Alabama Textile Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 88 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alabama Textile Products Corporation and
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-2780.
April 21, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On January 24, 1967, Trial Examiner Benjamin B.
Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief and the Respondent filed an
answering brief to the Charging Party's exceptions
and brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
i In affirming the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the allegation
that employee Knighten was discharged in violation of Section
8(a)(3), we do not adopt his finding that a supervisor's awareness
of her planned attendance at a union meeting was insufficient to
impute to Respondent knowledge that she had engaged in union
activity
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: Hearing in this
proceeding was held in Andalusia, Alabama, on October 6,
1966. upon charges filed by the Union on February 9 and
' Without opposition, the General Counsel's motion to correct
the official transcript in minor respects is hereby granted.
2 All dates are in 1965, unless otherwise specified
14, 1966, and a complaint issued by the General Counsel
on June 23 , 1966, alleging that Respondent discharged
Inez C. Knighten in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
committed independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. All parties at the hearing were afforded full
opportunity to present relevant evidence , examine and
cross-examine witnesses , and argue orally on the record.
Careful consideration has been given to the briefs
submitted by the General Counsel , Respondent, and
Charging Party.
Upon the entire record in the case ,' and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and
nonretail sale of shirts and related products at Brantley,
Alabama, the sole plant involved in this proceeding.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint,
Respondent had a direct outflow in interstate commerce of
goods and products valued in excess of $50,000. It is
admitted, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Charging Party or the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
About October 21, 1965,2 the Union initiated a campaign
to organize the Brantley plant, and a committee of
employees was established to solicit union authorization
cards. Theretofore, a collective-bargaining contract had
been consummated with the Union covering the
employees at Respondent's main plant at Andalusia,
Alabama, some 28 miles from Brantley. About 150
persons, including supervisors, are employed at the
Brantley plant.
B. Knighten's Union Activities
The alleged discriminatee, Knighten, testified that on
October 28, at her work station, she remarked to Myrtle
Huggins that she "was going to join the Ku Klux Klan
tonight, and the Union tomorrow." She noticed at the time
that Guy G. Carmichael, Respondent's plant manager, was
standing 4-5 feet away, and although she was not looking
at Carmichael, "it was possible that he could have" heard
her. i The next morning, October 29, she signed a union
card brought to her by Lois Henegan. On November 3, she
began attending wdekly union meetings held in Opp and
Elba, Alabama, and thereafter gave out union cards in the
ladies' room at the plant before work and at lunch. After
her discharge, occurring on December 6, she had two
union meetings at her home.
9 Under the circumstances, Carmichael is credited that he did
not hear any such conversation
164 NLRB No. 15
ALABAMA TEXTILE PRODUCTS 89
C. Alleged Interference and Coercion
Martha Smith testified that, in late October or early
November, Supervisor Barbara Johnson told her that "a
girl" had informed Johnson that Smith had asked this
"girl" to sign a union card. The remark was made in the
course of a friendly and casual conversation otherwise
unrelated to the Union. Johnson testified that she never
spoke with Smith concerning the Union or union cards.
All the remaining testimony to substantiate the Section
8(a)(1) aspect of the complaint was adduced by Knighten,
as follows:
Between October 21 and her discharge, she had
discussions with her immediate supervisor , Ruth Kelly,
about "the possibility of the plant going Union." (a) In the
latter part of October, Kelly asked her what she thought
"about the company going Union," and why she did not
invite Kelly to a meeting. She replied that she did not know
"we had had a meeting , and when we did," she would let
Kelly know. (b) About November 10, Kelly asked Knighten
if she thought she would attend "these meetings."
Knighten said she "had planned to," and was going to
learn more about the Union. However, Knighten flatly
testified that Kelly never asked her what went on at the
union meetings ." (c) A few days before her discharge, she
and Kelly were "just casually" talking about "the number
of people in the shop that had joined it, and the possibility
that there were more in the shirts than there was in the
jackets that had signed union cards." Kelly asked her if
she thought the shop would go Union, and remarked that
she wished that "the shirt department was as loyal as the
jacket department."
