Bangor Shoe Mfg. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1467 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC. 1467
In consideration whereof, and upon the reconsideration of the facts
in these cases, including the above contracts, the Board now finds that
a nationwide multiemployer unit is appropriate.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings herein following the hear-
ing be, and they hereby are, vacated, the Order dismissing the petition
in Case No. 21-RC-5711 is withdrawn, and the certificates issued to
Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-5710 and to American Federation of
Musicians in Case No. 21-RC-5709, be, and they hereby are, set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions herein be dismissed unless
the Petitioner within 10 days from the service of this Order shall sig-
nify in writing to the Regional Director its desire to have an election
in the unit now found to be appropriate.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Regional Director shall conduct an
election among the employees in the unit now found appropriate if
Petitioner shall request the same within 10 days from the service of
this Order, but he is instructed not to proceed with the election until
he has first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate
showing of interest among the employees in the unit now found
appropriate.'
2 In view of their dissent in Case No. 21-CA-4037, referred to above, Membeis Rodgers
and Leedom do not join in this Order
Bangor Shoe Mfg. Co ., Inc. and Boot and Shoe Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3166. December 21, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 4, 1961, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in 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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' The General Counsel
has filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
' After issuance of the Intermediate Report and before filing its exceptions, the Respond-
ent filed a motion requesting the Board to strike the Intermediate Report or to reopen
the record to take evidence regarding publication of a news story which appeared in a
trade journal concerning this proceeding . The Respondent contends that the story raises
an inference that the Trial Examiner had improperly discussed this case with the writer
of the article after the case had been transferred to the Board. Its request to strike the
Intermediate Report or to reopen the record is based on the bias and prejudice alleged to
be shown by the statements attributed to the Trial Examiner in the article The article
is a brief and incomplete summary of the Intermediate Report. It leads off with what
134 NLRB No. 144.
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings and adopts his findings and conclusions a
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner with
the modification that Section 2 (d) read : "Notify the Regional Di-
rector for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken -to comply
herewith." I
its author apparently considered to be its most newsworthy point, namely that the Trial
Examiner believed that officials of the Respondent had lied at the hearing . The article
goes on to say that its writer had had a conversation with the Trial Examiner and that
the latter had indicated that there was little disposition for the Board to take perjury
action in cases such as this. We fail to see how the Trial Examiner has been shown to be
guilty of bias and prejudice merely because he discredited the testimony of Respondent's
witnesses or, because out of courtesy to a reporter ' s inquiry , he stated that the Board
does not routinely initiate perjury proceedings whenever witnesses at a hearing have
been discredited The Respondent ' s motion is therefore denied.
2 The Respondent also contended that the Trial Examiner exhibited bias and prejudice
by failing to consider the testimony of certain witnesses for the Respondent that they
had been threatened by Moore, one of the dischargees herein, that they would lose their
jobs when the Union won. Respondent did not learn of the alleged threats made to these
witnesses , whose testimony was not mentioned in the Intermediate Report, until some
time after Moore had been discharged . It follows that Respondent could not have relied
on them in coming to its decision to discharge Moore. In any event, the critical issue
here Is not whether Moore actually solicited employees outside of the handsewing depart-
ment or threatened them, but whether Respondent discharged him because of his lawful
union activities . Our examination of the entire record , including the evidence specifically
adverted to in the Respondent's exceptions , convinces us that the Trial Examiner 's ulti-
mate findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence . As the Trial Examiner's
credibility findings are not clearly erroneous , we see no reason to disturb them. We are
satisfied that the Respondent 's allegations of bias and prejudice are wholly without warrant.
3 In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report as Appendix , the words "A Decision
and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner ." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court
of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order"
the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an
Order."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
This proceeding involves allegations that the Respondent , Bangor Shoe Mfg. Co.,
Inc., violated Section 8 ( a)(1) and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61
Stat . 136. On various days between June 9 and July ,1, 1960, inclusive, A. Bruce
Hunt, the duly designated Trial Examiner , conducted a hearing at Bangor , Maine, at
which all parties were .represented . Upon the entire record in the case , and from
my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT
Bangor Shoe Mfg. Co ., Inc., a Maine corporation , has its principal place of busi-
ness at Bangor , Maine, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of shoes.
