Angwell Curtain Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 675 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 675
, 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of M.'B.
Rosenbum and W . J. Ballew, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
3 By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining , and coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
•' 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
AN GWELL CURTAIN COMPANY , INC. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR. Case No. 35-Ci1-118. May 18, 1951
Decision and Order
On February 2, 1951, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the Respondent's brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modi-
fications hereinafter set forth :
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Stella Thomas in violation of Section 8
(a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
As detailed in the Intermediate Report, the record shows that
Thomas was regarded as an efficient and wholly satisfactory employee;
she has received several merit increases, and was utilized to train new
and inexperienced workers in her department. After her layoff in
July, she was called back on August 15, but was discharged 3 days
later, on August 18, the day the Union filed its petition for representa-
tion. Thomas had become active in the Union after August 15. At
the time Thomas' employment was terminated she was advised that
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds,
and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 83.
676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
i
she was being laid off because of lack of work. When she inquired of
Factory Manager Hoover whether her layoff was "final ," she was told,
"it is according to the outcome of this thing that has started." Ac-
cording to Thomas' testimony, which the Trial Examiner credited,
she returned to the plant a week later, and talked to both Hoover and
General Manager Blocker. She again inquired as to whether her lay-
off was permanent, and was again told "wait until this thing is over."
In this same conversation Blocker asked Thomas who started the
Union.
Under all the circumstances, it seems plain that the several allusions
to "this thing" made in connection with the discharge of Thomas were
references to the union activity which had culminated in the filing of
a petition for representation. The statements made by Hoover and
Blocker not only demonstrate knowledge by the Respondent that
Thomas had joined in this activity, but further show that her union
activity was controlling in the Respondent's decision to terminate her
employment.2 The latter conclusion is further reinforced by the tenu-
ousness of the Respondent's asserted defense that Thomas was dis-
charged for surliness-a reason wholly different from that which was
given to her at the time of her layoff 3-and the general antiunion ani-
mus displayed in the conduct which the Trial Examiner found, as do
we, constituted independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1).
2. However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner' s finding that
the Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (3), and 8 (a) (1) by refusing
to reemploy Marcel Sutherlin. Sutherlin, as the record shows, was one
of the least efficient employees in the plant, and during her 17 months'
employment, the Respondent had spoken to her on two occasions about
her poor production. Sutherlin, together with other employees, was
laid off in July during a period of retrenchment. Although she was
never recalled, the record indicates that the job she had occupied was
not filled until about a year later. Apart from having signed a union
card, there is no evidence that Sutherlin was in any way active in the-
Union.
It is true that on one occasion when Sutherlin returned to the plant
several months after her layoff to inquire about returning to work,
Blocker asked her if she had signed a union card, and she stated she
had. This incident renders the failure subsequently to recall Suther-
2 In view of these statements which demonstrate that the Respondent was in fact aware
of Thomas ' union activities , it becomes unnecessary to rely upon the Trial Examiner's
several grounds for inferring , from other factors , the existence of such knowledge
' As the Trial Examiner points out , the check incident which provoked the alleged-
surliness on the part of Thomas occurred some 6 weeks prior to her discharge . To accept
the Respondent 's defense we would have to assume either that Thomas remained peeved
about the incident during this whole period , or that she first adopted that attitude
almost 6 weeks after the incident which provoked it ; and we would have to ignore the
fact that the Respondent at no time referred to her attitude when it discharged her, or
thereafter when she returned to the plant.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 677
lin highly suspect. However, in the absence of any further evidence
which indicates a discriminatory motivation as to Sutherlin, and in
view of the evidence which supports the Respondent's defense that
Sutherlin was inefficient, we are unable to conclude from that one
incident that the failure to recall this employee was motivated by her
adherence to the Union. We find that the complaint as to Sutherlin
is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Angwell Curtain
Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the American Federation of
Labor or in any other labor organization of its employees by discrim-
inatorily discharging any of its employees, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation,
activities, and sympathies, and threatening economic reprisals against
its employees because of their union membership, affiliation, and
activity.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the American Federation of Labor
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
,membership in a, labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Stella Thomas immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her
seniority or other tights and privileges and make her whole in the
manner set forth in the Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in the
Section entitled "The remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
record, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary to analyze the amount of back pay and the right of reinstate-
ment under the terms recommended in this Order.
(c) Post at its plant at Greencastle, Indiana, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Ninth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent or his representati' e, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional-Director for the Ninth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated with
respect to Marcel Sutherlin.
Appendix A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION or L.1BOR or in any other labor organization of our employees,
by discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliations, activities, or sympathies, or threaten them with dis-
charge, reprisal, or economic loss because of their union affilia-
tions, activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
* In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order ," the words,
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing "
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 679'
luent requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
AVE WILL OFFER to Stella Thomas immediate and full reinstate=
ment to her former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and snake her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a re-
sult of discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become, remain or refrain from be-
coming members of the above-named union or any other labor organi-
zation. We will not discriminate against' any employee because of
membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Intermediate Report
Mr Seymour Goldstein, for the General Counsel.
Ross, McCord, Ice & liillei, by 1117% George P. Ryan, of Indianapolis, Ind, for
the Respondent.
Mr. Hugh Gormley, of Indianapolis, Ind, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Boaid' by the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a complaint
dated August 11, 1950, against Angwell Curtain Company, Inc., herein called
the Respondent or the Company, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, with
copies of the first amended charge attached, together with notice of hearing,
were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges in substance
that: (1) The Respondent discharged Stella Thomas and terminated the em-
ployment of Macel Sutherlin about August 18 and September 28, 1949, respec-
tively, because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union and
for the purpose of discouraging membership therein, (2) about August 10, 1949,
and thereafter, questioned its employees in regard to their union membership,
threatened to discharge and to refuse to reemploy temporarily laid-off employees
I The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing is herein called the General
Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board is herein called the Board.
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their union membership or activities; and (3) the Respondent prom-
ised to recall laid-off employees if they would inform the Respondent con-
cerning their union membership and activities. By the foregoing acts and
conduct the Respondent thereby engaged in violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) of the Act.
The Respondent, on August 23, 1950, duly filed its answer wherein it admits
certain allegations of the complaint but denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Greencastle, Indiana, on Septem-
her 12, 13, 14, and 15, 1950, before the under signed duly designated Trial Exam-
iner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and
the Union by its regional director. All participated in the hearing and were
afforded an opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
At the conclusion of the case the General Counsel moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof as to matters of form, which motion was granted by the
undersigned At the same time counsel for the Respondent inoved to dismiss
the complaint for lack of proof, which motion was taken under advisement For
the reasons appearing in this Report the motion is now denied. The parties
waived oral argument before the undersigned. The parties were also advised
of their right to file briefs and thereafter the General Counsel and counsel for
the Respondent filed briefs with the undersigned.
After the hearing was closed counsel for the Respondent, on September 20,
1950, filed an application with the undersigned for an order to take the deposi-
tion of Thomas N. Shetrone, of Greencastle, Indiana. On September 21, 1950,
the undersigned duly entered an order denying the application because the
application failed to show the relevancy or materiality of the testimony sought
to be adduced by the Respondent. The application and a copy of the order are
received in evidence as part of the formal pleadings and marked as Trial Exam-
iner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF 1HE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is an Illinois corporation and maintains its office and plant
in Greencastle, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
draperies and curtains. In the course of its operations the Respondent annually
purchases supplies, raw materials, and equipment in excess of $350,000, of which
approximately 90 percent is shipped to the Respondent's plant from places outside
the State of Indiana. The Respondent annually sells and distributes finished
products valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 95 percent is
shipped to customers outside the State of Indiana. The Respondent stipulated
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and the under-
signed so finds.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Respondent.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 681
Iii. THE UNGAIP LABOR PRACTICES
A Background of Respondent's operations
John Al Brambach, president of the Company, stated that the Company first
commenced operations in 1923 at its plant located in Chicago, Illinois. The
Company continued to so operate until sometime in 1947 when it decided to
leave Chicago because of excessive rent and the unavailability of good workers.
