Rock Hill Printing and Finishing Co.

In the Matter of ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING Co. and MACHINE PRINTERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION Case No. C-1635.-Decided February 17, 1941 Jurisdiction : Textile printing and finishing industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Restiai-nt, and Coercion: anti-anion statements, promising em- ployees better wages not to join strikes; threats of discharge; acquiescence in intimidation of members of outside union by fellow employees ; demoting supervisory employee for suspected coherence to outside union. Company-Dominated Union: management's participation in formation of : sug- gesting that inside union be formed ; solicitation of members by supervisors- contribution of support to: furnishing meeting place ; permitting employees to solicit members on company time; offering to contribute financial aid to, and contributing to cost of banquet sponsored by-further, support to by other unfair labor practices • threatening and discharging known or suspected adherents to outside union; permitting vilification campaign against, and gross insubordination toward known or suspected adherents to outside union ; recognition of inside union on mere presentation of petition subsequent to demand for recognition by outside union. Disc,imcnation: discharges and refusals to reinstate for known or suspected adherence to outside union Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded; dominated union dis- established. 'V'%"' Mr. Warren Woods and Mr. Clarence D. Musser, for the Board. Wilson cC Wilson, by Mr. W. B. Wilson, of Rock Hill, S. C., and Hemphill cC Hemphill, by Mr. John M. Hemphill, of Chester, S.,C., for the respondent. Mr. R.. B. Hildebrand, of Rock Hill, S. C., and Hogan eC Hogan, by Mr. Laurance J. Hogan, of Providence, R. I., for the M. P. B. A. Mr. John T. Roddy, of Rock Hill, S. C.,,and Hart d^ Moss, by Mr. Joseph R. Moss, of York, S. C., for the Brotherhood. Miss Margaret B. Bennett,•of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly ;filed by Machine Printers Beneficial Association, herein called the M. P. B. A., the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for 29 N. L. R. B., No. 116. 673 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint dated February 7, 1940, against Rock Hill Printing and Finishing Co., Rock Hill, South Carolina, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8'(1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With regard to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that the respondent (1) made disparaging remarks about the M. P. B. A. and its officers or leaders, (2) advised its employees to withdraw from or to refuse to become affiliated with the M. P. B. A., (3) promised them promotions if they did withdraw or refuse to join, (4) threatened them with violence or bodily harm if they did not withdraw or refuse to join, (5) threatened them with ley-off or discharge or other disciplinary measures if they engaged in activ- ities in behalf of the M. P. B. A., (6) incited its employees to commit acts of violence against members and leaders of the M. P. B. A., (7) discouraged membership in the M. P. B. A. by discharging and refus- ing to reinstate Sidney Mahaffey, Randall Cutts, W. M. Force, Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tipping, and A. T. Goley because of their member- ship in and activities in behalf of the M. P. B. A. and because they had engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining and other mutual aid and protection, (8) dominated and interfered with the formation and.administration of Brotherhood of Textile Printers and Associated Workers, herein called the Brother- hood, and contributed financial and other support to it; and that (9) by the foregoing acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise- of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon to be held on February 19, 1940, were duly served upon the respond- ent, the M. P. B. A.,and the Brotherhood. On February 15, 1940, upon notice duly served upon all the parties, the Board, by the Regional Director, postponed the hearing until March 11, 1940. On. February 16, 1940, the Brotherhood filed with the Regional Director its petition for permission to intervene in the proceedings. On February 19, 1940, the respondent filed in writing with the Regional Director a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations of the complaint, on the ground that they, and the corre- sponding allegations of the amended charge upon which they, were issued, were vague, indefinite, and uncertain.-, At the same time the. respondent filed its answer. The motions and the answer were duly, served upon all the parties. ROCS HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 6751 In its answer the respondent admitted that it was engaged in the business of printing, dyeing, bleaching, mercerizing, and finishing gray goods, with its principal place of business at Rock Hill, S. C., and that it continuously caused a substantial amount of its finished product and of ,the materials and equipment used in its business to be shipped in interstate commerce from, through, to, and into States; other than the State of South Carolina. It denied that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor practices averred in the complaint,, and alleged that the persons named in the complaint as having been discriminatorily discharged had been discharged for cause. Pur- suant to notice a hearing was held at Rock Hill, South Carolina,' from March 11 to 30, and on April 24, 1940, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board., At the beginning of the hearing, the Trial Examinee granted the Brotherhood's peti- tion to intervene in the proceedings in so far as the charges of domination of the Brotherhood by the respondent were concerned and otherwise denied it. Thereupon the Brotherhood filed its answer, in which it denied that it had been dominated, interfered with, or supported by the respondent. The Trial Examiner's rulings on the petition are hereby affirmed. At the same time, the Board having particularized the complaint by an amendment and having read, a statement of particulars into the record, the Trial Examiner denied the motion to strike and the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent before the hearing. Counsel for the respondent stated that the Board's failure to particularize until after the hearing had begun deprived the respondent of an adequate opportunity to prepare its defense ; but he made no request or motion for any specified extension of time. The Trial Examiner also denied a motion by the Brotherhood to strike certain allegations of the complaint as vague and indefinite. The Board was further allowed to amend the complaint by extending by 2 months the period during which the unfair "labor practices were alleged to have occurred. The respondent moved that this amendment be stricken, on the ground that it was vague and indefinite, which motion was denied. A motion by the respondent to amend its answer with respect to certain of the allegations of discriminatory discharge was granted. - At the close of the Board's case, the respondent renewed its motion to dismiss certain allegations of the complaint and the corresponding allegations of the amended charges, on the ground that before the complaint was particularized the allegations were vague and indefinite and that after particularization the respondent did not have time 'Although the-second amended notice of hearing designates York, South Carolina, as the place of hearing , the parties appeared and the hearing was held at Rock Hill. 413002 42-vol 29---44 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD adequately to prepare its defense . This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. Thereupon the respondent moved for a continuance from Wednesday, March 20, to Monday, March 25, or Tuesday, March 26, 1940. A continuance of 1 day was granted. These rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. The complaint as duly served upon the respondent and the Brotherhood before the hearing adequately apprised them of the charges , and the amendments made at the hearing were neither vague nor indefinite . In addition, the respondent before going forward with its defense had 2 days of continuance available for preparation , one granted by the Trial Examiner upon the respondent's motion and one previously had because of lack of heat in the hearing room. Moreover, the respond- ent did not offer to name any witness whom, for lack of time, it was unable to call or to specify any other evidence which would .otherwise have been available to it. Subsequently a further continu- ance was allowed the respondent from March 30 until April 24, 1940, because of the illness of one of its principal witnesses. At the close of the Board 's case, the respondent also moved that the complaint with respect to Joe Roberts, Jess Tipping and A. T. Goley be dismissed as unsupported by the evidence, which motion was denied by the Trial Examiner . This ruling is hereby affirmed. At the same time, the Trial Examiner, without objection, granted a motion by the Board to amend the complaint so as to allege that Sidney Mahaffey, named therein as having been discriminatorily discharged, ' had also, or in the alternative, been discriminatorily denied employment. This ruling is likewise affirmed. At the end of the hearing the Trial Examiner , without objection, granted a motion by the Board to amend-the complaint to conform to the proof with respect to dates, names , and places, and a motion by the respondent to amend its answer 'accordingly. A motion by the respondent to dismiss the complaint as a whole as being un- supported by the evidence , and a similar motion by the Brotherhood with respect to the allegations of domination of the Brotherhood by the respondent were denied by the Trial Examiner in his Inter- mediate Report. These rulings are hereby affirmed. At the hearing all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence • bearing on the issues . Opportunity for oral argument before the Trial Examiner and for the filing of briefs was also afforded all parties. No argument was had; but briefs, which the Board has considered, were filed by the respondent and by the Brotherhood. During the course of the hearing , the Trial Examiner made sev- eral other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission r `ROCK HILL PRINTING' AND FINISHING CO. 677 of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On July 10, 1940, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served on all the parties. In his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of ' Section 8 ( 1), -(2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices ; that it withdraw all recognition from and disestablish the Brotherhood as the bargaining representative of its employees; that it offer rein- statement to their former or equivalent positions with back pay to Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tipping, and A. T. Goley; and that it take certain other affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the Act. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to Sidney Mahaffey, Randall Cutts, and W. M. Force. Exceptions to, the Intermediate Report and briefs were thereafter filed with the Board by the respondent, the M. P. B. A., and the Brotherhood , and duly served upon all the parties. On September 10, 1940, pursuant to notice to all parties, oral argument was held before the Board in Washington , D. C. The respondent, the M. P. B. A., and the Brotherhood appeared by coun- sel and were heard. At the oral argument before the Board, the respondent contended , as it does in its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, that it was deprived of a fair hearing because of the con- duct of the Board's attorneys. ' We have reviewed the conduct com- plained of and we find the contention to be without merit. The Board has .considered the exceptions and the briefs. We find the exceptions to be without merit in so far as they are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions , and order set forth below. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Company is a Dalaware corpora- tion having its plant and principal place of business at Rock Hill, South Carolina . It is engaged in the business of printing, dyeing, washing, mercerizing, and finishing gray goods owned by its cus- tomers. Its principal customer is its parent corporation , the M. Low- enstein Company, which .owns all or a majority of the respondent's stock. 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce. Approximately 30' per cent of the goods which it processes at Rock Hill comes from States other than the State of South Carolina, and about 90 per cent of the finished product is shipped to States other than the State of South Carolina.' The respondent purchases monthly about $200,000 to $300,000 worth of chemicals, colors, dye stuffs, starches, and like materials, approximately 90 per cent of which comes from States other than the State of South Carolina. Its average monthly business amounts to about $500,000. The respondent employs approximately 1.900 persons; including 71 printers, 6 foreman printers, 69 back tenders and 54 gray tenders employed in the printing department. These proceedings are con- cerned solely with the printing department, which is the controlling division of the plant. If operations cease in that department they cease throughout the plant. If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Machine Printers Beneficial Association is an incorporated national labor organization; admitting to membership journeymen machine printers, including apprentices who have had one or more years of experience, and foremen. Brotherhood of Textile Printers and Associated Workers is an incorporated unaffiliated labor organization; admitting to member- ship employees of the respondent, including foremen. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Brotherhood 1. The M. P. B. A. strike From 1933 until May 1936 the printers employed by the respondent were members of the M. P. B. A., and during that period the M. P. B. A. had an oral "understanding" with the respondent.2 In April 1936 the M. P. B. A. bargained with the respondent for a written contract. Negotiations came to a deadlock, and on Friday, May 1, the M. P. B. A. voted to strike. On the same day, it notified the respondent that unless an agreement was retched' the printers would not return to work on the next regular working day, Monday, May 4. Joe Roberts, A. T. Goley, Jess M. Tipping, and' Henry Rawson, supervisory employees in the print; shop below the rank of boss printer,',belonged to the M. P. B. A. After the strike vote was taken-i they went to the plant to attend the regular Friday afternoon fore- 2 The record does not disclose the subject matter of this understanding. ROCK' HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 679 men's meeting. At the plant Archie O. Joslin, the manager, and Arthur Cross, who at that time was either boss printer or superin- tendent of the print shop, persuaded them not to join the strike, promising them 5-year contracts at high wages if they, would stay with the respondent. On May 2 and a, the 'respondent conducted an intensive back-to- work campaign, under the direction of Joslin and Cross, and with the aid of Roberts, Tipping, Goley, and Rawson. Headquarters of the campaign were at Rawson's house. During this period Joslin, Cross, and W. T. Jenkins, at that time the respondent's chief engineer, solicited resignations from the Al. P. B. A., and Joslin and Cross suggested that the printers form a union of their own in Rock Hill. Joslin' told the printers that they were fools to send their money up north (referring to M. P. B. A. head- quarters), stating that he would match dollar for dollar all money put into a local union. Cross made similar statements. Joslin told Wyly Campbell, then a printer, that if the printers did not resign from the M. P. B. A. they would never work for the respondent again. - A formally drawn resignation paper containing several signatures -was put in evidence by the Board. This paper was prepared by the respondent's attorney, W. B. Wilson, who also prepared individual contracts to be offered to the printers as an inducement to return to work. A committee of.four printers engaged Wilson to draw up the contracts, and at the same time to draft the resignations. Thereafter copies of the resignations were circulated among printers for signa- tures, at the direction of Joslin and Cross. Cross personally asked Campbell and Tipping to sign. - The foregoing findings result from conflicting testimony.3 In his Intermediate Report, without referring to all the conflicts in testi- mony, the Trial Examiner concluded that the respondent urged the printers 'to withdraw from the M. P. B. A., offered them contracts if they would do so, threatened them with discharge if they did not, instigated and fostered the formation of an inside union, and offered financial assitance to it. We find as did the Trial Examiner, except with 'respect to the offer of contracts which we find was intended as an_ inducement to the printers to return to work rather than to with- draw from the M. P. B. A. Under all the circumstances, moreover, ,we are of the opinion, and further find, that although it does not appear that -the- respondent expressly authorized its attorney to pre- 3In general we have accepted the testimony of Roberts, Tipping, Goley and Campbell as to the foregoing matters where It conflicts with that of Joslin 'or Jenkins. Cross did not testify and the respondent did not explain its failure to call him. 680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' pare resignations, or paid him therefor, their preparation and circu- lation must also be attributed to the respondent. These efforts of the respondent to suppress the strike failed. None of the printers reported for work on Monday, May 4. Nevertheless the strike was unsuccessful. Although a picket line was maintained until November 1936, and although the respondent and its parent company were on the M. P. B. A. unfair list until October 1938, the respondent was able by the summer of 1936 to operate the print machines with back tenders 4 and other strikebreakers. From the time'of withdrawal of the picket line in November 1936, until May 1938, the respondent had no further dealings with the M. P. B. A. In May 1938 conferences began between them which resulted in the removal of the respondent and the M. Lowenstein Co. from the unfair list in October 1938. 