOVEMBER 22 WILL BE COMPUTED FRIDAY NOVEMBER 28. NO OVERTIME HOURS! SIGN BELOW: Williams testified on cross-examination that when evidencing by her signature her agreement to this arrange- ment, she signed a blank piece of paper. However, her signature appears under the foregoing legend.12 In assess- ing her credibility, I have taken this discrepancy into consideration. Nonetheless, I credit her testimony that she signed this document after Supervisor Langford told her and others on the Ford line that if they "didn't sign the list [they] wouldn't get paid for Thanksgiving, if [they] didn't work that Saturday [they] wouldn't get paid for Thanksgiv- ing." I also credit employee Adams' similar testimony that when she signed, Langford told her that Poole had said that in order to get paid for the Thanksgiving holiday, the employees had to work the preceding Saturday and had to sign the paper. In so finding, I infer from the underlined reference to "NO OVERTIME PAY" that Respondent believed (erroneously) that their signatures effectively waived any claim to overtime pay they may otherwise have had. However, I further find (as indicated by the testimony of employees Johnnie Mae Newsome, Barbara Morea, Laury, Rosie Paige, and Virginia Hawkins) that Langford did solicit the signatures of some employees by telling them, as she implied she told all, that whether to sign was up to them, and if everyone signed, then Saturday, November 22, would be worked instead of November 28, the Friday after Thanksgiving. In finding that different appeals were made at different times, I note the production problems that would have resulted if Respondent changed the schedule and a number of employees refused to work it, and the morale problems that would have resulted if Respondent had refused to change the schedule after a number of employees had opted for the change. sheets other than those constituting G C. Exh. 3. Moreover, Respondent's counsel has never tendered any additional signed sheets, even though, when Poole initially referred to the list, counsel stated, "We will produce that at a later time." Accordingly, I reject the suggestion of Respondent's counsel at certain points that employees may have signed additional sheets not included in G C. Exh. 3 In any event, whether or not G.C Exh. 3 is complete, Poole changed his testimony after looking at it. 12 I find this to be her signature by comparing it with her signature on her preheanng affidavit. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Subsequent weekend work a. Events leading up to Williams' rescinded discharge After Thanksgiving 1975, several employees approached Poole, pointed out that Christmas and New Year's fell on Thursday that year, and asked Poole whether these holidays were going to be handled like Thanksgiving.13 About December 1, Poole called the four current monitors into his office. 14 When Williams came into the office, she saw on Poole's desk four Xerox copies of a paper referred to herein and in the record as a "memorandum" which listed December 6, 13, and 20 as possible substitutes for December 26.15 Poole said that the employees could work any one of these days to make up for December 26, but he expressed the opinion that the employees would probably not want to work on December 20 because they would probably want to do Christmas shopping on that day, and he circled that date with a pen on each of the four sheets. Then, he told the monitors to poll the employees to determine whether, as a substitute for December 26, they preferred to work on December 6 or on December 13. He further stated that the employees could have the Friday after New Year's as a paid holiday if the employees would agree to work all day on December 31, rather than only a half day as they had done previously.16 Thereafter, Williams polled the employ- ees on her line, who decided to work on December 13. Williams circled that date in pen on her copy of Poole's memorandum and gave it to Langford, who said that she would discuss it with Poole later, that the supervisors were having a meeting later that day. Respondent tendered no testimony about the discussion at this supervisors' meeting. After this meeting (inferentially), leader Coleman told the White line employees that they would have to work two Saturdays to make up for the Friday after Christmas and the Friday after New Year's, and she was not sure which Saturdays they were.17 A little later (inferentially), Supervi- sor Langford told Ford line employee Adams that to get paid for the Fridays after Christmas and New Year's, the employees would have to work two Saturdays, and asked her which Saturdays she wanted to work. Adams said December 6 and 13.18 Later (inferentially), Langford told her subordinates (including Williams) that the employees were to work the 6th and the 13th to make up for the Fridays after the two holidays, and that if they did not 13 This finding is based on Poole's testimony. His prehearmg affidavit attributes this implied request to the monitors . I have considered this inconsistency in assessing Poole's credibility. Monitor Williams testified that she had never made any such request and to her knowledge neither had any of the other monitors Moore, the only other monitor who testified, was called by Respondent as a witness but was not asked about this matter. 14 None of the first three monitors whom Poole appointed came from the assembly department. Poole later appointed assembly department employee Nadine McGowan to serve as a fourth monitor. 15 As indicated infra, all the witnesses except Poole testified that each of the monitors obtained a copy of this memorandum as or before they left the office is This finding, like most of my findings in this sec. II, B, 2, is based on Williams' testimony Although Respondent's counsel suggested otherwise at the hearing, by plain implication Williams' preheanng affidavit refers, in describing conversations with Langford and Poole, to his promise of a January 2 paid holiday. 17 This finding is based on employee Green's testimony. work those days they would not get paid for the holidays.19 Williams said that Poole had said that the employees did not have to work two Saturdays, that he had said they had to work only one Saturday and they had picked the 13th. Langford replied that Williams must have misunderstood x,20 Williams then said to Poole, "didn't you say that we didn't have to work but one Saturday, and we picked the 13th?" Poole replied, "Yes." Williams said, "You said you would give us the Friday after New Year's" if the employees worked the whole day on December 31. He said, "Yes, but why is it that the employees don't want to work the 6th and the 13th?" Williams said that most employees said they did not mind working the Friday after New Year's. Poole said that if the employees did not work they just would not get paid, because during a holiday people get drunk and the plant was going to be closed the Friday after New Year's. Williams then told the employees (inferentially, those on the Ford line) that Poole had said that if they did not work on a compensatory Saturday they would not get paid for the postholiday Friday. The employees all agreed to work only one Saturday and not get paid for one of the postholiday Fridays. Williams reported this decision to Ford line leader Farris, admittedly Respondent's agent.21 About December 5, Langford again told the employees on the Ford line that they were to work the 6th and the 13th to make up for the holidays. Williams asked, "If we don't work are we going to get paid?" inferentially, for the holidays. Langford replied, "No, you are not going to get paid . . . It's just like working on a Friday." The employees were confused, and kept saying, "I thought we didn't have to work but one Saturday." At about this same time, employee Green told her fellow employees on the White line (including Garner and Vaughn) that Green "didn't see how they could let the company take money from them like they was doing without letting them know that they didn't approve of it." Green asked Garner and then Vaughn whether they would prefer to come back to work on a Friday after Christmas rather than to work Saturday and not get paid time and a half for it. Garner said she would prefer not to work on the Friday. Vaughn said that she did not mind coming back that Friday, but 18 This finding is based on Adams' testimony. For demeanor reasons, I do not believe Langford's testimony that she did not poll the employees about the Christmas schedule, that only Williams did so on the Ford line, and that Langford's connection therewith was limited to one occasion when, at some employees' request, she tried to explain what was going on. 19 This finding is based on the testimony of Williams and Coleman, partly corroborated by Newsome. 20 Adams, who overheard this conversation, testified that Langford said, "No. He changed that. We have to work two Saturdays in order to get paid for the holidays " While I think that this is what Poole in fact did, I regard as more probable Williams' testimony, set forth in the text, about what Langford said. 21 On the first day of the hearing, over Respondent's objection based on alleged belatedness, the General Counsel was permitted to amend the complaint to add the allegation that Farris was Respondent's agent. While the General Counsel denied that Fams was a supervisor, I believe Respondent's contention otherwise constitutes an admission that Farris was 'an agent SYNADYNE CORP. 669 added that she knew Green could not get anyone else to go along with it.22 Also at about the same time, employee Green told Supervisor Langford that Green did not think it was right that the employees had to work those two Saturdays without getting time and a half for them. Langford said "they were doing it to help the girls so they wouldn't have to come back to work until the Monday," and that Green would have to talk to Poole and Gibbons about it.23 Later that same day, Green told Langford that Green would not be able to work on December 6 because she had some business to take care of. Langford asked whether she could come in and work until 2 o'clock. Green replied that she could not, that if she did that she would just as soon work the whole day.24 The plant did not operate on December 6. Supervisor McMullen advised her subordinates that they were not going to work on the 6th, they were going to work on the 13th.25 When Supervisor Langford told her subordinates on December 5 that they were not going to work on December 6, Adams (who had opted to work on the 6th and 13th) asked her why not. Langford replied that she did not recall the reason.26 On December 12, Langford told the employees to work the 13th and the 20th to make up for the Fridays after the holidays. Williams asked whether they would get paid (inferentially, for the holidays) if they did not work, and Langford said no, they would not get paid, that it was just like working on Friday. The plant operated for 8 hours on Saturday, December 13. In consequence, most of the employees worked more than 40 hours during the calendar week which ended that day. However, Respondent initially paid all of them straight time for all hours worked that week, including those worked in excess of 40. About 11:30 a.m. on that Saturday, Williams advised Supervisor Langford that she was sick and wanted to go home. Langford told her that if she did not bring a doctor's excuse, she would not receive holiday pay for Christmas. Williams replied that she was not sick enough to go to the doctor. Williams then went to Plant Superintendent Gibbons, who reiterated Langford's remarks about Wil- liams' needing a doctor's excuse to obtain pay for Christmas. Williams then told Gibbons that she wanted her overtime pay for (inferentially) the Saturday before Thanksgiving and for the hours she had worked that morning. Gibbons replied, "You know we agreed that it was regular time and I'm sorry but I can't help you." Williams nonetheless left the plant.27 At breaktime on 22 My findings in the last four sentences are based on Green's testimony. 23 My findings in the last two sentences are based on a composite of Green's and Vaughn's testimony. 24 My findings in the last three sentences are based on Green's testimony. 25 My findings in this sentence is based on Greenwood's testimony 25 My findings in these two sentences are based on Adams' undenied testimony 27 My findings in this paragraph are based on the testimony of Langford, Gibbons, and Williams The alleged significance of this incident to Respondent's case is discussed infra, fn. 35 28 My findings in the last two sentences are based on the testimony of Williams and Coleman Coleman initially dated this conversation as having occurred in October, and then as happening about the third week in December I have inferred the December 15 date from the Saturday, December 13, overtime work and Williams' December 15 telephone call December 15, employee Whitlock told employee Williams that Whitlock had telephoned the Wage-Hour Administra- tion of the Department of Labor (herein Wage-Hour) and had been told that whenever the employees worked more than 40 hours a week they were supposed to get time and a half for it. Whitlock told Williams the name of her informant and how to fmd his name in the telephone book.28 Later that day, Williams telephoned Wage-Hour, which confirmed Whitlock's assertion. On December 17, Williams telephoned Wage-Hour and stated that the employees had not yet been paid time and a half for the two Saturdays they had worked. She was advised that she could file a charge against Respondent. Also on December 17, Adams telephoned Wage-Hour, was advised that the employees were entitled to time and a half for overtime, and (in response to Williams' inquiry) told Williams that Wage-Hour had so advised Adams. On the following day, December 18, Williams told Company Agent Farris that Williams had telephoned Wage-Hour, that Wage-Hour had said that Respondent had to pay time and a half, that Williams might not want to work Saturday, that she wanted to know whether she would get her time and a half, and that she wanted to see Poole about the matter. Farris said that she would have to check with Poole and went into his office. Later that day, Farris said that Poole said Williams would have to work Saturday in order to get paid for the holiday.29 Williams said that she might not want to work Saturday, and asked whether she would still get her time and a half. Farris then said she would ask Supervisor Langford. Farris reported to Langford that Williams wanted to talk to Poole about the preceding Saturday, that she wanted her overtime pay for it. Langford told Williams that Poole had said that "we have to work Saturdays in order to get paid for the holiday." Williams said, "Well, I might not want to work Saturday. The Saturday that I already worked, you reckon they going to pay me my time and a half?" Langford replied that she did not know, and that Williams would have to talk to Gibbons or Poole.30 Langford reported to Gibbons that Farris told Langford that Williams had said several employees on the Ford line were not in agreement with working Saturday. Also, Langford said, Williams wanted overtime pay for the preceding Saturday, someone had called Wage-Hour, and Respondent was going to have to pay overtime. Gibbons relayed Langford's report to Poole and identified Williams to him as the employee who had called Wage-Hour.31 Whitlock was called by Respondent as a witness, but not asked about this conversation. 29 My finding in this sentence is based on Williams' undenied testimony. Williams testified that Farris referred to the Christmas holiday I believe that Williams was mistaken in this respect, and that Farris referred to the New Year's holiday, either expressly or by implication 30 My findings so far in this paragraph are based on a composite of Williams', Adams', and Langford's testimony 31 My findings in the preceding three sentences are based on a composite of Gibbons', Langford's, and Poole's testimony Over Gibbons' denial, I accept Poole's testimony that she identified Williams as the employee who had called Wage-Hour I rely on demeanor considerations, on Gibbons' December 13 conversation with Williams about Saturday overtime pay, on Langford's reference to Williams in connection with this same matter, and on Poole's conversation with Williams a few minutes later 670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A few minutes later, Poole called Williams into his off ice. Also present were the other monitors (Moore, Lewis, and McGowan) and Plant Superintendent Gibbons. Poole said, "What is this I hear? I'm out of town a few days and I get back and you done stabbed a damn knife in my back." Williams asked what he meant by "stab a knife in his back." Poole said, "you done went down there and called the damn Wage and Hour Bureau. He . . . tried to be nice to [the employees], about letting [them] have a long weekend off and [Williams] knife[d] him in the back like that." Williams said, "I didn't tell you I called the Wage and Hour Bureau." He said, "Well, who called them, then?" Williams replied, "Several people." Gibbons said that she did not think anyone but Williams called Wage- Hour, and that Gibbons thought Williams was the only one "dissatisfied." Williams said that the whole Ford line was "dissatisfied." Poole said that he was "just not going to have this," told Gibbons to make out Williams' check, and said that he should have got rid of her a long time ago. Poole asked Williams why she had not come to him first. She replied that she had, that he had told the employees that they had to work only one Saturday, and that she told him the "people didn't want to work those two Saturdays." Poole said, "What is this I hear you are going to call a meeting in the plant" on company time. Williams denied that she was going to call a meeting in the plant. Moore told Poole that when telling him that Williams wanted to call a meeting, Moore had meant with him, not in the plant 32 Poole said that he had misunderstood Moore, and that he was going to tear up Williams' check. Gibbons suggested that Poole call a meeting of the whole Ford line to see if anyone else was dissatisfied. Poole said, "Yes, go tell [Langford] to call a meeting with the Ford line." b. The alleged December 4 conference; reasons for section II,B,2,a credibility findings Except as otherwise indicated, my fmdings in section II,B,2,a, immediately preceding the instant discussion, are based on Williams' testimony. Poole testified that, between his early December meeting with the monitors and December 4, he learned through discussions with "several people" in the plant that the employees had decided to work on December 13 and 20.33 He testified that this understanding about working the 13th and the 20th was reached "some time after" the monitors left with the memorandum and that the monitors did not come back in. Poole went on to testify, on direct examination, that "several people" told him that Williams was "telling everyone to work the 6th as opposed to the 13th and 20th that we originally agreed to" (emphasis supplied). On redirect examination, he testified that Williams had been telling the employees "we are going to work Saturday, the 6th, rather than Saturday, the 13th, or Saturday, the 20th" (emphasis supplied).34 Also, Poole testified, Supervisor 32 My finding in this sentence is based on Moore's testimony. 33 As discussed infra, Poole denied telling the monitors that the employees could have the Friday after New Year's as a paid holiday without having to work on a compensatory Saturday. 3' Poole's testimony at this point provides some corroboration for Williams' credited testimony that the employees were initially asked to select only one December Saturday. 