Brambach said that after investigation and study of conditions lie concluded
that Greencastle was a satistactory site' and commencing about July 1947, the
Company initiated a training program for new and inexperienced employees.
Thereafter, the Company moved its equipment to that city where it commenced
operations about November 1, 1947. However, the Company continued to main-
tain an office and showroom in Chicago. The Company has had no collective
bargaining agreements covering its employees with any labor organization.
B. The layoff in July 1949
Brambach stated that in July 1949' there was a recession in business which
necessitated a layoff of a number of employees. William Benjamin Hoover,
factory manager, who was responsible for manufacturing operations, including
the hiring and discharging of employees under his supervision, decided some-
time prior to July 15 that a layoff was necessary and as lie was leaving for his
vacation he left instructions with Herbert H. Blocker,' general manager, as to the
departments to be closed down and the employees to be laid off. In selecting
the persons to be laid off, Hoover said that efficiency was the controlling factor
although consideration was given to the seniority, conduct, and attitude of the
particular employee. Accordingly, between July 18 and August 5, the Company
laid off 18 of its 65 or 70 employees all of whom, except 5, were recalled after a
period of about 2 or 3 weeks.
C. Union organizational activities
Among the employ ees laid off were Stella Thomas, Macel Sutherlin, Esther
Davis, Rachel Surber, Grace Castle, and Helen Partin About August 10, Thomas,
Davis, Surber, and Partin met at the State unemployment compensation office in
Greencastle while signing up for their unemployment compensation. In the
course of their conversation, Davis stated that it was rumored at the plant "that
we were the ones getting the blame for starting the Union," so they "decided to
see what we could do about it." They then went to the home of Thomas Shetrone
whom they believed to be a union organizer' and discussed the possibility of
organizing the employees at the plant.
Shetrone suggested that a meeting of the employees be held-for that purpose
but this suggestion was rejected and the group left. About August 14, Thomas
obtained the name and address of Hugh Gormley, regional director for the Union
at Indianapolis, and gave this information to Davis The following day Davis
and Surber met with Gormley at his office in Indianapolis and informed him
% Greencastle is a small community having a population of about 6,000. It is about 170
miles fiom Chicago
3 All subsequent dates refer to 1949 unless otherwise stated
' Blocker exercised supervision over employees in the office and shipping department.
Normally Blocker had no authority over employees working under Hoover and any
contacts with these employees were made through Hoover.
3 Shetrone was not an organizer . He was a member of the A . F L, but did no
organizing work for it
•682 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that a majority of the employees desired to become members of the Union, and
requested Gormley to set up an organization for them. Gormley suggested that
a meeting be held but when Davis and Surber stated they were afraid to do so,
Gormley gave them union application cards and instructed Davis and Surber
to contact the employees at their homes for the purpose of signing the cards and
that he would come to Greencastle within a few days to assist them. Davis and
Surber returned to Greencastle and, together with Thomas, Partin, Castle, and
Betty Cooper solicited the employees to become members of the Union and as a
result of their activity in this respect, covering only several days, a large number
of employees signed cards. These cards were turned over to Gormley.
Upon receiving the cards, Gormley, on August 18, filed a petition for certifica-
tion' with the Board Thereafter, on September 7, the Company and the Union
entered into an agreement for a consent election to be conducted by the Board
in a unit composed of all production and maintenance employees at the plant in
order to determine whether a majority of the above employees desired to be
represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly,
an election was conducted on September 22 and of the 71 eligible employees in
the unit, 42 voted against the Union, 21 in favor of the Union, and 8 voted chal-
lenged ballots. On September 30 the representative of the Board duly certified
the results of the election.
D. The discharge of Stella Thomas
Thomas was first employed by the Company in October 1947 and worked con-
tinuously, except as stated below, until August 18, 1949. Thomas, according to
Hoover, was the oldest or the second oldest employee in the department. In
the course of her employment Thomas received three merit increases of 5 cents
per hour and at the time of her discharge she operated a sewing machine in the
panel department hemming curtains and drapes. In addition to her usual duties
Thomas made special samples for display purposes and instructed new and
inexperienced employees in her department. Thomas worked under the general
supervision of Hoover and at times under Esther Alspaugh'
In July Thomas knew that the Company was temporarily laying off employees,
so on the 29th of that month she asked Alspaugh who would be laid off the
following week and Alspaugh stated that it would be Thomas and Hazel Knauer.
In reply to her question as to'how long she would be off, Alspaugh said, "about
a week." Thomas was thereupon laid off. When Thomas was not recalled at the
,end of 1 week she went to the plant and told Hoo'. er and Blocker that if she was
not recalled soon she was going to sign up for unemployment compensation.
Blocker told Thomas to "go ahead and maybe something would show„ up."
'Thomas then asked why Knauer had been recalled on August 8, and Hoover or
Blocker said it was because she carried other employees to work in her car.
On August 12, the Company notified Thomas to report for work on August 15.
Thomas returned on this date and resumed the same duties she had performed
prior to her layoff. However, on August 18, Hoover called Thomas to his office
and advised her he had to lay her off because of lack of of ders and gave Thomas
a check for her pay to that date. Thomas then asked Hoover if her layoff was
"final" and he told her "it is according to the outcome of this thing that has
started" which Thomas understood to be`the Union.
6 Case No 35-RC-278.
7 Alspaugh was employed as a utility girl She distributed and checked the work of
other girls and was the only salaried employee engaged in production work. Brambach
admitted Alspaugh operated "in a capacity similar to a supervisor."
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 683
Shortly thereafter Thomas informed Gormley of her discharge and Gormley
suggested that she go to the plant and make further inquiry concerning her
layoff Accordingly, Thomas went to the plant the week following her dis-
charge and talked to Hoover and Blocker. Thomas asked Hoover why she
had been laid off when the production and quality of her work was equal to
that of other employees and Hoover replied, "Now, Stella, you know why."
Thomas declared that Russell Kosh, mechanic at the plant, had told her that
she had been accused of starting the Union, which Thomas stated was not
true. Whereupon Blocker asked Thomas "why I didn't come and talk to him
about it," and Thomas explained that Kosh had told her not to do so "because
he didn't want to get in bad for telling me." Blocker then asked Thomas who
started the Union and she said she would tell him when the election was over.
Thomas asked Blocker if he had any complaints about her work and he replied
there were no complaints in that respect. Thomas further inquired if she
was permanently laid off and Hoover said, "wait until this thing is over."
'The conversation thereupon concluded.
Thomas did not return to the plant until September 22, when she went there
and voted, a challenged ballot, in the election. Following the announcement
of the results of the election, Thomas met Hoover outside the plant and told
him she would like to see Brambach in order to inform him that she was not
responsible for initiating the Union and to tell him how the Union started at
the plant. Hoover then went into the plant and upon returning told Thomas
that "Brambach didn't want to see me ; that he didn't care who started the
Union, but for me to come back the next day and talk to him." Blocker also
came out of the plant and informed Thomas that Brambach did not want to
-see her However, Blocker said, "Stella, walk down the street and tell me
who it was," but Gormley told Thomas to go to the car, which she did.