It annually ships shoes , valued at in excess of $50 , 000, directly to points outside
that State . There is no dispute , and I find , that the Respondent is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC. 1469
II. THE CHARGING PARTY
Boot and Shoe ' Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization which admits
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges, and the Respondent denies,
that-(I) during February' 1960 and thereafter, Superintendent Maroun George and
Foreman James McHale invalidiy' interrogated and threatened employees concern-
ing union activities, and (2) on April 4, 1960, the Respondent discharged Everett
Moore and Esther DeRoche because of their -activities on behalf of the Charging
Party.
The defense to the discharges is that (1) Moore was discharged because he left
his place of work during working hours and threatened employees in an effort to
impel them to join the Charging Party, and (2) DeRoche was discharged because
she used profane and offensive language in talking with Superintendent George.
There is no issue concerning the competence of Moore or DeRoche. Indeed, with
respect to Moore, for a period of 10 years ending in late 1959, he had been fore-
man of the handsewing department where he had supervised more than 100 em-
ployees, but during November or December 1959 Moore resigned his supervisory
job and requested work as a rank-and-file handsewer because he had received only
one raise in pay, $5, during the decade of the 1950's, making his salary $80 weekly,
and he said to George that he believed that there was too much work for too little
pay. George, who testified that he had been "very sorry to see" Moore resign the
supervisory job, testified also that he is "very, very particular, very careful" whom he
has as foremen and that he has "all the faith and all the trust in all my foremen."
The basic problem here is credibility. We have more than the usual situation in
which witnesses for one side contradict those,for the other. We have instances in
which honest witnesses had faulty recollections plus instances in which witnesses
on one side contradicted witnesses on the same side and, indeed, sometimes contra-
dicted themselves. Too, more than one witness on one side or the other deliberately
gave false testimony.
B. The strike by the handsewers; the beginning of union activity
At the time of the hearing, the Respondent had between 350 and 400 employees
who worked in 8 departments, the largest of which is the handsewing. department
with about 180 employees. That is the department of which Moore had been
foreman.
For an undisclosed period of time before -1960, the handsewers were represented
by a committee of several employees, selected by the handsewers, who dealt with
management on their behalf. During the autumn of 1959 the committee was un-
successful in its efforts to obtain increased rates of pay. During January 1960, the
committee resumed its efforts and there were several meetings with management
Those efforts also were unsuccessful and, on February 1, when there were about 160
handsewers, all but approximately a,dozen engaged in a walkout. Moore and De-
Roche, who were not members of the committee, were among those who engaged in
the work -stoppage. The walkout lasted'for about 2 days during which the committee-
men continued to bargain with the Respondent. When an increase of 2,percent was
offered by management, the committeemen reported to `the striking handsewers who
voted to return to work. Although organizing activities on behalf of the Charging
Party had not commenced at the time the walkout began, the striking handsewers
made use of the local Labor Temple in which to receive the report of the com-
mitteemen. The walkout came to the attention of Bradford Hamilton, an Inter-
national representative of the Charging Party, and he contacted Stanley DeRoche,
the husband of Esther DeRoche. Hamilton and Stanley DeRoche were acquainted
with each other, and, Hamilton asked DeRoche to begin the solicitation of employees'
signatures to applications for membership.
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Events following the walkout
The basis upon which the walkout was settled did not serve to eliminate the
grievances of the handsewers. A number of them were dissatisfied with the amount
of the wage increase. Too, considerable dissatisfaction existed because there were
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
periods of time during which the handsewers did not have shoes to sew. Although
those employees had a guaranteed minimum hourly wage, their earnings at piece
rates were higher when they could work steadily without periods of waiting for
shoes. - According to Foreman McHale, a witness for the Respondent, "there was a
lot of discontent" because of the waiting periods and he had overheard employees
say that it was "too bad" that they had returned .to work, that they should "go out
[on strike] again." According to Superintendent George, McHale reported to him
concerning McHale's observations.