Kelly testified that she did not know Knighten was
taking any part in the Union. She related the extent of their
conversations. On one occasion," responding to Knighten's
question, Kelly said she "didn't know anything about the
union except back in the 1940's when they tried to
organize them." Knighten indicated that she had some
information about the union, a "book," containing a
contract of the Glass Blowers Association from
Montgomery, Alabama. Knighten said she was going to
read it , and offered in secrecy to let Kelly see it. Two or
three weeks later , Knighten handed Kelly the book, which
she took home to read. The next morning she returned the
book, commenting that she did not understand much
about it. Knighten then remarked, "From what I can get
out of it, we've got more benefits without the union." In
the second week of November, Kelly overheard Knighten
say she was going somewhere that night, and asked her
where she was going. Knighten said , "I'm going to a union
meeting, don't you want to go?" Kelly replied she had not
been invited, and indicated she would not go in any event.
Kelly denied having any discussion with Knighten
concerning the shirt department being more loyal then the
jacket department, and averred she had no knowledge of
the union activities in either department.
Knighten further testified that Grace Gibson, head
supervisor over shirts, "made the same remarks" on the
subject of the Union as did Kelly. (a) Between
November 10 and 17, Gibson said she wished "shirts were
as loyal to the company as jackets was," and asked her
whether she thought "they would go Union." Knighten
answered that she did not know. (b) On a subsequent
occasion," the same conversation was repeated (as above),
with the- additional comment by Gibson that "she was
surprised that some of the ones she knew had joined the
Union."7 (c) Sometime after November 10, Gibson asked
her if she had gone to the union meeting with (Maturia)
Johnson, and she responded negatively.
Gibson in detail denied each of the foregoing items of
testimony, and any discussion whatsoever with Knighten
concerning the Union. Through Gibson, Respondent
referred to a company policy, in effect "for many years,"
which was publicized in the employees' job manual, viz:
UNION ACTIVITY
Company Policy U-2: The laws of the United States
and the State of Alabama provide that any person is
free to join or not to join a labor organization and in
the exercise of that freedom they shall be free from
threats, coercion or intimidation. This also applies to
your right to freely come and go to and from your work
at all times without being molested or bothered by
anyone. Any violation of the above should be reported
to a law enforcement officer or to the Industrial
Relations Department.
Conclusions
Even assuming that the conversation occurred as
related by Smith, there appears no support for the
allegation in the complaint that Supervisor Johnson
"accused" Smith of requesting an employee to sign a
union card, and I find, in all the circumstances, no basis on
any other ground for drawing an inference of coercion in
Johnson's statement.
In the complaint, six paragraphs allege violations by
Supervisor Kelly. Of these, five must fall by reason of
complete failure of support in Knighten's own testimony.
The remaining allegation is that, on October 10, Kelly
"asked an employee why the employee had not invited her
to a union meeting."" With no implication that such an
inquiry, even if made, would constitute coercion, I accept
as the more plausible Kelly's account of the conversation,
which plainly shows an absence of violative conduct.
Furthermore, it appears to me improbable and unreliable
that Knighten attributed identical utterances to Kelly and
Gibson, especially as her testimony is also inconsistent
with the specifications of the complaint as to both these
supervisors. In these particulars, it is at least evident that
her testimony is seriously confused. More specifically, I
am constrained to credit the firm and explicit disavowals
of Kelly and Gibson, concerning the statements of
comparative loyalty between the shirt and jacket
departments; the expression of surprise "at who had
signed union cards"; and the soliciting of Knighten's
opinion as to whether the Company was going Union." In
light of the above disposition. the lack of evidence of union
4 The complaint contains four separate allegations that on
November 3, 10, 17, and 24, Supervisor Kelly "requested an
employee to disclose what went on at a union meeting "
According to Knighten , the incident took place before the
union campaign started at Brantley
6 On cross-examination , Knighten was "positive " that this
conversation occurred on December 3, the Friday before her
discharge Other evidence unquestionably shows that Knighten
was absent on December 3
' The latter statement is alleged in the complaint as to both
Gibson and Kelly However, Knighten gave no such testimony as
to Kelly
9 Apparently , though not explicated at the hearing or in his
brief, the General Counsel's theory is that of unlawful
interrogation
sCf Bourne Co v N L R B , 332 F 2d 47 (C A 2).