According to Gormley, Thomas told Blocker she was accused of starting the
Union but the person who did so was still "inside" the plant, to which Blocker
replied, "Let's you and I walk down the street and you tell me who started
it and I will see that you get your job back" At that time Gormley told
Thomas, "don't tell him anything," and led her away from Blocker.
Davis and Partin who were present during the conversation between Thomas
and Blocker testified substantially the same as Gormley.
The following morning Thomas, Davis, Surber, Sutherlin, Partin, Castle, and
Dessie Dickson went to the plant and talked to Blocker in regard to their
returning to work.
Davis stated that Blocker declared he had not expected the employees to
come in as a group, but individually. Nevertheless he talked briefly to each
of the employees concerning her job. When Davis inquired about her job,
Blocker asked if she had the nerve to return to work after what she had done
to him and "This here thing we had here yesterday." Blocker accused Davis
of helping to bring about the election as well as assisting therein by using her
car to visit the employees. Davis admitted using her car for such purposes.
Blocker then stated that there were still 21 employees in the plant who voted
for the Union, who, if ever identified, "would be weeded out," because Brambach
would not work under a union but would close the plant and move back to
Chicago. Blocker concluded by stating that neither Davis nor anyone who
had anything to do with the Union would be reemployed by the Company.
Partin related that when she requested that she be reemployed Blocker said
she had nerve to ask for her job after "this thing yesterday." Partin then told
Blocker that he did not know how she voted in the election and he replied that
this was true but he was "pretty sure" how she had voted.
684 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Castle, who had quit hei job shortly before the meeting, testified that Blocker
told the group that the "worst wasn't over" because there were still 21 employees
in the plant who had voted for the Union Blocker, according to Castle, told
Davis she had nerve to ask for her job after "this thing that happened'here
yesterday."
Thomas told Blocker that in her opinion she had been unjustly treated by
the Company but Blocker replied that she had been laid off because of lack of
work. Thomas then pointed out that her department had been working overtime
daily and on Saturdays but Blocker offered no answer or explanation to this
statement. When Thomas inquired if she should be given a separation notice
Blocker said this was not necessary and concluded his conversation with Thomas
by returning her scissors and telling her "you may need them to go some place
else
Later that morning the same-group, except for Sutherlin and Dickson, met
with Brambach at his office. Davis stated that Brambach informed the group
that they had no business at the plant since they were no longer employees of
the Company. Brambach further declared that there were still 21 employees
in the plant who had toted for the Union and "they would be weeded out as
fast as they were found out."
Thomas testified that Brambach said that he was not too happy over the re-
sults of the election since 21 employees who favored the Union were still in the
plant and that he would not operate in a community where he could not get
along. In the course of the discussion Thomas told Brambach that she had
heard rumors to the effect that her financial condition was such that she did
not have to work. Brambach told her that he had investigated the people in
Greencastle and he knew the individuals who needed work at the plant as well
as those who did not. Thomas was not recalled to work and did not thereafter
return to the plant seeking reemployment.
Mildred Staggs, an employee in the ruffling department, stated that sometime
in August, she, Thomas. and Sarah Stanley were seated in Castle's car, after
working hours. which was parked in front of the plant. While in the car Castle
asked Staggs to join the Union and when Staggs said she would become a mem-
ber, Castle drove to her home where she signed a card. Staggs continued to
work at the plant and sometime subsequent to her signing the card, whether be-
fore or after the election she could not recall, Blocker called her to his office
and asked her if Castle or Thomas "had said anything to me about the Union."
Staggs told Blocker that neither Castle nor Thomas had talked to her in this
regard because she did not want to cause any trouble for them.
The Company contends that at the time of Thomas' discharge it had no knowl-
edge of her union membership or activity, nor of any union organizational
activity whatever at the plant, and that Thomas was discharged because of her
hostile attitude toward the Company.
Brambach testified that he first learned of any organizational activity at
the plant on August 19 On that day he called the plant from New York City,
as was his custom when away from Greencastle, and during his conversation
with Blocker he was informed that the Company had just received a letter
from the Board notifying the Company that a petition for certification had been
filed by the Union. Brambach upon hearing this news stated he " was amazed
at the thing," since the Company had maintained good public relations and had
done everything for its employees. When Brambach told Blocker that lie was
surprised that the latter had had no previous knowledge of such activity, Blocker
replied that he too was "flabbergasted" upon receipt of the letter from the
Board.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. ,685
Concerning the hostile attitude of Thomas, the Company asserts that she was
discharged under the following circumstances:
In 1948 the Company initiated a policy whereby the employees were granted
paid vacations during the week of July 4. This policy continued in 1949, but
Brambach, in order to discourage absenteeism, decided to grant vacations only
to those employees who worked 10 months of the year preceding the vacation
period. However, the employees were not notified of the above change in
vacation policy. Several weeks prior to the 1949 vacation period, Hoover pre-
pared a list of eligible employees in his department, including Thomas, and
forwarded the same to the Company's office in Chicago. Following company
practice the Chicago office prepared checks for the employees and sent them
to the plant for distribution Hoover, apparently the week after July 4, dis-
tributed checks to each of the employees that lie had recommended as eligible
for vacation, except Thomas. Shortly thereafter, Hoover was advised by another
employee that Thomas was in the washroom crying and "having a fit." When
Thomas came out of the washroom and returned to her work Hoover inquired
as to what was the matter and Thomas stated she did not think it fair that she
had not received her vacation check and asked him why she had not received
one. Hoover told Thomas he had submitted a list of eligible employees to the
Chicago office which made out the checks, but that lie would look into the matter
and advise her later. Blocker also talked to Thomas about her not receiving
a check and told her that lie would call the Chicago office, which he did. Blocker
then informed Hoover of his call to Chicago and in turn Hoover advised Thomas
that she did not receive her check "because she had missed too much work."
Upon receiving this information Thomas stated, "I don't think it's very fair
Thomas never received her vacation check but, as stated above, she continued
to work at the plant until her layoff on July 29, which extended to August 15.
Hoover stated that when Thomas returned to the plant on the latter date
it was his custom to go through his department inspecting the work of the
employees and extending a morning greeting to them. When Hoover thus greeted
Thomas she would not look at him but "would look down at her machine and
she wouldn't speak" to him. This attitude continued for 3 or 4 days when "it
began to affect" Hoover because he knew that Thomas was angry about some-
thing Hoover, on August 18, asked Knauer what was the matter with Thomas
and she replied that Thomas was angry because she did not receive her vaca-
tion check. Knauer, according to Hoover, further related that Thomas had
stated "she was going to get even if it was the last thing she did"; that she
had had the general manager of a store fired and that "she was going to fight
and . cause all the trouble she could " As a consequence of this conversation
Hoover, without even talking to Thomas, "figured" that Thomas would cause
trouble not only to the Company but perhaps to himself and therefore he did not
want "that type of attitude," so Hoover told Blocker that he was immediately
discharging Thomas and to make out her check. The same day Hoover in-
structed Thomas to report to his office after work, which she did. Hoover
thereupon informed Thomas that lie was discharging her because of her general
attitude towards the company, towards her fellow workers, and towards me "
Thomas, after receiving her check, asked Hoover if there were any complaints
concerning her work and lie answered, "Your work is fine It's your attitude "
Hoover denied that he told Thomas that the finality of her discharge depended
upon the outcome of "this thing" as related by Thomas. Similarly, Hoover
8 Thomas was on authorized leave of absence on two occasions, from September 18 to
October 19, 1948, and February 26- to April 18, 1949, for the purpose of having an opera-
tion performed and to visit relatives in California
686 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denied that Thomas talked to him the week following her discharge or that he
ever, informed Thomas in answer to her question as to the reason for her dis-
charge, "you know why " Hoover stated that after the results of the election
were known Thomas told him that she would like to talk to Brambach but he
could not recall what she said on that occasion. However, Hoover did go into
the plant and while he did not see Brambach, he later told Thomas that Bram-
bach was busy and could not come out.