2. Organization of the Brotherhood In October 1936, Joslin moved, to New York to become an executive of the M. Lowenstein Company, but remained on the pay roll of the respondent. At the time of the hearing Joslin was vice-president of the M. Lowenstein Company and treasurer of the respondent. Jenkins succeeded Joslin as manager. Joslin, in,his new capacity, remained Jenkin's superior, and continued to direct the respondent's labor relations, in connection with which he came to Rock Hill from time to time. Joslin took Cross to New York with him to become a technical adviser to the M. Lowenstein Company. Cross, too, continued to be paid by the respondent. When Cross left, Roberts took his place. Roberts testified that shortly before Joslin moved to New York he revived his previous suggestion that an independent union be organ- ized, recommending that Roberts "get the boys together" to form a union of their own, "so that they would have nothing to do with" the M. P. B. A.; that later in the fall, on one of his visits to Rock Hill, he asked Roberts how they were "getting along with" the union, to which Roberts replied that they were "shaping it up"; and that Joslin also told Roberts that one of the respondent's offices, known as the conference room, might be used for meetings. Joslin, on the other hand, denied at the hearing that he had had any such conversations. The Trial Examiner did not credit Joslin's denials. He found that the conversations were as Roberts described them, and we so find. Roberts testified that he considered. Joslin's suggestion to be an- order, and took the matter up with one of the printers, Zebulon Laverne Sanders,5 who promised to take steps toward organizing 4 Back tending is an operation performed on the printing machines. Back tenders are next below printers in rank b Roberts testified that he -did not himself accept a card in the Brotherhood because he was in charge of the print shop. ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 681 such a union. Sanders subsequently became one of the organizers of the Brotherhood and its outstanding leader. He denied at the hearing that Roberts or any other supervisor had at any time recom- mended that he form a union. The Trial Examiner believed Roberts' testimony. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Roberts had the conversation with Sanders which he described. Roberts also told the foremen under him to suggest to the printers at their regular section meetings that they form a union of their own, and thereafter the formation of such a union was discussed' in the conference room. The Brotherhood was formally organized almost a year later, on August 2, 1937, by printers employed by the respondent at a meeting held off the respondent's property and called by Sanders. ' The first collective activity looking toward the formation of the Brotherhood, according to Naff Hensley, one of its charter members, was the band- ing together of the strikebreakers to get indictments against the strikers., This, according to Hensley, gave them "a union feeling." The purpose of forming the Brotherhood, according to Sanders and another leader of the Brotherhood, Jerry McKenzie, Jr., was to pro- vide collective bargaining for its members, to promote their general, welfare, and' to give them "protection against" any outside labor organization. The Brotherhood's corporate bylaws, which serve as a constitution, recite that the Brotherhood's purpose is to promote good feeling, harmony, "and full cooperation between employees and employer, to deal. with the management concerning questions relating to wages, working conditions, and general improvement of the plant, to bargain collectively, to.avert bitterness and strife bet %veen -employer and employees, to secure maximum benefits by peaceful means, to provide relief for its members, and to promote the general welfare of the "textile printers and associated workers." The bylaws of the Brotherhood do not define eligibility for member- ship, except insofar as eligibility is to be inferred from their refer- ence to that organization as "Brotherhood of Textile Printers and Associated Workers of Rock Hill, South Carolina," and their refer- ence to "textile printers and associated worker's" in their statement of purpose. In practice, the Brotherhoods' members were drawn only from those classes of employees of the respondent who were also eligible for membership in the M. P: B. A., the printers and the assistant foremen in the print shop. The testimony of witnesses called by the respondent is contradic- tory concerning what, if any, collective bargaining the Brotherhood actually engaged in. It is admitted that the Brotherhood did not seek a written agreement with the respondent. It appears, however, that, the respondent and the Brotherhood adjusted some grievances :682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and negotiated concerning the reinstatement of certain Brotherhood members. 3. Negotiations with the M. P. B. A.; the campaign against Levi Leopard . As we have indicated, the respondent began negotiating' with the M.- P. B. A. in May 1938 concerning the removal of the M. Lowen- stein Company from the unfair list, and that' company was taken off of the list in October 1938. Joslin tried to, keep from the respondent's employees the knowl- edge that he was conferring with the M. P. B. A. He testified that when he heard from Jenkins that a rumor had reached Rock Hill that conferences were being held, he asked Lindberg to keep their meetings secret. Shortly after the, M. Lowenstein Company was removed from the M. P. B. A. unfair list, members of the Brotherhood entered upon a campaign of intimidation against one of the printers on the third shift, Levi Leopard, whom they suspected of belonging to the M. P. B. A. Leopard, though a charter member of the Brotherhood, had in fact secretly signed an M. P. B. A. application card. One night, in November 1938, after he had started to operate his machine, Leopard was called by a member of the Brotherhood to the locker room, where -the Brotherhood was holding a meeting of printers. There he was .accused of membership in the M. P. B. A. He denied that he was a member, but admitted that he had told one of his accusers, Coley 'Gibson, to go to see Campbell, who had left the respondent's employ and had become director of the M. P. B. A. at Rock Hill. Goley was the assistant foreman in charge of Leopard's end of the print room that night. At the end of the second shift he went to the office. He testified that when he came back all the machines were -stopped and the men were coming out of the locker room . Goley's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses called , by the Board and, as to the stoppage of some of the machines, by one of the respond- •ent's witnesses. It was contradicted by other witnesses testifying on behalf of the respondent . The Trial Examiner made no finding con- .cerning the stopping of the machines . In other respects, however, he relied upon Goley's testimony . Under all the circumstances, we find -that the machines were stopped while the meeting in the locker room was going on. For about a week after the locker-room meeting printers gathered -around Leopard at his machine and cursed him, usually at the change of shifts. Another method used to intimidate Leopard was the hanging of a noose over his machine , where it remained all one night without ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING - CO.. 683: interference by the respondent. J. C. Pruitt, a member of the Brotherhood, who at one time was on the shop committee, testified on behalf of the respondent that Goley and he together put up the noose, intending a joke unrelated to Leopard's membership in the M. P. B. A. Goley, however, denied having taken any part in putting up the noose; and Leopard's testimony indicates that he did not regard the noose as a jest. The Trial Examiner credited Goley's denial and found that the noose was hung by Brotherhood men. We find that it was put up by Pruitt as part of the campaign of intimidation against Leopard. During the campaign Leopard was -formally tried by the Brother- hood for membership in the M. P. B. A. The trial was held in the, plant conference room. The respondent was aware of these intimidating activities of the Brotherhood men but took no steps to prevent them or to discipline those who participated in them. Goley asked soiree of the men whom he saw coming from the locker room what the matter was and they replied that they had been giving Leopard "a raking" about his belonging to the M. P. B. A. Goley "got after" a few of them- and reported the matter to the night divisional superintendent, Fergu- son. Ferguson replied "There is a little disagreement between the Brotherhood and Levi. It will all pass over." Ferguson was him- self near the machines when they stopped running. Goley reported the ensuing gathering around Leopard's machine also to Ferguson and Ferguson replied to the effect that the matter was unimportant and that Goley should "Just let them go ahead." Pilgrim as well as Ferguson knew about what was going on, since he was nearby when the men stood around Leopard's machine. Jenkins admitted at the hearing that the gathering around Leopard's machine had been reported to him. He testified that "he didn't pay much atten- tion to it," that he "didn't get the significance of it at the time," and that he did not know that the purpose of it was to inquire into Leopard's membership in the M. P. B. A. "They kept it away from me," he testified. We find that' the respondent through Ferguson, Pilgrim, and Jenkins was fully aware of the Brotherhood's efforts to intimidate Leopard because he was suspected of belonging to the M. P. B. A., and, by taking no steps to prevent or stop those efforts, acquiesced in them. ' 4. Acts of hostility toward the M. P. B. A. and contrasting acts of favoritism toward the Brotherhood Shortly after Leopard's trial in the conference room, Pilgrim transferred Goley from the night shift to the day shift, telling him 684 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that some of the printers had complained that Goley was cursing them, and that Pilgrim was transferring him so that he would be directly under Pilgrim's supervision . Pilgrim said further : Also I am putting you on days to prove to the printers that you, are not connected with the M. P. B. A. If you . are connected with it and I see any sign of it I am going to have you fired out of here if I have to fire you myself." Upon conflicting testimony we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Tipping also was warned by Pilgrim against membership in the M. P. B. A. In the spring of 1939 Rawson suggested in Pilgrim's presence that perhaps Tipping was a member of the M . P. B. A. Tipping denied the accusation , whereupon Pilgrim commented that Tipping had' better not be a member or he would have Pilgrim "to whip," and Rawson remarked that Tipping would have Rawson to whip if he was even "sitting on the fence." Early in 1939 , Sanders urged Tipping to join the Brotherhood. Tipping was reluctant to do so but thought it advisable to sound Pilgrim out on the matter. Pilgrim told him, "It is all right, you had better go ahead and do it, because everyone else is doing it." Tipping accepted Pilgrim's advice and joined the Brotherhood. Shortly thereafter he was promoted to night divisional superintend- ent. Tipping did not, attend meetings of the. Brotherhood or pay dues, and his membership lapsed. On January 23, 1939, the respondent, had discharged Sidney Mahaf- fey because he sympathized with the M. P. B. A .7 On 'June 9, 1939, it discharged Randall Cutts and W. M. Force because of their, mem- bership in and activities on behalf of the M. P. B. A." The next day the respondent admittedly contributed $100 to a banquet which Sanders and McKenzie , who was an inspector in the packing department 9 and an active Brotherhood man, organized, and which Joslin and Jenkins addressed. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that this banquet was held under the auspices of the Brotherhood. In August 1939 Tipping was demoted from night divisional super- intendent to assistant foreman. Rawson was put in Tipping's place and Goley replaced Rawson as boss printer under Pilgrim in the day time. Immediately after his promotion , Goley was called into the office of William H. Grier, the plant superintendent . Concerning the Regarding Pilgrim's remarks to Coley we credit Goley's testimony over that of Pilgrim who denied that be had ever mentioned the M. P. B. A. to Coley. "The evidence upon which we reach this conclusion is set forth in Section III, B , infra. 8 The evidence upon which we reach this conclusion is set forth in Section III, B, infra. 9 McKenzie testified that he was sent to the packing department at the request of and as a representative of the Brotherhood to see that the printers were not charged with "seconds" for which they were not responsible . Elsewhere he testified, however, that he identified the printers who ran "seconds" and reported them to Pilgrim. ROCS HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 685 conversation which ensued Grier testified that he had merely congrat- ulated Goley on his promotion. We find, however, as did the Trial Examiner, that the conversation was substantially as follows : Grier said that he wanted to.shut the door so no one could hear; that he was expecting something to happen soon at the plant; that "in law" Grier's 'word "would be as good" as Goley's; and that he had heard "rumors" around the plant about Goley, one of which was that Goley had been seen at Tipping's house. Goley admitted that he had gone to' Tipping's house and inquired whether Grier had obtained his in- formation from James Floyd, an active Brotherhood man. 'Grier refused to answer, but advised Goley to stay away from Tipping and Roberts, saying that he had heard they belonged to the "outside union," and that they might therefore get Goley into trouble. He stated that he wanted to know whether Goley was on the company's side or the union's side; that the respondent could not'have done without Goley 2 years ago but could do without him at that time; and added, in the words of Goley, "If anything happens around here I don't want you to be left out." The nature of Grier's allusions to Tipping, coupled with the fact that Pilgrim had earlier warned Tipping against membership in the M. P. B. A. and advised him to join the Brotherhood, convince us, -and we find, that the respondent demoted Tipping because it sus pected him of adherence to, the M. P. B. A. The circumstances surrounding Tipping's subsequent discharge 10 confirm us in this conclusion. I About 2 weeks after Tipping's demotion he was informed that Pilgrim wanted to see him in the conference room. Upon his arrival there Tipping encountered the printers on the first shift and Pilgrim, who was seated at the conference table next to Sanders, then Presi- dent of the Brotherhood.' Tipping asked Pilgrim what the latter wanted to see him about. Pilgrim referred him to Sanders who, in Pilgrim's presence, announced that he had heard rumors that Tip- ping was a member of the M. P. B. A. and asked Tippingto confirm or deny them. Tipping countered with a similar accusation against Sanders; a discussion followed; and Tipping left the room without answering Sanders' question. As he went out, Tipping met Cross, who was temporarily in Rock Hill. Cross asked Tipping what "the trouble" was. When Tipping explained, Cross insisted that -they return -to get-the matter "straightened out." Back in the conference room Cross told the printers that they ought not to believe every- thing they heard "like a bunch of little school boys." Cross then went on to say that at one time he had joined the M. P. B. A.; that as a result he had to give up his job because he could work only 20 Discussed in Section III, B, infra. 686 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD where the M. P. B. A. sent him; and that the M. P. B. A. told him he might have to wait 3 months before he would be given em- ployment. By the participation of Pilgrim. and Cross in the fore- going incident the respondent further manifested its hostility toward the M. P. B. A. and it favoritism toward the Brotherhood. 