During February, after the walkout ended, George and McHale interviewed •a few
of the 160 handsewers. On or about February 6, McHale arranged for George to
talk with two members of the handsewers' committee, Robert Thibodeau and Leonel
Proulx. The conversation was held in the cutting room of the plant and the testi-
mony concerning it is conflicting. It is clear, however, that George said to the two
committeemen that the conversation was to be "off the record." 1 There was some
discussion concerning the reasons for discontent among the handsewers. George
encouraged the employees to speak freely and he inquired how they and other hand-
sewers felt about "a union" or "the union." Thibodeau and Proulx replied that they
had never belonged to a union but that one might be helpful to the employees. George
said that a union could not be of help to the employees, that they already enjoyed
benefits and that some benefits might be lost if a union were their representative.
George said also that he knew who was circulating union cards and how many em-
ployees had signed. Proulx, who was concerned because only he and Thibodeau of
the three committeemen at work that day had been called to the off-the-record con-
versation, asked George whether George "held any discrimination" against them, to
which George answered in the negative, adding that if he wished to discharge any-
one he could do so because of poor work, not because of union membership. At
the close of the conversation, George said that his purpose in talking with Thibodeau
and Proulx had been to ascertain how they "felt about the union. " 2
1 Thibodeau and Proulx so testified . George testified that he "might have said" that
the conversation was to be off-the-record but that he did not recall whether he "worded
it that way or not."
2 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Thibodeau and Proulx. Al-
though, as set out hereinafter , in another instance I cannot make findings based upon
their testimony because of lack of memory and confusion, I believe that they honestly
sought to relate the truth. On the other hand, according to the testimony of George and
MdHale, the discontent among the handsewers had prompted McHale to suggest to George
that the latter talk with small groups of handsewers and explain the steps which the
Respondent was taking to eliminate waiting periods, and the conversation with Thibodeau.
and Proulx was the first of several conversations . George testified further that he urged
Thibodeau and Proulx to speak freely , saying that he would hold nothing against them,
in order to ascertain exactly "what was bothering them," and that he may have been
motivated too by a feeling that there might be another walkout. According to both George
and McHale , George explained to Thibodeau and Proulx that certain steps were underway
to eliminate the waiting periods, and there was a discussion of those periods , but there was
no mention whatsoever of a union , a possible loss of benefits , or a discharge for poor work.
I cannot credit the testimony of George and McHale . As will appear , their testimony
concerning other incidents is unreliable. With respect to the conversation with Thibodeau
and Proulx, George's testimony that he may have feared another walkout and that he
wanted to explain what the Respondent was doing to eliminate the waiting periods must
be evaluated in the light of the facts that: (1) George did not call a general meeting of
handsewers to give the explanation ; (2) George, according to his testimony, did not
initiate a conversation with any other members of the committee, the handsewers' chosen
representatives, and to Thibodeau and Proulx he said that the conversation was to be
off-the-record; and (3) in the several meetings which George initiated with handsewers,
he talked with less than a dozen of about 160 employees. These facts tend to disprove
the contention that George's purpose was simply to explain to handsewers the steps which
the Respondent proposed to take to eliminate waiting periods Moreover, by his de-
meanor, George impressed me as an unreliable witness and that impression was heightened
by his feigned righteousness or indignation upon several occasions . Finally, George testi-
fied that, until the day the hearing opened, he was unaware of the identity of the union
which had been seeking to organize the employees . The record refutes that testimony,
particularly the portions of the record which relate to George's inquiries of employees ;
his conversation with Hamilton , the Charging Party's International representative, and
one Fareta , another representative , concerning the discharges of employees who are not
involved in this proceeding ; and his having seen a charge filed by the Charging Party.
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC. 1471
Within a few days, two small groups of handsewers were sent to George's office by
McHale who remained for the conversations. One group consisted of Moore, iden-
tified above as a dischargee, and Jake Wilcox and Pat McGillicuddy. None of those
three employees was a member of the handsewers' committee. George began the
conversation by asking the employees what they thought that "the union" could do
for them which the Respondent had not done or could not do. Moore answered
that "the people should organize for their own protection, to protect what we had." 3
Wilcox said that he was not "for it" or ",against it," that he was neutral, and George
said that Wilcox would have to be on one side or the other. George said too that the
employees should remember that he "could fire anybody for [making] poor shoes."