Knauer was employed by the Company in its panel department for almost
3 years and worked near Thomas. Knauer stated that Thomas, accompanied
by three other employees and Gormley, came to her home one evening, she
could not recall the date, and solicited her to join the Union. Although Knauer
signed a union card as requested she immediately decided that she wanted it
back but she did not ask for the return of the card at that time or any other
time. Knauer also testified that she had heard rumors at the plant accusing
her of starting the Union, which she stated were not true.
Knauer further stated that when the vacation checks were distributed and
Thomas did not receive one she became very angry and said she intended to
cause trouble for the Company. Thomas, according to Knauer, declared that
at her prior place of employment, Montgomery Ward, she had "misbehaved and-
carried stories and everything, until she got the manager, or assistant manager
fired." Knauer said that Thomas was "very unpleasant" at work and was
,.moody" and "pouty" towards Hoover She said that when Hoover asked
what was wrong with Thomas, Knauer told him she was "peeved" because she
(lid not get her check Knauer in response to the direct question as to whether
she related her conversation with Thomas to Hoover, replied, "Well, I think
I told him how moody she had been and the temper she had been in." Knauer
could not recall the date on which Hoover talked to her, whether it was before,
or after Thomas' layoff of July 29, except that the conversation took place
sometime subsequent to the distribution of the vacation checks. Admittedly,
Thomas made the above remarks only on one occasion and when asked how
long Thomas maintained her angry disposition, Knauer stated, "I wouldn't know
how long to say."
Leoda Miles, a former employee of the Company, stated that during July
she worked near Thomas and when she failed to receive her vacation check
Thomas became angry and said she intended to make it "miserable" for the
Company. Miles said that thereafter Thomas was not very pleasant and she had
little to say to her. There is nothing in the testimony of Miles to indicate that
she talked to Hoover concerning the attitude of Thomas or that she informed
any of Company's supervisory staff of the remarks attributed to Thomas.
Blocker testified that Hoover informed him that Thomas was being discharged
because of her unsatisfactory attitude. Since Thomas worked under Hoover,
Blocher had nothing to do with her discharge, other than make out her final
check. Blocker denied that he talked to Thomas concerning her discharge be-
tween the date thereof, August 18, and the date of the election, September 22.
On the later date Blocker stated that after the ballots had been counted he went
outside the plant when Thomas came to him and said, in substance, that she
wanted to tell him who had started the Union at the plant Blocker said when
Thomas made this remark to him there was some agitation and tension among
the employees and that he was afraid something might happen, so he related :
I told Stella Thomas that-what I was trying to do, I wanted to get her
away from there. I said, "Listen, let's take a little walk," their whole group.
I mean she was with two or three others and I wanted them to take a little
walk away from the others because I thought there might be a little tension.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC . 687
What I said to her, she made no move to go, and I said, "Listen, I am not
interested in this thing at all and I wish you would please forget about it.
We will drop the whole matter," words to that effect.
Blocker then left Thomas to return to the plant and met Gormley just as he was
leaving the building. Blocker after a brief conversation with Gormley went into
the plant where he told Brambach of his meeting with Gormley but made no
mention of having talked to Thomas.
The following day Thomas and a group of employees came to the plant and
talked to Blocker about their jobs In the course of this meeting Thomas said
she would like to inform Blocker of the facts relating to the election but he re-
plied that "was water under the bridge." The individuals then asked Blocker
why they had been dismissed and if they would be reemployed but Blocker told
him he could not talk to them as a group and suggested the matter be discussed
with him individually sometime later. Blacker arose from his chair to conclude
the discussion and as the group was leaving he gave Thomas her scissors.
Blocker denied making the statements as related by Davis, Partin, Castle, and
Thomas.
Blocker admitted that sometime after the discharge of Thomas, in the generat
period of the election, he called Staggs to his office and after informing Staggs
that Thomas had ignored him on several occasions, asked.her, "if this couldn't
have been because of the Union activity that was going around the plant," and
she replied that "she did not know." Blocker could not recall making any
inquiry of Staggs in regard to Castle
Brambach stated that at the meeting on September 23, Thomas or 2 or 3
others wanted to tell him who was responsible for starting the Union but he
told them he was not interested in this information One of the group then asked
Brambach how he knew the way they voted and he answered that lie did not
know, nor care, how they had voted in the election Surber inquired why she
had been discharged and Brambach told her she had gall to ask that question
since she had been going around town degrading the Company. In addition
Brambach said she had been "waltzing around" the plant "like the Queen of-
Sheba'; and if Hoover had not discharged her, he would have done so. Brambach
denied making any remarks concerning the 21 employees who voted for the Union,
or that he would not operate under union organization.
Anna Cancilla stated that after the election she heard Thomas, Davis, and
Surber tell Blocker they wanted to talk to him, but lie said he was busy and could.
not talk to them. Thelma Eastham testified that Thomas told Blocker she could
tell him "where all this started," but she could not hear Blocker's reply to, Thomas.
The parties stipulated that Edna Schunkweiller and Anna Foxworthy, if called
as witnesses, would testify substantially the same as Eastham.
Thomas, testifying in rebuttal, admitted that she felt badly when she failed
to receive her vacation check and did go into the washroom and cry. Thomas
also declared that she was angry at the time and told Knauer that she would get
even with the Company, but this was the only occasion she made such a remark.
E. The discharge of Macel Sutherlin
Sutherlin commenced her employment with the Company in March 1948 and
worked continuously until July 18, 1949. During this period she operated a
sewing machine in the tailoring department. Sutherlin admitted that she
"worked slow" but that she was never cautioned or criticized by Hoover or
Alspaugh because of her slowness and that she received one wage increase of
cents per hour. On July 18, Alspaugh informed Sutherlin that Blocker had.
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given her the names of employees to be laid off and that she was one of them.
Alspaugh asked Sutherlin if she had a telephone and when Sutherlin stated she
did not, Alspaugh said she would drop her a card to advise her when to return to
work About 4 weeks later, Sutherlin went to the plant and talked to Blanche
Wilson, who worked in the office, in regard to checks which she had not received.
After obtaining the checks Sutherlin remarked that she had-been laid off perlna-
nentlyy, but Wilson said this was not true that, although she might have to wait
awhile, she would be cal led back to work.
About the middle of August, Davis and Surber visited Sutherlin at her home
and requested her to sign a union card, which she did Sutherlin did not engage
in any union activity except as stated below
On September 22, Sutherlin went to the plant in Davis' car and voted, a chal-
lenged ballot, in the election
As started above, the next day Sutherlin and a group of employees met with
Blocker. Sutherlin could not remember the general conversation at the meet-
ing but she asked Blocker why she had not been called back to work and he
replied that she would be recalled when there was more work in the tailoring
department. Davis statV that Sutherlin asked Blocker the reasons for her
layoff and Blocker told her she "would be getting a card within a few days to
come back to work."