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
animus, and Gibson's contrary testimony, I similarly
dismiss the remaining allegation that Gibson asked
Knighten if she had gone to the November 10 meeting with
Johnson.
D. The Discharge
Knighten was employed as an operator by Respondent
in 1941 . Her first job was to sew top collar and back
pockets on pants. Upon her return from maternity leave in
1947, she was assigned to sewing pockets on shirts.
Following another maternity absence, in March 1956, she
was assigned to a newly reorganized10 "attach collar"
section of the shirt department . She continued on this job
until her discharge on December 6, 1965."
Incompetence was stated as the reason for discharge on
the form termination notice which was given to Knighten.
Plant Manager Carmichael , who made the decision,
testified that the grounds upon which he relied were: her
inferior production ("the lowest operator in the plant
among the experienced operators ," except for those
accorded a physical handicap permit); the poor quality of
her work ; and her "attitude toward work" (e.g., her alleged
use of profane and abusive language when examiners
returned work to her for repair).
During 1965 , there were employed in the attached collar
section as many as 13 operators , including trainees,12 and
as few as 8 operators , reached immediately after
Knighten's discharge .'' They were paid on a piece-rate
basis established as a result of timestudies . In 1965, for
example, they had to produce 46 dozen units a day to earn
their "base rate" of $1 .46 an hour, and some 40 dozen
units to earn the equivalent of Federal minimum wage of
$1.25 paid by Respondent . Operators with an average
production of less than 40 units a day were recorded for
the pay period in the classification of "make up ."' a From
September 1, 1963, to December 6, 1965, Respondent
hired 18 new operators , and severed from the payroll 17
operators , of whom 3 were terminated for "make up," i.e.,
Laura Grant in October 1963; Linda Odum Grantham in
August 1965 , and Inez Knighten in December 1965.1'
Since 1963 , when the minimum wage was raised to $1.25
an hour, Knighten was continuously in "make tip."'6 From
1961 to 1963 , she was in this category "most of the time."
However, the record indicates , for example , that in the
year 1965 all operators were at some time in "make up" in
varying degrees (as shown in the attached chart , Appendix
A)._
Knighten's own testimony discloses the following: She
never failed to make her production quotas on her other
jobs before she was assigned (after returning from leave) to
"attach collars." She was awarded silver dollars for good
production in her sewing work on pants. (By 1950,
Respondent was no longer making pants.)" At times
(which she did not specify) when a machine was vacant,
she "begged" to be returned to her former duties at sewing
pockets, but was told that she was needed more on "attach
collars "'" Her supervisors spoke to her "constantly"
concerning her failure to meet production in attaching
collars-about every 2 weeks when she was in "make up,"
and she was given many verbal warnings of discharge.'`'
Such criticism became "much worse" beginning about the
first of September.''[
On November 3, she received for the first time a written
letter of warning signed by Guy C. Carmichael, " plant
superintendent," which was a standard form used by
Respondent. Such letters were given certain other
operators, concurrently with Knighten, and at times in the
past. The letter stated:
We are interested in you being successful on your job.
Only by having successful workers can we compete
and keep jobs for people. Your success and the
company's success depend upon individuals who can
meet production and quality standards required by
our customers.
Our records show that your production is bad and
does not meet these standards. We are counting on
you to improve this condition. However, if it is
impossible for you to improve, it would be necessary
to separate you from the payroll of this company.
We feel sure that you will do your best.
Knighten refused to take the letter handed to her by Head
Supervisor Gibson, and it was left on the table.21 Knighten
said she "could not do it" (make production).