It does not appear that McGillicuddy said anything.4
Another group of handsewers who were sent to George's office consisted of Esther
DeRoche, identified above as a dischargee, Donald Mayo, Ernest Thomas, and "Red"
Robertson or Robinson. None of them was a member of the handsewers' committee.
Of those four employees, only DeRoche was a witness. She testified for the General
Counsel, and I find, that George asked their opinion of "the union" and what it could
do for the employees that the Respondent had not done already, that she responded
that she was 100 percent "for the union" and would do everything she could to "get
the union in the factory," that she could not recall what any other employee said, and
that she could not remember whether any of them said that he was "involved with a
union." DeRoche testified further, and I find, that at the end of the conversation
George said that he could discharge anyone for poor work, to which she replied that
he would "have to prove that our work was bad." 5
3 With respect to the question whether the Charging Party had begun its organiza-
tional efforts at the time of this conversation, Moore testified that he "wouldn't want to
say exactly the date" that the efforts began, that he did not "believe right then and there
(the time of the conversation]" that the efforts were underway, although there had been
"some union talk, but it hadn 't organized at that time." It is clear , however, not only
from the testimony of Moore, but also from the testimony of George and McHale set out
in the next footnote , that Moore had become interested in unionization of the employees
& The findings concerning this conversation are based upon the reliable testimony of
Moore. Neither Wilcox nor McGillicuddy was called as a witness by any party Moore
impressed me as a taciturn man who testified with care and who did not deliberately
falsify. In addition, it will be recalled that Moore had worked for the Respondent as a
foreman for 10 years, during which period he must have established a reputation for
trustworthiness because George, as already recited, testified that he, George, had "all the
faith and all the trust in all my foremen." Turning to the Respondent's testimony con-
cerning the conversation, George and McHale testified that George told the three em-
ployees of prospective improvements to eliminate the waiting periods, that George then
asked the employees to make suggestions, to speak freely, and not to fear that anything
would be held against them, and that thereupon Moore said that the employees should
have a union for "job protection" or "job security." According to McHale, George then
said to Moore. "Everett, as an ex-foreman, you should know that we can get rid of any-
body that makes poor shoes." According to George, he said to Moore: "Everett, you as
an ex-foreman , know that if a man or a woman gave you bad shoes that you can fire
them for bad shoes, whether they have a union or not, you can fire them for had work."
Both George and McHale testified that nothing else was said by anyone about a union,
and George also testified that he "received several suggestions in regard to giving out
the work " The record, however, will not support a finding that such suggestions were
made. George testified that Wilcox was silent throughout the conversation, and McHale
testified that the conversation ended with George's remark to Moore concerning the
discharge of "anybody that makes poor shoes." I am convinced that this conversation,
like the off-the-record one with Thibodeau and Proulx , was held by George in an effort
to ascertain the thinking of the employees concerning unionization and to forestall any
inclinations in that direction . I am convinced too that George spoke of discharging em-
ployees "for poor shoes" as a threat, not as an innocuous remark that a union could not
assure continuous employment for incompetent employees.
6 As recited, these findings are based upon the credited testimony of DeRoche. On the
other hand, George and McHale testified that in this conversation, as in other conversa-
tions, George told of his awareness that there was discontent, that certain step, were
being taken to eliminate waiting periods, and asked for suggestions, saying too that
employees should speak freely. George and McHale testified further that DeRoch, re-
sponded to the request for suggestions by saying , "The Pope believes In unions," to
which George answered, "Well, the Pope is entitled to his opinion, and so is everyone else
entitled to their own,opinions and beliefs." According to George and McHale, there was
no other reference to a union and DeRoche did not say that she favored one and would do
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There were no further meetings between management and handsewers who were
not members of the Handsewers' committee. George testified that he "left .... up
to" McHale whether other employees among the approximately 160 "in the hand-
sewing department wanted to be brought up to date on this waiting period problem"
and that McHale did not ask him to talk with' "any more groups." There was, however,
at least one meeting between members of the handsewers' committee and representa-
tives, of, management in which, according to the General Counsel, coercive remarks
were made. The meeting -appears to - have been at the request of the com-
mitteemen for the purpose .of discussing an employee insurance plan which the
Respondent, contemplated. My study of the transcript leaves me unsatisfied that I can
make accurate findings concerning remarks made at the meeting or, indeed, whether
there was more than one meeting.