On September 28, Sutherlin met with Blocker at his office and told him she
had not received the letter as be had promised, and Blocker assured her that it
would be sent to her. Sutherlin inquired whether she had been laid off perma-
nently and Blocker stated the Company would send her a letter. Blocker then
asked Sutherlin if she had signed a card and when she stated she had, Blocker
said he had no objections to her doing so Blocker further asked Sutherlin how
she would feel towards the Company if she was recalled to work, and she
replied she "didn't know," whereupon Blocker arose from his chair and termi-
nated the conversation. Sutherlin was never recalled, nor did she make any
further application for reemployment.
The Company contends that Sutherlin was permanently laid oft ° on July 18
because of inefficiency and at the time the Company had no knowledge of her
union membership or activities.
Brambach declared that when the plant commenced operations in November
1947, he was compelled to hire new and inexperienced workers and in order
to train these individuals he brought 12 experienced employees, who had worked
in the Chicago plant, to Greencastle The basic qualifications for production
employees, Brambach stated, was "physical capacity" to perform the work and
"some degiee of intelligence." Brambach further related that the training period
at the plant "might last anywhere from six months to three years," and at
the end of 6 months the average employee would be "passable" in her work and
after 2 or 3 years "very efficient." In 194S the employees were averaging but
4 bundles 10 per clay as compared to the previous Chicago average of 8 bundles
per day. In 1949 the average at Greencastle increased to 5 bundles per day
which Brambach said was still below the Chicago level as well as the produc-
tion in similar plants located elsewhere' Accordingly, Brambach in the early
part of 1949 discussed the problem with his supervisors and he decided inade-
9 According to Hoover , an employee may be terminated either by discharge or perma-
nent layoff It does not furnish the employee with a separation notice containing the
reasons for this action.
10 A bundle is a production unit consisting of 24 pairs of curtains or drapes.
11 Brambach was referring to plants located in the New England States which he
admitted were organized and paying a considerably higher wage rate than the Company.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC . 689
I
quate attention had been given to the selection of employees, so the Company,
in view of the enormous labor market in Greencastle, instituted a policy of
"more selective" hiring and the weeding out of inefficient employees. As a
result of this policy Brambach said that as of the date of the hearing, production
at the plant had increased about 10 percent.
When it became necessary to curtail operations in July, Hoover testified that
,he instructed Blocker that Sutherlin was the first employee to be laid off in
the tailoring department because she was the "slowest" person employed therein.
In selecting Sutherlin for layoff, Hoover was following the policy announced
by Brambacb, as he expressed it, "if we got rid of some of the others that
weren't quite so good, that we could get better employees in." Accordingly, on
July 18, Sutherlin was permanently laid off
In support of the Company's contention that Sutherlin was an inefficient
employee, Hoover testified that when she receiN ed an automatic wage increase
of 5 cents per -hour, at some undisclosed date, he told Sutherlin she "hadn't
done as well as" he had expected and that she would have to "work faster"
to secure future increases Again, at some undisclosed date, Hoover talked to
Sutherlin about being slow in her work and she told him she was nervous and
` couldn't do any better " Hoo er then suggested that, she transfer to the panel
department but she declined because she was nervous and could not do that
type of work. Alspaugh stated that on one occasion she told Sutherlin her
production was low and asked her to try to do better. While the Company
maintained no official records showing the production of its employees, Hoover
stated that he prepared records, apparently at irregular intervals, indicating
the volume of work performed by the employees Hoover produced three of
his records at the hearing, all undated, but which he said covered periods in
the latter part of 1948 and early 1949. These records reflect the production
of Sutherlin and four or five other employees performing similar operations
over separate intervals of 4 and 3 weeks, respectively, and, although not too
convincing,' they show that Sutherlin's production was lower than that of the
other employees.
Blocker denied that at the meeting of September 23 he told Sutherlin she
would be called back to work. He fui ther testified that he had no recollection
of Sutherlin talking to him on September 28, or at any time subsequent to the
above meeting
Wilson testified that after the July layoff she was holding a number of checks
for the employees but she could not recall whether or not Sutherlin came to
the office to get her check Wilson further stated that if Sutherlin did come
to the office for that purpose she may have talked to her but she could not
remember the topic of their conversation.
F. Other acts of interterence, restraint, and coercion
Castle, who was laid off July 22 and was recalled August 17, stated that several
days after her return to work Blocker called her to his office and asked her what
she was trying to do to him Castle said she (lid not know what he was talking
about and Blocker then accused her of "trying to dump the Union into his lap "
When Castle replied she did not know anything about organizational activities
Blocker stated "there were two men in town that was talking around" that Castle
and her sister, Partin, were "trying to start the Union." As Castle was leaving,
12 Apart from the fact that these records were unofficial and undated, they cover only
7 weeks' employment out of Sutherlin's service with the Conipany which extended from
March 1, 1948, to July 18, 1949
953 541-5 _'-vol 94--4 S
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Blocker told her to keep her "nose clean and stay out of trouble." Blocker ad-
mitted that, with Hoover's permission, he talked to Castle about her production
but denied making any of the statements attributed to him by Castle.
Ellen Carey, an employee in the manufacturing department, stated that some-
time prior to the election she signed a union card at the request of Partin and
Gormley. Subsequent to her signing the card and before the election, Carey had
occasion to go to the plant office during her luncheon hour for the purpose of
making a telephone call. After completing the call, Blocker talked with her
and in the course of the conversation he asked Carey if she "knew anything
about the Union," and she answered, "well, if I did I wasn't going to say either
way." Carey did not inform Blocker that she had signed a union card, nor did
Blocker inquire as to whether she was a member of the Union Blocker did not
deny the occurrence of this incident.
Gormley testified that he was present when the ballots were counted and after
the results were announced a few of the girls "seemed to rejoice" upon the
Union being defeated, whereupon Brambach declared that they should not be "too
joyful" because there were still 21 employees who had voted for the Union and
"we have got to get them out of here." Castle said that after the count Wilson
and Cancilla shouted at the results thereof, but Brambach told them not to be
too happy as 21 had voted for the Union and "the worst wasn't over."
Brambach stated that after the polls had been closed the ballots were counted
by the Board agent in the presence of Cooper and Castle, union observers, Wilson
and William Seely, company observers, Gormley, and himself. During the count-
ing of the ballots when the tally showed 35 votes against the Union, Brambach
said he heard a shout outside the plant. Brambach was "amazed" at this action,
since "we were counting these things alone," and he explained to those present,
"that's a shout of joy; I wish I was as happy as they are." 13 Brambach denied
that he uttered the remarks as related by Gormley and Castle.
Wilson stated she did not hear Brambach make the statements asserted by
Gormley, although she was present at the time they were alleged to have been
made. Wilson was not questioned concerning the testimony of Castle bearing
upon the remarks she testified were made by Brambach on this occasion.
Cancilla denied that she was even present during the counting of the ballots
and Brambach and Wilson corroborated her testimony in'this respect.
Conclusions
1. The discharge of Thomas
As set forth above, Thomas, David, Surber, and Partin first discussed the
formation of a union on August 10, and at that time Posh stated there were
rumors at the plant to the effect that these individuals were starting the union.
After Gormley outlined organizational procedure, this group, with Castle and
Cooper, conducted a campaign among the employees between August 15 and 17,
which resulted in a number of employees signing union cards. The following
day the Union filed its petition for certification with the Board. Admittedly,
these individuals did not engage in any organizing activities at the plant.
Brambach, Hoover, and Mocker denied they had any knowledge of union
activities among the employees until August 19, when the Company was noti-
fied by the Board that a petition had been filed by the Union.