On November 10,22 Plant Manager Carmichael had
prepared a schedule of Knighten's production
performance since November 4, 1964, with projected goals
for her to achieve in the forthcoming payroll periods.
Under Carmichael' s instruction , Kelly gave Knighten this
"progress chart" and told her in substance that if she did
not meet these projected goals, "the company would not
70 Previously there were two separate operations of "running
on" and "attaching collars" on shirts
" From August until November 1962, Knighten was absent
because of illness
12 The training period was designated as 320 hours , or about 8
full weeks
13 Two different sewing operations were performed in the
attach collar section Six employees , including Knighten , worked
exclusively on "banded" collars for dress shirts , two employees,
requiring special training , worked on "convertible" collars for
sport shirts , and one employee interchanged in both operations
14 Attached hereto as Appendix A is a chart showing the named
operators and their average hourly earnings from January 1, 1965,
through February 9, 1966 (Resp Exh. 2A )
15 The record also reflects that in other divisions of the plant
and at other company plants , employees had been discharged for
poor production
'S The same "make up" level of 40 dozen units a day was
unchanged at least since 1956, despite increases in the minimum
wage . In November 1965, all operators received a wage increase
or "add on" of 5 cents an hour, which had the effect of reducing
by that amount the production required of them to stay out of
"make up."
" It is appropriate here to indicate my view that the character
of Knighten's work before 1956, upon which the General Counsel
places substantial rehance, must realistically be regarded as
"ancient history " Certainly, it is sufficient , on questions
concerning Knighten 's competence , to consider her performance
over the past 9 years
18 Plant Manager Carmichael testified that Knighten requested
a transfer once "3 to 5 years back, and one time since then," and
that she was not transferred because a lot of money was spent
training her in collar attachment , where she was then needed,
while she was not needed on her "old job "
18 Supervisor Kelly testified that she repeatedly offered
assistance to Knighten "to help her make production," but
Knighten would always say there is nothing that Kelly could do
20 Prior to the advent of the Union at Brantley
21 According to Supervisor Kelly, who was then present,
Knighten "threw it down on the table and said that she didn't
want it ." Knighten testified that she knew what it was , that she
had previously seen "some of them."
22 Carmichael and Gibson established this date
ALABAMA TEXTILE PRODUCTS 91
go along with her." In pertinent part, the chart shows the
following:
HOURLY AVERAGE AND PROGRESS CIIART
No. & Nnme 9000 INFZ G. KNIGIITF;N
Dept. or 111nist Woolley
Date Iloura Earned Hourly Make
Avrrnge sip
Arrumu-
listed
Hours
Quoin
Nov 3 1965 702 76.32 1.08 11-01 Bad
Nov 17 1965 682 79.42 1.16 6.21 1.16 find
Der 1 1965 712 79.33 1.11 1005 1.22 And
Dec 15 1965 1.30
1.36
1.42
1.45
Carmichael and Kelly testified that it would have been
sufficient under the progress chart for Knighten to have
improved her earnings to $1.25 (i.e., to stay out of "make
up") and she would have been retained.2" In the past,
Respondent used the above-quoted form, particularly in
the "accumulated hours" column, only with respect to
trainees. According to Gibson, it was adopted as a
standard procedure for the regular operators since
November 1965; theretofore, these operators were orally
given similar projects on a "curve" basis to induce
improvement in their production.
As of November 3, when Knighten was given the
warning letter, her average hourly earnings were shown as
$1.08.24 In the following payroll period, ending
November 17, she improved her production to $1.16,
thereby meeting the figure projected in the progress chart,
above. However, in the next period, ending December 1,
she receded to $1.11. Carmichael then decided to
discharge her as of Friday, December 3, and her
supervisors were so instructed. As earlier noted, Knighten
was absent on December 3. On Monday, December 6,
toward the end of the day, Kelly told Knighten that
Carmichael wanted to see her in the conference room.