15 In view of Poole's testimony in this respect, I reject Respondent's Langford and (perhaps) leader Farris had reported to him that Williams had "chang[ed] the dates" on Poole's memorandum-more specifically, "There were several dates on the paper that I had originally written. The 20th was marked out. She had marked it out so that the people would agree to work the 6th and the 13th and not given the 20th as an option. Only [Williams'] group were confused about it." 35 Poole denied having himself seen the allegedly altered memorandum, and did not testify that Gibbons participated in any report to him regarding the allegedly altered memorandum. According to Poole, on December 4 he called Williams to his office "and asked her why her line was confused, and she said that she at that time had misunderstood what I had said, and I said, `I fmd that hard to believe since I wrote it down and everyone understood it but you and you were the one with the note,36 yet you are the only one that goofed up on which weekends to work.' " Poole further testified that he "reprimanded her strongly" for changing the dates on the memorandum, and, in addition, told her that he "didn't want her spreading any more rumors, causing any more dissension or calling any meetings, if she didn't agree to something I expected her to tell me right there and then, if she did agree to it than I expected her, in good faith, to carry it out." However, the foregoing testimony by Poole is contradict- ed in significant respects by other company witnesses. Thus, Supervisor Langford, who was not present during Poole's interview with the monitors but did see Williams' copy of his memorandum, testified, "In this meeting with the monitors he had circled, and he had gotten agreement from them that that was the dates they wanted to work in substitution, and he circled the 13th and the 20th" (emphasis supplied). Langford further testified that, on Williams' copy of the memorandum, the 13th had been marked through and the 6th circled, and, in effect, that this is what she reported to Poole (who, as previously noted, testified that she had told him that the 20th had been marked through). (Langford further testified, however, that the employees had been under the impression that they might have to work the 6th and the 13th rather than the 13th and the 20th.) Plant Superintendent Gibbons corroborated Langford and contradicted Poole with respect to whether the monitors rather than the employees agreed on which alternative Saturdays could be worked, and the respect in which Williams allegedly changed the memorandum. More specifically, Gibbons testified that shortly after Poole gave the monitors the memorandum, she saw Williams' copy of the memorandum, that it was white rather than the yellow color testified to by Poole and Langford, that the 13th and the 20th were circled on it, that Gibbons showed it to Poole (who, as previously noted, testified that he never saw it after giving it to Williams), and that he said, "The 13th and the 20th are the two Saturdays the monitors and myself have agreed to work. Now, it's left up to them to poll the apparent contention that, by leaving early on December 13 without bringing in a doctor's certificate to substantiate her sickness claim, Williams evinced a prior desire for personal reasons to exclude the 13th from the employees' choice (see the text to fn 27, supra) 36 Poole testified that he wrote one copy of the memorandum on a sheet of yellow paper, and that he gave it to Williams because of her convenient physical location. SYNADYNE CORP. 671 employees and find out if that's in agreement to them." Gibbons further testified that on December 4, Langford told her that on Williams' memorandum "the 13th had been marked through and Saturday, the 6th, had been circled, and [Langford] said that [Williams] said [Poole] changed it." Thereafter, according to Gibbons, she and Langford told Poole "that everybody thought it was the 6th that we were working and not the 13th, and he said no, that he had not changed anything, that the Saturdays that were first agreed on were still . . . what we all planned to work, the 13th and the 20th." Neither Langford nor Gibbons testified that Farris participated in reporting the allegedly altered memorandum to him; and Farris' testimony about the memorandum as Respondent's witness failed to produce any testimony that Williams had altered it or that anyone ever alleged that she had.37 Further, although Poole testified that Gibbons was present during his December 4 conversation with Williams, Gibbons was not asked about it. Poole testified that he prepared only one copy of his memorandum, that he gave that one copy to Williams, and that his December 4 reproach to her about causing confusion regarding Saturday work included the assertion that her fault was aggravated by the fact that she was the only monitor who had a copy of the memorandum. However, monitor Moore, who testified for Respondent, testified that Poole gave her this paper, that she made several Xerox copies and put them on his desk, and that each monitor then took one. The gravamen of Moore's testimony in this respect is corroborated by Langford's and Gibbons' testimony that Williams' copy of the memoran- dum was a duplicate, as Williams herself testified; and by McMullen's testimony that monitor McGowan had a duplicate.38 I credit Williams' testimony that the December 4 conversation never occurred. In so finding, I rely on the inconsistencies between Poole's testimony on the one hand and Gibbons' and Langford's testimony on the other about the events which (according to Poole) led up to the December 4 conversation, the internal inconsistencies in Poole's own testimony about such events, Gibbons' failure to testify about the December 4 conversation, the inconsis- tency between his alleged reproach of Williams and the credible testimony of all the other witnesses (all company witnesses but Williams) that all the monitors had copies of Poole's memorandum, and the witnesses' demeanor 39 Further, I credit Williams' testimony that Poole told the monitors that if the employees worked a full rather than a half day on Christmas Eve they would be given the Friday 11 Farris testified that Williams' copy of the memorandum "had the dates, you know, the 13th and the 21st (sic), the Saturdays that we were supposed to work to make up for those two days after each holiday" Supervisor McMullen testified that on monitor McGowan's copy of the memorandum, Poole had "circled the days that we would be working and which days we would be swapping out for which days he had written the dates and he dust circled, like the date we were going to be off for Christmas he circled the date that we were going to be off for Christmas and drew a line to the Christmas day " 311 As previously noted, I credit Williams' testimony that the duplicates were on Poole's desk when she came into the office Langford testified that copies were made after the monitors left Poole's office, but she admitted that she did not see them made Moore's testimony suggests that she made the Xerox copies while at least some of the monitors were in the office after New Year's with pay; that he wrote December 6, 13, and 20 on the memorandum; and that he told the monitors to poll the employees about which one of these three Saturdays they preferred to work. I discredit Poole's and Moore's denial of this offer. Also, I discredit the testimony of Poole, Langford, Gibbons, Moore, and McMullen that the memorandum called on its face for a selection of two Saturdays. In so finding, I rely on the internal inconsisten- cies in Poole's and Langford's testimony about the date that they understood Williams to have excluded from the poll; on the inconsistencies in this respect between his testimony on the one hand and that of Gibbons and Langford on the other; on the inconsistency between Gibbons' and Langford's testimony that Williams was trying improperly to procure the selection of the 6th, and the undisputed evidence that until just before December 6 Langford was telling the employees that they had to work that day; and on the witnesses' demeanor. Also, I credit Williams' denial that she altered the memorandum. Poole and Gibbons gave testimony to the effect that during Poole's December 18 meeting with the monitors, Poole discharged Williams for reasons at least partly related to her failure to perform her monitorial duty of telling him about the employees' dissatisfaction with the holiday work schedule, and that he rescinded that dis- charge because he decided that perhaps she had been unable to tell him owing to his trip out of town. However, in view of (1) Poole's unreliability as to the events relating to the alleged December 4 conversation and as to other matters referred to supra, (2) Gibbons' unreliability in connection with the memorandum issue, (3) the credited evidence about events immediately following the Decem- ber 18 conference where Poole discharged Williams and then rescinded the discharge, and (4) Poole's December 19 description of this conference to Coleman (infra), as to the December 18 conference, I credit Poole and Gibbons only to the extent corroborated by Williams and Moore, whose mutually corroborative versions of this conference I credit in their entirety. 3. Events leading up to the discharge of Adams and Williams a. The December 18 plant meeting Immediately after rescinding Williams' discharge, Poole instructed Gibbons and Langford to call a meeting of the Ford-line employees and the White-line employees at the Ford assembly line. Poole told the employees that Respondent had a policy of withholding holiday pay from However, the record fails to show the order of their appearance, and Moore clearly testified that the monitors took their copies from Poole's desk before they left the office. 39 I note, moreover, Poole's assertion in his prehearing affidavit, "The monitors reported back to me that everyone was in agreement including Georgia Williams and Bobbie Adams to work on December 13 and December 20 and I then wrote a memo to that effect confirming the dates to be worked " This statement conflicted with his hearing denial that the report about the employees' decision as to the dates came from the monitors, and his hearing testimony about when he wrote the memorandum and what it said. While Poole was not asked to explain such conflicts, Respondent's counsel withdrew his initial objection to the receipt of the affidavit to show inconsistencies other than those specifically brought out 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anyone with an unexcused absence the day before or the day after the holiday; that the forthcoming Saturday, December 20, was to be considered the day after New Year's for holiday-pay purposes; and that employees who did not work on December 20 would not receive holiday pay for New Year's. Poole further said that the employees had the right to call Wage-Hour but should have checked with him first, that maybe he could have settled the overtime/holiday-pay/long-weekend problem without Wage-Hour. He said that he had tried to be "nice" to the employees by "letting [them] work the Saturday and be off the day after the holiday, and look at the thanks I get." He said that while he had been out of town on business, someone had "stabbed him in the back" by calling Wage- Hour. He demanded, "Who the hell called the Wage and Hour Bureau?40 ... I'm not going to get mad or anything. You have a right to do whatever you want to do." Adams said that she had called Wage-Hour. He asked her why. She said that she felt that it was not right working overtime and not getting paid for it. Poole said that she had agreed to it, and she replied that she had not. Poole asked what Wage-Hour had said. She replied that Wage-Hour had said that Respondent had to pay the employees overtime for all work over 40 hours a week. He asked whether Wage-Hour had told her that Respondent did not have to pay holiday pay. Adams replied yes. Poole said, "I pay you all holiday pay while you are laying in the bed. From now on you just won't get any." Williams asked whether Poole was threatening the employees that they would not get holiday pay. Poole replied, "Not threatening you, telling you." Coleman asked whether, if they did not work on the designated Saturday, they could get paid just for the holiday and not for the day after the holiday. Poole said no. Coleman said that in that event they "didn't have any other choice but to work." Williams and Green made similar remarks. Williams further said that the employees were not going to work without time and a half, that "we have contacted Wage and Hour and we know what our rights are." Poole then said that the employees who were willing to accept Saturday work at straight time rates as a condition of holiday pay should go back to work, and the others should stay. Adams, Williams, Green, Vaughn, Coleman, Sparkman, Calley Evans, Dorothy Walker, Farris, Gray, Davis, "Daisy," and perhaps one or two others stayed behind?[ Poole said that he thought they were all satisfied. Green said that she was not and had so advised Supervisor Langford. Poole said that the employ- ees were not going to get time and a half and holiday pay too.42 He then returned to his office.43 40 My finding that he directly asked this question is based on the credited testimony of Williams, Adams, Green, Coleman, and Whitlock For demeanor reasons, I do not credit the testimony of Poole that in effect he merely inplied this question, or the testimony of Langford that Adams volunteered this information Poole testified that he used the word "hell." For demeanor reasons, I credit his testimony in this respect , which is corroborated by the testimony of Williams , Adams, and to some extent Green. and discredit the denials of Morea, Moore, Whitlock, and leader Nita Cox +i Claimant Garner was absent from the plant that day. 42 My findings in the last two sentences are based on a composite of the testimony of Green, Williams, and Vaughn For demeanor reasons and in view of the probabilities of the situation, as to the events when this group of employees stayed behind. I do not credit the testimony of Adams, Coleman, b. The discharge of Adams and Williams After Adams and Williams had returned to their jobs, Langford and Gibbons discussed with each other whether the two employees should be terminated. On the basis of considerations discussed infra, the two supervisors agreed that both employees should be terminated. They then went into Poole's office and told Poole that they could not maintain production if Adams and Williams remained in Respondent's employ "after they had carried on that sort of display." Poole testified that he had already made up his mind that he was giong to discharge them for "disrespect." According to him, he remarked that "we had had too many problems with [Adams] and too many problems with [Williams], and this was the straw that broke the camel's back." Poole entered on their termination slips "insubordi- nation" as the reason for their discharge. Gibbons then went out into the plant, gave Williams and Adams their final paychecks, and told them that they were being fired because they were "uncooperative" and "dissatisfied" and were "troublemakers." 44 Adams then left the plant. Williams, however, asked for her vacation check. While Gibbons went to the office to get it, Williams went back into the plant and began to tell some of the employees what had happened and why Williams and Adams had been fired. Gibbons called Williams into the office and told her to stay in there until her vacation check was made out. Williams said that she did not want to stay in the office, that she was going back out in the plant until she got her check. Williams then went back into the plant. Gibbons went to get quality control manager Charles Kelly, whom she had previously asked to "stand by" in case of "trouble" over Williams' termination. When Gibbons and Kelly approached Williams, she said that Respondent treated all the blacks unfairly and like slaves, that she knew her rights and was not going to let Respondent take the rights of other employees, that management were "a bunch of White honkies," and that Gibbons was a "damn bitch." At Gibbons' request, Poole then joined the group. Williams said that she thought he was "very unfair." He asked why she felt that way. Williams said, "because you don't want me talking to none of the people in the plant because you don't want me to tell them why you fired me ... you think you [done ] got everybody out there called the Wage and Hour Bureau but you haven't." Poole said that he was not worried about it. Williams said, "You didn't get the girl out there that gave me the number to call the Wage and Hour Bureau." Gibbons said, "That's all right. We got you out." Gibbons gave Williams her check and said Gibbons hoped Williams Poole, or Gibbons, except to the extent that such testimony corroborates the findings in the text. 43 My findings as to the remarks made at the December 18 meeting are based on a composite of credible portions of the testimony of Williams, Adams, Green, Coleman, Moore, Poole, Gibbons, and Whitlock. Several of Respondent's witnesses testified that dunng the December 18 meeting Adams and Williams made various, allegedly inappropriate hand gestures; spoke in allegedly unnecessarily loud tones; were inappropriately close to Poole , interrupted him and fellow employees ; and were rude and disrespectful toward him. The significance vel non of such testimony is discussed infra, sec. II,C,2,a. 44 My finding as to the reasons given is based on a composite of the testimony of Williams and Adams SYNADYNE CORP. 673 would be "happy." Williams said that Gibbons still had not paid Williams overtime for the Saturday before Thanksgiv- ing. Poole said, "Sue me for it." Williams then left the plant.45 That same day, Supervisor McMullen told employees Brister and Greenwood, "they found out who called the Wage and Hour Bureau ... it was Georgia and Bobbie ... and they were fired." 46 After being discharged, Williams and Adams went that same day to the Wage-Hour office and filed a complaint against Respondent. The Wage-Hour representative asked for the names of other employees with knowledge of the facts. Williams and Adams named Garner, Vaughn, and Green. On the following day, leader Coleman and four other leaders (infra, fn. 51) were called to Poole's office. Poole said that "there was a lot going on out there in the plant, that he got the leaders so he could help the people with their problems . . . he didn't fire [Williams] because she called Wage and Hour. He . . . fired her because she lied and said she didn't call, but she did . . . when he called [Williams] in the office in the beginning he had written out her check and she convinced him that she didn't call and he tore it up, and then later on, when [Williams] got outside the office she said she did call, and he said that he had called [the leaders] in there so we could get the plant back in order so that we could have the best working conditions." 47 4. Adams' and Williams' December 19 return to the plant On December 19, Adams and Williams returned to the plant in separate cars to get their overtime pay for the Saturday before Thanksgiving. They parked in the employ- ee parking lot, came into the building together through the employee entrance to the plant (which was the building entrance nearest to their cars), and entered Respondent's office through the door from the plant. The employees were then on breaktime. Adams and Williams did not speak to any of the employees while thus proceeding to the office. When they reached the office and explained their errand, Plant Superintendent Gibbons said that Poole was not there and no overtime checks could be issued until he returned. Gibbons invited them to wait, but they said they would be back later. They then started to leave the office by the door to the plant, which was the same door by which they had entered. Gibbons told them to use the front door to the office, which was used by visitors and by applicants for employment. However, they both went out through the 45 My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of the testimony of Williams, Poole, Kelly, and Gibbons. Gibbons testified that all these conversations occurred after Williams got her vacation check, and (in effect) that the initial dispute related to Williams' route out of the plant rather than (as Williams testified) to whether she was to stay in the office or the plant while awaiting her check. However, Poole corroborated Williams' version, which I credit. Careful inspection of Williams' preheanng affidavit shows that Williams did not there represent that she gave Gibbons the name of "Annie Ruth" (i.e., Annie Ruth Whitlock) as the employee who told Williams the Wage-Hour's telephone number, but that Williams only named her to the Board representative. 