5. "Run around" for the M. P. B. A.; recognition for the Brotherhood On Monday, September 25, 1939, Lindberg and *:Another official of the M. P. B. A., Rowland, had a conference with Joslin in New York; at which Lindberg announced that a majority of the printers then working for the respondent had signed M. P. B. A. cards, and de- manded recognition of the M. P. B. A. or a refusal in writing. Lindberg testified that Joslin asked that proof of the right ' of the M. P. B. A. to represent the printers be given him and Jenkins in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Friday, September 29, promising that if this were done he would call a meeting of the printers and publicly recognize the M. P. B. A. At the hearing, Joslin corroborated Lindberg's testimony with respect to the M. P. B. A.'s demands; but testified that he asked Lindberg to present his proof at the September 25 conference and that Lindberg replied that he had none available. Joslin testified that he was planning to go to Rock Hill the latter part of the week and that he told Lindberg he would dis- cuss the matter with Jenkins and would meet Lindberg there on Monday, October 2. The Trial Examiner did not resolve these con- flicting versions. Generally, however, he did not consider Joslin a credible witness. We find that the conversation was as Lindberg described it. Admittedly Joslin again asked Lindberg to keep quiet the fact that they had conferred. Joslin did not wait until the latter part,of the week. He left for Rock Hill on Wednesday, September 27, arriving there on the fol- lowing day. Joslin testified that he changed his plans because Jenkins had called him by telephone. to say that a rumor; emanating from Campbell, was circulating at the plant to the effect that Joslin had conferred with Lindberg and that the M. P. B. A. was going to "take over" the plant on Friday, September 29. Jenkins said, ac- cording to Joslin, that the men were indignant at this rumor. Joslin testified that he did not tell Jenkins that he had talked to Lindberg, but told him that he was "very much disturbed" by the situation at the plant and would go to Rock Hill that night. What disturbed Joslin, according to his testimony, was "the unrest in the department, and those rumors going around and the impression he [Jenkins] ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 687 threw off that the department was in this unrestful condition." He testified- I was very much concerned With the way he (Lindberg) had passed the word oh to Rock Hill and What Mr. Jenkins had told me that was going on ' there in connection with our print- ing department with respect to the men, that I began to feel that Mr. Lindberg was trying to mess us up, so I changed my plans in respect to going down to Rock Hill the latter part of the week, and I went down Wednesday night. After he talked to, Jenkins, Joslin telephoned to Lindberg, post- poning the date of their next meeting to October 3, and changing the place from Charlotte to New York. When he arrived in Rock Hill on September 28, Joslin conferred with Jenkins and Pilgrim concerning the M. P. B. A.'s membership in the plant. The next day a paper referred to at the hearing as the "loyalty petition," was circulated by Sanders and McKenzie in the plant during working hours, and was signed by most of the printers. It affirmed allegiance to the Brotherhood and renounced any other affili- ation. In order to reach all the printers, Sanders and McKenzie, who worked on the first shift, came back into the plant during the second and third shifts and talked to the men who were working. They were not interfered with by the respondent, although part of the time Pilgrim himself was present. J. Q. Gibson, a spare man, was put in Sanders' place while Sanders was soliciting signatures during the first shift.', Tipping testified that Rawson was not only present while the "loyalty petition" was being passed but that he also followed along behind it. Rawson denied at the hearing that he ever saw it. He testified that he never saw or heard anything in the plant or knew about anything that happened outside of the plant involving the Brotherhood or the M. P. B. A. Rawson's professed ignorance of what was .going on is incredible. We find that he followed behind the "loyalty petition" as it was being circulated. At this time Raw- son was night divisional superintendent. Among those who signed the "loyalty petition" were printers who at the same time secretely belonged to the M. P. B. A. A number of those who signed subsequently secretely redesignated the M. P. B. A. as their representative. "We here credit Roberts ' testimony over that of Sanders who denied that Gibson .operated his machine,on that morning and could not recall whether Gibson did so at any other time during the day. Gibson was not questioned. 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The next day, pursuant to 'a notice posted on_ the plant bulletin board, the Brotherhood held a mass meeting at a local hotel. Most of the printers attended. Sanders presided and ' announcedlthat the purpose of the meeting was to obtain from the respondent recognition of the Brotherhood as the exclusive collective bargaining agency for the printers. Thereupon Joslin, Jenkins, and Pilgrim were summoned to the meeting. When they arrived, Sanders presented the "loyalty petition" to Joslin; asked for formal recognition of the Brother- hood; and requested Joslin to make a few remarks. Joslin spoke, saying that the respondent had always recognized the Brotherhood as the representative of the printing department, that it was his understanding that the Brotherhood "had been going along with the management," and that formal recognition would be granted. When the applause following Joslin's speech subsided, Sanders mentioned that it was rumored that Joslin had been negotiating with representatives of the M. P. B. A. and requested that Joslin have no further dealings with that union. Joslin promised that he would not. Thereupon, Jenkins jumped up, offered Joslin his hand, and said, to quote his own testimony, "I am very happy that this thing has terminated in this manner. I want you to shake my hand that you will not meet with Lindberg any more." When Joslin and Jenkins had shaken hands, Pilgrim was called upon to make a speech. He said there was nothing left for him to say except that he was "proud of" the men. 'On October 3, 1939, Joslin told Lindberg in New York that the respondent had recognized the Brotherhood and would not thereafter confer with the M. P. B. A. Joslin said he thought Lindberg must have been given "the run around" by the printers. We think that it was Joslin who was giving Lindberg "the run- around." Although at the hearing Joslin, Jenkins, and Pilgrim dis- claimed any connection with the "loyalty petition" or any knowledge of its existence until its presentation at the September 30 meeting, contending that the petition and the meeting were the spontaneous acts of the employees, we, like the Trial Examiner, do not credit their testimony. We find that the respondent acquiesced in and assisted the circulation of the "loyalty petition," thereby warning its employees to sign. Joslin's efforts to keep secret the fact that he was conferring with the M. P. B. A.; his sudden departure for Rock Hill after the M. P. B. A. demanded recognition; his postponement of the submission of proof; the circulation of the petition; and the behavior of Joslin, Jenkins, and Pilgrim at the September 30 meeting, -together evidence an elaborate plan by the respondent to defeat the.M. P. B. A. ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 689 6. Further opposition to the M. P. B. A. and assistance to'the Brother- hood; the vilification campaign About the latter part of October 1939, after he had been demoted to assistant foreman, Tipping heard that a petition was being cir- culated to have him discharged because he was not a member of the Brotherhood. 112 Tipping asked Rawson, then night divisional super= intendent, whether he knew anything about the petition. Rawson said there was "a lot of feeling among the men" because Tipping did not belong to the Brotherhood ; that Rawson had talked to Goley numerous times about joining; but that Goley was "not smart" and neither was Tipping. Rawson inquired "Don't you know that the Brotherhood Is Pilgrim's baby?" To this Tipping replied in the neg- ative, asking Rawson whether he had any advice to give him. Rawson advised that Tipping and Goley should join the Brotherhood if they could, but that he doubted very much that the Brotherhood would admit them. Having concluded from his conversation with Rawson that he could not work at the plant unless he joined the Brotherhood, Tipping asked 'Sanders for a card. Sanders told Tipping that he did not know whether the Brotherhood would admit him, but that he would take it up at a meeting. About 2 weeks before his discharge, Tipping was issued a card. In October 1939, after complaints against Goley had been made by members of the Brotherhood, Goley was threatened with discharge by. Jenkins unless he "reinstated his friendship" with the Brother- hood.13 In the same month,-Jenkins in effect offered Force rein- statement if he would resign from the M. P. B. A. and, in the words .of Force, would "talk to the , boys . . . as a kind of converted member."i4 - On November 12, 1939, employees of the respondent who belonged to the M. P. B. A., including Roberts, Tipping, and Goley, met with Lindberg in a room in a Rock Hill hotel and decided, upon advice of counsel, to notify their supervisors that they were members of the M. P. B. A. Subsequent events, however, made any such formal notice unneces- sary. Those who came to and from the meeting were watched by Sanders, McKenzie, and other members of the Brotherhood, who gath- ered in the lobby of the hotel. ' Within a day or two the respondent gave point to Grier's threat to Goley by demoting the latter from -' As we have indicated Tipping had' joined the Brotherhood but had permitted his mem- bership to lapse. 'S This incident is discussed in Section III, B, infra - 14 The discharge of Force is discussed in Section III, B, infra +690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD boss printer to assistant foreman," and an open campaign of vilifica- tion against members of the M. P. B. A. went into full swing in the plant. Signs and effigies, some of them obscene, directed against mem- bers of the M. P. B. A., particularly Roberts, Tipping, and Goley, and referring to their affiliation, were hung in the print room. One such sign was posted on the toilet door and another beside the door of the print-room office. Some of them remained in place for several days. During this period Brotherhood men left their machines and cursed members of the M. P. B. A. and called them names, without interfer- ence by the respondent. One of them, James Floyd, went so far as to ring a cowbell and shout "rat" whenever Roberts, Tipping and other members of the Al. P. B. A. went by. No supervisor told him to stop. This campaign was accompanied by gross insubordination on the part of Brotherhood men who worked under Roberts, Tipping, and Goley, some of whom ref used, to show them'their patches'16 taking them instead to Pilgrim, Rawson, or other supervisors. Pilgrim cooperated with them in this practice. Instead of telling the printers to submit their patches to their foremen, he himself looked at the patches and told the printers what to do. Although officials of the respondent, testifying concerning the events in the print shop which followed the November 12 meeting of M. P. B. A. adherents, sought to exculpate the respondent and fix the blame on Roberts, Tipping, and Goley, their own testimony amply supports the Trial Examiner's finding as to the respondent's part therein. In sum, the respondent's sole explanation of the failure of its officials to interfere with the campaign by Brotherhood members against Roberts, Tipping, and Goley was that it considered the situa- tion to be a matter between two unions and "did not dare say any- thing." We reject this explanation as incredible. In any event it would not excuse the respondent. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Joslin, Jenkins, Pilgrim, and Rawson knew what was going on and, far from attempting to stop the campaign, acquiesced in it. The vilification campaign ended with the discharge, on December 8, 1939, of Roberts, Tipping, and Goley.l' Little cause remained for its continuance, for by that time five members of the'M.-P. B. A. had been discharged and most of the others had renounced their affilia- tion and sought to join or to become in good standing with the Brotherhood. 1 Goley's demotion is discussed in Section III, B, infra. 16 Printers are required to check the accuracy of their work by cutting off samples of cloth they are printing, known as patches, and submitting them to the foreman for his approval 11 Our findings regarding these discharges are stated In Section III, B, infra. ROCK HILL PRfl TING AND FINISMNG CO. 691 7. Conclusions regarding the Brotherhood Upon the entire record we find that the Brotherhood is the creature of the respondent and was brought into existence and utilized by the respondent for the purpose of defeating the M. P. B. A. We attribute to the respondent the pro-Brotherhood and anti-M. P. B. A. state- ments and activities of Joslin, Cross, Jenkins, Grier, Pilgrim, Fergu- son, and Rawson discussed above. During the strike in 1936 the respondent urged the printers to form an "inside" union which would supersede and exclude the M. P. B. A. and promised financial support if such a union were formed. Through Joslin it suggested that Roberts take the initiative in starting such a union and Roberts selected Sanders, who subsequently became the principal figure in the Brotherhood, to organize it. Roberts also spoke to the foremen, who, in turn, discussed the matter with the printers at the regular section meetings. When the Brotherhood was formally organized it met Joslin's specifications. In prictice it was a union limited in membership to employees of the respondent's printing department and its principal activities were directed against the Al. P. B. A. Those activities were openly encouraged by the respond- ent in numerous ways. The respondent even recognized the Brother- hood as part of its plan to defeat the Al. P. B. A., and, through its officials, warned and advised employees to join the Brotherhood. It went so far as to contribute $100 to a Brotherhood banquet. In marked contrast with - the respondent's conduct toward the Brotherhood was its conduct toward the M. P. B. A. The respond- ent's officials solicited resignations from the M. P. B. A. and threat-. ened discharge for failure to resign. The respondent actually dis- criminated against a number of M. P. B. A. members for their affi- liation with that organization and in numerous instances its officials disparaged the M. P. B. A. before its employees. At the hearing it was stipulated that 37 printers if called as witnesses by the Brotherhood would each testify, among other things, that (1) no official of the respondent had suggested the formation of the. Brotherhood to him, or (2) suggested that he join, or (3) inter- fered with his membership therein, or (4) suggested the policies of the Brotherhood to him, and (5) that he joined-of his own free will and accord. The stipulated testimony does not alter our, con- clusion upon all the evidence that the Brotherhood is employer- dominated. We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Brotherhood and contributed support to it, and-thereby and by its acts of encouragement of the 41 1002-42-A of 29--45 - 692 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brotherhood and discouragement of the Al. P. B. A. interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. The discriminatory discharges Sidney R. Mahaffey. Mahaffey was first employed by the re- spondent in 1933 as a gray tender. Within 6 or 7 months he was promoted to back tender, which position he held until the strike in 1936. When the strike began, he was earning $15.60 a week. Ma- haffey was not eligible for membership in the M. P. B. A. since he was not a printer, but he was in sympathy with the strikers. As we have previously indicated, when the strike began the re- spondent -started to operate its machines with back tenders. On May 4,, four back tenders were started as printers, and on May 5, four more were given machines to run. Mahaffey reported for work as usual on May 4 and 5, but was not selected to work on the f6v machines that were running. After waiting for work an hour or two he left with the other idle back tenders. When he left the plant on May 5 lie talked to representatives of the M. P. B. A. The M. B. P. A. offered to pay him $10 a week if he would refuse to aid the respondent in breaking the strike by working as a printer. This was $15 a week less than, the printers were receiving as strike benefits, and over $5 less than Mahaffey received in wages as a back tender. Having received this promise, Mahaffey did not return to the plant at all. Instead lie joined the picket line. The strike was unsuccessful and in November 1936 the picket line was removed. Two years later, in October 1938, the Al. P. -B. A., having been unable to' get the strikers reinstated as a group, per- mitted its-members to reapply as individuals. At the same time it embarked upon an intensive secret campaign to organize the strike- breakers. On January 23, 1939, Mahaffey, who in the meantime had worked for the Singer Sewing Machine Company, applied to the respondent for reemployment. When he applied, Mahaffey testified, the respondent's personnel manager, J. L. Landauer, asked him why he had stopped working at the plant. Mahaffey, according