Thibodeau,and Proulx,. identified above, and Lewis Tuttle, another committeeman,
testified for the General Counsel. Their recollections varied in material respects.
Tuttle, whose recollection admittedly was unclear, recalled that there was one meet-
ing between the committeemen and management at which insurance was discussed
and-at which there was no mention of a union. He recalled that there was a separate
meeting at which unionization was discussed without reference to a particular union.
Thibodeau, who, followed Tuttle on the witness stand and who had been present
during Tuttle's testimony, did not try to shape his testimony to conform with that
which Tuttle had given. Thibodeau recalled a single meeting, called at the request
of the committeemen, to discuss insurance but at which unionization also was
discussed. According to Thibodeau, the Charging Party was mentioned specifically,
and, although George and Mac Lacritz, the Respondent's treasurer, spoke of post-
poning the adoption of an insurance plan until the employees should decide whether
to be represented by a union, George also said that "if the people wanted a union, if
there's enough signed for it, there's nothing they could do; he wouldn't try to stop it."
Proulx, who followed Thibodeau on the witness stand and who had been present
during the testimony of both Thibodeau and Tuttle, disputed each of them in certain
respects. Proulx testified that there "were so many meetings that we had [both before
and after the walkout], so many different discussions, that it's hard to recall what
was said exactly, what certain meeting." Proulx,recalled a single meeting at which
both insurance and unionization were discussed but he could not recall any mention
of the Charging Party. Although Proulx had a recollection that there "was talk
about the insurance not coming through . . . if we was going to have the union,"
he testified further that the "only thing" which he could remember specifically "that
was said about a union was that they [management representatives] wanted to know
what the,union could do that the company couldn't do."
The above excerpts from the General Counsel's evidence make it clear that a trier
of fact cannot, with assurance of accuracy, make findings of fact concerning a meet-
ing or meetings between Lacritz and other representatives of management with the
committeemen. Without reciting further excerpts, I conclude that the General-Coun-
sel has not sustained his burden•that remarks violative of Section 8(a) (1) were made
by representatives of management at such meeting or meetings. With respect to the
Respondent's evidence, it suffices to, say that George, McHale, and Lacritz testified
that a meeting was held at the request of the committeemen to discuss insurance and
that there was, no reference to any union during the discussion.
2. Conclusions
I find that the Respondent, by the conduct of George and McHale in interviewing
the three groups of employees named in the footnote,6 violated section 8(a) (1) of the
Act. This is so because the questioning of employees concerning unionization oc-
curred in an `atmosphere of coercion in which there were threats to discharge
employees under the guise of poor; work but really for union activity.7
whatever she could to bring one into the plant. , George testified further that he "received
several suggestions , . . some of them were complaining about getting too many cases. of
men's shoes to sew ; others were complaining about getting too many women's, and so
forth, and so on," and that he "even received a suggestion" that the handsewers not be
permitted to know in advance the types of shoes which they would receive to sew.
6 (1) Thibodeau and Proulx; (2) Moore, Wilcox, and McGillicuddy; and (3 ) DeRoche,
Donald Mayo, Thomas, and Robertson or Robinson.
7 An additional contention of the General Counsel is that McHale, as a representative
of the Respondent , sought to "keep a witness [Proulx] from testifying in this proceeding "
Proulx did not want to testify . A few days before he took the witness stand , Mclale
asked him whether he had been subpenaed , and Proulx answered in the negative, adding
that he did not "want to get involved in it, if .. [he] could help it." McHale then
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC. 1473
D. The discharges of Moore and DeRoche
1. Their union activities; events before they were discharged
We have seen that organizational activity began during the early part of February
1960. By February 25 the activity had reached a point that employees who had
applied for membership in the Charging Party met at the local Labor Temple to
elect officers of a labor organization which later was to be given a charter as a local
union of the Charging Party. Moore; who recently had resigned his job as foreman
to become a handsewer, was elected president. DeRoche was elected secretary.
The .record is unclear concerning the election of other officers but it appears that
only, one other employee of the Respondent was elected. Donald Mayo, mentioned
above, was elected sentinel.