46 This finding is based on Greenwood's testimony. Buster was called by Respondent as a witness, but was not asked about this conversation. For demeanor reasons, I discredit McMullen's denials. 47 My findings about what was said at this conference are based on door from the office to the plant. Gibbons then requested the assistance of quality control manager Charles Kelly, who followed Adams and Williams into the plant. Adams and Williams started to leave the plant by the same route they had previously used, which is the natural route between the plant door to the office and the employee entrance. This route makes a left turn just before reaching the assembly area. The employees were still on break, and some of them, including employee Vaughn, were sitting on the assembly tables. Vaughn stopped Adams and Williams and asked why they were there. Williams told her, whereupon Vaughn observed that the active employees had not yet received their overtime checks for that Saturday. During this conversation, Williams and Adams came into the nearest end of the assembly area, thereby deviating somewhat from the natural route to the employee entrance.48 This conversa- tion occurred in view of but out of earshot of Kelly, who then came to Adams and Williams and, in a harsh tone, told them to leave the building by the office door. Williams, at least, inferred that Kelly said this because he thought that by telling the employees the reason for the dischargees' visit, they would alert the active employees to their overtime rights. The dischargees started toward the employee entrance, using the natural route between the office door and the employee entrance. At a point about halfway along this route, Kelly jumped in front of them. He stood in the middle of the aisle with his feet spread apart and his arms raised (palms forward) to the side and above his shoulders. Kelly told them to go back through the office door. Williams asked why they could not go through the employee entrance. He replied, "You came through the office door." She said that they had come in through the employee entrance and preferred to leave by that door. He said that they were not going back through that door. Williams asked whether he was trying to keep them from talking to the employees in the area where most of them were taking their break, which area the dischargees would have reached if they had continued to follow the natural route toward the employee entrance. Kelly repeated that they were not going out through the employee entrance. Williams said that they were. Kelly asked an assistant to call the police. Williams said, "For what? They ain't going to do nothing but tell us to get out of the plant." Williams repeatedly tried to sidestep Kelly, and he eventually Coleman's credited testimony. She identified the four other leaders present as Dot, Virginia, Ann, and Barbara . She elsewhere identified the leadgirls as Dorothy Gatlin, Virginia Farris, Ann McLaren, and Barbara Collins. Although Gatlin and Fams testified for Respondent, the only witness who testified for Respondent about this conversation was Poole . In view of this unexplained absence of corroboration, and for demeanor reasons, I do not credit Poole's testimony that Williams' discharge was not discussed, and that the only subjects discussed were a decline in productivity, sabotage of the molding machines, and how the leaders should treat the production employees on their lines. I note that Poole's account of Williams' rescinded discharge conforms generally to Williams' testimony about this event, but conflicts with Poole's and Gibbons' versions. 48 My finding in this sentence is based on a composite of credible portions of Williams', Gibbons', and Kelly's testimony 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pushed her back and was "fixing to push her again" (but did not).49 Adams then picked up by the handle a broom which happened to be in the aisle. Kelly noticed this, and forced her to release the broom by stepping on the bristle end. At this point, a number of the employees started to laugh and to approach the three. Kelly then told Williams and Adams to go out the employee entrance if they wanted to, and opened that door for them. Williams and Adams then left the plant "kind of laughing." Kelly testified that after they left, "They then got in the car . . . They drove off, and as they drove off Mrs. Adams, who was riding, gave an obscene gesture back toward the plant door." I credit Adams' denial of the obscene gesture, in view of Williams' testimony that they drove off in separate cars and that she did not see Adams do anything.50 Kelly credibly testified that he is 6 feet tall and, at the time of this incident, weighed about 145 pounds. Williams credibly testified that she is 5 feet 5-1/2 inches tall and, at the time of this incident, weighed 135 pounds. Adams credibly testified that she is 5 feet 4 inches tall and, at the time of this incident, weighed 180 pounds. All three of them appeared to be vigorous people between 20 and 30 years old. 5. The discharge of Alice Greenwood a. Credited evidence regarding her discharge Before Adams' discharge, employee Alice Greenwood rode to and from work with her every day, without, however, discussing unions. About December 12, Green- wood telephoned employee Betty Brister and asked her whether she would like to sign a union card so the employees could try and get a union.51 Brister replied that she was not interested. Respondent's lunch break is between 11:30 a.m. and noon. Before the lunch break on December 19 Greenwood had finished her work assignment 52 Supervisor McMullen, who normally gave out work assignments, and Leader 49 Williams' and Adams' credited testimony to this effect was partly corroborated by Kelly's admission that he may have had occasion to touch them. 50 My findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on a composite of credible portions of the testimony of Kelly, Williams, Adams, Gibbons, employee Newsome, and Supervisor Ann Turner . For demeanor reasons, I do not credit (1) Kelly's testimony, dented by Williams, that she raised her hands as if to hit him , and said, "No White honky is going to lay hands on me"; (2) Kelly's wholly uncorroborated testimony that she tried to get the broom from him, (3) Kelly's testimony, denied by Adams and in effect by Williams, that Adams suggested to Williams that they leave and Williams refused; (4) Williams' testimony that Adams picked up the broom to get it out of the way; (5) Adams' testimony that this was the reason why she gestured toward the broom, and that she did not touch it; (6) Newsome's testimony that Adams got by Kelly and "acted like she was going to hit" Kelly with the broom; (7) Gibbons' testimony that Adams and Williams "went at" Kelly "pushing like" and that Adams picked up the broom when Kelly turned to tell his assistant to call the police; (8) Whitlock's testimony that Adams went out of the way to get the broom and "swung" it at Kelly; (9) Turner's testimony that this incident occurred during worktime, that Kelly never stood in front of Williams and Adams, that Adams "looked like she was going to hit" Kelly with the broom, and that Kelly took the broom away from her and threw it aside ; and (10) Turner's and Kelly's testimony that Kelly told Williams and Adams that they could not leave by the employee entrance because they were no longer employees. I find Williams' description and sketch of the plant to be more helpful than Kelly's, whose absence of detail tends to make it misleading. Edna Davis, who normally gave out work assignments in McMullen's absence, were both temporarily absent from the department. As Greenwood was expected to do under such circumstances, she looked around for someone else to help.53 Employee Brister, who was spot taping mirrors on a Murray harness, said that Greenwood could help her. Greenwood had done this job on one previous occasion, but had not been trained on it. As she began to help Brister, McMullen came up and told Greenwood that she could not do that. Greenwood asked why not. McMullen said, "You don't know how." Brister or Greenwood asked why Greenwood could not learn to do it. Greenwood then said, "why are you doing us like this, you know that if we had a union out here you all wouldn't be doing us like this, maybe one day we will." 54 McMullen then told Green- wood to spot tape wires, a job which was to be done at another table and which she had never previously per- formed. McMullen credibly testified that Greenwood obeyed McMullen's instructions to proceed to a different work location. Then, McMullen went upstairs to Plant Superintendent Gibbons' office. About 2 or 2-1/2 hours later (that is, no later than 2 p.m.),55 McMullen approached Greenwood with a pad and pencil and said, "This won't affect your job, you won't lose your job by [answering] the question ... How do you feel about a union?" Greenwood displayed reluctance to answer, whereupon McMullen said, "It won't hurt your job, so answer truthfully." Greenwood said, "I feel all right about a union, I feel that if we had a union out here maybe we wouldn't have to work on Saturdays." 56 McMullen wrote something down on her pad, and then went up to Gibbons' office. A half hour or an hour later-that is, no later than 3 p.m.-57 McMullen called Greenwood and Brister into Gibbons' office.58 Gibbons said that she would "start with" Greenwood. According to Greenwood, Gibbons stated that Greenwood was upsetting Charlene Davis 59 and was not "cramping wires" right (an operation which Greenwood had first performed 2 days earlier), and that Gibbons would have to 51 Greenwood did not have any union cards, but she was planning to get some at a union office if Bnster showed interest. 52 This finding is based on Greenwood's undenied testimony. Although Supervisor McMullen testified that Greenwood frequently abandoned jobs without finishing them, she made no claim that Greenwood's job was unfinished on this occasion. 53 McMullen corroborated Greenwood's testimony that this is what she was supposed to do when the supervisor and the leader were both absent. 54 Greenwood testified that her words "doing us like this" referred to management's practice of constantly observing the employees work. 55 Greenwood testified that this second conversation occurred about 3 or 3.30 p.m. However, I regard as more reliable her testimony that this second conversation occurred "about two hours, or two and a half hours" after the morning conversation, which, as noted, occurred no later than 11:30 a.m. 56 The plant sometimes operated on Saturdays where no holiday weekends were involved During her 2 months in Resondent 's employ, Greenwood worked every Saturday the plant was open. 57 See supra, fn. 55. Gibbons testified that it "seems like" this discharge interview occurred after the 2 p.m. break. Greenwood's timecard for that day was not produced. 58 My findings up to this point are based on testimony by Greenwood which is denied in significant respects by McMullen and Bnster. My reasons for discrediting McMullen 's and Brister's testimony in this connection are summarized infra 59 McMullen testified about an alleged incident involving Davis which, according to McMullen, occurred on December 8, lI days before Greenwood's discharge. See infra sec. II,B,8,c. SYNADYNE CORP. 675 let her go. Still according to Greenwood, as she was going toward the door, Gibbons told Brister, "I have had you in my office once before for a warning and this is the last time. I hate to let you go."80 Gibbons, McMullen, and Brister all testified for Respondent, but none of them was asked about what was said after Greenwood left. Gibbons corroborated Greenwood's testimony that the Davis incident was mentioned during the conference, said, "I don't know about clamping wires" (sic); and further testified that Gibbons said that McMullen "had problems with [Greenwood's] moving work stations." Also, Gibbons testified that Greenwood's termination slip said that she was "insubordinate to a supervisor and leaving her work station" and, perhaps, mentioned "other problems." Company witnesses McMullen and Brister were not asked about any part of this conference, nor did Respondent produce Greenwood's termination slip. Absent corrobora- tion for Gibbons' testimony and for demeanor reasons, I credit Greenwood's testimony regarding what was said at her termination interview. Poole testified that on December 19 or 20 (the 20th being a Saturday, when the plant did not operate) he had a conversation with Coleman which largely dealt with Williams. He was not asked the hour when this conversa- tion occurred. Coleman testified without contradiction that this conversation occurred on December 19, after the 11:30 to noon lunch break. Coleman further testified that she believed that this conversation occurred prior to the 2 p.m. break. However, in view of Poole's testimony that he was absent from the plant during Williams' December 19 visit with Adams to the plant to obtain their overtime checks, which visit occurred during the afternoon break that day, I conclude that the Poole-Coleman conversation occurred after the 2 p.m. break, which (inferentially) ended about 2:10 or 2:15 p.m.61 After calling Coleman to his office, Poole said, "What's going on out there in the plant?" Coleman asked what he meant. Poole said that Coleman knew what he meant because she was part of Williams& .'gang." Coleman said that Williams did not have a gang, that whatever she did out there was her business, that Coleman had a mind of her own, and that she did not have to be involved in any gangs. Poole said, "I should have gotten rid of [Williams] after the first meeting we had [about ] the firing of Linda Montique . . . I knew [Williams] wasn't nothing but a troublemaker and if I would have gotten rid of her then then all this other mess wouldn't have come up. . . . Do you know of anyone else out there that had to do with Wage and Hour that I have not gotten rid of or anyone else that is a so-called troublemaker?" Although Coleman had heard Whitlock refer Williams to Wage-Hour, Coleman said no. Poole said "he knew damn well he should have gotten rid of [Williams] in the beginning, because when he called 60 As previously noted, during the October employee meeting Buster had said that she could easily make the production quota on Murray harnesses but `just didn' t want to." Poole testified that Brister had been hired under a Government work incentive program to make "productive members of society" out of "hard core unemployed." He further testified that as to employees under this program, Respondent exercised "a great deal of latitude that the average employer wouldn't . . we did spend a great deal of time trying to train Betty Buster and change her mind about the way she looked at things and she is now [July 19761 a good employee." [Williams] and [Moore] up in the office they did agree to work those Saturdays."62 He said that Christmas was coming up, and "what was Williams' children going to do now that she don't have a job?" Coleman said that this was Williams' business. Poole said, "The Wage and Hour man told me that [Williams] gave him your name." Coleman said that the Wage-Hour representative told her that Vaughn had given him her name.63 Poole said, "The Wage and Hour man told me I would have to hire Adams and Williams back because they were fired because of Wage and Hour. Before I hire them back I'll close the plant down and no one will have a job . . . I'm going to get rid of all of [Williams'] gang. If you are in it I will have to get rid of you I want a plant where everybody can work together without any confusion." Poole said that he had heard that Williams had engaged in certain spiteful conduct, of a personal nature, against white Supervisor Langford 64 Coleman said that Williams would not take revenge like that. Poole said that Williams "really hates White folks." Coleman, who is black, said, "It is not that she hates White folks, she just speaks what comes into her mind." Poole said, "You should have been out there to hear some of the stuff that [Williams] was saying to me and Mary Gibbons ... She is really sick. I feel sorry for her." Poole said, "I heard you had something to do with it." Coleman said, "From whom?," but Poole refused to tell her. Poole asked whether Coleman would ever see Williams. Coleman replied, "probably," whereupon Poole said, "You don't have to mention what went on in this office." Then, Gibbons walked in and said, "I got rid of them." Poole held up two fingers and said, "Both of them?" Gibbons said, "No, just one, the other one convinced me that she didn't have anything to do with it." Gibbons then left. Poole said to Coleman, "I might as well tell you, I got rid of another one, I'm going to get rid of them all, I'm going to get rid of all the troublemakers if that means firing everybody, this is my plant and I'll run it the way I want to run it." Coleman then returned to her production line. One of the employees on that line told Coleman that Gibbons had called Greenwood and Brister up in the office and Greenwood was fired but Brister was not. b. Reasons for credibility findings My findings as to the contents of the Poole-Coleman conversation are based on Coleman's testimony. Respon- dent contends that she is not a believable witness because, inter alia, she included Garner's name when identifying 7 of the approximately 12 employees who remained behind at the December 18 plant meeting, whereas Garner testified that she was not at the plant that day. I regard this error as too trivial to reflect on Coleman's credibility generally. Nor did I regard as significant the failure of Vaughn or any other witness to corroborate Coleman's testimony that 61 Adams and Williams both credibly testified that during their visit Gibbons explained that Poole was not there because of automobile difficulties. Williams credibly testified that Gibbons said Poole was in Brandon. Poole hves in Brandon, which is about 10 miles from Jackson. 62 As previously noted, Poole testimonially denied that the monitors had there reached such an agreement 63 As previously noted, Vaughn's name had been given by Williams and Adams. 