"Hoover testified that Supervisor Robert Eppleheimer and Alspaugh were in the shipping
room located near the polling place where they could hear the ballots being counted.
They too kept a count and when the Union was defeated, prior to the completion of
the count , Hoover, Eppleheimer , and Alspaugh went outside and announced that the
Union had been defeated , which announcement was greeted with cheers and shouts.
11
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY , INC . . 691
The Board and the courts have heretofore rejected such contention and held
that where , as here, the activities occur among employees in a small plant,
"it is a reasonable inference that information [as to union activities] came
to the notice of the higher management ." N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills,
Inc., 1127 F. 2d 438, 440 ( C. A. 1) ; Jackson Daily News , et al., 90 NLRB 16;
Quest-Shoe Mark Brassiere Company, 80 NLRB 1149 , 1150, enforced , N. L. R. B.
v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Company, 185 F. 2d 285 ( C. A. 2), 27 LRRM
2036. But apart from this sound principle , the testimony of Brambach negates
the contention that he was totally ignorant of any union activities at the plant.
Thus, when he met with the union adherents on September 23, Brambach, after
telling Surber he knew she bad been going around town "degrading" the Com-
pany, stated :
. . . The people of Greencastle are good American stock. I had a survey
made of this town before I came here . I don't need anyone to tell me
about them . I know they are economic ; they are political , and they are
religious . I know their backgrounds almost to a minute detail. . . . I
know the power rates and everything else. . . .
In view of Brambach 's intimate knowledge concerning the background and
lives of his employees , it is neither reasonable nor plausible to believe that he
was not aware of the fact that certain of the employees were actively engaged
in promoting the Union at the plant.
Moreover, Knauer admitted that they had heard rumors at the plant, via
the "grape -vine," accusing her of starting the Union but she paid no attention
to them as she was not interested in the Union . Knauer did not fix any period
in which she heard these rumors Knauer further testified that she signed a
union card but could not remember the date thereon . However, it is well
established that the cards were signed only between August 15 and 17, so it
is obvious that she signed during that period. Under these circumstances, it
seems reasonable to assume that the rumors concerning Knauer were circulated
during the organizing period rather than after the Union had closed its drive
for members.
Again, Staggs , in the course of the union campaign, was questioned by
Blocker as to whether Thomas or Castle had discussed the Union with her.
Blocker admitted the interrogation of Staggs but explained that it occurred
after the discharge of Thomas and in the general period of the election . Blocker's
explanation is unconvincing for certainly there would be no purpose in his
questioning Staggs in regard to Thomas' union activities subsequent to her
discharge and it is rejected.
Upon the foregoing facts , as well as those set forth below , the undersigned
finds that the Company knew that the above-named individuals were actively
engaged in promoting the Union at the plant on and prior to August 18.
The next question to be determined is whether Thomas was discharged by
reason of her union membership or activities in its behalf , or, as urged by the
Company, because of the hostile attitude she exhibited toward the Company.
The issue here presented is clearly one of fact and, as in issues of this character,
the evidence is not without conflict. In resolving these conflicts the under-
signed has considered not only the personal demeanor and conduct of the wit-
nesses at the hearing , as well as the corroborative testimony , but has evaluated
and weighed this evidence in the light of all the facts and circumstances as
reflected in the record . After thus determining the credibility of the witness
and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence , the undersigned is
convinced that Thomas was unlawfully discharged by the Company.
692
f
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hoover denied that on August 18, he told Thomas her layoff depended upon
"the outcome of this thing" 14 and also denied that Thomas talked to him the
following week or that he ever told her, "Now, Stella, you know why" you were
laid off. Hoover admitted that after the election results were announced Thomas
told hnn she wished to talk to Brambach, lie could not recall her conversation,
and that he informed her that Brambach was busy and could not see her.
Concerning Thomas' discharge Hoover said that between August 15 and 18,
she would not speak to hint and this "began to affect" him, so on the latter date
he asked Knauer why Thomas was angry, and she said it was because she had
not received her vacation check When Knauer informed Hoover that Thomas
had stated "she would get even with the Company" and had previously caused
the discharge of her supervisor at another place of employment, he forthwith
decided to discharge Thomas because of her attitude When Thomas had com-
pleted her work, Hoover informed her that she was being discharged because
of her attitude and gave her a check covering her wages to (late
Thomas conceded she was angry when she failed to receive her vacation check
and went to the washroom and cried. She further said that at that time she
did tell Knauer she would get even with the Company but this was the only
occasion she uttered such a remark.
The undersigned is not impressed with Hoover's version of the reasons for
Thomas' discharge. It is undisputed that Thomas was the oldest, or second
oldest, employee in point of service with the Company, and that she was a "fine"
worker. She performed, in addition to usual duties, difficult tasks at the plant
and instructed new employees in their work. As a result of her efficiency she
received three merit pay increases. Obviously, Thomas was more than a satis-
factory employee, both in competency and attitude, until August 15 15 It there-
fore seems rather strange that Thomas would suddenly suffer a complete re-
versal of her prior attitude toward the Company, at the same time maintaining
her efficiency, to the extent that in the short space of 4 days this change was so
great as to "affect" Hoover and prompt him to forthwith discharge her. The
specific conduct which thus affected Hoover was Thomas' failure to speak to him,
her angry disposition, and the so-called threatening remark made to a coworker.
This conduct and change in attitude, according to Hoover, stemmed from the
failure of Thomas to receive her vacation check. Undoubtedly, Thomas was
upset and angry because of this treatment, for Hoover had recommended her
xts eligible for vacation pay but Brambach, without notice to either his super-
visory staff or his employees, changed the rules, at least as far as they applied
to Thomas, and eliminated her because of alleged absenteeism. In so depriv-
ing Thomas of her vacation check, which she had every reason to believe was
coming to her, the Company did not engage in any violation of the Act, but this
action certainly justified Thomas' becoming "peeved" at the Company. Further,
Hoover said that Thomas was angry and ignoring him between August 15 and
18, obviously because of the missing check. Hoover overlooked the fact that he
14 Counsel for the Company argues that assuming Hoover made this statement , nevertli i-
less Thomas' testimony that she understood he was referring to her union activity should
be disregarded for this belief was simply her "secret inference." since she did not ask
Hoover to explain his remark Under the cucunistances it is difficult to see how Thomas
could have reached any conclusion other than the one she stated Moreover, both
Brambach and Blocker, as clearly appears herein, frequently reteired to the Union and
the election as the "thing "
15 Hoover stated that in April 1948 he hired Ruby Shinn, who was it friend of Thomas.
When Shinn was discharged 3 months later for inability to learn the work, hoover said
Thomas became upset and angry and resented the discharge Since Thomas continued
to work, the raising of this stale incident is puiely an afterthought and without merit.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY; INC. 693,
distributed the checks the week following July 4, and that Thomas continued
to work until July 29, when she was laid off for economic reasons, and was later
recalled on August 15. On the basis of Hoover's testimony it would have to be
assumed that Thomas was angry or peeved from about July 4 to August 18, or
that she first adopted this disposition between August 15 and 18, some 6 weeks
after the check incident. Neither of these hypotheses is convincing Moreover,
had Hoover attached any significance to Thomas' attitude at the time of the
incident in early July, when there were no union activities at the plant, he could
have reprimanded or discharged her, but he elected to do nothing whatsoever
and permitted Thomas to continue to work. Nor does the testimony of Knauer
substantiate the events related by Hoover Knauer testified that "just after
we got our checks," Thomas became angry at her failure to receive one and said
she would get even with the Company. Thomas also related her experience at
Montgomery Ward where she had had a supervisor fired. This was .the only
occasion Thomas made such remarks to Knauer After Thomas returned to
work, Hoover asked Knauer " . . what is the matter with Stella" and she re-
plied, "Well, she is peeved over she didn't get her vacation check." Knauer may
have also told Hoover that Thomas was "moody" and "the temper she had
been in."