On the next day, Moore and DeRoche called upon George in the latter's office
where Moore told of their election to office in "the union" and asked permission to
distribute union cards and to talk with employees about unionization during non-
working hours. George replied that he could not grant permission without first talk-
ing with Lacritz, who was not in the plant at that time. On or about the next day,
Moore and DeRoche were called to Lacritz' office where Lacritz said that he opposed
any union activity on the Respondent's premises. About that point, Harry Clayman,
the Respondent's president, happened to enter, or was asked to enter, the conversa-
tion. Clayman agreed to telephone his attorney to ascertain whether Moore and
DeRoche had the right to engage in organizational activities in the plant on their
own time. Later that day, after talking with his attorney, Clayman informed Moore
that Moore and DeRoche had such right.8 Until their discharges on April 4, Moore
and DeRoche were active on behalf of the Charging Party.
During March, George talked with Eugene Mayo, a handsewer who is a brother
of Donald Mayo, mentioned above. George approached Eugene Mayo in the plant
and asked whether the handsewers would walk out if he should discharge Moore.
Mayo answered that he did not think so. About a week later, George repeated the
question to Mayo and received the same answer .9
On an uncertain day during the 2 weeks immediately preceding the discharge of
Moore, George talked with Beatrice Moore, an employee who is the wife of Moore.
said, "You can always plead the 5th Amendment if you don't want to say anything"
McHale testified that he spoke of the fifth amendment "in a kidding way." Although
Mellale was an unreliable witness in a number of instances, I do not' believe that be
seriously sought to induce Proulx not to testify
$ These findings are based upon the testimony of Moore and DeRoche. In some-respects,
the Respondent's testimony differs George testified that'wben Moore and DeRoche asked
whether cards might be distributed, he said that as far as he was "concerned, it's okay"
but that he would have to inquire of Clayman and Lacritz I have found that George
was an unreliable witness and I cannot credit his testimony, which is contradicted by
Moore and DeRoche, that he said that as far as he was "concerned, it's okay " With
respect to Lacritz's opposition to union activity on the Respondent's premises, George
testified that he, George,, was not present when Lacritz spoke with Moore and DeRoche
because he had taken those employees to'Claynian with whom they talked before talking
with Lacritz. George's testimony is contradicted by Clayman who testified that he
happened to enter Lacritz' office where Lacritz, George, Moore, and DeRoche -were con-
versing and that there "seemed to be some misunderstanding" between Lacritz and the
two employees concerning the distribution of union cards in the plant ' Clayman testified
further that he interrupted the other persons before he had' an opportunity to learn
Lacritz' position. Turning to the testimony of Lacritz, he testified that Moore'requested
"permission to pass out cards in the factory"; that Lacritz replied, ". definitely not,•
if it is going to interrupt the'production in the factory"; that Moore responded that he
had the "right to pass out cards during lunch hour, and not during working hours" ; and
that Clayman then entered the office and interrupted the conversation I reject Lacritz'
testimony. First, I was unfavorably impressed with his demeanor. Second, I do not
believe that Moore, an ex-foreman who knew that' working hours are for work, was less
precise in requesting permission from Lacritz than' he had been in requesting it from
George George's testimony is that Moore asked "permission to pass out union cards
'during lunch hour ,
O These findings are liased upon the testimony of Mayo. George denied that the con-
versations took place. I see no reasonable basis upon which to discredit Mayo He was
not sympathetic to' Moore's union activity. He had not joined in the walkout of the
handsewers duffing February and his opinion'of the Charging Party is low' According to
' 'Mayo the Charging Party "is no stinking good "
630849-62'-vol. 134- 94 1i
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
George walked by her place of work , greeted her, stopped, and came back. He saidto her inter alia that he had "always thought a lot of " Moore and had "tried toprotect" Moore but that it was "out of . . . [his] hands" and that Moore was
sticking his neck out for a group of ignorant people who won 't stand behind himif he gets in trouble." 10
We come now to events on April 4 , the day upon which Moore and DeRoche were
discharged by George . As mentioned above , there is no issue concerning the com-
petency of either employee . The issues are whether they were discharged because
of their union activities , as the General Counsel contends , or (1) whether Moore
was discharged for having been away from his place of work shortly after the lunch
period on April 4 and threatening employees and (2 ) whether DeRoche was dis-
charged for using profane and offensive language to George, as the Respondent
contends . The discharges took place minutes apart. We shall consider first the
evidence of the General Counsel , which was given largely by Moore and DeRoche,
and next the evidence of the Respondent.