64 There is no evidence that Williams in fact did so 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during a discussion involving the 10 to 20 employees on the White line, Vaughn as well as others expressed agreement with certain remarks made there . I do not regard Cole- man's erroneous testimony that Garner, Green, and Vaughn were discharged immediately after rather than several days after this conversation, which occurrence is undisputed, as reflecting on Coleman's veracity. I have described and will describe a number of other respects in which Gibbons and Poole gave untruthful testimony. For this reason, and after considering the demeanor and relative interest of the witnesses, I credit Coleman's testimony about this conversation. I discredit Gibbons' testimony that she did not "recall" interrupting a Coleman- Poole conference and did not "remember" saying that she had got two of them or something like that. Nor do I credit Poole's testimony that his interview with Coleman con- cerned his efforts to find out whether Coleman was engaged in black militant activities (including activities on behalf of the "Republic of New Africa") against Respon- dent.65 While selected portions of Greenwood's and Coleman's testimonial estimates regarding the hour of particular events indicate that the Coleman-Poole conver- sation ended before Greenwood's discharge, Respondent neither produced Greenwood's timecard for that day, nor asked Gibbons, McMullen, or Brister the hour of Green- wood's discharge, nor asked Poole the hour of his conversation with Coleman. Further, neither Plant Superintendent Gibbons, nor Supervisor McMullen, nor employee Brister (all of them called by Respondent as witnesses) was asked what occurred in the office immediately after Greenwood was discharged and left, even though Coleman's credited testimony strongly suggests that management then decided not to include Brister in the discharge action after ascertaining that she did not actively participate in the union activity. Accordingly, and after considering the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Greenwood's testimony set forth supra, section II,B,5,a, and discredit McMullen's and Brister's demals. In this connection, I note that after authenticating a purported December 8 warning slip directed to Greenwood (see infra section II,B,8,c), McMul- len initially testified that the spot-taping incident and Greenwood's discharge that same day also occurred on December 8, rather than (as they in fact did) on December 19. c. Greenwood's alleged post-discharge telephone calls to Gibbons That evening, Greenwood telephoned Gibbons, asserted that Greenwood did twice as much work as Brister (see fn. 60), and asked why Greenwood had been discharged and Brister had not. Gibbons replied that this was none of Greenwood's business 66 Gibbons testified that about a half hour later, Green- wood again telephoned and asked whether she was going 65 Poole corroborated Coleman's credited testimony that he said that he was sorry for Williams, and that he should have fired her when she called the first meeting. es Gibbons testified that Greenwood asked why she had been fired, and Gibbons said she did not have enough time to go over the reasons again For demeanor reasons. I credit Greenwood to get her overtime for the Saturday before Thanksgiving and for December 13. According to Gibbons, she told Greenwood to come to the plant "tomorrow" and Respon- dent would make out her check. "Tomorrow" was a Saturday, when the plant was closed. I credit Greenwood's denial that she called Gibbons a second time that evening. Gibbons further testified that over a period of 2 or 3 months after Greenwood's discharge, Gibbons received a number of anonymous telephone calls, from someone whose voice Gibbons testimonially identified as Green- wood's, stating, "If you don't fire Joan Laury we are going to kill you." Greenwood testified that she did not know Laury, who, although called by Respondent as a witness, was not asked about Greenwood. Greenwood testified without contradiction that Gibbons was unable to recog- nize Greenwood's voice when she telephoned about the reasons for her discharge . Moreover, Greenwood's voice is not particularly distinctive, Gibbons testified that her anonymous caller never identified ' herself as Greenwood, and Gibbons supervised about 180 employees, mostly women. I credit Greenwood's denial that she made these anonymous telephone calls. 6. The discharge of Garner, Green, and Vaughn About December 22, Plant Superintendent Gibbons summoned employee Vaughn to the office by intercom. In the office, Vaughn was interviewed by Wage-Hour repre- sentative Galbrieth. After being fired, Williams and Adams had given Vaughn's name to Wage-Hour. Before Williams' and Adams' discharge, these three employees and employ- ee Garner had frequently eaten lunch together at the plant. Also, about December 22, Supervisor Langford an- nounced to her subordinates that instead of receiving a full day's pay for a half day's work on Christmas Eve, as Respondent had previously promised, the employees would all be paid a half day's pay and there would be a Christmas Eve drawing, with one first prize of $100, two prizes of $50 each, and four prizes of $25 each. Langford attributed the change to the fact that the employees were to be given overtime for Saturday, December 13. Green said that since they were only getting paid for a half day on Christmas Eve, she would rather work the whole day. Employee Garner then said, "The money that you all are auctioning off is the money you are supposed to be paying us for the full day like you promised ."87 Employee Green expressed agreement with Garner . Langford thereupon went to Gibbons' office. Later, Langford gave Poole the names of Green and Garner; said that one had remarked to the other that the lottery prizes were not a gift from Respondent, but represented money "stolen" or "taken" (Poole was not sure of the exact wording) from the employees ; and further said that the other employee had agreed . Thereafter, on December 22 or 23, Poole called Green and Garner to his office. Gibbons and Langford were also present. Poole 67 The quotation is from Coleman's testimony . Green's version was, "[Garner] asked [Langford ] if they wasn't taking our overtime money .. . and giving it away in a hat." Garner's version was, "this was probably the money that we were supposed to receive for the other half of the day we didn't work" Unlike Respondent, I do not regard these variations as significant. SYNADYNE CORP. 677 asked Green and Garner if they were happy there. Garner said "that it wasn't a matter of being happy or not, that [she] wasn't dissatisfied with the working conditions there." Green said that she was satisfied now that she had been paid time and a half for working over 40 hours. She said that if he were a businessman, why did he not know that he had to pay the employees overtime for working over 40 hours. He said that he did not know. Garner asked why Williams and Adams had been fired. Poole replied that Williams "has been leading up to getting fired for a long time, that she had harassed the girls, had harassed a girl to the point where she fainted," and that Adams had "upset a girl named Rosie" to the point where she cried and had to leave work. (Inferentially, Poole was referring to Newsome and Rosie Paige, see infra section II,B,8,a-b.) Garner asked why the employees were not getting paid for a whole day on Christmas Eve. He replied that he had spent so much money so far on holiday pay that he could not afford it. Garner asked if he were dissatisfied with her and Green's work. He said that he had no way of knowing unless he asked Gibbons or Langford. Langford said that she was not dissatisfied with the work of either Garner or Green, Poole said that he was not going to ask Garner, Green, or anyone else in the plant how to run his business, and if they did not like what was going on they should find jobs elsewhere. Garner inquired if he was politely asking them to quit. He replied no, that if he wanted them to quit he would have had their checks waiting for them. Then, Poole asked Garner whether she had said that the money that he was giving away when he pulled the names out of the hat was probably the money the employees should have received for the rest of Christmas Eve. Garner said yes. Poole said that he was tired of being blamed for pulling a whole lot of things, and that whenever Garner or Green had something like this to say that she should say it to the supervisor or to him, not to the other employees. Gibbons said that he had asked the employees to work on Saturday because some of them had requested it. Poole said that Williams had caused a "whole lot of confusion" in the plant by calling Wage-Hour68 The foregoing conversation occurred on December 22 or (more likely) 23. The first working day after Christmas was December 29. About an hour after the beginning of work on that day, Green, Garner, and Vaughn were called to Gibbons' office. Langford was also present. Gibbons said that for several weeks the three of them had seemed to be unhappy there, that they had caused "dissension" in the plant, that they had caused the other workers to get upset, and that for this reason she was going to have to let them go. Vaughn said that if the employees were dissatisfied with their work, "it is up to us to quit, not for [Gibbons] to fire us." Vaughn said that Respondent was finng them because ex My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of Green's and Garner's credible testimony Poole, Langford, and Gibbons all testfied that Poole reproached the employees for their "attitude", Poole and Langford specifically included the remark about the lottery. Poole and Gibbons did not corroborate Langford's testimony that the discussion was mostly about production quality. Langford did not corroborate Poole's and Gibbons' testimony that the employees' productivity was mentioned Langford gave no, and Gibbons gave little, corroboration for Poole's testimony that the employees' alleged failure to accept instructions readily was mentioned Langford gave no, and Gibbons gave limited, corroboration for Poole's testimony that he threatened to terminate these employees if of "something else," and asked what could have happened between Christmas Eve and that Monday for Respondent to be "firing us about." Green observed that Gibbons could have told of the discharge reasons at the Christmas week meeting in Poole's office, when Langford had said that she had no complaints about Garner's and Green's work. Green asked whether their discharge had anything to do with the employees' work, and Langford replied no, that their work was "okay." Vaughn asked whether she was not a good worker, and Gibbons said, "Yes, you are a good worker. It's not because of your work." Vaughn asked what gave management the idea that she was unhappy working there. Gibbons replied that if she was not unhappy there she would not have stopped employee Laury from riding with her. Vaughn replied that this matter was none of Gibbons' business (see fn. 3).69 7. -Respondent's payment of Saturday overtime Upon being advised by Wage-Hour representative Galbreith that Respondent had violated the law by failing to pay employees overtime for the Saturdays they worked in lieu of the Fridays after Thanksgiving and Christmas, Poole assured Galbrieth that Respondent would pay any overtime that was due. Respondent did in fact make overtime payments totaling about $3,000. Poole testified that in late 1975 and early 1976, Respondent was in financial difficulties. 8. Evidence bearing on Respondent's explanations for the discharges and on the dischargees' reinstatement rights a. Williams At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel asserted that Williams was discharged partly because she engaged in employee "harassment." Langford, Gibbons, and Poole testified that Williams' discharge was agreed on by them jointly. Only Gibbons testimonially referred to "harassment" as a reason. Gibbons testified that she had received complaints about Williams' "harassment" from employee Newsome. Gibbons did not testify about what these complaints were or when she received them. New- some credibly testified that "not too long" before Williams' discharge, Williams came to her on two or three occasions to ask Newsome to pay for some Tupperware which Newsome had ordered from employee Vatrice Carroll but had told Carroll she would not pay for without inspecting it first. Newsome credibly testified that this incident "upset" her and led her to believe that Williams was a "trouble- maker," but Newsome's testimony indicates that her annoyance was largely directed at Carroll. There is no their attitude and performance did not improve. As described infra, both Garner and Green were terminated no more than 3 working days later. I credit Garner's specific and Green's implied denial that their production quality or productivity was mentioned, as well as their implied denial that their talking, failure to accept instructions, or work habits were mentioned. 69 My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of Green's, Garner's, and Vaughn's credible testimony. Langford was not asked about this conversation. Gibbons merely testified that she told them that they were being let go "because of excessive talking, poor productivity and bad quality parts " For demeanor reasons, I credit the employees 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD evidence about when, if ever, Newsome reported this incident to management. In November 1975, Supervisor Langford gave Newsome a written warning that she was not doing her work "suitable." Then, Langford, Gibbons, and Poole began to stand by Newsome while she was working. During this same period, Adams and another employee came to Newsome separately and said that Williams had said that Supervisor Langford was watching her, and that if Newsome did not speed up her work Langford was going to fire her. Newsome reported to Farris, her leader, that Williams had kept telling her "over and over again" that members of management "were constantly timing and watching [Newsome] because she was so slow" and that she was afraid she was going to be fired. Farris credibly testified that she herself was not "really" watching and timing Newsome but was trying to get her to work faster. A couple of days after receiving her written warning, while Newsome was working, she espied Langford, who may or may not have been watching Newsome at that moment. Newsome, who was visibly pregnant at the time, began to weep and then fainted. After Newsome fainted, Williams came up to find out what was wrong with her. When Newsome revived, Langford told her that she was not going to be fired "because all of us had a chance." Newsome testimonially attributed her fainting fit to "pressure on me by people coming and telling me, constantly telling me that [Langford] was going to fire me." 70 At the time of Williams' discharge, she had been in Respondent's employ for more than a year. Poole testified that she did her work well. About 4 months before her discharge, she was considered for, but expressed lack of interest in, a promotion to an inspector's job. Poole testified that he had reprimanded Williams on one occasion, but he did not relate when this occurred or the reason therefor. b. Adams At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel asserted that Adams was discharged partly because she engaged in "harassment" of employees. Counsel later indicated the further allegation that she was discharged partly because of slow work. Langford, Gibbons, and Poole testified that Adams' discharge was agreed on by them jointly. Gibbons testified that Adams was discharged partly because of "harassment." Both Gibbons and Langford testified that Adams was discharged partly for poor work habits. Gibbons testified that Adams had "harassed" Sandra Brandon, Rosie Paige, and Barbara Morea. Gibbons did not testify what or when she was told about this "harassment." Adams credibly denied having had harsh words with Brandon (who did not testify) and Paige. 70 My findings in the foregoing paragraph are based on a composite of the testimony of Adams, Newsome, and Farris Williams and Langford were not asked about this incident 71 The credible evidence shows that about 4 days after Adams' discharge, Poole told several other employees that she had been discharged because she "upset a girl named Rosie " to a point where she cned and had to leave Langford testified that she had given Adams "three different warnings." Langford testified that the "first warning" she gave Adams was given on October 13, 1975. This document is a printed form with the printed heading "Employee Warning Notice," and was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. No entry appears after the printed entries, "1st Notice," "2nd Notice," or "Nature of Violation." Under "Remarks," Langford wrote, "Was moved to the White Motors line because of slow work on Ford line. Maybe it will help her improve." Langford further testified that in late October, she gave Adams a "second warning." This document, received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3, contains the handwritten date "Oct.," a check mark before the entry "1st warning," a check mark before the printed entry "Conduct" (under Nature of Violation), and the following entry, in Lang- ford's handwriting, under Remarks: "Reprimanded for disturbing fellow employees & excessive talking." Langford testified that Paige came to her one day in late October "almost in tears" and asked to be moved because Adams was calling her names and keeping her upset so that Paige could not do her work. Langford further testified that Paige said that Adams had called her a "White honkey" and a "tattletale." According to Langford, she told Paige she was needed where she was, but that Langford would talk to Adams.71 Paige testified that Adams or Williams about a month before their discharge had told her that she loved "White honkies," but did not otherwise corroborate Langford's testimony. Adams credibly denied having any run-ins, problems, or harsh words with Paige. Langford did not explain what "employees," other than Paige, Lang- ford's "Remarks" referred to. Langford went on to testify that immediately after the meeting at which Linda Montique's discharge was discussed, Langford filled out a warning slip, received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 4, which is dated November 11. The printed entries "2nd notice" and "conduct" are checked, and the following entry appears in Langford's handwriting: "Reprimanded for disturbing fellow employees." 72 Langford testified that after the meeting in question, she found employee Morea crying in the bathroom, and that Langford then found out (inferentially, from Morea) that Adams had accused Morea of thinking that she was "too good" to attend the meeting, and had called her a "White honkey." Morea substantially corroborated Langford's testimony about the date and substance of this incident, except that Morea did not testify that Adams called her a "White honkey," and testified that Morea told Langford about the incident before, and not after, going to the bathroom and starting to cry. Morea further credibly testified, "I get my feelings hurt real easy." Langford did not testify what "employees," other than Morea, the "November 1 I" warning slip referred to. The warning slip forms used by Respondent do not contain any blank for acknowledgment by the employee, nor does Respondent follow the practice of giving the employee a copy or having employee sign the forms. Both work. Poole gave no other particulars, and there is no evidence that any remarks by Adams ever led Paige to leave work. 72 The document also bears the entry, "Mary Watch this! How long do we put up with this." The record fails to show who made this entry, which I therefore excluded when receiving the exhibit. SYNADYNE CORP. Gibbons and Langford, however, testified that as a matter of practice, an employee is orally advised of each occasion on which a warning slip is inserted in that individual's personnel folder. Langford testified in terms that in allegedly threatening Adams with further discipline if she did not leave her fellow employees alone, Langford orally advised Adams of the two warning slips relating to this matter, and at least implied that she had also told Adams about the remaining slip in connection with Adams' transfer from the Ford to the White line. Adams testified that she had never been told that there were written warning slips in her personnel file. As to this conflict in the testimony, I credit Adams. Thus, Respondent's Exhibit 4 is dated November 11, whereas the credited testimony establishes that the meeting which occasioned the Morea incident occurred in October. Moreover, although both Respondent's Exhibits 3 and 4 allege that Adams disturbed fellow "employees," Langford named only one employee in connection with each slip. Further, employee Paige only partially corroborated Langford's testimony in connection with Respondent's Exhibit 3. Also, although Langford characterized Respon- dent's Exhibit 2 as a warning slip and testified that it was issued prior to Respondent's Exhibit 3, the latter is marked as a first warning and the subsequently dated Respondent's Exhibit 4 is marked as a second warning. Furthermore, to describe the substance of Respondent's Exhibit 2 as a "warning" somewhat stretches the meaning of that word. For these reasons, and after considering the demeanor of the witnesses, I credit Adams' testimony that she was never told that there were warning slips in her file, and discredit Langford's contrary testimony. Moreover, I conclude that Respondents Exhibits 3 and 4 were not prepared on the dates they bear and do not constitute good-faith efforts to summarize incidents as Langford believed they occurred. Also, in view of my findings as to the warning-slip matter and demeanor considerations, I do not credit (1) Lang- ford's testimony that Adams was