Knighten refused to go. Shortly thereafter, she was called
in by Head Supervisor Gibson and given a formal
termination notice indicating she was dismissed for
"incompetence." Gibson invited her to make a statement
on the termination form, but Knighten declined. 27,
Significant in the record are evaluation reports made out
by Supervisor Kelly reflecting on a daily basis the work
performance and conduct of Knighten since January 1965.
These reports, which are regularly kept for all employees,
utilize a numerical code system together with explicit
comment in evaluating the employees' production, quality,
attendance, and "other" conduct. Knighten's production
was rated as "bad" for every month of 1965. Her work
quality was rated as "bad" for 8 months and "poor" for 2
months-in that the amount of rejected work returned to
her "exceeded repair quota," as specified in the reports.
Pertaining to the issue of Knighten's use of "profane
and abusive language," her evaluation reports show the
following notations: on July 22-"Temper tantrum about
being checked out"; on September 7-"Profane language
about bad quality-Disturbs other people"; and on
October 5-"Abusive language to Examiners (2)-She
cursed Lurline Gibson and Mary McNeal because they
sent bad work back to be repaired. To Lurline: Any
dam [n] Fool can push the collar full, after this remark she
cursed." Concerning the July incident, Supervisor Kelly
testified that when she told Knighten she was going to be
checked out the next day,27 Knighten went into a tantrum
"cursed and stomped and roared until she was outside the
building." In September, after Knighten was given back
"a bundle of repairs," she got "real mad," to the extent
that the other employees told Kelly they were "upset and
disturbed" over Knighten's manner and language. As to
the October occurrence, Supervisor Gibson and another
examiner had sent back to Knighten "bad work to be
repaired," and "she just cursed both of them out at the
same time, including me [Kelly] too,-using vulgar
language, profane language, God's name in vain."
Carmichael testified that he spoke to Knighten
immediately after the event, and she "flatly denied it." On
the stand, Knighten denied only that she "cursed them,"
admitting that she "might have made a few remarks," but
could not recall what she said. The apparent conflict may
merely involve a difference in subjective definition of what
constitutes profanity or cursing. In any case, I credit the
account given by Kelly, and also find that such conduct by
Knighten, particularly in view of its recency, entered into
Carmichael's decision to discharge her, as he attested.
Carmichael directly testified as to the reason he did not
previously discharge Knighten, whose production record
was consistently "bad" since 1963. At the "old plant" in
Brantley, Respondent's overall production requirements
were about 1,000 dozens (shirts) a week. When the "new
plant" was constructed and occupied in June 1963, there
were some operators "that were bad," but Respondent
started building toward an ultimate goal of 1,500 dozen per
week. Some substandard employees were allowed to stay
on, but Respondent knew it "would surely have to let them
go," if they did not improve. At the time Knighten was
discharged, he had 8 experienced operators in order "to
take action toward straightening things up." In alleged
justification of the discharge action, Respondent
introduced into evidence data showing a marked
improvement in the productivity of virtually all the
experienced operators from December 1, 1965, through
July 27, 1966.28 Carmichael also plausibly explained at
some length (which need not here be fully detailed) his
evaluation of the other "attach collar" operators. Betty
Sue Howell, in particular, is alleged by the General
Counsel as having a production record inferior to that of
Knighten. The question is at best arguable.29 As
23 Knighten did not testify to the substance of the conversation
when she was given the progress chart by Kelly, and it does not
appear whether she was given to or did understand that she would
not be discharged if she improved her earnings to the level of
$125
24 See Appendix A for comparison with the other operators
25 The form contains a space for the employee to indicate
disagreement with the Company's stated reason for termination,
so that the "employee may protect rights to employment
compensation "
26 In Appendix B hereto are examples of such reports on
Knighten for the months of January and July 1965
27 Presumably a temporary suspension
28 See chart in Appendix C hereto
21 Cf Appendices A and C
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carmichael testified, Howell was warned about low
production; she complained of a back ailment; she
requested and was granted a leave of absence in mid-July
1965; and she returned to work in mid-November with a
certificate from her doctor that "her health was okay."
Carmichael stated that " action" would have been taken if,
upon her return, Howell had not been able to pick up
production.