Accordingly, Knauer fully corroborated the testimony of Thomas as to the
time and place of their conversation and the fact that the remarks were made
but once. On the other hand, Knauer plainly contradicted the testimony of
Hoover that, on August 18, she communicated Thomas' threats to him, and
upon which he bottomed his decision to immediately discharge Thomas Knauer
testified she simply told Hoover that Thomas was "peeved" at not receiving her
check and certainly this was nothing new or startling coming at such a late
date. Again, Hoover said he talked to Miles concerning Thomas' attitude prior
to her discharge. Miles failed to lend any support to Hoover's testimony in this
respect. Like Knauer, she said Thomas was angry at riot getting a check and
declared she would make it "miserable" for the Company. However, Miles was
not even questioned as to any conversation Hoover might have had with her,
nor is there anything in her testimony to indicate Miles ever related Thomas'
statements to Hoover. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts the 'testimony of
Thomas, Knauer, and Miles and rejects that of Hoover.
The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that neither Knauer nor Miles
informed Hoover on August 18 that Thomas had made threatening or disparag-
ing remarks against the Company by reason of her failure to receive her vaca-
tion check While Thomas may have been angry because of her missing check,
and thus uttered indiscreet remarks, at the time the checks were distributed in
early July, the undersigned is not persuaded that she fostered this attitude
during the period she continued to work, and thereafter, when recalled follow-
ing her layoff. In view of the foregoing the undersigned finds that Hoover dis-
charged Thomas because of her union activities, not for her attitude, and that the
discharge was effectuated under the circumstances as stated by Thomas. (Con-
tinental Pipe Line Company, 67 NLRB 389, 395-397; enforced N. L. R. B. v.
Continental Pipe Line Company, 161 F. 2d 302, 303 (C. A. 5).)
As set forth above, Thomas stated that the week following her discharge,
Blocker asked her who started the Union and she said she would tell him after
the election had been held. Immediately after the election, Thomas unsuccess-
fully attempted to see Brambach to inform him who started the Union but
Blocker talked to her and asked her "to walk down the street and tell me who
it was." However, at Gormley's suggestion she left Blocker without revealing
this information. Gormley, Davis, and Partin were present during the conver-
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sation between Blocker and Thomas and testified substantially the same as
Thomas, except they added that Blocker said Thomas would be reemployed if
she gave him the names of the individuals responsible for the Union.
Blocker denied that he questioned Thomas the week following her discharge
or that he talked to her between the date of her discharge and the date of the
election. However, Blocker admitted that immediately after the election Thomas
came to him and stated she wanted to inform him who started the Union.
Blocker also admitted that he then asked Thomas to "take a little walk," but
only because of the agitation and tension present and his fear that something
might happen to her. When Thomas failed or refused to take the walk as
suggested by Blocker, he then told Thomas he was "not interested in this
thing" and to forget about the matter
Cancilla said she heard Thomas, Davis, and Surber ask Blocker to talk to
them but, he refused as he was busy at the time Eastham, Schunkweiller, and
Foxworthy (the last two by stipulation) stated they heard Thomas offer to
tell Blocker "where all this started," but they could not hear Blocker's response
to Thomas.
As it is undisputed that Thomas on September 22 volunteered to give Blocker
information as to the instigators of the Union, this act fully supports her
testimony that the week following her discharge she was interrogated by Blocker
in regard to those responsible for the Union and promised to furnish him with
their names after the election was held, and the undersigned so finds. Further
on the basis of Blocker's own testimony, it is clear that 'when Thomas approached
him for the purpose of furnishing this data he asked her to walk down the street
and it was not until she declined his invitation that he lost interest in talking to
her. Moreover, this refusal as well as Thomas' change of mind is consistent
with the testimony of Thomas, Gormley, Davis, and Partin that Gormley advised
her not to talk to Blocker and go to Davis' car. Blocker's explanation that he
wanted Thomas to leave the group for her own protection is without substance
and is rejected. By reason of the foregoing, the undersigned finds that on
September 22, Blocker attempted to secure the names of those responsible for
initiating the Union and in return promised to reemploy Thomas, as stated by
Thomas, Gormley, Davis, and Partin.
Blocker conceded that a group of employees met with him that day after the
election to discuss their jobs but he refused to talk to them as a group and
suggested that they return individually for this purpose. He further denied
that he made any unlawful statements to the group. The undersigned credits
the testimony of Davis, Partin, and Castle bearing upon the events at this
meeting and finds that Blocker told the group that the 21 employees who voted
for the Union, if identified, would be weeded out and that neither Davis nor
anyone else who had anything to do with the Union would be recalled.
Thomas and Davis stated that substantially the same group met with Bram-
bach the morning of September 23, and, after telling the group they had no
business in the plant, declared that the 21 employees who voted for the Union
would be weeded out, when discovered, and that he would not operate in a
community where he could not get along Brambach admitted meeting with
the group but denied making the above statements. The undersigned rejects
Brambach's denial and finds that he did utter the remarks as stated by Thomas
and Davis.
In view of the above, the undersigned is convinced that Hoover seized upon
the so-called poor attitude of Thomas as a pretext for eliminating an active
union protagonist from the employ of the Company. The undersigned therefore
concludes and finds upon a preponderance of the evidence that the Company
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 695
discharged Thomas because of her activities on behalf of the Union, thereby
discriminating with respect to her hire and tenure of employment in order
to discourage membership in a labor organization, and also thereby interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2 The discharge of Sutherlin
It is clearly established in the record that Sutherlin was a slow 'worker,
that she was granted one pay increase, and that she was never disciplined or
reprimanded because of her slowness, although during her 17 months of em-
ployment with the Company, Hoover on two occasions spoke to her in regard
to her production. Similarly, Alspaugh spoke to her, on one occasion. It is
equally clear that the production of all the employees was lower than the
average previously maintained when the plant was located in Chicago but the
record, except as stated below, fails to reveal how many employees were dis-
charged or laid off following the adoption of a policy to eliminate inefficient
employees.
When in July it became necessary to temporarily reduce operations, Hoover
selected Sutherlin as the first to be laid off in her department. Hoover said
Sutherlin, unlike the other employees, was permanently laid off on July 18, and
in response to a leading question he further stated that this action was tanta-
mount to being discharged. However, Sutherlin was not paid off at that time
and did not receive her pay until approximately 4 weeks later when she went
to the plant office and obtained the same. Hoover's testimony that Sutherlin
was permanently laid off is plainly contradicted by his prior testimony concern-
ing the discharge of Thomas In Thomas' case, Hoover informed her she was
being discharged for certain reasons and, in accordance with company policy
that "lay off was pay off," immediately handed her a check covering her wages
to date. It is undisputed that Sutherlin was not advised that her layoff was
permanent, that she was discharged, or that she was paid off at the time of her
so-called permanent layoff. On the other hand, Sutherlin said Alspaugh simply
told her she was being laid off and would receive a card advising her when to
return to work. This testimony was not denied by Alspaugh. In the light of
this evidence the undersigned finds that Sutherlin was not discharged or per-
manently laid off on July 18, but, like the other employees, was temporarily laid
off and had every reason to believe that she would be recalled to work.