moved in October from the Ford line to the White line in an effort to get her to speed up her work; (2) Langford's largely uncorroborated testimony about the alleged Paige incident; or (3) Lang- ford's uncorroborated testimony that Adams had been "gotten onto several times" about being a slow worker, and that "several of the girls," whom Langford did not name, had complained to Langford about Adams' almost going to sleep on the job. Rather, I credit Adams' testimony that she had been transferred to the White line because she was needed to cramp some wires and not because of poor work performance (testimony partly corroborated by Langford's testimony that Adams was transferred back to the Ford line about 2 weeks later) and had never received a warning for poor work performance, misconduct, or harassing employees.73 Further, I credit Adams' testimony that to her knowledge Paige never complained to anyone about Adams' harassing her. In this connection, I note that Paige, who was called by Respondent as a witness, did not testify that she complained to management about Adams. Although Adams denied having had any "harsh words" with Morea, for demeanor reasons I credit Morea's 73 In this connection , I note the testimony of employee Green, which I believe was given in good faith, that to her knowledge Adams was a fast 679 testimony about the substance (although not the date) of their conversation following the Montique meeting. I also accept Morea's testimony that she told Langford about that conversation, notwithstanding some inconsistency between Morea's and Langford's accounts of the report. For demeanor reasons, to the extent Morea and Langford are inconsistent as to this matter I credit Morea. c. Greenwood McMullen credibly testified that on three occasions she orally reproved Greenwood for excessive talking during working hours. McMullen dated the last such incident as about a month and a half after Greenwood's October 20, 1975, hire-that is, early December 1975. There is no evidence that these incidents were referred to in her December 19 discharge interview. McMullen further testified that on December 8, 1975, 11 days before Greenwood's discharge, Greenwood was "working with" employee Charlene Davis, and, in reliance on a complaint by Davis, McMullen orally reprimanded Greenwood for repeatedly throwing uncounted harnesses into a box after Davis had counted the number of harnesses in the box. McMullen testified that Greenwood's action in this respect caused Davis to have to count the harnesses again, but did not testify that Greenwood was then supposed to be at a different work station. McMullen further testified that on the day after this incident, she prepared for Greenwood's personnel folder the following memorandum: Alice Greenwood caused confusion and ill feelings on December 8, 1975, with another employee. She was dropping harnesses into a box that had already been counted, and had been asked several times to refrain from doing so. When it was brought to my attention I indicated that we needed one girl packing and counting and to remain where I placed her. On several occasions I have had to talk to Alice about leaving her work station to laugh and talk with other workers. [Emphasis supplied.] In view of the inconsistencies between McMullen's testimonial account of the incident and the italicized portions of the alleged memorandum, and after considering the witnesses' demeanor, I discredit McMullen's testimony that Greenwood frequently moved to another job before finishing her assigned job, McMullen's version of the Davis incident, and McMullen's testimony that she prepared the alleged memorandum on the day after the alleged incident in a good-faith attempt to relate what happened. Rather, I credit Greenwood's denial that she had difficulties with Davis, ever moved to a new job before finishing her assigned job, or was ever warned about shifting around to different positions on the line without being assigned those positions. Superintendent Gibbons testified that on the day that and before Greenwood was fired, McMullen reported to Gibbons that Greenwood had left her work station and started spot taping on a Murray harness, McMullen had worker. Green had worked with Adams for 2 weeks, and Green's testimony in this connection was solicited by Respondent's counsel. 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told her to "go back to her original station," and Greenwood made a "real smart comment" by asking whether she was not good enough to tape the Murray harness. McMullen did not testify that Greenwood im- properly left her job station that day, or relate what McMullen told Gibbons that day, and there is no credible evidence that this incident was mentioned during Green- wood's discharge interview. Accordingly, and after consid- ering Gibbons' demeanor, I discredit her testimony in this respect. d. Garner, Green, and Vaughn Respondent's counsel stated at the outset of the hearing that Garner, Green, and Vaughn were discharged for excessive talking during production, poor production, poor work habits (whose nature was never specified), and suspected sabotage. Supervisor Langford testified that they were discharged for excessive talking, low production, and poor quality work. She further testified that Vaughn was suspected of sabotage, and by implication that Garner was likewise suspect, but in effect denied any such suspicion of Green. As to some of the allegedly suspected sabotage, the record shows that from time to time between October and December 1975, Respondent found in the barrels where its molding compound was stored, and also in the containers for the compound which were attached to the molding machines, screws and other items which likely did not get there accidentally, which caused the molding machines to break down, and which could have seriously damaged them. Many employees in the plant could have put these foreign items into the molding compound. In late Novem- ber or early December, Poole called the molding depart- ment together and offered a $100 reward to anyone who would tell him who was putting these items in the molding compound and why. So far as the record shows, this reward was never claimed. Poole and Gibbons testified that nobody had ever been seen putting such items into the molding compound. There is no evidence that Garner, Green, or Vaughn was ever told that she was suspected of putting foreign material into the molding compound. Poole testified that he suspected the existence of a group effort to sabotage Respondent's machinery, in view of reports that he had received about alleged "Black supremacy type meetings" conducted at Williams' home or in which Williams played an active part. Poole did not testify that he suspected Williams of sabotage, or that he suspected that 74 Nor is there any evidence that any of these four employees in fact participated in these alleged meetings. 71 However, Poole's preheanng affidavit states that Garner and Green "were responsible for the incorrect connections of the harness because they were the only employees assigned to the task " 76 Both Poole and Gibbons testified that when an employee's job ran out, he was transferred to a different job Neither witness was asked how often such a transfer occurred . For demeanor reasons, I do not credit them to the extent their testimony implies that such transfers were infrequent. 77 My findings in the last two sentences are based on Green's testimony, which I credit for demeanor reasons. I do not credit Langford 's testimony that Green "plugged in miscellaneous harnesses," or Poole's testimony that Green plugged in Deutsch and Packard connectors on the White line, to the extent that such testimony by Langford and Poole impliedly excludes Green's performance of the other work she credibly testified about. Nor do I credit Langford's denial that Green worked on the Ford line. such meetings were attended by Garner, Green, or Vaughn.74 Poole testified that between late October and December 1975, the molding machines were down 20 percent of the time, and that as of the time of the July 1976 hearing the machines were down 2 percent of the time. In November and December 1975, foreign material was found in the molding compound almost every day, and some- times two or three barrels would have to be cleaned in a day. Between the December 29, 1975, discharges of Garner, Green, and Vaughn and the July 1976 hearing, such material was found in the compound on one occasion. As to the other acts of alleged sabotage, Poole testified that on December 17 White Motors showed him several examples of miswired harnesses . Poole initially testified, "The people that were plugging them in were either obviously not paying attention to their work or they were plugging them in wrong on purpose." Later, he testified that in his opinion, all the miswired harnesses which he then saw were the subject of sabotage. Poole testified that other employees on the same shift as Garner, Green, and Vaughn did the same work; that Gamer and Green were not the only employees that were assigned to the task of connecting harnesses; 75 and that it was impossible to determine which individual employees had wired any particular harness. Gibbons and a number of employee witnesses credibly testified that the employees did not use identification symbols on any of their work to identify it. Williams, Garner, Adams, Green, and Greenwood all testified that the employees frequently moved between different jobs, sometimes every day. I credit their testimony in this respect 76 During the month before Green's December 29 termina- tion, she spent most of her time adding molding compound to and otherwise operating the molding machines, none of which broke down while she was operating them. She also checked "Noryls" on the Ford line, and taped wires and plugged sockets on the White line.77 Vaughn at one time worked on the Ford line, but at the time of her discharge she worked on the White line, where she spent most if not all of her time plugging in a particular type of large harness.78 Garner checked wires on the Ford line and, after Vaughn had plugged harnesses on the White line, added wires thereto and taped them. Garner performed this last operation with employee Morea during about 10 days in December 1975.79 In November 1976, Langford told Gibbons "how good Garner had caught on to . . . putting the big harness together." 80 78 My findings in this sentence are based on the credited testimony of Langford, Gibbons, and Poole. I discredit Vaughn's testimony that during December 1975 she spent most of her time putting braided numbers on wires, in view of Coleman's failure to corroborate Vaughn's testimony, denied by Langford , that when Vaughn was not plugging harnesses, Coleman did it However, I do not credit Langford 's testimony, denied by Poole, that Vaughn was the only employee who plugged in this type of harness. 79 My findings in these two sentences are based on Garner's testimony and on credible portions of Langford's and Poole's testimony. I do not credit Langford's denial that Garner was then performing work on the Ford line, or Poole's testimony that Garner and Morea plugged in Deutsch and Packard connectors on the White line. Morea testified for Respondent, but was not asked about this matter. 80 My finding in this sentence is based on Coleman's undemed testimony. SYNADYNE CORP. There is no evidence that Green, Garner, or Vaughn was ever told that she was suspected of deliberately miswiring harnesses . Nor is there any evidence that management ever told any rank-and-file employee that deliberate miswirmg was suspected. During November and December 1975, the reject rate on the White line was 15 to 20 percent. At the time of the July 1976 hearing, it was about 2-1/2 percent. Poole testified that the quality problems "began to go away shortly after we moved some girls, removed some girls, and placed another supervisor over there," the new supervisor being added to the White line in late January 1976.81 Respondent has a quality control department which performs visual checks on White products on a sample basis. There is no credible evidence that Green, Garner, or Vaughn was ever individually reproved for the quantity or quality of her work. Coleman, who was then leader on the White line, credibly testified that she never had any problems with their work, attitude, or production; knew no supervisors who had any problems with them; and was never aware of any merchandise that was returned because of their work on it.82 About December 18, Langford and Gibbons held a meeting of all the White-line employees, told them about White's rejection of Respondent's harness- es, asked the employees to improve the quality of their work, and said that Respondent might lose White's business if they did not. Poole testified that Respondent's midyear statement taken at the end of October, together with the final figures available in mid-November, showed a serious financial loss which was attributable partly to an "extremely high rate of rejects" by the White Motor Company.83 His testimony in this respect was corroborated by Plant Superintendent Gibbons. Poole further testified that between late September and December 29 (when Garner, Green, and Vaughn were discharged), he made two or three trips to White Motors' headquarters to discuss the problem of the rejected harnesses. The last of these occurred on December 17, 12 days before their discharge. Langford testified that in late November or early December, she and Gibbons "discussed that [Garner, Green, and Vaughn ] were working on a lot of the parts that were being rejected and I was having a lot of talking and unrest going on in that department where I was not getting full cooperation and I felt that had a lot to do with our quality problems." In view of Gibbons' failure to corrobo- rate Langford's testimony in this respect, and for demeanor reasons, I disbelieve such testimony. Poole testified that Langford had constantly complained to him about the productivity of Green and Garner and had reported to him that on several occasions Langford reprimanded Green, Garner, and Vaughn for excessive talking which interfered with the quantity and quality of 81 The White line had previously been under a supervisor (Langford) who also supervised the Ford line. 82 Poole credibly testified, however, that many of the nuswired harnesses were rewired by White Motors at Respondent's expense. 83 He further testified that some rejects were by Allis Chalmers . There is no contention or evidence that Garner, Green, or Vaughn worked on such products. 84 Although the complaint does not allege that such conduct violated the Act, the General Counsel's brief so contends , and I am satisfied that this issue was fully litigated. To this extent, I grant the General Counsel's motion, after all parties had rested, to conform the pleadings to the proof. 681 their production. Respondent did not forbid employees to talk while they were at work, but did forbid excessive talking. On one occasion, which date does not appear, Green and Garner were among seven or eight employees who were warned about excessive talking. On another occasion, Langford reproved Green and Garner individu- ally for excessive talking. On another occasion during working hours on December 24, Gibbons drew Langford's attention to the fact that Garner, Green, and Vaughn were gathered around the sleeving pot, which was not their work location, and talking to the two relatively new employees who were supposed to be working there but were not in fact doing so. Gibbons told Langford to reprove all of them, and to draw the attention of Garner, Green, and Vaughn to their duty to set a good example for new employees. Langford did so. In view of the limited number of occasions on which these employees were reproved for excessive talking, the absence of credible evidence that they were ever individually reproved for the quantity or quality of their production, and Langford's failure to provide any substantial corroboration for Poole's testimo- ny about her alleged reports to him, I discredit such testimony by Poole. Supervisor Turner testified that in December 1975, when she was a leader in the taping department, Vaughn and Garner (who both worked on the White line) were slacking up a little bit on their work. However, in view of her admittedly limited opportunity to observe their work and her unpersuasive demeanor, I give no weight to her testimony in this respect. C. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The alleged unfair labor practices other than the discharges In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act (a) when company Vice President Poole told the assembled employ- ees, in October 1975, that if the plant were unionized it would go bankrupt; (b) when Poole asked three employees in his office, later that same day, the identity of the employee who had mentioned unions during the earlier meeting; 84 (c) when Poole also told these three employees that if the plant were unionized it would shut down; (d) when Poole asked employee Williams on December 18 who had called Wage-Hour about the overtime matter; 85 (e) when Poole put the same question to the assembled employees later that same day; (f) when Supervisor McMullen asked employee Greenwood on December 19 how she felt about a union; (g) when Poole asked Leader Coleman that same day whether she had participated in 85 While Poole may then have believed that only Williams had called Wage-Hour, relevant Board precedent indicates that such a contact by only one employee constitutes activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. Alleluia Cushion Co., Inc, 221 NLRB 999 (1975). In any event, as the General Counsel points out in her brief, Poole's question admittedly arose from his resentment of Williams' decision to voice the employees' complaint to Wage-Hour rather than first relaying it to Respondent in her capacity as an employer-selected spokesman for the employees. However, the employer- devised monitor system did not affect Williams' statutory right to select Wage-Hour as a means of remedying the employees' grievances about overtime pay. 682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Williams' Wage-Hour contacts; (h) when Poole asked Coleman that same day whether she knew the identity of any undischarged employees who had anything to do with the Wage-Hour contacts; and (i) when Poole told Coleman on December 19 that he was going to discharge any such employees and other "troublemakers." In finding that Respondent violated the Act by interrogating employees about union and other protected concerted activity, I note that Respondent discharged certain employees because of such activity; that Respondent's interrogation of Coleman was accompanied by threats of discharge; that Coleman's reply was untruthful and Williams' replies untruthful or evasive; that no legitimate purpose appears for such inquiries; and that most of such inquiries were made by Respondent's vice president, who had total responsibility for all Respondent's operations except for sales and public relations. Respondent contends that Poole's remarks to Coleman were not unlawful because Coleman was then allegedly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Respondent's 180-employee day shift was under the overall supervision of Day Plant Superintendent Gibbons, who was admittedly a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Gibbons had a conventional private office. Directly under Gibbons were about six individuals with the job title of "supervisor," whose status as supervisors within the meaning of the Act appears to be unchallenged. During 1975 most of these "supervisors" supervised only one production line, but Supervisor Langford supervised two, totaling about 40 employees. A "leader" directly responsible to the "supervi- sor" was attached to each production line. "Leaders" received an hourly rate less than "supervisors" but more than ordinary production workers. Poole testified that "leaders" are "on the same level" as "inspectors," who are admittedly nonsupervisory. During the December 1975 period material here, the "leaders" under Supervisor Langford were Coleman, who was attached to the White line of 10 to 20 