In February 1965, Knighten filed an application with
Respondent to obtain a handicap permit, under
regulations of the U.S, Department of Labor, Wage and
Hour Division, containing a physician's verification that
she had a condition of osteoarthritis and was 25 percent
disabled from performing her type of work. With such
permit, she could be paid less than the minimum wage,
and the level of her "make up" accordingly reduced. Such
a handicap permit was held by Laura Holliday, an operator
in "attach collar" whose "make up" level was lowered to
$1.12, as compared with $1.25 for the other operators.30
However, Knighten's application was rejected in view of
Respondent's written policy that no department would be
allowed to have more than 5 percent of employees on
handicap status at any one time. While Carmichael
testified in effect that an employee's physical condition is
taken into consideration by Respondent, he made it clear
that this was only in the manner consistent with the
treatment of Howell, as described above. Apart from the
filing of her application for handicap permit in 1965, it
does not appear that Knighten sought to advance the fact
of her physical disability as reason for her poor work
performance, 31 regarding which she was continually
warned. In the circumstances of this record, it cannot be
held that Carmichael's judgment was arbitrary in
permitting Howell's return in November while terminating
Knighten shortly thereafter.
General Counsel further points to the testimony of
Martha Smith, that she was discharged in 1958 "for being
in make up," and yet was recalled by Respondent in 1963.
Suffice it to state that Smith was not in the "attach collar"
operation here in question ; that this evidence relating to
matters in 1958 and 1963 is too remote; and that the
subject of Smith's work experience was insufficiently
litigated.
Two additional items may be noted of postdischarge
events, although neither is of compelling weight. (1) On
February 2 or 3, 1966, counsel for the Union, James
Graham, approached Respondent's attorneys and
requested a publicized disavowal that Knighten was
discharged for reasons relating to the Union. Such a
notice, in evidence, was promptly posted by Respondent
indicating that the discharge was for "poor production"
and not for union activities . (2) In latter January or early
February, Merril Petty, the Union' s plant chairman at the
Company's Andalusia plant , had a series of discussions
with J. A. Thompson, executive vice president of
Respondent , concerning Knighten's discharge. At the
initial meeting , Petty indicated he would personally
undertake an investigation . At the next conference, he
reported that he had talked to Knighten and she said that
"the supervisors had been asking her questions about the
Union. They asked her how many was at the meeting."32
He therefore felt that she had been discharged for that
reason. Thompson then stated that he would investigate
and requested Petty to wait before filing any charges. A
few days later, Thompson called in Petty and gave him a
handwritten analysis of the comparative work
performance for each operator in "attach collar." In
pertinent summary, he said that the supervisors denied
the alleged questioning of Knighten, that she had in fact
been terminated because of her production record, and
that "it would be poor business to keep her with makeup of
that kind."33
Conclusions
The facts as above related and found perforce require a
dismissal of the alleged violation. Essentially the General
Counsel contends that for years Respondent tolerated the
"make up" performance of Knighten and of other
employees, and seized upon this ground as a pretext to
terminate Knighten when the Union commenced
organizing the plant and Knighten was in the "forefront"
of these activities. However, the record does not bear out
such contention. It cannot quite be said that Respondent
"tolerated" or accepted as normal the long-existing
makeup condition in the attach collar section, as the
evidence shows a consistently reproving attitude of
Respondent toward experienced operators who were
overlong in "make up," including certain discharges
which were made for this reason in the past. Nor is a
company committed indefinitely to continue inefficient
operations or operators, even though long tolerated.
Respondent here credibly established that in the fall of
1965, it was in a position "to take action toward
straightening things up" in the attach collar section, and it
apparently succeeded in some degree. By Knighten's own
admission, the criticism of her work became more
concentrated and "much worse" at the beginning of
September, before the Union appeared on the scene. In
terminating Knighten as having the lowest productivity
and the least potential for improvement, Respondent's
own assessment cannot be put aside as clearly erroneous.