It is true that after Sutherlin signed a union card she engaged in little, if any,
activities on behalf of the Union. She did, however, openly associate with
Thomas, Davis, and other prominent proponents of the Union and was present
with them on September 23 when they called on Blocker to discuss their reem-
ployment with him Apart from the considerations, set forth above, that the
Company was aware of union activities at its plant, Brambach said that he
assumed the group that met with Blocker and himself were all union adherents
as "birds of a feather flock together." Blocker denied the testimony of Suther-
lin and Davis that on September 23 he would reemploy Sutherlin and would
send her a letter notifying her when to report for work. 'Further, Blocker
denied that he talked to Sutherlin on September 28, or that he ever interrogated
her in regard to her signing a union card or her attitude, as stated by Sutherlin.
Having found that Sutherlin was neither discharged nor permanently laid
off on July 18, the question presented is whether the Company refused to reem-
ploy Sutherlin because of her slow work or because of her membership and
activity in the Union, in order to discourage membership therein. The second
696 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question presented is whether Sutherlin was unlawfully discharged on September
2S. The undersigned is of the opinion both of these questions must be answered
in the affirmative
In determining these issues the discharge of Sutherlin cannot be viewed as
an isolated incident but must be weighed and considered in the light of the
totality of the Company's conduct throughout the Union's campaign to organize
the plant. As established in the record the Company laid off 18 of its production
employees in the latter part of July. Of thus number, 7 employees, namely,
Thomas, Sutherlin, Davis, Dickson, Surber, Partin, and Castle became active in
promoting the Union during the period of their layoff.16 All of the laid-off
employees were recalled to work, except Sutherlin, Davis, Surber, Pai tin, and
Dickson. The 2 remaining union proponents, Thomas and Castle, were recalled
but Thomas was discharged 4 clays later and Castle, after working about 3 weeks,
quit on September 23 because Hoover had complained about her going to the
restroom and she did not like conditions at the plant Thus, on September 23,
not one of the above union advocates was employed at the plant. But, as in the
Thomas and Sutherlin discharges, the Company was not without excuses for its
failure to recall these individuals. According to Hoover, Dickson was too slow ;
Partin was not only too slow but absent too often ; Davis had "rejects"; and
Surber talked too much and used vile language at work. Brambach added that
Surber dressed in her "Sunday finery" and waltzed around the plant "like the
Queen of Sheba," and, if Hoover had not "fired" her, he himself would have
done so. Accordingly, it appears that these employees, although employed by
the Company for some time, uniformly became undesirable when they became
active in promoting the Union. By the sane token apparently, those who re-
frained from such activities were acceptable and desirable employees For
example, Hoover said that Dorothy Hutchinson and Inez Rowe, who were first
hired in the tailoring depai tment on July 31, 10:0, in the short space of 6 or 7
seeks attained practically the same degree of efficiency as Sutherlin achieved
after 17 months on this operation At the same time Hoover stated it required
6 months to 1 year to train the average employee in this operation while Bram-
baeh said the period was 6 months to 2 or 3 years The discriminatory treat-
ment afforded the foregoing individuals, viewed in the light of Thomas' unlawful
discharge, the interrogation of employees in regard to the Union, and the anti-
union declarations of Brambach, Hoover. and Blocker, convince the undersigned
that the Company embarked upon a course of conduct designed to fi castrate
union organization among the employees and to eliminate the union adherents
from its employment The Company successfully achieved each goal.
Under all the circumstances in the case, when viewed together with the Com-
pany's demonstrated hostility to the unionization of their employees, plus the
self-contradictory contention that Sutherlin was permanently laid off on July 18,
and the unpersuasmve character of the assertion that she was the most inefficient
employee in the plant, convinces the undersigned that Sutherlin was discharged
for reasons other than those alleged by the Company, Accordingly, the under-
signed credits the testimony of Sutherlin and finds that she was unlawfully
discharged on September 28 The undersigned therefore concludes and finds
upon a preponderance of the evidence that the Company discharged Sutherlin
because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, thereby
discriminating with respect to her hire and tenure of employment in order to
discourage membership in a labor organization and also thereby interfering with,
16 Cooper, who was also active in the Union, was not laid off and apparently continued
to work.
ANGWELL CURTAIN COMPANY, INC. 697
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
3. Other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
Blocker did not deny that he interrogated Carey in respect to union activities
at the plant sometime prior to the election. Admittedly, Blocker, as appears
above (pp 684 and 691), questioned Staggs about the union activities of Thomas
and Castle. He denied that about August 17 he talked to Castle and, after
stating he was aware of her activities, accused her of "trying to dump the
Union into his lap," or that he warned her to keep her "nose clean and stay out
of trouble." Blocker said he merely talked to Castle about her production. As
Castle worked tinder Hoover, and both Blocker and Hoover made it plain they ex-
ercised exclusive supervision over their respective employees, it seems unusual
that Blocker would discuss production problems with one of Hoover's employees,
even with the latter's permission Blocker's denial and explanation is uncon-
vincing and the undersigned credits the testimony of Castle concerning this
incident. The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that Blocker interro-
gated Staggs, Carey, and Castle in regard to union activities at the plant and
thereby interfered with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed the employees
in Section 7 of the Act. (Linde Atr Products Company, 86 NLRB 1330, 1335-
1336; Empn e Pencil Company, 86 NLRB 1187,1189-1190; Atlanta Bi oadeastvng
Company, 90 NLRB 808; Thermout Company, 90 NLRB 614.
Gormley stated that after the ballots had been counted Brambach said, "we
have got to get them out of here," referring to the 21 employees who voted for
the Union. Castle said Brambach remarked, "the worse wasn't over." Bram-
bach denied he made the remark as stated by Gormley, and Wilson testified to
the same effect. Under the' circumstances, the undersigned accepts the testi-
mony of Castle, Brambach, and Wilson and finds that Brambach did not make
the statement as asserted by Gormley.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent, set forth, in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the "hire
and tenure of employment of Stella Thomas and Macel Sutherlin, it will be
recommended that the Respondent offer to each immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position's and make each whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimi-
nation against her by payment to each of a sum of money equal to that which
she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the
date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during said
'7 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
period.18 Loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each separate calendar
quarter or portion thereof during the period from the Respondent's discrimi-
natory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. The quarterly
periods, herein called quarters, shall begin with the first day of January, April,
July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting from a sum
equal to that which each employee would normally have earned for each such
quarter or portion thereof, her net earnings, if any, in any other employment
during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon
the back-pay liability for any other quarter.19 It will also be recommended that
the Respondent, upon reasonable request, make available to the Board and its
agents all payroll and other records pertinent to an analysis of the amounts due
as back pay.
The unfair labor practices found above reveal on the part of the Respondent
such a fundamental antipathy to the objectives of the Act as to justify an in-
ference that the commission of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated in
the future, and it will be recommended, therefore, that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Respondent.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Stella
Thomas and Macel Sutherlin, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
18 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440.
'OF. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
GEORGE W. REED and ERNEST SYDNEY CHARLTON
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING & COMMON LABORERS UNION
OF AMERICA , LOCAL No. 36, AFL and ERNEST SYDNEY CHARLTON.
Cases Nos. 20-CA-268 and 00-CB-80. May 18, 1951
Decision and Order
On January 29, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
Respondent Reed, herein referred to as the Employer, and Respondent
94 NLRB No. 109.