employees, and Farris, who was attached to the Ford lme.86 Coleman was then receiving $1.75 an hour, 35 cents more than admitted- ly rank-and-file employees on the White line. She wore jeans to work and had nothing resembling a private office. Langford wore better clothing to work than did Coleman and had a booth-type office on the Ford line. The harness assembly work performed on the White line consisted of plugging numbered wires into correspondingly numbered connector holes, in accordance with a diagram, and adding and taping wires. Coleman was more experienced at this work than the other White-line personnel. Coleman was a leader for at least 7 months. She credibly testified that as a leader, she saw to it that when Supervisor 86 As noted supra, fn. 81, in late January 1976, the White line, including Coleman, was removed from Supervisor Langford's jurisdiction and became the sole responsibility of a newly created "supervisor," Shirley Bagwell Bagwell had worked at the plant longer than Coleman, but possessed less experience than she on White -line products. On the basis of Coleman's testimony, which for demeanor reasons I credit in this connection in preference to Gibbons' and Poole's testimony where not corroborative of Coleman, I find that in March 1976 Gibbons told her that Bagwell felt Coleman was slacking on the job and that Coleman should help her more because Bagwell did not know much about the White line At about the same time that the White line was assigned to Bagwell, all the leaders, including Coleman, received a 10-cent wage increase. Langford was not around, the employees had work to do and that they worked. She further credibly testified that the employees did whatever she instructed them to do. In addition, she credibly testified that when she was promoted to a leader, Gibbons told her that her job was to help the supervisor, to make sure that everybody was busy, to find work for employees who had nothing to do, and to help them work. Coleman also credibly testified that she had the authority to correct employees who were not performing their work properly. Gibbons credibly testified that if a leader sees something "wrong" in the department "she can call a girl down for it." Gibbons also testified that a leader has the "right" to recommend a raise for an employee on her line, but did not testify how much, if any, weight is given to such a recommendation. Supervisor Langford credibly testified that Coleman may have told an employee "to quit talking or something like that," but had never recommended or effected any hiring, firing, or "excessive discipline." Coleman credibly testified without contradiction that she had never fired anyone, hired anyone, suspended anyone, laid anyone off, recalled anyone, promoted anyone, rewarded anyone, recommended that any of these things be done, disciplined anyone, or adjusted any employee grievance. She further credibly testified without contradic- tion that she never helped decide who should get raises,87 never received any employee requests for time off, never reported people who came in late, and was never called to the telephone when an employee wanted to advise that he was going to be late. Coleman credibly testified to a belief that she had the same duties as the other leaders. Poole and Gibbons testified that leaders had and exercised the power to discipline, to discharge, and effectively to recommend promotions or discipline. Poole testified, without giving dates, that Leaders Farris, McLar- en, and Al Johnson88 were consulted when promotions were made, that "several times" they recommended promotions or discipline, that Al Johnson (who is male) had fired one employee, and that "at least three or four times" the "leader girls" had fired and disciplined employ- ees. Gibbons testified, without giving a date, that on one occasion Leader McLaren said that she was "through trying to work with" employee Oliver, that McLaren made the "suggestion" that Oliver be fired, and "we took what she had told us, and knowing the problems we had had in the past, we did follow [McLaren's] suggestion." 89 Gib- bons gave no other particular instance regarding the leaders' exercise of power with respect to discharge. Of the leaders to whom Gibbons and Poole attributed the exercise of supervisory powers, only Farris testified about this matter. She credibly testified that she had "never actually 87 Langford credibly testified that when a "raise problem" came up, she asked Leaders Coleman and Farris for their opinion about the best workers on their respective lines. There is no testimony that the leaders were told why their opinion was being solicited, or as to the weight, if any, that Respondent eventually gave thereto 88 There is no evidence that Johnson was a leader in December 1975, or as to when he became a leader. 89 Coleman testified that on an undisclosed date before her late May 1976 resignation, she heard that McLaren had something to do with the discharge of her aunt, who worked under her. Coleman was not sure whether McLaren was a "supervisor" by that time. The record fails to disclose whether Oliver was McLaren's aunt. SYNADYNE CORP. 683 had anybody discharged, but when some girl wouldn't be doing her work or for any other reason I would go to [Langford] and we would discuss it and [Langford] would take it from there." Farris further credibly testified that she sometimes "disciplined" people, namely, "To go and ask them, you know, tell them to speed up a little bit or quit talking or something like that, just things like that." Farris' testimony in this last respect was corroborated by Cole- man. Poole credibly testified that on one occasion in December 1975 he told Leader Collins that she should "push" harder. Poole testified that at least once a month while Coleman was a leader, he held a "supervisor and leader meeting," where "we discussed their responsibilities many times," and also discussed "quality problems, discipline matters, productivity, performance and some cases actual profit- ability of the company." Poole testified that during these meetings, he explained to Coleman her responsibilities as a leader. Coleman testified that she had never attended any regular management meetings. Poole's testimony about such meetings is wholly uncorroborated, although Respon- dent called Supervisors Langford and McMullen and Leaders Farris and Gatlin as witnesses90 In view of the absence of such corroboration, and after considering the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Coleman in this respect. Accordingly, I credit her otherwise undenied testimony that prior to March 1976 she was never told that she could on her own authority fire, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, or reward employees, or adjust employee grievances, or that she could effectively recommend such action. Further, I credit her undenied testimony that in late March 1976 (after the filing of the charges herein, and the day after a visit by company attorney Milani with Poole, Gibbons, and all the "supervisors"), Poole called a meeting with the leaders; said that "Mr. Milani had told him that the leaders had more authority than he had been giving them and that he didn't know anything about"; and further said that the leaders had authority to "fire right on the spot."91 Moreover, in view of this undenied and credible testimony, I infer that Poole's and Gibbons' testimony about specific incidents involving the exercise of at least arguably supervisory authority by Farris, McLaren, and Johnson all occurred after this March 1976 meeting. In this connection, I note Farris' testimony at the July 1976 hearing that her present job was "supervisor," although in December 1975 she was a "leadgirl." 92 In short, Coleman's only supervisory power even argu- ably shown by the credible testimony is the authority 90 Indeed, although Poole testified that Respondent's profitability was sometimes discussed at these alleged meetings, Supervisor McMullen testified that she did not know about Respondents' December 1975 financial problems; "I mean I'm a supervisor All I do is they tell me what has to go and I do my best to get it out ... I'm not in any of the finance part .. I don't know whether Respondent was then in financial difficulties." 91 At the July 1976 hearing, Poole testified that the December 1975 leaders "have now moved to supervisory positions." 92 In view of Farris' testimony in this respect, and for demeanor reasons, I do not credit Supervisor Langford's testimony that, in effect, at all relevant times Farris had "the same responsibility that I do . . [s ]he has the same authority that I have in correcting the girls" and used this authority. 93 The cases cited in Respondent's brief do not call for a different result. The maintenance foreman in Davco, Inc, 172 NLRB 1791, 1801-02 (1968), was in sole charge of his department, had the power to hire, had and exercised the power to fire, gave daily notes to his superior about his responsibly to direct the employees on the White line. However, Section 2(11)'s definition of the term "supervi- sor" encompasses only "the supervisor vested with genuine management prerogatives," and does not extend to "strawbosses, leadmen, setup men and other minor supervisory employees." N.L.RB. v. Bell Aerospace Compa- ny, Division of Textron, Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 279-283 (1974). See also, Howard Johnson Company, 174 NLRB 1217, 1221-22 (1969). I conclude that Coleman's December 1975 authority with respect to the White line did not reach the level of responsible direction, but, rather, was merely that of the typical "leadman" or "strawboss." Accordingly, I conclude that during her December 1975 conversation with Poole, she was an employee within the meaning of the Act. House of Mosaics, Inc., Subsidiary of Thomas Industries, Inc., 215 NLRB 704 (1974) (ALJD,III,B); Harmon Indus- tries, Inc., 226 NLRB 432 (1976).93 Paragraph 6(bXi) of the complaint alleges that Respon- dent violated the Act on December 17, 1975, by "creat[ing] the impression of surveillance of employee concerted activity by accusing certain employees of participating in protected concerted activities." However, the evidence shows that before Poole "accused" Williams of getting in touch with Wage-Hour, she revealed her Wage-Hour contact to Leader Farris (whom the General Counsel contends and Respondent admits to be Respondent's agent), and asked to see Poole. Farris then said that she would check with Poole and Supervisor Langford, and both Farris and Langford told Williams that they would talk and had talked to Poole about overtime and related matters. The General Counsel's brief alleges that Poole "attempt[ed] to engage in surveillance of the [protected] activities of plant employees" through the monitor pro- gram. I do not regard this contention as fairly encompassed by the pleadings.94 In any event I regard this allegation as unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence, notwith- standing Poole's action, just before establishing the monitor program, in threatening to shut down the plant if it were unionized and in attempting to find out the identity of the employee who had favorably mentioned a union. The employee meeting which undisputedly led to the monitors' appointment revealed the existence of and was mostly directed to various employee complaints about wages and working conditions, at least some of which complaints Poole had never heard of before. There is no evidence that after appointing the monitors, Respondent ever specifically or impliedly asked them about the existence of protected concerted activity, that the monitors ever reported such subordinates' work, gave his subordinates permission to leave early, initialled their timecards when they were late, assigned them work, reproached them when their production was down, and on one occasion lent one of his subordinates to another supervisor. The assistant store managers in Red & White Super Markets, 172 NLRB 1841 (enfd. in part and remanded in part 415 F.2d 125 (CA. 3, 1969), decision on remand 179 NLRB 831 (1969)), were in sole charge of their respective stores for long hours each week, during which periods they assigned and reassigned work and granted time off. The "wanderer" pressman in Stratford Lithographers, Inc., 168 NLRB 469, 472, enfd. 423 F.2d 1219 (C A. 2, 1970), was held out to the employees by the supervisory senior pressman over the pressmen as the person to listen to in the former's absence, issued orders which his subordinates obeyed, and, when on the night shift, was in sole charge of that shift and decided when it should leave. 94 To this extent, I deny the General Counsel's motion, after all parties had rested, to conform the pleadings to the proof 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activity to management, or that the monitors thought that management wanted them to report such information. In view of such evidence, I regard as a natural and sufficient explanation for Poole's selection of three black employee representatives or monitors Poole's testimony, which I therefore credit, that "The monitor system was simply a means to provide an exhaust outlet for any type of employee problems that had not reached me. I did not ask anyone to spy on anybody or anything like that . . . [the meeting earlier that day] caused me to set up the monitor system to prevent any such meeting from ever happening again. Theoretically, as [Williams] explained to me, that meeting was held because the people were afraid to come talk to me, they had to come en masse." Poole's repeated assurances that the monitors' reports would be kept secret, while consistent with the General Counsel's contention that the monitors were being asked to report their fellow employees' protected activity, are equally consistent with a desire to assuage employee fears of reprisals from supervi- sors whose actions might be complained of. Accordingly, I shall dismiss paragraph 6(b)(i) of the complaint. 2. The allegedly unlawful discharges a. Williams and Adams Instead of operating on the Fridays after Thanksgiving and Christmas 1975, Respondent's plant operated on Saturday, November 22, and Saturday, December 13. In consequence of this schedule, most of the employees worked for 48 hours during each of the weeks ending on these particular Saturdays, but they were paid only straight-time rates. On December 15, employee Whitlock told employee Williams that Wage-Hour had said that the employees were entitled to time and a half for all hours worked per week in excess of 40, and told Williams what Wage-Hour personnel to call about the matter. On December 15 and 17, Williams did call Wage-Hour, which confirmed Whitlock's assertion and told Williams that she could file a charge against Respondent if it did not pay time and a half for those two Saturdays. Also on December 17, Adams called Wage-Hour, was advised that Respon- dent had to pay time and a half for those two Saturdays, and (in response to Williams' inquiry) told Williams that Wage-Hour had so advised Adams. On the following day, December 18, Williams advised Company Agent Farris and/or Supervisor Langford that Williams had telephoned Wage-Hour, that Wage-Hour had said that Respondent had to pay time and a half, that Williams might not want to work Saturday, that she wanted to know whether she would get time and a half if she worked Saturday, and that she wanted her overtime pay for the Saturday she had already worked. Later that day, Gibbons relayed to Poole a report from Langford that Williams had said that several employees on the Ford line were not in agreement with working Saturday, Williams wanted overtime pay for the preceding Saturday and had called Wage-Hour, and Respondent was going to have to pay overtime. Poole was admittedly "upset" when he found out that Williams had called Wage-Hour, and "angry" that she had gone there without first coming to him about the overtime matter. A few minutes after learning about Williams' contact with Wage-Hour, Poole called her to his office and said that she had "stabbed a damn knife in [his] back" by calling the "damn" Wage and Hour Bureau after he had tried to be "nice" to the employees about letting them have a long weekend off. Williams said that "several people" had called Wage-Hour. However, Gibbons said that she thought Williams was the only employee who had called Wage-Hour and the only one who was "dissatisfied." Williams said that the whole Ford line was "dissatisfied." Poole told Gibbons to make out Williams' check, but relented upon learning that Williams had not wanted to call another plant meeting among the employees generally about the Saturday-work situation, but instead had wanted a meeting with him. However, Poole did call a meeting with the Ford-line and White-line employees in order to find out whether anyone else was "dissatisfied." Poole told the assembled employees that those who called Wage-Hour should have checked with him first, and said that he had tried to be "nice" to the employees by arranging for a long holiday weekend "and look at the thanks I get." He said that while he was out of town someone had "stabbed him in the back" by calling Wage- Hour, and demanded to know "Who the hell" it was. Adams said that she had, that she had not agreed to work overtime without getting paid for it, and that Wage-Hour had said that Respondent had to pay the employees overtime for all work over 40 hours a week. Poole replied that Respondent was going to stop paying holiday pay. Williams and others stated that they were dissatisfied with Poole's statement that they could not receive holiday pay unless they worked the designated Saturday at straight- time rates. Moreover, when Poole said that those who were willing to accept this arrangement should go back to work, a number of employees, including Williams and Adams, stayed only to be told that if they got holiday pay, they were not going to get time and, a half for the relevant Saturday. Immediately thereafter, Langford recommended to Gibbons that Adams and Williams be discharged because of, inter alia, "the continual unrest and dissatisfac- tion." 95 Then, Langford and Gibbons approached Poole and recommended that he discharge Adams and Williams for various reasons discussed infra, "and especially after the scene that was caused in the plant." Poole testified that he had already decided to discharge them for "disrespect," that "this was the straw that broke the camel's back." Respondent discharged them a few minutes later, giving as the stated reasons "insubordination" and that they were "uncooperative," "dissatisfied," and "troublemakers." When Williams then told Poole that he had not discharged everyone who called Wage-Hour, or the employee who gave her Wage-Hour's telephone number, Gibbons replied, "That's all right. We got you out." On the following day, Poole told the assembled leaders, including Coleman, that he had fired Williams, not because she called Wage-Hour, but because she had untruthfully denied doing so. Later that day, Poole told Coleman that Williams "wasn't nothing but a troublemaker," and that if 95 This finding is based on Langford's testimony SYNADYNE CORP. 685 he had got rid of her after the Montique meeting "then all this other mess wouldn't have come up . . . Do you know of anyone else out there that had to do with Wage and Hour that I have not gotten rid of or anyone else that is a so-called troublemaker? . . . The Wage and Hour man told me I would have to hire Adams and Williams back because they were fired because of Wage and Hour. Before I hire them back I'll close the plant down and no one will have a job . . . I'm going to get rid of all the troublemakers." In consequence of the employees' contacts with Wage-Hour, Respondent eventually made $3,000 in overtime payments, at a time when Respondent was in serious financial trouble. The foregoing evidence, including the testimony of Respondent's witnesses, creates a strong prima facie case that Adams and Williams were discharged partly because of their participation in the employees' contacts with Wage-Hour.96 As Respondent does not appear to dispute, such contacts constituted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act 97 Such evidence also strongly points to the conclusion that Williams was discharged partly because of her participation in the presentation of grievances at the Montique meeting. Respondent does not appear to dispute that such activity was likewise protected by Section 7.98 Accordingly, their discharges violated the Act even assuming they were also motivated by lawful considera- tions.99 Langford testified that immediately after the December 18 meeting, she recommended to Gibbons that Williams be discharged partly because "some of [her] work habits have been bad." Gibbons did not corroborate this testimony by Langford about their conversation. Poole testified that Williams did her work well and, as noted, about 4 months before her discharge, Respondent had offered to consider her for a promotion. Langford did not describe Williams' allegedly poor work habits, and there is no evidence that she had any. I discredit Langford's testimony that she recommended Williams' discharge for poor work habits and conclude that such a consideration played no part in her discharge. Gibbons testified that immediately after the December 18 meeting, Langford recommended that Williams be discharged partly because she had been "harassing employ- ees." Gibbons' testimony suggests that her and Langford's discharge recommendation to Poole included a similar assertion. Neither Langford nor Poole so testified. Al- though Gibbons testified that employee Newsome had complained about "harassment" by Williams, Gibbons did not describe the nature of such complaint or complaints, and Williams' conduct does not appear particularly blameworthy in the only Newsome-Williams incident of which management's predischarge awareness was 96 However, in so finding, I do not rely on Greenwood's credited testimony that McMullen said, "they found out who called the Wage and Hour Bureau . . it was Georgia and Bobbie . . . and they were fired." Although a supervisor over the assembly area, McMullen was not shown to have any authority with respect to the Ford line, where Williams and Adams worked. See rule 801(d)(2XC) and (D) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because no contention is made that McMullen's statement constituted an unfair labor practice in itself, I need not and do not consider that issue. 