And the evidence provides no substantial basis for holding
that she was disparately selected as against the other
operators. Furthermore, it is not at all unreasonable that
Respondent took into account the more recent conduct of
Knighten in her use of offensive language to supervisors
and examiners, her displays of temper, and her
uncooperativeness. Perhaps there were courses, other
than discharge, which were feasibly and economically
open to Respondent in this instance of an employee of 25
years' service and one who was handicapped in her
particular work by an arthritic disability. From the
standpoint of the evidence, it was not shown that work was
available elsewhere in the plant for which Knighten was
qualified at the time of her discharge.
The entire issue turns, of course, on whether
Respondent 's motive for discharging Knighten was in
whole or substantial part related to her union activity, with
30 In other respects , her piece rate and earnings were on the
same basis as the others
31 Kntghten testified only that she was never able again to make
production after her hospitalization in 1962 Kelly recalled one
instance when Kmghten mentioned her health during a discussion
of her production, but she did not say "what was wrong with her "
32 Knighten herself gave contrary testimony, as earlier found in
the disposition of the Section 8(a)(1) issues herein.
33 Petty also stressed that Knighten had "made good " in other
operations (i.e , poor to 1956) and should have been transferred
back to her old job when there were openings. Thompson
explained that she could not then have been released from her job
in view of Respondent's production needs in "attach collar" and
the fact that there were no trainees in that operation at the time
ALABAMA TEXTILE PRODUCTS
the burden of proof on the General Counsel. Her union
activity, previously described herein, was not in my
opinion of such overt and pronounced character as to mark
her as a likely candidate for discrimination and
discouragement of union membership, if Respondent were
so minded. Nor am I able to find 'that Respondent had
knowledge of Knighten's union activity, upon
consideration of the actual evidence thereon, supra,34 and
of all the relevant factors, including the timing and
circumstances of her discharge, and the general absence
of union animus on Respondent's part. But in any case,
even if Respondent were fully aware of Knighten's union
activity, I would and do conclude that General Counsel
failed to establish that Knighten was terminated without
valid cause and for unlawfully discriminatory reasons.
Accordingly, the 8(a)(3) allegation is not sustained.35
34 While Supervisor Kelly was aware that Knighten was going
to a union meeting the second week in November (after Knighten
had been given the warning letter), this evidence alone is not
enough in the circumstances to impute to Respondent knowledge
Z n e z J 771 7; h1 ,7
• ATraGR oL^ '
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
93
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act have not been supported
by substantial evidence.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety.
that she was active in behalf of the Union.
35 See, e g, N L.R.B v T A McGahey, d/b/a Columbus Marble
Works, 233 F 2d 406, 412 (C A. 5), Jackanic's Reinforccng-
Erectors, Inc., 158 NLRB 99
/96-4
- -- b/3 ?-2 11 yb 1 40 3 -211 V -) 11 S-S bN [ 2 -^[ b -^^ T2^ Rrt !• ] 6 /F3 JN7 a-/ /N9 L%j I
erY do
79 Iva I'll •
s
i
'
, M
'ey
LJ
r
it,
1"
w
,. .
K
011
r[
/ •
!f
A
!!
*40 1 /4
W / 4011 O -
o ^/u7e cvn
3 t• .,1 1 41 5 ! 0 •t L i, Z / z-
511., 14auje,11
A j/e n
j.13
/-7?
/as
/19
/01
lZ jq
tag
ZP
^/*.p
!
1.29 10
14
/.1. Lf-
a p 30 o! I! ,y ae s A 7 70 i 7 I $
33
Vd1^)flr,n• 1^ I ^Sc
^11 a m^ e
Ea
LA' 14
s. 1b u K
t S ! « s
1
1!
.•,
•
/! /!
a
t! Is
NL
/. 17
/4
1/ 115,
ad
/ 33
aF
s9
^t
s^
s7
^!