to his testimony, reminded Lan- dauer that he had joined the strikers, and Landauer replied that he would have to discuss the advisibility of hiring Mahaffey with Roberts, under whom Mahaffey was working when the strike began. Landauer testified that lie consulted Roberts because he.did not know why Mahaffey had left the respondent's employ, although at the time of the hearing he recalled that he had seen Mahaffey on the picket line, and that lie asked Roberts whether lie remembered Mahaffey, what kind of a worker he was, and why he had left the ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 693 plant. Roberts replied, according to Landauer, that Mahaffey's work was "all right," that "there was nothing against him," and that he had left because the respondent "did not give him a print machine." Landauer testified that it was his custom when he did not recall, the reason for the termiiiation of an employee's employment to make inquiries of the foreman. According to his testimony, the respond- ent kept no such information in its files, although a personnel record was maintained for each employee. He testified further that the respondent relied solely upon the memory of the foreman, except where the foreman on his own initiative noted the reasons for the discharge on the severance slip. Although discharge slips were kept on file by the respondent, Landauer did not, according to his testi- mony, look for Mahaffey's. Roberts gave a different version of his conversation with Landauer. He testified that Landauer asked him whether he thought Mahaffey should be reemployed, and said "You know he was out on the picket line . . .," and that he replied that the picketing had occurred a long time ago and that he thought it would be "all right" to hire Mahaffey. The testimony is also conflicting concerning what Landauer said to Mahaffey upon Landauer's return to his office. Landauer testi- fied, and his testimony was corroborated by his assistant, Claude Whittle, that he told Mahaffey that two C. C. C. boys had been sent for earlier that morning to fill vacancies in the print shop, that they had not yet arrived, and that Mahaffey could work only until they appeared. Mahaffey testified that he was put to work without leaving been given any lint that his employment was conditional. Roberts testified that after Mahaffey started working, Sanders and another Brotherhood man, Charlie Smith, came up to Roberts and said : "What the hell has Landauer got Sidney Mahaffey working in here for:? You know he has been out with those printers on the outside. Hell, you siiouldn't, have that man in here." Subsequently Roberts testified, they told him they had spoken to Landauer and said, "WWWe are going up to see Mr. Pilgrim to.have that man thrown out of there, because he was a sympathizer with the strikers." Shortly after this, Roberts testified, Pilgrim "got after" him for having recommended Mahaffey's employment and, in Roberts' hear- ing, called Landauer and told him to get rid of Mahaffey because Sanders and Smith were complaining about his being allowed to work. Sanders denied at the hearing that he had procured anyone's discharge, but was not questioned specifically about this conversation. Smith was not called as a witness. Pilgrim, however, denied that anyone spoke to him about Mahaffey that morning; and Landauer denied that Pilgrim 'telephoned him about the matter. 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mahaffey was recalled to the office shortly 'after he was sent to the print shop. Two boys were in the office when he came in and Landauer said to him "These 2 boys here have come in from the •C. C. C. camp. -I had them hired and they reported for work," or words to that effect. Mahaffey replied, "Well, Mr. Landauer, I arn willing to take my turn at the bat. I am willing to play the game fair." Landauer took Mahaffey's address and telephone number and promised to notify him if the respondent in the future should have any work for him to do. About a week later, Mahaffey, who had received no compensation for the, time he had spent in the print shop, asked Whittle for a check. Whittle replied that Mahaffey had not worked long enough to receive any pay.- Whittle admitted at the hearing that Mahaffey had been given and had punched a time card, but testified that Mahaffey did not work long enough to have his card kept in the rack. , According to Whittle's testimony, which was corroborated by Landauer's, unless a man worked "say a little over 15 minutes" his name was not posted on the pay roll. Whittle testified that not more than 15 minutes could have elapsed between the time Mahaffey went to the print shop and returned to the office, and that he did not even start to work. Another witness called by the respondent, J-. Q. Gibson, however, testified that he saw Mahaffey working, and that he thought he worked for about 5 minutes. Roberts and Tip- ping also testified that they saw Mahaffey at work. According to Roberts, Mahaffey worked 30 to 40 minutes; Mahaffey himself esti- inated the time to have been 35 to 40 minutes. Mahaffey's time card, although requested by the Board, was not produced at the hearing. About a week after he asked Whittle for his check, Mahaffey inquired of Landauer whether the respondent had- any work for hint yet, and Landauer replied that nothing was available. Mahaffey i old Landauer that he understood that he had been removed from his job because Sanders and Smith had complained to Pilgrim, and Landauer replied that he knew nothing about any such com- plaint. Mahaffey asked Landauer whether his union activities had anything to do with his dismissal, to which Landauer replied in the negative, stating that he himself had hired three men recently from a mill at which the C. I. Q. "was pretty well solid." On March 5, 1939, Campbell, as the representative of the M. P. B. A., questioned Landauer about the termination of Ma- haffey's employment, Landauer denied that Mahaffey had been discharged because of his connection with the M. P. B. A. or because of any complaint by Sanders and Smith, saying that Mahaffey had been employed to work only until such time as two C. C. C. boys previously hired might report for work. To illustrate his fairness ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 695 toward organized labor he told Campbell that he had just hired two C. I. 0. men. Campbell asked to see Mahaffey's time card, but Landauer said that he thought it had been destroyed. Landauer told Campbell "the first opening that comes up; I am going to give it to Mahaffey." Landauer admitted at the hearing that, in spite of this promise, the respondent had employed new men ' to do work for which Mahaffey was fitted and that Mahaffey had not been. offered rein- statement. Whittle estimated roughly that the respondent had en- gaged about 20 C. C. C. boys during the year preceding the hearing. Landauer explained the failure to give Mahaffey employment on the ground that the respondent had 150 or 200 applications which pre- ceded Mahaffey's. Whittle, however, testified that the respondent followed no predetermined' order of selection but picked from all of the applicants the man whom it considered best fitted for the job. The respondent did not show why two boys were called for Ma- haffey's job or in what respects, if any, the C. C. C. boys who took Mahaffey's place, or any one of the others, was more suitable than Mahaffey for Mahaffey's job, or for other jobs filled after Mahaffey's discharge. Nor did it call Mahaffey's successor as a witness, or produce any records indicating what persons were hired on the day in question, or establish the identity of any of the C. C. C. uoys. Whittle testified that he had no recollection of who Mahaffey's successor was, and the only information in the record about him is Landauer's testimony that he had not previously been employed by the respondent. The Trial Examiner concluded that the evidence did not support the allegation of the complaint that Mahaffey was discharged or refused employment on January 23, 1939, because of his union ac- tivities. In reaching this conclusion he appears, however, to have given no weight to some of the foregoing testimony. He did not refer to the method used by the respondent in selecting its employees ; or to Mahaffey's denial that he was told when he was hired that his employment would terminate if the C. C. C. boys appeared; or to the conflict in the testimony of Landauer and Roberts with respect to their conversation in the print shop ; or to the testimony relating to the question of whether or not Pilgrim telephoned Landauer to discharge Mahaffey. Although lie relied on Roberts' testimony with respect to other issues and frequently did not credit Pilgrim's testi- mony,-the Trial Examiner made no finding concerning whether or not Roberts had the conversations with Sanders and Smith and with Pilgrim which Roberts described. He gave particular weight to Mahaffey's testimony that he told Landauer when he applied for work that he had left the plant in sympathy with the strikers, and to 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his testimony that he saw two -boys in Landauer's office when he was recalled from the print shop. Although the respondent made no serious effort to identify the C. C. C. boy who, it alleged, tookMa- haffey's place, the Trial Examiner appears to have concluded that one- of the boys whom Mahaffey saw when he returned to the office was a C. C. C. boy who had previously been selected for the job. The Trial Examiner gave no consideration in his, Intermediate Report to the question of whether' the respondent, subsequent to January 23, 1939, failed to give Mahaffey employment because of his activities in behalf of the M. P. B. A. We think the Trial Examiner erred in finding that the evidence did not support the complaint. We find that it was the respondent's cus- tom to select its employees according to their suitability for the job. We are impressed by the respondent's failure to explain why two boys had been called for Mahaffey's job, or to identify or establish the quali- fications of the C. C. C. boy who, it is alleged, took Mahaffey's place, or any of the other persons subsequently employed to work in the print shop. We, like the Trial Examiner, have found Roberts a reliable witness with respect to other issues and Pilgrim an unreliable witness. We see no reason to doubt Roberts' credibility in this matter, and we find that his conversations with Sanders and Smith, with Pilgrim, and with Landauer were as he described them. We likewise find that Roberts heard Pilgrim telephone Landauer to discharge Mahaffey, after Sanders and Smith had objected to Mahaffey's employment be- cause he was an M. P. B. A. sympathizer. Under all the circumstances we also credit Mahaffey's denial that he was told his employment was conditional. We do not credit Whittle's testimony that Mahaffey did riot start to work, which testimony was contradicted not only by wit- nesses called by the Board, but also by one of the respondent's wit- nesses; and we find that Mahaffey worked approximately 30 minutes. In any case, Mahaffey became an employee of the respondent for the purposes of the Act when he was sent to the print shop. Although Landauer hired Mahaffey with the knowledge that Mahaffey had left, ,the plant in sympathy with the strikers, we think he changed his-mind about the advisability of having Mahaffey as an employee when he received Pilgrim's telephone call which, in turn, was instigated by Sander's and Smith's protest of Mahaffey's employment. We find that the respondent discharged Mahaffey on January 23, 1939, because of his participation in the strike and his interest in the M. P. B. A. and that the respondent since that time has failed and re- fused to reinstate him for the same reason. The respondent thereby discriminated with regard to his hire and tenure of employment, dis- couraged membership in a labor organization,, and interfered with, ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 697 restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- s,nteed in Section 7 of the Act.' When he was a back tender Mahaffey earned $15.60 a week. At the time of the hearing Mahaffey was employed in Fort Mill as a weaver, -which position he had held for about 4 months. He wishes to be reem- ployed by the respondent. Randall Cutts and TV. H. Force. Cutts was first employed by the respondent in 1933 as a gray tender; in a few months he was promoted to back tender;-and at the beginning of the strike in the spring of 1936 he became a printer, which position he held until his discharge. In the latter part of 1937, Cutts joined the Brotherhood. He also joined the M. P. B. A., but the testimony is conflicting concerning whether he (lid so before or after his discharge. R. L. Armstrong) called as a witness by the respondent, testified that Cutts told him in January 1940 that lie had joined the M. P. B. A. 2 or 3 days after his discharge, because that union had offered to pay him unemployment benefits and to find him a job if-he became a member. Cutts testified that he signed an application card on June 5, 1939, and that he told Armstrong that he had joined before his discharge. His testimony with respect to this date was corroborated by Campbell, who testified that, pursuant to an appointment arranged by Force, he met Cutts on June 5 and gave him a card, which Cutts signed. The Trial Examiner found that Cutts signed the application card before his discharge, and we find that lie applied for membership in the M. P. B. A. on or before June 5, 1939. On the occasion of his signing the M. P. B. A. card, Cutts was ob- served talking to Campbell by Floyd,' who, as well as another member of the Brotherhood lived in Cutts' block. The next day Floyd, who was active in behalf of the Brotherhood, asked Cutts what he was doing talking to Campbell; and Cutts replied that it was none of Floyd's business. Force was Cutt's closest friend and they were constantly seen to- gether. When Force started working in the respondent's plant, in April 1938, he was a member of the M. P. B. A. He had joined at his immediately preceding place of employment, which was all open shop. After Campbell became director of the M. P. B. A. in the Rock Hill area in October 1938, Force aided him secretly in organizing the re- spondent's printers. From time to time Force was visited by men-A.- hers of the M. P. B. A. from out of town; and on one such occasion his is This is the same Floyd who was permitted by the respondent during the Brotherhood's anti -M. P B. A drive in November and December 1939, to i uig a bell and shout."rat" when- eN er Roberts, Tipping, and Goley, known to be members of the M P. B A , went by He also, although not it supervisor , correctly warned Tipping 3 clays before his discharge that lie "wouldn't last the week out." '698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD visitor, who was the night foreman at an M. P. B. A. closed shop in a neighboring town, was directed to his house by Pilgrim. Cutts and Force were both discharged on June 9, 1939, for the stated reason that they had made errors in printing. Cutts is alleged to have run 5,272 ,yards of "seconds" 19 on the night of June 1 or 2, 1939, and Force 2,500 yards of "seconds" on the night of June 8; 1939. The respondent does not contend that their work was generally unsatisfac- tory, but alleges than an example was made of them during a "quality campaign" of which the slogan was "quality first-forget production." The respondent further alleges that they were told to apply for rein- statement within a specified period of time but failed to do so. Had they applied, the respondent asserts, they would have been rehired. The Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect to Cutts and Force, finding 'that the respondent made an example of them as it alleges, and that the evidence fails to establish that the respondent knew about their M. P. B. A. affiliation and activi- ties before their discharge. He also found that the respondent indi- cated to them that they might be reemployed after the lapse of a few weeks, and that they lost their opportunity for reinstatement by failing to apply within a reasonable time. 1. The quality campaign The respondent's contention that at the time of the discharge of Cutts and Forceit was conducting a campaign to, improve the quality of the work in the print shop is amply supported by the evidence. Although the testimony of the respondent's witnesses concerning the exact date at which the campaign began is contradictory, it is clear that at least in the latter part of May and the first part of June quality of workmanship rather than volume of production was being stressed. The respondent put in evidence several letters to this effect issued during this period; and Joslin testified that in May and June the respondent could afford to "forget production" because business was poor. Tipping also testified that in„the early spring "perhaps in May," the respondent's orders fell off and quality rather than produc- tion was emphasized. When business began to improve 2 or 3 weeks later, he testified, the print shop "had to get production again." Jenkins testified that a campaign. of some sort was being r inducted nearly, all the time at the plant, and that it was his custom to send letters to the printers and to the foremen urging them to increase pro- duction and to improve quality., His testimony in this respect was corroborated by Tipping, Cutts, and Force, *ho testified that they were constantly receiving letters concerning production or quality. 