97 G V R, Inc., 201 NLRB 147 (1973); While's Gas & Appliance, Inc., 202 NLRB 494 (1973); see also Alleluia Cushion, supra, 221 NLRB 999. 98 Webster Men's Wear, A Subsidiary of Beck Industries, Inc., 222 NLRB 1262 (1976), (ALJD) shown.100 I discredit Gibbons' testimony that alleged harassment by Williams was mentioned during the Gib- bons-Langford-Poole conversation about her discharge, and conclude that such alleged harassment played no part in the decision to discharge her. Langford and Gibbons both testified that immediately after the December 18 meeting, Langford recommended Adams' discharge because of her poor work habits, and that they mentioned this to Poole in recommending her discharge.101 Poole did not corroborate their testimony in this respect. As found supra, there is no credible evidence that Adams had poor work habits. I discredit Langford's and Gibbons' testimony that Adams' work habits were mentioned during the Gibbons-Langford-Poole conversa- tion about her discharge, and conclude that she was not discharged in whole or in part because of her work habits. Respondent's counsel asserted at the outset of the hearing that Adams was discharged partly because she engaged in harassment of employees. Gibbons' testimony implies, at least, that this assertion was included (without amplification) in her and Langford's discharge recommen- dation to Poole, but there is no other evidence that such harassment was mentioned during the Gibbons-Adams- Poole conversations which preceded Adams' discharge. As found supra, before Adams' discharge, Langford was aware of certain reproaches which Adams had directed to employee Morea. However, there is no evidence that Gibbons knew about this incident. Moreover, as previously found, Langford falsely testified that the Morea incident was reflected in a warning slip form which was not prepared on the date it bears. I discredit Gibbons' implied testimony that harassment by Adams was mentioned in the discharge recommendation to Poole, and find that such alleged harassment played no part in the decision to discharge her. Poole, Gibbons, and Langford all testified, in substance, that Adams and Williams were discharged partly because of what they did during the December 18 plant meeting. I credit such testimony but find, contrary to Respondent, that Adams' and Williams' conduct at that meeting was itself protected by Section 7 of the Act. A purpose of Respondent in calling the meeting was to find out whether the employees were dissatisfied about the holiday pay, holiday schedule, overtime matter. At the meeting, a number of the employees, including Adams and Williams, expressed dissatisfaction with respect to Respondent's announced policy regarding holiday and overtime pay. As Respondent does not appear to question, it could not 99 Dilene Answering Service, Inc., 222 NLRB 462 (1976); Sweeney & Company, Inc., v N.LRB., 437 F.2d 1127, 1133 (CA. 5, 1971); Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N LRB., 414 F.2d 1345, 1353, fn. 17 (C.A. 5, 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 935 (1970). 100 Williams' alleged statements that Newsome should speed up to avoid being fired were relayed to her by other employees , and there is no evidence that such remarks were made for any purpose other than to help Newsome keep her job. Moreover, Newsome's extreme reaction may have been due partly to her visible pregnancy. 101 Gibbons' version included allegations of "constant talking." 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lawfully have discharged the employees for voicing their joint protests with respect to these matters.102 Respondent contends , however, that during this meeting Adams and Williams engaged in misconduct sufficient to render their participation therein unprotected. The credible evidence shows that Williams and Adams stood somewhat closer to him than is customary in normal social or business conversations,103 that they glared at him,104 that they spoke louder than anyone else there (although not loud enough to be understood 8 feet away),105 that Adams on one occasion shook her finger at him,106 that Williams made disgusted gestures by raising her hands a little above her sides with her palms upward,107 and that they occasionally interrupted some of the other 30-odd employ- ees present, or Poole himself.108 Also, Poole credibly testified that Williams and Adams "would not accept anything that I said"-conduct which he characterized as "threatening." However, where, as here, employees are concertedly presenting their grievances to management, an activity protected by Section 7 of the Act, they do not forfeit such protection by failing to display toward management the same degree of respect normally expected from employees in connection with the master-servant relationship . Rather, the employee's right to engage in concerted activity may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order and respect.109 The facts of this particular case balance in the employees' favor. I note, in this connection, that the employee grievances voiced during this meeting flowed to a significant extent from Respondent's breach (known to Adams and Williams) of the Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with overtime pay for Saturday work; and that just before the meeting Williams had been the victim of a rescinded discharge motivated at least in part by her contacts with Wage-Hour. For the foregoing reasons, I fmd that Respondent discharged Adams and Williams at least in part because of their protected concerted activity and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. b. Garner, Green, and Vaughn Early in December, employee Green suggested to her fellow employees on the White line that they should complain to Respondent about working Saturdays in lieu of postholiday Fridays without getting paid overtime for 162 Webster Men's Wear, supra, 222 NLRB 1262. 103 This finding is based on a composite of credible portions of the testimony of Poole, Gibbons, Langford, and Newsome. 104 This finding is based on credible portions of Poole 's testimony. 105 This finding is based on a composite of credible portions of the testimony of Morea , Langford, Gibbons, and Williams. For demeanor reasons, I do not credit Poole's testimony that Adams and Williams were "yelling and screaming," or talking like a drill sergeant to a recruit. Also for demeanor reasons, I do not credit Fams' and Cox's testimony that Adams and Williams were "hollering." 106 This finding is based on credible portions of the testimony of Poole, Farris, Gibbons, and Langford 101 This finding is based on credible portions of the testimony of Newsome and Williams, to some extent corroborated by Poole 's testimony that Williams was "waving her arms." For demeanor reasons, I do not credit the testimony of Farris, Gibbons, Langford , or Turner that Williams shook her finger at Poole 108 This finding is based on the testimony of Moore and to some extent the Saturdays. Green also asked Garner and then Vaughn whether they would prefer to work the Friday after Christmas rather than to work Saturday without getting overtime rates. Garner said that she did not want to work that Friday; Vaughn said that she did not mind coming back that Friday but knew that Green could not get anyone else to go along with it. There is no evidence that Respondent knew about the foregoing conversations. However, a few days later, Green told Supervisor Langford that the employees should not have to work two Saturdays without getting time and a half for them. Langford replied that this was being done to "help the girls" get a long weekend, and referred Green to Gibbons and Poole. About 2 weeks later, during the employees' December 18 meeting with Poole, Green and Vaughn evinced objections to Poole's statement that the employees who got holiday pay would not be paid overtime for the Saturdays worked in lieu of the postholiday Fridays. Poole testified that during this meeting Vaughn was "more vocal" than most of the other employees. After being discharged because of contacts with Wage- Hour and participation with Green and Vaughn (among others) in the employees' December 18 protests of Respondent's overtime pay, holiday pay, holiday schedule policy, Williams and Adams told Wage-Hour that Garner, Vaughn, and Green had knowledge of the facts regarding Williams' and Adams' overtime complaints. On the following day, when Williams and Adams returned to the plant for their overtime checks, Williams related their errand to Vaughn, who commented that the active employees had not yet received their overtime checks. There is no evidence that Respondent actually knew that Wage-Hour had been referred to Garner and Green. Nor did Supervisor Kelly overhear the Williams-Vaughn con- versation, although he did see it and participated in management's efforts to prevent Adams and Williams from remaining in the plant area and, therefore, from discussing with the active employees the grievances which Adams and Williams had been discharged for concertedly pressing. However, later that day, Coleman told Poole that Vaughn had referred the Wage-Hour investigator to Coleman. During that same conversation, Poole commented, "Do you know of anyone else out there that had to do with Wage and Hour that I have not gotten rid of or anyone else that is a so-called troublemaker? . . . I'm going to get rid of all the troublemakers." About 3 days later, Gibbons Mores and Poole. However, in view of the credited testimony about the parties to and the extent of discussions during the meeting , and for dismeanor reasons, I do not credit either Poole's testimony that the interruptions of fellow employees were so frequent as to preclude any "meaningful dialogue" with anyone else, or Morea 's testimony that Adams and Williams interrupted him "Every time he went to say something." 109 Webster Men's Wear, supra, 222 NLRB 1262 (ALJD); Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. NL.R.B., 430 F.2d 724, 729-731 (C.A. 5, 1970); Sears, Roebuck and Co., 224 NLRB 558 (1976) ("an employee's right to the protection of Section 8(a)(l) when engaging in concerted activities does not depend on his doing it in a way which does not offend his employer"). In view of these differing standards, I attach little weight to the testimony of Plant Manager Gibbons (who, admittedly, could not hear the conversation) that Adams and Williams were "rude"; or to leader Cox's opinion that their conduct merited discharge. Farris credibly testified that while Adams and Williams were talking to Poole, "somebody" said "Isn't that awful?" However, the record fails to show what person, statements, or conduct "somebody" regarded as "awful." SYNADYNE CORP. 687 used the plant intercom to summon Vaughn to the office, where she was interviewed by a Wage-Hour representative. Also about December 22 or 23, Supervisor Langford announced that because the employees were to be given overtime pay for Saturday, December 13, the employees would not receive a full day's pay for a half-day's work on Christmas Eve, as Respondent had previously promised. Instead, Langford said, the employees would all be paid a half-day's pay and seven of them would receive lottery prizes of $25 to $100, totaling $300. Green said that she would rather work all day Christmas Eve and receive a full day's pay. Garner said, "The money that you are auctioning off is the money you are supposed to be paying us for the full day like you promised." Employee Green expressed agreement with Garner. Later Langford gave Poole the names of Green and Garner, said that one had remarked to the other that the lottery prizes were not a gift from Respondent, but represented money "stolen" or "taken" from the employees ; and further reported that the other had agreed. Thereafter, Poole called Garner and Green to his office and asked if they were "happy" at the plant. Garner said that she was not dissatisfied. Green said that she was satisfied now that she had been paid time and a half for working over 40 hours , and reproached him for not knowing, as a businessman, that he had to pay employees overtime for working over 40 hours a week. Garner asked why the employees were not getting paid for a whole day on Christmas Eve. He replied that he had spent so much money so far on holiday pay that he could not afford it. In response to questions by Garner, Langford said that she was not dissatisfied with the work of either Garner or Green, and Poole said that he did not want them to quit and if he wanted them to quit he would discharge them. Then, Poole asked Garner whether she had said that the lottery money was probably the money the employees should have received for the rest of Christmas Eve. When Garner replied yes, Poole said that whenever Garner or Green had something like this to say that she should say it to the supervisor or to him, not to the other employees. Poole further said that Williams had caused a "whole lot of confusion" in the plant by calling Wage-Hour. Early in the morning of the first working day after Christmas, and no more than 3 working days after this conference, Gibbons discharged Vaughn, Garner, and Green on the stated ground that they seemed to be unhappy in the plant, had caused "dissension" there, and had upset other workers . Langford said that their discharge had nothing to do with their work, that their work was "okay," and Gibbons said that Vaughn was a "good worker." The foregoing evidence indicates , at least prima facie, that Vaughn was discharged at least in part because of her contacts with Wage-Hour and her participation in the employees' joint expression at the December 18 meeting of their dissatisfaction with Respondent's holiday pay, holi- day schedule, overtime policy. Further, the foregoing evidence indicates, at least prima facie, that Green was discharged partly because of her participation in that meeting, and that she and Garner were discharged at least in part because of Garner's criticism, and Green's agree- ment therewith, of Respondent's action in substituting the Christmas Eve lottery for Christmas Eve pay. Respondent does not appear to contend, nor would such a contention have merit, that it could lawfully discharge employees for contacts with Wage-Hour and for urging grievances at the December 18 meeting (see supra, fns. 97, 102). However, Respondent contends that it could lawfully discharge Green and Garner for their remarks about the lottery, on the ground that so far as the record shows, such statements were not made "with the object of initiating or preparing for any group action in the interests of the employees. There is no indication that [Garner], by making the statement, intended, suggested, contemplated, or even referred to any group action." Rather, Respondent con- tends, Garner's "statement can only be classified as individual griping or complaining," and Green's "mere agreement with Mrs. Garner's statement could not possibly constitute protected concerted activity." Respondent relies on N.L.R.B. v. Buddies Supermarkets, Inc., 481 F.2d 714, 717-720 (C.A. 5, 1973), and N.L.R.B. v. The Office Towel Supply Company, Incorporated, 201 F.2d 838, 840-841 (C.A. 2, 1953). I note, however, that the company policy about which Green and Garner were complaining on December 22 and 23-namely, the substitution of a lottery for a paid half- day holiday on Christmas Eve-had the same express purpose and was quite similar to the policy which Poole announced and the employees (including Green) concert- edly protested at the December 18 meeting-namely, the abolition of paid holidays to make up for the preholiday Saturday overtime expenses faced by Respondent in consequence of the protected activity which Williams, Adams, and others had begun on December 15. The events thus leading up to Garner's and Green's complaints lead me to conclude that such complaints in fact "had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees" within the meaning of Buddies Supermarkets, supra at 718. In any event, even assuming that the statutory protection afforded such prior activity does not extend to Garner's and Green's related subsequent conduct, the discharges were nevertheless unlawful if the "lottery" conversation led Respondent to believe that Green and Garner had already engaged or might soon thereafter engage in a concerted effort to remedy this grievance, and for this reason decided to discharge them.110 I conclude that Poole in fact drew such an inference and discharged them at least partly for that reason. Thus, during the preceding 3 months a large number of the employees had engaged in a substantial amount of protected concerted activity relating to, inter alia, holiday pay, work schedules on holiday and preholi- day weeks, and overtime pay for Saturdays worked in lieu of postholiday Fridays. Such concerted activity not only had consumed a significant amount of paid working time, but also was expected to (and in fact did) cost Respondent a good deal of money from overtime pay, at a time when Respondent was in financial difficulties. The Christmas Eve payment scheme criticized by Garner and Green was 110 N. L. R B v. The Hertz Corporation, 449 F 2d 711, 714-715 (C.A. 5, 1971); N. L R B v. Signal Oil and Gas Co., 390 F.2d 338, 342-343 (C A. 9, 1968), cited with approval in Buddies Supermarket, supra at 720, fn. 17. 