7[
y!
a5
^M3 10
>
i/?r
rt
^ 71
l/0 /C I LE HA {5+eoC
'F i to .J it n sir
.^
IJ is ' oJi ` • N `A ry sd o'J ` .[ " K , K a
. .3
,bee ' ne-11 -f o ±! I V. v ,c ' ! e /14 141 ,4 M n d A/
Harrelson .^ ¢1 Lod re tt K s/ /,IS !t• 40 39 1 )!I /
L tadaD s 0 .70 az • I .12 77 Ir 41
-
-p P
1-,Laura 0,0i5ll,day r! W a t^ t! t3 n n t) o G 3 • 13 r t3 .3 , t^ n n 1,1 ,711 017 r.4 lra /J
Y /801
I
rq rC ^d r 0
J
Q
VraCE 0101/dr
Ce-a o /r/, (/er
.73
.t9
47
35
78
117
.13
.2
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPI.tntx a
JAN 1FRARTI Y VI /A•.'L //OTR EVALUATION REPORT
-L1t
Oeee
- - -
/►b
--
Pent
- -
Rae I
-
f
-
s
-
1 e
-
r
-
/ 1 r ie
-
I 1 s 11 s ie
-
II le l ► 7n )1
-
17 )1 sl t3 1 n
-
fe 11 !e
-
11_
- I P.eewnew
^ ^ _ ^ t
!. Atlendenee ! e ^/ !
L Olin
e
Dnle I Gp . DNe Leh __ QTJJ.Y
D•M '"Ple,•► ^[. Qrt^n► 0,61z Old a
CI-.et
65
f
2-1-16 Period ending 6/16 earned $1.02 with $15.79 make up.
2-1-30 Period ending 6/30 earned $1.10 with $ 9.98 make up.
2-1-14 Period ending 7/14 earned $1.14 with $ 3.78 make up.
2-2-14 Exceeded repair quota for week ending 7/14 with 68 pieces, quota 54 pieces.
13-4-22 Temper tantrum about being checked out.
** Under the code, 16 signifies the kind of conduct; 4 the category on the front side
of the report ; and 6, the date.
BRARTI. EMPLOYEES EVALUATION REPORT Dole ' 1965
awe rnt. Pea end 1 t r / . . / If 1 s s If N to 1n If n i " "" is_ _
L fs _
wrf 3 1
0-1!1F
e e
Xmpt. Q .Lx 0101n1 ► . V veto 1AM reb
C-1
2-1-16 Period ending 12/16 earned $1.02 per hr. with $18.54 make up.
2-1-30 Period ending 12/30 earned $1.10 per hr. with $3.87 make up.
2-1-13 Period ending 1/13 earned $1.15 per hr. with $6.22 make up.
2-2-6 Exceeded repair quota for week ending 1/6 with 118 pieces, quota 90 pieces.
2.2-13 Exceeded repair quota for week ending 1/13 with 131 pieces, quota+90 pieces.
2-2-20 Exceeded repair quota for week ending 1/20 with 94 pieces, quota'-9D pieces.
2-2-27 Exceeded repair quota for week ending 1 /27 with, 147 pieces, quota 90 pieces.
16-4-6 Given verbal warning about make up.
APPENDIX C
r.. o a-ra--- _ o
w • o w - .e w
62 s a
Attach Collars
ys W Q C I
31.
!- 2
y v v
Katherine B. ;.elson -9007 ZL y' / K /^' /=/ .y L` =/ /-
y / r= =/ ►4 /
lame F. :IBtt lib -7 - 9011 2! Cc /.5 /t L-1
9S f,
5V,
ES .9e
Voncile 1:alste 4 2 • -
1Jaratiie L He e on" 3/ /V/ / L /^^
33 pG /fir y^ / ^L / y y / yi ^ yo / ^t tL es
Betty Sae Hawe /_'
A'.C.
lase G . H o l l i d a yd
,V
a- 1-
Hug - 12 36
Yc /mss !^7
Bernelle Gatlin - 18
Nacr.B D. Harr o
=
/Y /
^3 jo • ,^ /^i =i ►̂ F y Z^ i
Betty Gaines - 9040 / =G
Luzon id" ems - 9o 5o
::adelyn Hail - 9066