10 "Seconds" are faulty prints of a design. ROCS HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 699 It is admitted that the respondent has never in the entire history of the plant discharged anyone but Cutts and Force for poor work; but it is contended that the situation in the plant ' at the time of their discharge was eitraordinary. According to Joslin, Jenkins, and Pil- grim, the percentage of "seconds" was higher in May 1939 than at any other time in the respondent's history. This situation, Jenkins testified, gave rise to a campaign which was unique, in that the fore- men and printers were instructed to "forget production" in an effort to eliminate "seconds." According to his testimony, the respondent never before or since conducted a campaign in which it said "forget production." He testified, * * * We put up signs in the printing department, we wrote letters, some of which have been shown here, not all of them, and the difference in the whole thing was that heretofore we had had these campaigns, quality campaigns, but never have we had one where we would tell a man on a print machine, and tell Roberts, Goley, Tipping, Rawson and the rest of these men, "Now, I want you to forget production." Never before had we done that. We had always said "Get production " I mean, "Get quality, and then production," but at this time it was "Forget production, get quality." Because of the "unusualness" of this campaign, he testified, the re- spondent departed from its practice, unbroken before or since, and made an example of Cutts and Force. Joslin differentiated this campaign from the others on the same ground. Joslin testified that signs saying "Quality-Forget Pro- duction" were posted in the plant and that the letters sent out by the respondent "featured" "that principle." Contrary to Joslin and Jenkins' testimony, however, the letters issued by the respondent during the May and June 1939 "quality campaign," and placed in evidence, do not distinguish this callipaign, in its emphasis upon quality, from the respondent's other campaigns described by Jenkins as characterized by the slogan "Get quality, then production." Further to establish that the May and June 1939 campaign was ex- ceptional, Joslin testified that he spent 10 days to 2 weeks in Rock Hill persolially to direct the campaign. Joslin's testimony concern- ing how long he remained in Rock Hill is contradicted, however, by the letter of June 12, 1939, from Jenkins to all printers, to which we have referred. This letter recites that Joslin spent "a whole week" in Rock Hill. The duration of Joslin's other visits to Rock Hill does not,appear. We can attribute no special significance to the length of Joslin's visit on this occasion. 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD Only one of"the,letters put in evidence by the respondent as having been issued during the May and June 1939 quality campaign threatens discharge for failure to obey instructions. This, is a letter, dated June 2, 1939, from Pilgrim to "all printers and boss ' printers." The testimony is conflicting concerning whether or not such a warning was unusual, although, as -we have said, it is admitted that no one else was ever discharged for poor work. Joslin testified that he did not remember any letters having been sent out with such language in them. Cutts, on the other hand, testified that warnings of this kind were common. We credit Cutts, testimony; but, in any case, the respondent does not assert that either Cutts or Force failed to follow the instructions referred to in the letter. Moreover, it is not clear that this letter was intended for or sent to the printers who worked on the third shift. We find that campaigns to achieve- "Quality first, then production" were common at the respondent's plant, and that the campaign in May and June 1939, whether occasioned by a serious increase in the per- centage of "seconds," or by slack business, or both, did not differ sub- stantially from the others in the relative emphasis put upon production and quality. 2. The circumstances of Cutts' discharge Four days after Cutts joined the M. P. B. A., on the afternoon of June 9; 1939, Floyd, who had commented to Cutts concerning the lat- ter's talking to Campbell, was sent by Rawson to notify Cutts that Rawson wanted to see him at the plant. When Cutts arrived at the plant, the printer who worked on Cutts' machine on the second shift, W. B. Cameron, showed him a patch of a pattern Cutts had run on June 1 or 2 and told him that was what Rawson wanted to see Cutts about. Cutts found all of the patches he had taken from his work on this pattern and took them to his immediate superior, Assistant Foreman Ellis, who was charged with the duty of approving or re- jecting his work. Ellis who had approved two of the patches, looked at the patches in a room provided with a daylight lamp and said that he saw nothing wrong with them. After he talked to Ellis, Cutts showed his patches to Pilgrim. Cutts and Tipping, who were in Pilgrim's office at the time, testified that Pilgrim merely glanced at the patches and did not take them to the daylight lamp customarily used for that purpose. Cutts further testi- fied that he told Pilgrim two of the patches had been approved by Ellis and that he had printed the cloth according to Ellis' instructions.- According to Cutts, Pilgrim replied that none of the patches were good and that none of them had been approved. Pilgrim was not ques- tioned concerning whether Cutts had or claimed to have followed Ellis'' instructions, but he testified that he looked at the patches and ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. i 01 that only about 3 out of 20 were good. According to Pilgrim, Cutts admitted this but said that the patches had looked all right to him on the night he did the work. Cutts did not testify specifically concern- ing this alleged admission; but denied that any of the patches subse- quent to the first one approved by Ellis showed any errors. None of Cutts' patches were offered in evidence by the respondent. We find that Pilgrim did not go over the patches carefully with Cutts; that Cutts told Pilgrim two of the patches had been approved fiy Ellis and that he had followed Ellis' instructions; and that Cutts did not admit to Pilgrim that only 3 out of 20 patches were good. We also find that the rest of Cutts' conversation' with Pilgrim was as Cutts described it. As we have indicated above, we do not consider Pilgrim a reliable witness. - At the end of this conversation Pilgrim told Cutts he was discharged. Rawson, who also was present in Pilgrim's office, told Cutts he "was through" and turning to Pilgrim, said, "Walt, we are going to stop these `seconds' if we have to fire everybody in here." Cutts begged Pilgrim not to discharge him, but Pilgrim said they would have to let him go, that the "seconds" had to stop. The pattern in question was printed by Cutts and by Cameron, who, as we have said, worked on Cutts' machine on the second shift. Cutts was familiar with the pattern, having printed it -before. Cutts testified that when he came to work that night the machine was stopped and Cameron complained to him that he could not "get the set right" and that he had run 1,300 yards of that pattern, all of which, being side-shaded, was "seconds." Cameron, although called as a witness by the respondent, was not questioned concerning this conversation or his work on this pattern. Cutts further' testified that he cleaned and adjusted his machine, ran 15 or 20 yards, and took a patch, which showed "side-shading." According to his testimony, he worked on his machine again, ran about 200 yards, and took another patch. This patch, he testified, and a, subsequent one were approved by Ellis. From time to time, according to 'Cutts, Ellis looked at Cutts' work without comment. Cutts testified that after he had received Ellis' first approval he continued to take patches at intervals, and that none of these showed any side-shading or other errors. Cutts' testimony that he did not make the errors attributed tb him is corroborated by Roberts' uncontradicted testimony concerning a conversation he had with Cross. Roberts testified that Cross told him that he had looked at the goods which Cutts had printed, that it was not "side-shaded" but was "lap-shaded" and "piece-shaded," and that he did not see how they could hold a printer responsible for that., 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tipping, who was the superintendent in charge of the print room that night, testified that he received no complaints from Ellis about Cutts' work or any intimation from Pilgrim that Cutts was to be disciplined until he was actually discharged. Nor do any of the versions concerning the circumstances of Cutts ' discharge suggest that Cutts' alleged bad work was discussed by anyone with Ellis. We credit Cutts', Tipping's, and Roberts' testimony, and we find that Cutts did not print the "seconds " alleged by the respondent'to have caused his discharge. The next day Cutts came back to the plant to get his check. He saw Pilgrim and asked him to reconsider, but Pilgrim would not discuss the question and referred Cutts to R;t^vson. Cutts then saw Rawson and asked Rawson to give hire another chance; but Rawson refused. Cutts then, according to his testimony , asked Rawson if he would give him a job back tending, at least temporarily , since he needed money. Rawson, according to Cutts, refused; saying it would be bad for the morale of the back tenders to put a printer, on that job. Rawson added, according to Cutts, that-he would not recom- mend Cutts for a job. Rawson's version of this conversation con- tained no reference to Cutts' request for a back -tending job. He testified that he told Cutts to come back later to see Pilgrim about reinstatement. We accept Cutts' version of this conversation , having found him a more reliable witness than Rawson. Cutts attended the Brotherhood banquet of June 10, 1939. After the banquet he asked Joslin to reinstate him. Joslin asked Cutts why he had been discharged . When Cutts explained , Joslin said that he was surprised to hear that the reason was bad work. At the hearing Joslin explained his surprise as follows : I knew that our policy throughout the entire period of our exist- ence down here was not to discharge any printers for had work. To my knowledge there are only three printers who have been discharged throughout the 11 years of our existence , two of those men involved Cutts and Force , and one man was discharged while he was down here because of intoxication. * Joslin told Cutts he would take the matter up with Jenkins and arrange a conference with Jenkins for Cutts. The following afternoon Cutts saw Jenkins . Cutts testified with- out contradiction that he told Jenkins that he did not think he "had gotten a fair chance"; that although other printers had run "seconds" and been laid off several times , this was his first offense ; and that according to a "seconds " report recently issued he had-the lowest percentage of "seconds" on his shift and the sixth lowest for the shop. ,as a whole. Jenkins and Cutts gave contradictory versions of the remainder of this conversation . According to Cutts, Jenkins said ROCK HILL PRINTING AN,D FINISHING CO. 703 he was sorry Cutts had lost his job, that he had told Pilgrim he did not think it advisable to discharge Cutts and Force, but that Pilgrim was running the print shop and he did not think he should go over Pilgrim's head. -Jenkins denied that he told Cutts that he did not wish to go over Pilgrim's head. He testified that he told Cutts, "I am sorry, you lost your job, Randall. You knob- how it came abbot, we had to let somebody go, and it happened to be you. Randall, you go back and cry on Pilgrim's shoulder, and I think you can get your job back." According to Cutts, Jenkins did not tell him to see Pilgrim but promised that he himself would do what he could to get Cutts reinstated. The Trial Examiner found that Jenkins told Cutts he would see what he could do for him but Cutts should "cry on Pilgrim's shoulder." In making this finding the Trial Examiner disbelieved part of the testimony of both witnesses. We credit Cutts' testimony, Jenkins' unreliability as a witness having been frequently demonstrated in the record, and find that the conversation was as Cutts' described it. 3. The circumstances of Force's discharge On the night of June 8, 1939, Tipping gave Force an unusually difficult pattern to reprint. It had been reprinted two or three times before by other printers, each time with errors. Pilgrim told Tip- ping that night that it was a rush order and had to be completed by 7: 00 the next morning. Force complained to' Tipping that he could not run that pattern on his machine because he- had a hole in the blanket and very little lapping. Tipping, however, replied that Pil- grim had criticized Tipping the day before for not getting these reprints out on time and that he "was not going to be caught like that again." Following Tipping's instructions, Force worked over his, machine, but was unable to get a satisfactory patch. He found he had two holes instead of one in the blanket. He took the matter up with Tipping again and told Tipping he was afraid to run the pattern. Tipping admitted the machine was in bacl condition but said Force would have to do the best he could, since Pilgrim had in- sisted that the order be completed by 7 a. in. Force made several other unsuccessful attempts to patch the holes and fix the lapping. Finally, Tipping himself worked over the machine and approved.a patch. Tipping testified that shortly after that Goley and he ap- proved another patch. His testimony was corroborated by Force and Goley. Tipping further testified that , "skimmy" 20 color appeared after Force had run 1,000 yards corresponding to patches approved Sometimes the record refers to "skinny" sometimes to "skimmy " color, but the term is not explained. 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by Tipping. To correct this Tipping mixed up a new color. After Tipping made up the new color, Force got two patches, which were' approved by Tipping and Goley. Tipping watched the cloth being run, saw -that it was all right, and instructed Go'ley to stay with it to see that Force had no further difficulties. Force finished the job under Goley's Supervision. Upon Tipping's' instructions, Force printed an extra 500 yards of goods to make up for the approximately 200 yards of "skiinmy" color which they estimated might have, been run between the patches which were approved. Force was called back to the plant on Friday night, June 9, 1939, by Tipping. Tipping told him he had 'ruined 2,500 yards of the reprint and that Tipping understood Force "was through." Force asked Tipping whether he had seen the cloth, and Tipping said he had not, but that Force should come back the next day and talk to Pilgrim and Rawson. Tipping told Force that his discharge was as much of a surprise to Tipping as it was to Force. Tipping testified that the first he knew about Force's alleged "seconds" was when he came to work the night Force was discharged. When he came to work, Tipping testified, Pilgrim was "pitching a fit." Pilgrim threw seven or eight patches at Tipping and asked him what he meant by letting Force print "such stuff." Four of the patches had "skimmy" color. Tipping replied, according to his testimony, that Force did not print the cloth like that. According to Pilgrim and Rawson, Tipping said botli Force and Goley should be discharged. This Tipping denied. Tipping testified that Pilgrim said all of the cloth Force had run was bad.- He further testified that he could not believe what Pilgrim,said because Goley and he had stayed with Force while he was running the reprint, and because he himself had worked on it part of the time. The Trial Examiner did not discuss this conversation, although he found, without indicating his reasons, that Pilgrim was dissatisfied with the work of Cutts and Force. As we have indicated, we do not, nor did the Trial Examiner generally consider Pilgrim or Rawson reliable witnesses. Nothing in Tipping's testimony, on the other hand, leads us to doubt his credibility. Under all the circum- stances, we find that the conversation was as Tipping described it. After he talked to Pilgrim, Tipping called in Goley, showed him the patches, and asked him if he knew anything about them. Goley replied that he did not, that so far as he knew Force's work was good, with the exception of perhaps: a couple of hundred yards, which Force had run before Tipping made up the new color. While Tipping was talking to Goley, Rawson came up and said, according to Tipping, that Force "was through," and that if Tipping did not want to fire him, Rawson would. Tipping testified that he ROCK HILL PRINTING -AND FINISHING CO. 705 replied that he did not think Force had'made the errors attributed to him, and that, in any case, he did not think it was proper to dis- charge a man for so small an amount of yardage. Tipping then sent word to Force to come to the plant. Pilgrim after talking to' Tipping, also questioned Goley about Force's work. He told Goley all the goods had been ruined and showed him some patches. One of the patches had Goley's O. K. on it and Pilgrim admitted that it was good. Three of the patches were somewhat "skimmy" in color. Pilgrim asked Goley how the "skimmy" color had occurred and Goley said that he did not know, that Force had not reported- anything to him after Goley had given him his approval. We find that Force followed Tipping's and Goley's instructions and that he did not print the "seconds" attributed to him. On Saturday, June 10, Force came back to the plant to get his check. He saw Pilgrim and asked him about the cloth which was alleged to have been ruined. According to Force, Pilgrim said to see Rawson, that lie' was the "boss printer." According to Pilgrim, Force said lie did not want to look at his cloth, that he knew his work was all bad because he had heard so, and that he did not care so much about his discharge but felt sorry for Cutts. The Trial Examiner did not refer to this conversation. We accept Force's version over Pilgrim's. Immediately after he talked to Pilgrim, Force saw Rawson. Force testified that Rawson said, "Bill, up until about 6 months ago, you were all right, but since then, you have,gotten out of line, and I will fire every man, from one through nineteen. I am taking care of little Henry." 