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part of Respondent's solution to the financial loss from the overtime claim which the employees (including Green and Vaughn) had jointly pressed at the meeting with Poole 11 days before the discharge of Garner, Green, and Vaughn. Moreover, Green had complained to Supervisor Langford early in December about working Saturdays without overtime pay and, a few days before the discharge, Green reproached Poole for his ignorance of Respondent's overtime obligations. Furthermore, during the conference Poole reproached Green for voicing her complaints to fellow employees rather than to supervision (although Langford had also been present at the time). Also, during the Green-Garner-Poole conference about December 23, Garner's inquiry about Adams' and Williams' discharge gave Poole at least some reason to suspect Garner's postdischarge contacts with them ; while Poole's comment later in that conversation about the "confusion" caused by Williams' Wage-Hour contacts indicates that he was associating such "confusion" with the complaints just voiced by Garner and Green. I cannot accept Respondent's contention that Vaughn, Green, and Garner were discharged because Respondent believed that they had sabotaged machinery and deliber- ately miswired harnesses'1' If Poole had really believed them guilty of such serious misconduct, he would almost certainly have discharged them as soon as he reached such a conclusion. However, Poole did not discharge these employees until 12 days after White Motors told him about the miswired harnesses . Moreover, these three employees had no more opportunity than many others to put foreign material into the molding compound, and Respondent had no way of knowing which employees were responsible for the miswired harnesses. Furthermore, other evidence militates against not only Respondent's sabotage contention, but also Respondent's further contention that these employees were discharged partly for poor production quantity and quality. Thus, it is uncontradicted that less than 2 months before the discharg- es, Langford made favorable comments to Gibbons about Garner's work. Moreover, the credible evidence shows that about December 23 Langford said she was not dissatisfied with the quality of Garner's and Green's work; and that during the discharge interview, Langford said that the work of all three was "okay," and Gibbons that Vaughn was a good worker. Nor is there any credible evidence that any of the three was ever reproved for the quantity and quality of her work. As to Respondent's contention that these three employ- ees were discharged partly for excessive talking, the record shows that Green and Garner were reprimanded once as individuals, once with five or six others, and once with three others including Vaughn. I see no reason to suppose that Green and Garner were reprimanded unusually often for such conduct.112 Aside from the sleeving-pot incident, there is no credible evidence that Vaughn was ever reproved for excessive talking. As to these three employees' iii Poole's testimony imphes that he thought that Garner, Green, and Vaughn were saboteurs because he thought they were engaging in "Black supremacy" activities with Williams. During the December 19 conference with Coleman, Poole had said that in addition to finng Williams because of her Wage-Hour contacts and her "troublemaker" activity at the Linda Montique grievance meeting, he was also going to get rid of Williams' conversation around the sleeving pot when they should have been working, Respondent's initial reaction was limited to an oral reproof; there is no credible evidence that the incident was mentioned during the discharge interview; and particularly in view of the manifest untruthfulness of Respondent's claim that these three employees were discharged partly for suspected sabotage, I conclude that the sleeving-pot incident played little or no part in the discharge decision. For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Respondent discharged Vaughn, Green, and Garner because of Re- spondent's knowledge or belief that they had engaged or expectation that they would engage in protected concerted activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. c. Greenwood Poole testified that in October and November 1975, Respondent was undergoing financial difficulties and the thought of a union coming into the plant at a time when it had financial difficulties would be unsatisfactory to the plant. Gibbons testified that during December the plant was experiencing serious financial difficulties ; that Re- spondent would have had a difficult economic time if a union had then attempted to organize the plant; and that if Respondent knew specific employees who advocated a union, Respondent would not have been happy about this and, indeed, would have been concerned about it. In October 1975, Poole told employees that if the plant were unionized, it would go bankrupt and close down. Poole also tried, unsuccessfully, to find out the identity of the employee at the Montique meeting who had favorably mentioned a union. Some weeks later, on the morning of December 19, employee Greenwood expressed dissatisfaction to Supervi- sor McMullen over being denied the opportunity to learn certain work, and said, "if we had a union out here you all wouldn't be doing us like this [meaning, constantly observing the employees work], maybe one day we will." Also present during this conversation was employee Brister, whom Greenwood had unsuccessfully asked, a few days earlier, to sign a union card. Upon hearing Green- wood's comment, McMullen went to Gibbons' office. Later that day, McMullen approached Greenwood with a pad and pencil and asked her how she felt about a union, to which Greenwood replied, "I feel all right about a union, I feel that if we had a union out here maybe we wouldn't have to work on Saturdays." Later that same day, McMullen called Greenwood and Brister into Gibbons' office. Gibbons said that she would "start with" Greenwood. Gibbons discharged Greenwood on the stated grounds that she was upsetting employee Davis (an unfounded accusation which McMullen later tried to support by a false memorandum) and was not "cramping wires" right (an operation which Greenwood had first performed 2 days earlier). As Greenwood was "gang." Taken together, the evidence in this footnote provides at least some support for the inference that Green, Garner, and Vaughn were discharged for suspected complicity in the protected concerted activities for which Williams had been discharged 11 days earlier. 112 At the time of the discharges, Garner had worked for Respondent for about 6 months and Green about 3 months. SYNADYNE CORP. going toward the door, Gibbons told Brister, "I have had you in my office once before for a warning and this is the last time. I hate to let you go." Company witnesses Gibbons, McMullen, and Brister were not asked about the conversation in the office after Greenwood left. Brister had previously told Poole that she could easily make the production quota on Murray harnesses but "just didn't want to." Brister was still in Respondent's employ at the time of the July 1976 hearing. After this conference broke up, Gibbons walked into Poole's office and said, "I got rid of them." Poole held up two fingers and said, "Both of them?" Gibbons said, "No, just one, the other one convinced me that she didn't have anything to do with it." After Gibbons left, Poole said to leader Coleman, who was then in his office, "I got rid of another one, I'm going to get rid of all the troublemakers if that means firing everybody, this is my plant and I'll run it the way I want to run it." The foregoing evidence compellingly points to the conclusion, which I draw, that Respondent discharged Greenwood to discourage union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to close the plant if it were unionized, by interrogating employees about the identity of employees who were engaging in union and other protected concerted activity, by interrogating an employee about her union sympathies, and by threatening to discharge employees because of their protected concerted activities. 3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging Georgia Williams, Barbara Adams, Minnie Garner, Gloria Green, and Jeanette Vaughn. 4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee Alice Greenwood to discourage union activity. 5. The foregoing constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Respondent has not, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, created the impression of surveillance of employee concerted activity, or attempted to engage in such surveillance. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has violated the Act in certain respects, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist and desist therefrom. The record shows that Respondent discharged five employees because they engaged or were expected to engage in protected concerted activity, discharged a sixth to discourage union activity, and evinced an intent to engage in unfair labor practices in the future by threatening to discharge employees for protected concerted activities and to close the plant if it 113 Summer Hill Nursing Home, 222 NLRB 433, 446, fn. 68 (1976); Baker Machine & Gear, Inc., 220 NLRB 194 (1975); Blue Jeans Corporation and Whitevdle Manufacturing Company, et al, 170 NLRB 1425 (1968); Santa Fe 689 were unionized. Such unfair labor practices lead me to anticipate that, unless restrained, Respondent will engage in continuing and varying infringements of its employees' Section 7 rights. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to cease and desist from infringing on employees' rights in any other manner. N.L.RB. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 437-439, 1941; NLRB. v. East Texas Pulp & Paper Company, 346 F.2d 686, 689-690 (C.A. 5, 1965); N.L.R.B. v. Southern Trans- port, Inc., 343 F.2d 558, 560-561 (C.A. 8, 1965); SKRL Die Casting, Inc., 222 NLRB 85 (1976); Brom Machine and Foundry Co., 222 NLRB 74 (1976); Highland House Nursing Center, Inc., 222 NLRB 134 (1976). After her discharge, Garner enlisted in the Armed Services of the United States, where she was serving at the time of the July 1976 hearing. Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent be required, upon application by her within 30 days after her discharge from the Armed Forces, to offer her reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. I shall further recommend that Respondent be required to make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she would normally have earned as wages during the period (1) between the date of her discharge by Respondent and the date of her enlistment, and (2) between a date 5 days after her timely application for reinstatement and the date of offer of reinstatement by Respondent; less her net earnings during this period. The Federbush Co., Inc., 34 NLRB 539, 565 (1941). 1 shall also recommend that Respondent be required to offer Williams, Adams, Vaughn, Green, and Greenwood, respectively, immediate reinstatement to the job from which each was unlawfully discharged, or, in the event such job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimi- nation against her, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned, but for her discharge, from the date of her discharge to the date of a valid offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during this period. Backpay as to all six of these employees is to be computed in the manner described in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as described in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I do not agree with Respondent that because of Williams' and Adams' conduct, to order their reinstate- ment and backpay would not effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent relies largely on Williams' conduct on December 18, after being twice unlawfully discharged that same day, and on the December 19 conduct of both women the day after their unlawful discharge. However, their conduct on both occasions assumes less significance in view of Respondent's prior provocative action in unlawfully discharging them.113 Furthermore, the Decem- ber 19 incident flowed from much the same sources as the Drilling Company, 171 NLRB 161, 161-162, enfd. in this respect 416 F.2d 725, 733 (C.A 9, 1969); Carlisle Paper Box Company, 168 NLRB 706, 722- 723, enfd. 398 F.2d I (C A. 3, 1968). 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unlawful December 18 discharges. Thus, Williams believed (at least reasonably, and, I think, correctly as well) that management wanted her and Adams to leave the building by the office door rather than the plant door in order to prevent them from again alerting the active employees, who were then on break, to their own overtime pay rights. I infer that Williams' reluctance to obey these instructions by management was at least partly due to her belief that this order was motivated by a continued desire by Respondent to avoid compliance with obligations imposed by the Wage-Hour law; conclude that such a belief by Williams provided at least some justification for her insistence on following the dischargees' prior route; and further conclude that Adams' decision to follow Williams' lead is subject to essentially the same considerations as Williams' conduct. Further, I infer that the incident which precipitated Kelly's action in jumping in front of the two women was Williams' conversation with employee Vaughn, which occurred during breaktime but involved another employee who had previously joined Williams' and Adams' concerted protected protests against Respondent's unlaw- ful overtime policy; and I conclude that Kelly's motive, therefore, provided some justification for the dischargees' refusal to retreat. Further, in view of Adams' credible testimony that Kelly pushed Williams (and "was fixing" to push her again) before Adams reached for the broom, I find that such pushing provided some justification for her picking up the broom because "I felt threatened toward Charles Kelly ... the way he was acting and the way he was talking and the way that he pushed on [Williams] .. . [he] acted like he was going to jump on us." Also, because the employees who were watching the incident reacted with laughter, and because Charles Kelly was 8 inches taller than Barbara Adams, I infer that Adams intended to use the broom only if it later turned out that she needed to ward Kelly off physically, and that she did not intend or appear to intend to use it against him as an aggressive weapon. Finally, because the dischargees' visit had a legitimate purpose, because Respondent did not evince a particularly likely response to the dischargees' initial and persisted-in decision to leave through the plant door, because their only conversation with any employee during either trip through the plant was initiated by the employee, and because the dischargees chose to make their visit at an hour when (as they must have known) the employees would be on break, I reject Respondent's contention that the dischargees' conduct on this occasion flowed from a premeditated determination to disrupt the plant's opera- tions and stage a confrontation with management . Rather, I credit Adams' denial that she was trying to "pick a fight" that day. In resisting a reinstatement order as to Williams and Adams Respondent relies on two incidents (the incident where Newsome fainted, and the incident where Morea cried) on which Respondent has also unsuccessfully relied as motivating the discharges of Williams and Adams, respectively (see supra, sec. II,B,8a and b,C,2,a). Respon- dent also relies on employee Paige's testimony (which I credit as to Williams, who did not deny it, but have discredited in view of Adams' denial) that about a month before being discharged, Williams or Adams, who are both black, said that Paige, who is also black, "love[d] White honkies." Further, Respondent relies on the testimonial opinion of rank-and-file employee Paige that Williams was a "peace breaker" because she kept on telling other employees on the job what to do, "which was no concern of hers," and got people confused. Also, Respondent relies on several incidents where Adams (who repeatedly told Paige that she would be fired if she did not speed up) told Paige to slow down because she was working too fast, that she should not work herself to death for the white folks. In addition, Respondent points to white employee Morea's credited testimony that on several occasions Adams called her a "white honky." While I do not condone such conduct, I regard it as insufficient to erase Respondent's obligation to remedy its discharge of two employees, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, because of, inter alia, their efforts to remedy Respondent's breach of the Fair Labor Standards Act and (as to Williams) Respondent's alleged discrimination against black employ- I shall also require Respondent to post appropriate notices. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended Order: ORDER 115 The Respondent, Synadyne Corp., Jackson, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to close its plant if it is unionized. (b) Interrogating employees about their union sympa- thies, or about the identity of employees who are engaging in union and other protected concerted activity, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion. (c) Threatening to discharge employees because of their protected concerted activities. (d) Discharging employees because they have engaged in or are expected to engage in protected concerted activities. (e) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees to discourage union activities. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 114 Respondent also points to black employee Laury's testimony that Williams said that she had turned down an offer of an inspector 'sjob, asked Laury if she would take it (to which Laury replied yes, if she got the offer), and said that there would be "trouble in the plant" if the job were given to Mary Rogers, who is white. Williams did not say why there would be trouble in the plant, nor, so far as the record shows, did she say who would cause it. I regard this incident as having no bearing on Williams' reinstatement rights. The documentary evidence that Williams was considered for an inspector's job in late August leads me to conclude that this Laury-Williams conversation must have occurred much earlier than the mid-November date testified to by Laury. 115 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. SYNADYNE CORP. 691 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer immediate reinstatement to employees Barbara Adams, Georgia Williams, Gloria Green, Jeanette Vaughn, and Alice Greenwood and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Offer reinstatement to Minnie Garner, upon her timely application following her discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of her unlawful discharge, in the manner set forth in that section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful to analyze the amount of backpay under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its place of business in Jackson, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 116 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. The complaint is dismissed to the extent it alleges violations not previously found. 116 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 hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if it is unionized. WE WILL NOT ask our employees questions about their union sympathies, or about the identity of employees who are engaging in union and other protected concerted activity, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees because of their protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they engaged in or are expected to engage in protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees to discourage union activities. WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to the following employees, and make them whole, with interest, for loss of pay resulting from their discharge: Barbara ("Bobbie") Adams Georgia Williams Gloria Green Jeanette Vaughn Alice Greenwood WE WILL offer reinstatement to Minne Garner, upon her timely application following her discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, and make her whole, with interest, for loss of pay resulting from her discharge. The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the following rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing To engage in activities together for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any such activities. Our employees are free to exercise any or all of these rights. Our employees are also free to refrain from any or all of such activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights. SYNADYNE CORP.