21 Force asked Rawson what he meant and Rawson said, according to Force, "Bill you are smarter than that. Don't 'play dumb, but so far as your, work here is concerned, you are through." Force asked Rawson about the cloth he was supposed to have ruined. According to Force, Rawson replied, "Just forget the cloth, you are through." ' Rawson testied that he told Force he "didn't have a thing to say to hiln," that lie was discharged. Force, according to Rawson, "ad- imtted that lie had run into a mess, that he and Tipping and Goley, all three, had worked on the job all night, and that he knew it was almost, 100 per cent `seconds' * * *." Rawson testified that he and Pilgrim had seen the cloth,in the agers that morning when they calve in. Rawson 'further testified that Force said that Goley had approved a patch and that Force may have said that Tipping insisted on his running the pattern on that machine. 11 It will he recalled that Rai son 's gi\en name is Flenry. 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - The Trial Examiner did not refer to this conflicting testimony, but he credited Force's version of a subsequent conversation with Raw- son; although it was contradicted by Rawson. He stated that he did not consider Rawson an "impressive" tivitne"ss. We find that the conversation was as t' orce described it. 4. Subsequent efforts by Cutts and Force to secure reinstatement Having been unsuccessful in their own efforts to obtain reinstate- ment, Cutts and Force asked the Brotherhood for assistance. 'At this time, however, Cutts and Force were both secretly aiding Campbell to obtain members for the M. P. B. A. Three days after Force took up the matter of his reinstatement with the Brotherhood, Sanders and Smith told Force that they had heard that he belonged to the M. P. B. A. and questioned him about it. Force denied that he was a member. Cutts also was accused pf belonging to the M. P. B. A. at 'a- meeting of the Brotherhood on or about July 24. At this meeting, one of the printers to whom Cutts had spoken about the M. P. B. A. announced that Cutts had solicited his membership. When Cutts denied that he was a mem- ber, the matter was taken under advisement by a committee, headed by Sanders, and the meeting was adjourned pending the report of the committee. After the committee had reported back to the meeting, it was decided to give Cutts and Force unemployment benefits of $15 a week. Cutts and Force testified, and Sanders denied, that these benefits were granted on the condition that Cutts and Force stay away from all members of the M. P. B. A. We find that such a condition was imposed. We do not consider Sanders a reliable witness. Nor did the Trial Examiner, although lie did not discuss this conflict •in the testimony. .The/ motive of the committee in recommending these benefits and of,the Brotherhood in,granting them is not clear; but in view of the iictivities of members of the Brotherhood toward other employees who were suspected of membership in the M. P. B: A., we think. the benefits may well have been offered as an inducement to abandon Whatever connection Cutts and Force may have had with the M. P.. B. A. The Trial Examiner considered the benefits to be evi- deince.that the respondent had no knowledge of Cutts' and Force's connection with the M. P. B. A. because "even the membership of the Brotherhood were not aware that they were M. P. B. A. adherents." We do,not accord them-that significance. About 2 days after this meeting, the shop committee of the Brother- hood asked Pilgrim to reinstate Cutts and Force, and obtained' an e ROCK' HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 707 appointment with Pilgrim for Force. It would 'appear that no appointment was made for Cutts. - Pnrsiiani to this appointment, Force applied to Pilgrim for rein- stateiiiet t. Force testified as follows concerning his conversation with Pilgrim at this time : . . . Mr. Pilgrim was very nice. He told me that maybe he had made a mistake in me, that he was going to give,me another chance, and that he was going to put me back to work in one -,veek's time from that date, but first, I had to go talk with Henry Rawson and get right with Henry Rawson, because he was the boss printer, but he, Pilgrim, was the boss, and he was going to put me to work anyway, but as far as Mr. Cutts was, con- cerned, he was finished. - Pilgrim gave a different version of this conversation. He testified that Force admitted that all the yardage in question was bad, saying that thei°e was a hole in the blanket. Force, contended, according to Pilgrim, that Tipping was to blame because he, had approved Force's patches. Pilgrim, according to his - testimony, reminded Force that he, had received letters from Pilgrim instructing the printers not to run a job if it was not right. Pilgrim testified that Force admitted this, said he had made only this one mistake, begged ' Pilgrim to reinstate hire, and asked Pilgrim whether he should see Rawson to which Pilgrim replied that he could if he wanted to. Pil- grim testified, and Force denied, that Pilgrim told Force to come back to see him in 30 days. The Trial Examiner referred to this conflict in the testimony but did not resolve it. We credit Force's rather than Pilgrim's version. Upon Force's testimony, and rejecting Rawson's testimony where it is contradictory, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that in ac- cordance with Pilgrim's instructions, Force went to see Rawson on June 27 or 28 and that the following conversation occurred. Rawson said, "Bill, you are on the wrong side. In this print game, it is ever.), man for himself. Yoir are going the wrong way," and asked Force "who all was playing with" Force. Force asked Rawson what he lneaiit by that and Rawson said„ "You just know what I am talking about. Furthermore, I know exactly what you have been doing. - You have been contacting these people on the outside." Force denied this, whereupon Rawson said. "I have been told by too many people that you have."' Force then asked Rawson what he thought of a man "that was a stooge to the boss man," to which Rawwwson replied that he didn't "think very much of them" but that they were "mighty useful at times,' especially in this print game." 412602-422-von 29-46 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD_ Rawson asked whether Force believed in organized labor. When Force replied that he'did, Rawson said "Bill, you know better than that, too. The man on top is the man that wins ." Force asked Rawson whether Rawson would help him, and Rawson said , "I weigh 185 pounds, and I aln going to fight until I am skin and bones to keep the organization (the M. P. B. A.) out of the Rock Hill Print- ing and Finishing Company. I have been director ,22 and I know both sides of it. I am going to take care of myself." Force again asked whether Rawson would help him, and Rawson replied that he was neutral, saying "I am not for you ' nd I am not against you." Although Rawson participated in the discharge of Cutts and Force and although Pilgrim referred them to him when they sought reinstatement, Rawson had no supervision over or responsibility for the work done on the third shift. He worked in the daytime as "boss printer" under Pilgrim. The third shift was the responsibility of Tipping, the night divisional superintendent. Moreover, Rawson was inferior in rank,to Tipping. Although Pilgrim testified that Rawson's and Tipping's jobs were of equal rank and interchangeable, Rawson testified as follows : Tipping was on nights. He was, I guess you ww ould call him, him, divisional superintendent, because there is a difference at night. You would have to have one man in charge of two or three departments, but when you are on days in that respect, you would just be in charge of the print department, so you would really just be the foreman over the print department in days, where you would be classified as a divisional superin- tendent at night. RaNy-son's classification is corroborated by Tipping 's description of his duties and we accept it. The respondent made no attempt to explain Rawson 's role in connection with these discharges , except with respect to the occasion when Cutts came back to the plant to get his check. Pilgrim testi- fied that at that time he referred Cutts to Rawson because he himself had been called to the office of the assistant manager of the plant. After Rawson told Force he was "on the wrong side" and that Rawson was going to fight until he was "skin and bones" to keep the M. P. B. A. out of the plant, Cutts and Force decided that it would be futile to apply further for reinstatement. Subsequently, in July, Cutts and Force were expelled from the Brotherhood because of their M. P. R. A. activities. In July also Cross, -who was a friend of Cutts and had been his supervisor, came to the respondent's plant. Cutts testified without =' At one time Rawson was the Rock Bill director of the M P B A. ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 709 contradiction, and we find, that Cross asked him to come to see him in the plant and that they had the following conversation : Cross inquired "What is this trouble you are in." Cutts explained that he had been discharged on the ground that he had run side-shaded goods. Cross said, "What is this I hear about you ?" Cutts asked what Cross meant. Cross replied that Cutts knew what he meant. When Cutts said he did not understand, Cross said "This outside union." Cutts said he knew nothing about it, and Cross pointed his finger at him and said, "You had better watch your step." Cutts asked Cross whether it would be advisable for him to talk to Pilgrim about reinstatement and Cross replied,that he would talk to Pilgrim for him.23 We find that in his conversation with Cutts, Cross was acting in the interest of the respondent. As we have indicated in our dis- cussion of the Brotherhood, Cross was either boss' printer or super- intendent of the respondent's printing department before he went to New York with Joslin in the fall of 1936, to become technical ad- visor to the. respondent's parent company, the M. Lowenstein Com- pany; and after he went to New York he continued to be, paid by the respondent. Subsequent to his conversation with Cutts, Cross, as we have found above, made anti-M. P. B. A. statements to the re- spondent's employees in Pilgrim's presence at a meeting of the Brotherhood in the respondent's conference room. On that occasion there was no disavowal by Pilgrim that Cross was acting in the interest of the respondent. Nothing came of Cutts' conversation with Cross. In October 1939 Cutts filed a charge with the Board, and on November, 10, 1939, formally applied to Pilgrim for reinstatement. Pilgrim said he had nothing for him then, and inquired why he had not applied for reinstatement sooner. Cutts said he thought it would be' futile to do so." Pilgrim said Jenkins had told Cutts to see Pilgrim. Cutts replied that he had not so understood Jenkins. Cutts has not since been offered reinstatement. Pilgrim testified that he told Cutts that Jenkins was 'so willing to reinstate Cutts that he inquired of Pilgrim every week after Cutts' discharge whether Cutts had applied for reinstatement. It is ad- mitted, however, that no one sent word to Cutts to come back, al- though the respondent had Cutts' address and could easily have reached him. The only reason Cutts was not-reinstated, the respond- ent contends, was because he did not apply. We find, crediting. Force's testimony over Jenkins' ,denial, that in October Force met Jenkins in a drugstore and that Jenkins asked 2. It was the day aftter this conversation with Cutts that Cross told Roberts that he did not see .how a printer could_ be held responsible for the errors for which Cutts was allegedly discharged. 710 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD hiih to come over to his office Where they had the following con- versation : Jenkins asked Force whether he was still receiving -M. P. B. A. benefits . When Force replied that he was, Jenkins said he understood that he was not. -Jenkins said further that the Brotherhood was 'running the print shop and that Jenkins "had nothing whatso- ever to do with it." Jenkins then told Force that he would do what he could for Force if Force would resign froin the M. P. B. A. It Was on this occasion that Jenkins said that if Force would talk to the boys as a converted member it would do a lot of good. Jenkins added that he knew practica]ly all- the member`s of the M. P. B. A., but that no one would be discharged . When Force replied that he would not resign, Jenkins threw up his hands and walked but of the `room. Force has not been offered reinstatement. 5. Conclusions regarding Cutts and Force We think the Trial Examiner erred in failing to find that Cutts and Force were discriminatorily discharged and refused reinstatement. Upon the entire record we find that the respondent knew or suspected the A P. B. A. affiliations of both men and that that affiliation pro- vided the motive for their discharge and for the respondent' s subse- quent refusals to reinstate them. We do not believe that Cutts and Force were discharged or refused reinstatement for the reasons advanced by the respondent. They are the only employees ever discharged for poor work; and in spite of the fact that threats of discharge made at other times by the respondent were never put into effect, Cutts and Force were discharged without any personal warning. The respondent admits that Cutts and Force would not have been discharged for the errors they are alleged to have made had not an extraordinary "quality campaign" been in process at the plant, pursuant to which it was deemed necessary to make an exam- ple of someone. We have found, however, that the campaign in effect at that time did not differ substantially from others conducted by the respondent. Moreover, we have found that Cutts and Force did not make the errors attributed to them, andvthat they followed the instruc- tions of their superiors. We think the real reason for the discharge' of Cutts and Force and the refusal to reinstate them was their M.-P. B. A. affiliation and activi- ties. We have found that Rawson had no supervision of, or responsi- bility for, work done on the third shift and that he was inferior in 'rank to Tipping. Nevertheless, Rawson, not Tipping, sent Floyd. for Cutts; Rawson , not Tipping, acted with Pilgrim in making the dis- charges; and it was to Rawson,,not to Tipping, that Pilgrim referred Cutts and Force when they applied for reinstatement. In view of ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 711 Rawson's duties, Pilgrim's selection of him for these purposes is not explained by the respondent's supervisory organization. The expla- nation is to be found, we think, in the fact that Rawson, as appears from our discussion of the Brotherhood, acted as Pilgrim's right-hand man in aiding the Brotherhood and in opposing the M. P. B. A. On the day following Cutts' discharge, as we have found, Rawson refused to give Cutts even a back tending job, for the stated reason that it would be bad for the "morale" of the back tenders. In view of Rawson's role in the respondent's labor relations and Cutts' admitted acceptability as a workman, coupled with the fact that Cutts had him- self previously worked as a back tender, we think that Rawson can' only have referred to their "morale" with respect to,unions. In any event Rawson's refusal on the same occasion to give Cutts a recommen- dation is inconsistent with the reason advanced_by the respondent for Cutts' discharge, namely that he was merely the victim of a determiiia- tion to make an example of someone. It is also inconsistent with the respondent's contention that be would have been reemployed had he applied. Ra tson's conversations with Force are even more revealing. ,When Rawson told Force "Up until 6 months ago you were all right but since then you have gotten out of line and I will fire every man, from 1 through 19, I am taking care of little Henry," we do not think he was talking about Force's work. The respondent does not contend, and of-- -fered no evidence to show, that Force's work was bad for 6 months before his discharge. On the other hand, about 7 or 8 months before this conversation Force began to help Campbell. We think Rawson was "taking care of little Henry" by helping the respondent keep the M. P. B. A. out of the plant. This interpretation is confirmed by Raw- son's subsequent conversation with Force after Pilgrim had told Force "to get right" with Rawson. In this conversation, Rawson told Force in so many words that Force was "on the wrong side" and that Rawson knew this because he had "received reports" that Force was "contacting these people on the outside." Rawson said he was going to 'take care of himself by fighting the M. P. B. A. He frankly admitted that he found a "stooge to the boss man" "mighty useful at times, especially in this print game." His further remark that lie was neutral and "not for" Force or "against him," we think, merely meant to indicate that Force's discharge was not a personal, but a union, matter. Similarly, Jenkins told Force in October, when the M. P. B. A. was still trying to keep its membership secret, that he new practically all of the members of the M. P. B. A. in the plant. Our conclusion that, the respondent- knew or suspected and was concerned about Force's union activities rather than about his work is strengthened by Pilgrim's conversation with Force when he told Force 712 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "maybe" he had "made a mistake in" Force, but that Force should "get right" with Rawson. As we have indicated, Pilgrim's statement that. Force should "get right" with Rawson cannot be explained by the re- spondent's supervisory organization. Nor do we think his statement that "maybe" he had "made a mistake" in Force referred to the situa- tion alleged by the respondent-to have caused Force's discharge, namely: the printing of seconds during an extraordinary "quality cam- paign." Under all the circumstances, we believe that, Pilgrim meant that "maybe" he had "made a mistake" with respect to Force's, union affiliation, but that Force should convince Rawson, Pilgrim's lieutenant in union matters, that he was not a member of the M. P. B. A. This interpretation of Pilgrim's conversation is consistent with what Raw- son said to Force when Force tried to "get right" with him. At this time, moreover, the respondent was so anxious to weaken the M. P. B. A. by strengthening the Brotherhood that it contributed $100 to the Brotherhood banquet on June 10, 1939. The only reason Cutts and Force were not reinstated, according to the respondent, was that they failed to apply although told to do so at the end of a designated period. We find that Cutts was not told to reapply, that on the contrary Pilgrim informed Force that Cutts was "finished." Cutts had thereto- fore applied to Pilgrim, Rawson, Joslin, and Jenkins, for reinstate- ment, find failed of his objective. We view Cross's conversation with Cutts in July when Cross, after inquiring why Cutts was discharged, said: "What is this I hear about you-You know what I mean-this outside union," as further evidence of the reason for Cutts' removal. Cross added "you had better watch your step." We think the incident constituted an effort by Cutts to obtain reinstatement. On that occa- sion'Cross told Cutts not to reapply to Pilgrim, that he, Cross, would see what could be done; but nothing came of it. k It is true that Pilgrim, told Force to "get right" with Rawson, that although Cutts "was finished" he would reinstate Force "anyway." When Rawson told Force that he was going to fight until he was "skin and bones" to keep the M. P. B. A. out of the plant, Cutts and Force ,concluded that further application would be futile. We think this was a reasonable conclusion. It was evident that no one suspected of mem- bership in the M. P. B. A. could "get right" with Rawson. In view of Pilgrim's past conduct and his relationship with Rawson, it was rea- sonable for Force to conclude, notwithstanding Pilgrim's statement that he would be reinstated, that further application to Pilgrim also would be useless. Cutts, certainly, was justified in that conclusion, for Pilgrim had indicated to Force that Cutts would not be reinstated. Force was given further evidence of the accuracy of this conclusion when, in October, Jenkins told him that he knew all the mem- ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO.' 713 hers in the M. P. B. A. and offered to reinstate him if he would renounce the M. P. B. A. and "talk to the boys-as a kind of converted member." We find that Jenkins thereby conditioned Force's rein- statement on his abandonment of his union affiliation, thus denying 'him the right to work for discriminatory reasons. We find that the respondent discharged Cutts and Force on June 9, 1939, because it knew or suspected their meinbership^in and activities in behalf of the M. P. B. A. and thereafter failed or refused to rein- state them for the same reason, and that the respondent thereby dis- criminated with regard to thew hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of their employment, discouraged membership in a-labor organization and interfered ^vith, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. At the time of his discharge Cutts was earning $49.80 a week. For about 21/2 months after his discharge Cutts worked for Quinn's Dry Cleaning Company. During that period he earned $60 to $70. He wishes to be reemployed by the respondent. When Force was discharged he was earning $42.60 a week. He has had no employment since his discharge, and wishes to be reinstated by the respondent. Roberts, Tipping and Goley.. Roberts, Tipping, and Goley were among the employees engaged by the respondent to open its plant iii 1929. Roberts and Tipping were brought by the respondent from Rhode Island, where they had previously worked under Joslin and Cross. As an inducement they were given 5-year contracts, by the terms of which Roberts was to receive $90 t week and 'ripping $45. Roberts started working for the respondent as a printer, and Tipping as an apprentice printer. Goley, a native of South Carolina, was first employed to install machinery. When operations began he became a back tender; and in 1930 he was promoted to printer. Go- ley became an assistant foreman in 1932 and Tipping in 1934 or 1935. In 1933 Roberts became assistant foreman, taking the place of Cross, who had become either boss printer or superintendent of the printing department. Roberts, Tipping, and Goley joined the M. P. B'. A. in 1933. When the strike was called in 1936, they were induced by the re- spondent to repudiate the M. P. B. A., to aid the back-to-work move- ment, and to break in strikebreakers. For these services they were promised 5-year contracts, promotions, and higher wages. When Joslin and Cross moved to New York in the fall of 1936, Roberts was promoted to Cross' former position. After he received this promotion, his wages were increased from $97 to $105 a week. In March 1938 Roberts was demoted to assistant foreman arid P.il- 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD grim became the head of the print shop. The reason for this change does not appear in the record. Beginning in the fall of 1936 Roberts, as we have found above, transmitted to Sanders and others Joslin's suggestion that an "in- side" union be formed. While he was boss printer he did not himself' join the Brotherhood, however, because of his high supervisory, position. In the summer of 1938, after Roberts had been demoted to assistant foreman, Roberts and Goley asked the M. P. B'. A. for readmission to membership. Their applications were accepted in the fall, shortly after Campbell began secretly to organize the printers in the respond- ent's plant. About February 1939 Tipping also rejoined. From time to time Roberts, Tipping, and Goley conferred secretly with Campbell concerning the conduct of the campaign. By November 1938 Roberts and Goley were suspected of member- ship in the M. P. B. A. On the day of Leopard's second trial by the Brotherhood, Roberts and Goley received "pictures" referring to the M. P. B. A. in their mail' boxes and showed them to Pilgrim. At this time also Goley was being "ridden" by members of the Brother- hood as a member of the M. P. B. A. To avoid similar treatment Roberts joined the Brotherhood. From that time until November 1939, when members of the M. P. B. A. stopped trying to conceal their affiliation, nothing was said,to him about the M. P. B. A. Goley, on the other hand, refused to join, although solicited by Sanders. Shortly after Roberts and Goley received the "pictures" referring to the M. P. B. A., Goley was transferred to the day shift so that Pilgrim could watch him, and was warned by Pilgriin that he would be discharged if Pilgrim saw any indication that he was connected with that union. ' In February 1939, Tipping was promoted to night divisional super- intendent. Just before his promotion he joined the Brotherhood be- cause Pilgrim advised him to do so. Nevertheless, he did not pay dues or attend meetings. Subsequently, he was told by Pilgrim that he would have Pilgrim "to whip" if he joined the M. P. B. A. We have found that Tipping was demoted to assistant foreman in August 1939 because he was believed to be a member of the M. P. B. A. and that' Goley, upon being made boss printer, was threatened by Grier with discharge if he had anything to do with that union. We have further found that about 2 weeks after his demotion Tip- ping was called to a meeting of the Brotherhood in the conference room by Pilgrim; that Pilgrim remained while Tipping was accused of membership in the M. P. B. A.; and that Cross made a speech in which he disparaged the M. P. B. A. ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO . - 715 In October 1939 Tipping had the conversation, discussed above, in which Rawson told Tipping, whose membership in the Brotherhood had lapsed, that there was "a lot of feeling among the men" because he was not a. member. Rawson said "Don't you know that this Brotherhood is Pilgrim's baby?" He added that he had talked to Goley numerous times about joining but that neither Goley nor Tip- ping "was smart." He advised Tipping to join if the Brotherhood would let him in, saying, however, that he doubted that the Brother- hood would. Tipping decided that he would have to join the Brotherhood if he wanted to work at the plant and asked Sanders for a card. In October also the shop committee and other members of the Brotherhood had a conference with Jenkins and Pilgrim at which they made complaints against Goley. The complaints included charges that Goley had told one of them that he would be "pro-' tected" if he joined the M. P. B. A.; had told another that he would eventually lose his job if he did not join; had threatened to procure the discharge of both if they mentioned what he had said; and had cursed a, third printer. Goley denied at the hearing that he had eh- gaged in such conduct. The Trial Examiner did not credit these charges, nor do we. After the conference with the Brotherhood, Jenkins and Pilgrim talked to Goley. Crediting Goley's testimony regarding this conver- sation where it conflicts with that of Jenkins or Pilgrim, we find that the following occurred: Jenkins told Goley that the Brother- hood had complained that Goley had "gotten himself in one hell of a mess." Goley asked Jenkins what Jenkins meant, saying that he had not to his knowledge approved imperfect work except under Pil- grim's instructions.24 Jenkins replied; "I know, that isn't what I am telling you at all, it is something you have said or-something you have done." Goley asked Jenkins whether he could recall what it was Goley had said and whether it referred to membership in a union. Jenkins replied, Well, I wouldn't say, but it may be that you have done some- thing or said something. They also advised me to let you go. • I suggested to the committee to put you back on a machine for the time being and let you reinstate your friendship with the boys, and it may be that in eight or ten,days that they may come back and say let you go, and I will have to fire you out anyway. I don't know what you have got yourself into. Maybe you belong to the union for all I know, I don't know. 24 It is sometimes considered preferable to print a pattern which does not correspond exactly with the design rather than to lose production by taking time to change the pattern. - r 716 'DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD i Goley told Jenkins that if he was to be demoted lie might want a new contract. The next day, however, Goley told Jenkins he would not work on a machine but would stand on his rights under his cur- rent contract. To this Jenkins replied that he would call New York and find out whether he should discharge Goley at once and "pay up his contract" or let him "go to law" about it. 'Jenkins added that he would advise Goley to ask Sanders to call a meeting of the Broth- erhood committee and to thrash the matter out with them. Goley spoke to Sanders and a meeting of the committee was arranged but did not materialize because Pilgrim told Goley not to attend. We have indicated that Roberts, Tipping, and Goley attended the sleeting in Lindberg's roonm.on November 12, 1939, at which it was, decided that the members of the M. P: B. A. in the plant would inform the respondent of their affiliation; that they were observed going to and from the meeting by Sanders, Floyd, and other active members of the Brotherhood; and that within 48 hours the Brother- hood's campaign of vilification and abuse against members of the M. P. B. A., and particularly Roberts, Tipping, and Goley, began, and was acquiesced in by the respondent. We have also related that at about the same time, some of the Brother- hood men who worked under Roberts, Tipping, and Goley refused to show them their patches, taking them instead to Pilgrim and Rawson, and that Pilgrim admitted that he encouraged this practice. On November 13 or 14, 1939, Pilgrim demoted Goley from boss printer to assistant foreman. Goley testified, and we credit his testi- mony, that Pilgrim did not tell him why he was being demoted, say- ing merely "That is orders." Pmlgrinn testified concerning the reason for Goley's demotion as follows : The department was in such a condition that I went out and asked Mr. Goley what was wrong with the department, and Mr. Goley never did give me any answer, and I told him, I said, "Now, if you don't get this department straightened out here and keep these men from running from one machine to another talking I am going to take you off the job. Conditions never did improve and so I taken Mr. Goley off the job." We find this reason incredible. Pilgrim rhust have been referring to the flagrant activities of the Brotherhood men against members of the M. P. B. A., since that is the only "running from one machine to another talking" suggested by the record. We do not think the re- spondent would have demoted Goley for failing to stop activities in which it acquiesced. We think the real reason is indicated in Goley's conversation with Grier on the occasion of Goley's promotion to boss printer when Grier warned Goley against associating with Tipping ROCK HILL PRINTING AL \-D FINISHING CO. 717 k or Roberts because they were thought to belong to the M. P. B. A. and threatened Goley with discharge if he had anything to do with that union, and in Goley 's conversation with Jenkins in October 1939, when Jenkins threatened Goley with demotion or discharge unless he "rein- stated his friendship" with the Brotherhood . We are of the opinion that when Goley's membership in the M. P. B. A. became open and it was clear that he had not observed the respondent's warning to stay away from the M. P . B. A. and to "reinstate his friendship" with ' the Brotherhood , Jenkins carried out his threat to demote Goley. On Wednesday , December 6, 1939, Floyd told Tipping he "wouldn't last the week out." On Friday, December 8, 1939, Roberts , Tipping, and Goley were called to Jenkins' office separately and told that they were discharged, effective immediately . Jenkins told Roberts and Tipping that the reason was "willful inefficiency." Tipping asked Jenkins to be more specific, and Jenkins said Tipping had deliberately "sent men ahead with jobs that were not right." Tipping denied this, and Jenkins asked him whether he had not approved a patch that was not right. Tipping replied that he 5night have, that no man is infal- lible, but that he had never deliberately done so. Jenkins said, "Well, haven't you been abusing some of the printers down there? " Tipping said he did not know what Jenkins was talking about. Tipping asked whether lie was being discharged because of his membership in the M. P. B. A. Jenkins denied that this was the reason. Tipping stated that he had not talked about the M. P . B. A. or the Brotherhood to any printer on the - job or advised any printer whether or not he should join either union . Jenkins replied, "Well, Tam sorry Jesse, but that is the way it has to be." Jenk ins told Goley that he was discharged because Jenkins had heard from "several sources" that Goley was causing the respondent "a hell of' a lot of trouble." ' The respondent contends that Roberts , Tipping, and Goley were discharged because they endeavored to coerce the printers under them, to join the M. P. B. A. by refusing to approve good patches 'and by approving bad ones , thereby breaking their contracts with the re- spondent, losing their usefulness as foremen , and ruining the morale of the print ship. Jos] in testified that he had full confidence in Roberts until November 1939 and it was conceded that Tipping and Goley had been satisfac- tory foremen until September 28, 1939. Beginning about November 14,1939, however, Jenkins testified, he constantly received reports from Pilgrim that the printers were complaining that Roberts , Tipping, and Goley were approving patches that were bad and refusing to ap- prove patches that were good . He testified , and his testimony was 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD corroborated by Joslin, that the situation was so serious that he talked to Joslin on the telephone about it several times. Various witnesses called by the respondent testified concerning this alleged misconduct ; and the respondent put in evidence several memo- randa identified by Pilgrim as summaries of complaints against these foremen which he had received after November 12, 1939: 'T'hese memoranda were prepared at Jenkins' instructions. Pilgrim testi- fed that he dictated them to his stenographer in the cdnfererice room and that he told her to write them in longhand. His testimony con- cerning why they were not taken in shorthand and transcribed, as as the custom with respect to other matters, is evasive and uncon- vincing. The stenographer testified, and we credit her testimony, that the memoranda were written in this way in order to prevent,any one from knowing what was being done. Significantly, all of the memoranda describe complaints made after the meeting in Lindberg's room and during the period when the Brotherhood was carrying on its campaign of vilification and abuse agaiiist members of the-M. P. B. A. Some of these memoranda refer to improper approial dr refusal to approve patches. Among the other charge's are r.egl'ect, "riding," cursing, threats and promises concerning employment, and solicita- tion of membership in the M. P. B. A. Several of the memoranda reiterate that the complainant has "no confidence" in these foremen. One of them states that the complainant. deliberately tried to trip 'Goley into approving a had 'patch. Many of them are to the effect that the'complainant refused to show patches to these foremen. Only a few of them charged that Roberts, Tipping, or Goley actually men- tioned the M. P. B. A. The witnesses called by the respondent in this connection made similar charges. Much of their testimony is irrelevantLbecause it re- fers to the period during which the respondent admits that Roberts, Tipping, and Goley were satisfactory supervisors, or because the con- duct complained of is not alleged to have been reported to the respondent. All the charges are denied by Roberts, Tipping., and Goley. They assert that not only were they not engaging in such conduct but that they themselves were being discriminated against, notably by .the respondent's encouragement of insubordination and of the vilification campaign. In fact, Tipping during this period, fearing that he would be discharged because of his membership in the M. P B..1., sought reinstatement in the Brotherhood. Although the respondent alleges that Roberts, Tipping, and Goley were discharged because they refused to approve good patches and ap- proved bad ones and Jenkins testified that complaints to this effect ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 719 were constantly transmitted to him by Pilgrim, Pilgrim admitted at the hearing that he knew of only one pattern, called the "Del Monte" pattern 2P which had been improperly approved by any of these men. This pattern was passed by Roberts and Tipping, but Goley admittedly had nothing tq do with it. When Pilgrim was asked on cross-exami- nation whether any of the people who complained to hini showed him patches which had been improperly approved he answered: Well, I don't say that they were improperly okayed. They had brought me patches, simply avoiding Tipping, Roberts, and Goley, and had brought me patches and asked me what I thought about it, and I would go in and tell them what to do on the machine. In other words, according to Pilgrim's own testimony, in reality Roberts, Tipping and Goley were not given a chance to approve patches. Jenkins and Joslin admitted at the hearing that they accepted these complaints at face value, without even questioning Roberts, Tipping or Goley about them. As we have indicated in our dis- cussion of the Brotherhood, Joslin testified that he was "afraid even to talk to" Roberts, Tipping, and Goley because he was. "between two unions." - Joslin further testified that he inferred from Roberts' and Tip- ping's failure to prevent the error in the printing of the Del Monte pattern that they were behaving maliciously. This testimony is patently incredible. The error in the Del Monte pattern was what is known as a 'balanced miss" in the engraving. The error, being balanced, resulted in a uniform pattern, but one which did not correspond exactly with the design. This error originated in the -engraving department and went through the entire plant unnoticed. It appears from the evidence that it ,was Rawson 's. not Roberts' or Tipping's respopsibility to check this pattern against the design. Even assuming, however, that Roberts and Tipping should have noticed the error, others were equally responsible for the imperfect printing of the cloth. This is evident from correspondence between Joslin and the management at Rock Hill during the period November 21 to November 24, 1939, read .into the record by the respondent. In one of these letters Joslin says : "I do not see how this could get by the different men in charge of the color and printing depart- ments as well as the printer. Also, I cannot see how this ever got. by the engraver." Yet the respondent attributed malice only to Roberts and Tipping. o_e Also known as the "Milano" pattern 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is admitted that the cloth so printed was sold as first quality goods and that the respondent lost no money on it.26 In spite of the fact that the error did not originate under Roberts' and Tipping's supervision and was passed by all of the other employees charged with the duty of catching it, no one else was disciplined for it, not even the engraver himself. Moreover, Tipping testified without con- tradiction that it was the respondent's practice to run a,pattern with a balanced miss through once and then send the, rollers back to be corrected, rather than lose production by stopping to fix them, and his testimony was corroborated by Roberts. The Trial Examiner who heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor did not believe the charges against Roberts, Tipping, and Goley. He characterized much of the testimony of the respondent's witnesses in this connection as containing "many inconsistencies, numerous improbabilities, exaggerations, distortions, and falsehoods." In addition, although the respondent alleges that Roberts, Tipping, and Goley completely demoralized the work of the printing depart- ment Jenkins testified that during this period neither production nor the percentage of "seconds" was affected. We find that the charges are false. We find further, upon the entire record. that,, they. were instigated by the respondent's-partisanship for the Brotherhood and against the Al. P. B. A. Such impairment of the usefulness of Roberts, Tipping, and Goley as foremen as may have resulted is directly attributable to that partisanship. 2' The charges were not, we find, the reason for which the respondent discharged the three men. We conclude, as did the Trial Examiner, that Roberts, Tipping, and Goley were discriminatorily discharged. Jenkins admitted that they were "the tops in that department," "key-nlen," and that except for a short time immediately preceding their discharge they had rendered praiseworthy service ever since the opening of the plant in 1929. The respondent thought so highly of their work that Roberts at one time was head of the print shop, Tipping night divi- sional superintendent of the printing department, and Goley boss printer. Yet all three of these men were summarily discharged on 26 Although Joslyn testified that the respondent might still suffer a loss since customers sometimes keep goods 8 months or a year before using them this does not altei the fact that at the time of Roberts and Tipping's dischaigo these was no mdieatinn that a loss iiould occur 2T-Althouvh an emplo}er may properly inhibit its supeivisorv employees from inter- ference with employee self-organization by adopting- a non-discriminating rule requiring them to iefram from activity in any labor oiganiration and from participation in intei- union nialry, it may not, in the absence of such a inle and without warning disci mate against a superoisory employee for his union membership or interest Cf Matter of Chambers Corporation and Allied Stove Mounter. and Stove Proceasoi.i International Union. Local No 36 (A F of L ), 21 N L R B. 808 ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 721 the same day without notice and without being apprised of the spe- cific charges against them. We have found that the complaints against them were false and that they did not refuse properly to approve patches, but that Brotherhood men, at Pilgrim's instruction, refused to show patches to them. We are impressed by Joslin's and Jenkins' failure to investigate the charges or even to ask to see any patches, although according to their own testimony they discussed the charges several times between November 14 and December S. We are also impressed by the incredibility of Joslins' assertion that he inferred malice from Roberts' and Tipping's failure to catch the error in the Del Monte pattern. Joslin's contention that he was "afraid even to Olk" to Roberts, Tipping, and Goley because he was "between two unions" carries no conviction. The struggle of the Brotherhood against the Al. P. B. A. in the plant was instigated and encouraged by the respondent. We have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Brother- hood. and that as part of said domination and interference it ac- gniesced in the Brotherhood's campaign of, vilification and abuse against Roberts, Tipping, and Goley. We think, as did the Trial Exanminer, that the discharge of Roberts, Tipping, and Goley was merely the culmination of the respondent's efforts, through the Broth- erhood and otherwise, to rid the plant of the Al. P. B. A. We find that the respondent discharged Roberts, Tipping, and Goley on December 8, 1938 and has since failed or refused to rein- state them because they joined and assisted the Al. P. B. A. and en- gaged in concerted activities with other employees of the respondent for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and that the respondent thereby discriminated with regard to their hire and tenure of employment and the terms and conditions of their employment, discouraged membership in a labor organiza- tion, and interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. At the time of their discharge Roberts was earning $97 a week; and Pipping and Goley, $78.50 a week. They desire reinstatement. TV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occuring in connection with the operations of the respond- ent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free' flow of commerce. 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY We shall require the respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices in which we have found it to have engaged and to take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. We have found that the respondent-has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the Brotherhood and con- tributed financial and other support to. it. The effects and conse- quences of the respondent's domination, interference with, and sup- port of the Brotherhood as well as continued recognition by the respondent of the Brotherhood as bargaining representative, of employees in the respondent's print shop, constitute a continuing obstacle to the free exercise by its employees of their right of self- organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The Brotherhood, has been utilized by the respondent as the instrumentality to defeat the rights of its employees under the Act. Because of the respondent's illegal conduct with rela- tion to it, the Brotherhood is incapable of serving the respondent's employees as 'their genuine collective bargaining agency. We shall order the respondent to disestablish and withdraw all recognition from the Brotherhood as the representative of any of its eli7ployees for the purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.. We have also found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged and failed or refused to reinstate Sidney Mahaffey, W. M. Force. Randall Cutts, Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tipping, and A. T. Goley. We shall order the respondent to offer to these employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. We shall order the respondent to make whole Joe Rob- erts, Jess M. Tipping, and A. T. Goley for any loss of pay.they have suffered by reason of their discharge, by 'payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement less their net earnings 28 during said per'od. "By "net earnings " is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation. room, and board. incurred by an employee in connection o ith obtaining work and noakmg else- where than for the respondent, shich would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elseshere See Matte, of tliosseft Lumber Companij and United B,otbehood of'Carpeiteis and Joiners of America, Lumber and ,Sawmill 1Vorl,ers Union, Local 2590, s N L R B 440 Monies iecei%ed for ssoik, performed upon Federal, State county municipal, or other N%ork-relief loojcits shill be considered as earnings See Republic ^Ntecl Coipoiahmi v Iv 'L Ft B :111 U 8 7 - ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. - - 723 Since the Trial Examiner found that the respondent had not dis- criminatorily discharged Sidney Mahaffey, W. M. Force, and Randall Cutts, we shall order the respondent to make them whole for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would normally have earned as wages from the date of his-discharge until July 10, 1940, the date of the Intermediate Report, and from the date of our order to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Machine Printers Beneficial Association and Brotherhood of Textile Printers and Associated Workers are labor organizations with;u'the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. The respondent by dominating and interfering with the forma- tion and administration of Brotherhood of 'Textile Printers and Associated Workers, and contributing support thereto, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( 2) of the Act. 3. The respondent by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Sidney Mahaffey , W. M. Force, Randall Cutts, "Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tipping , and A. T. Goley , and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 4. - The respondent by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its, employees•in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the 'Act, has engaged in and is engaging in'unfair labor practices within the meaning of,Section 8 (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesa-d unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER- Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the ,,respondent and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : - (a) In any manner dominating or interfering wth the administra- tion of Brotherhood of Textile Printers and' Associated Workers, or with the formation or administration of any other labor organization 413692 42-vol 29--47 - 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of its employees, and from contributing support to Brotherhood of Textile Printers and Associated Workers, or to any other labor organization of its employees; (b) Discouraging membership in Machine Printers Beneficial Association, or any labor organization of its employees, by discrimi- nating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of employment; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Boards finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Sidney Mahaffey, W. M. Force, Randall Cutts, Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tippin, and A. T'. Goley immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole Sidney Mahaffey, W. M. Force, Randall Cutts, Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tipping, and A. T. Goley for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by the respondent; by payment to Sidney Mahaffey of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned as wages from January 23, 1939, to July 10, 1940, and from the date of the Order herein ' to the date of offer of reinstatement; by payment to W. M. Force and Ran- dall Cutts respectively of a sum of money equal to that which each of them would normally have earned as wages from June 9, 1939, to July 10, 1940, and from the date of the Order herein to the date of offer of reinstatement; by payment to Joe Roberts, Jess M. Tipping, and A. T. Goley, respectively of a sum of money equal to that wh-ch each would normally have earned as wages from December 8, 1939, to the date-of offer of reinstatement; less their respective net earnings (luring said period or periods ; (c) Withdraw all recognition from Brotherhood of Textile Print- ers,and Associated Workers, as the representative of any of its em- ployees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said organization as such representative; (d) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous places throughout its plant and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty (60) days from the date of posting, stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered ROCK HILL PRINTING AND FINISHING CO. 725 to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order, and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to join and remain members of Machine Printers Beneficial Association, and the respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in said labor, organization; _ (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.