2. The General Counsel 's evidence concerning events on the day of the discharges
During the one-half hour lunch period on April 4, Moore and DeRoche went into
the making room to ask Girard Cote, an employee, for the address of Raymond
Doucette , an employee who had been discharged . ll Later, when the lunch period
ended , Moore punched his timecard , went to his workbench and, according to the
General Counsel , worked steadily for about 20 minutes before Foreman McHale
told him that George wanted to see him . 12 Moore told McHale that he wanted
DeRoche to accompany him to George's office and, after McHale had obtained
George's approval to DeRoche's presence , Moore, DeRoche, and McHale went to
George's office where George and Randall Vigue, foreman of Cote and other em-
ployees in the making room , were waiting.
George opened , the conversation by asking Moore a question . Moore testified
that George inquired what right Moore had to go "in other departments asking the
help questions and bothering them ," but that George did not specify a department
or employees . 13 Then , according to the General Counsel , Moore replied that he
was "president of the local union " and that he had a right to go through the depart-
ments on his "own time ," and DeRoche interjected that she and Moore had been in
the making room only to aske Cote for the address of Doucette . 14 At one point
in. the conversation , according to Moore, Foreman Vigue said that Moore and
DeRoche , did, not have a right to, go into his department ,without first talking with
to These findings are based upon the testimony of Mrs Moore George's denial that the
conversation took place was unconvincing . Although Mrs. Moore was an interested wit-
ness, she impressed me as an honest, forthright witness She is a taciturn person, as
is her husband. Her testimony that she and her husband exchanged no more than a few
remarks concerning his discharge, the union activity, and the hearing in this case may
create doubts in the mind of a reader of the "cold" transcript but I believe her She and
her husband are so taciturn as to be an unusual couple in that respect
11 Moore and DeRoche so testified. According to Moore, they asked Cote for Doucette's
address in order that Mr. and Mrs. DeRoche "could contact him [Doucette] to find out
about his being fired ." Cote also testified for the General Counsel and his testimony is
that the conversation lasted about 5 minutes and that he was asked only the reason for
Doucette 's discharge , to which he answered , "bad work."
12 Moore punched his timecard at 12:33 p m. His testimony that he was at work there-
after until McHale came for him is supported by the testimony of fellow handsewers
When a "buzzer" sounded at 12:30 to signify the end of the lunch period, Moore walked
toward the timeclock. Reginald Martin asked Moore to stop so that Martin could ask a
question Moore answered that he could not stop, that he had to punch his timecard.
Martin testified that about 5 minutes later he saw Moore at work and that he was certain
because he then recalled the question which he wished to ask Moore Marilyn Terrio
shared a workbench with Moore. She testified that Moore worked steadily from shortly
after the buzzer sounded until McHale came for him.
12 Moore also testified that George did not speak of bothering employees "on company
time" as distinguished from nonworking hours. DeRoche, who followed Moore to the
witness stand after hearing most of his testimony, testified, however, that George did
speak of "working time."
"Moore so testified, and the General Counsel, in his brief, adopts Moore's testimony
without discussing certain portions which were contradicted by DeRoche . She testified
that she could not remember , but that she did not think that Moore spoke of his office in,
the local union . She testified also that Moore, not she, spoke of having sought Doucette's
address
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC. 1475
him.15 After DeRoche interjected, George told her that he was not speaking to
her and that she should shut her mouth.16 George then accused DeRoche of having
sworn at female employees and of having sought to force them to sign union cards,
and DeRoche replied by challenging George to produce employees to prove his
accusation, but George rejected the challenge. According to the General Counsel,
George asked whether DeRoche was calling him a liar, her answer was a qualified
affirmative, the qualification being unless he would produce employees to prove his
accusation, and George said to McHale that she had called him a liar and that
McHale should discharge her.17 The conversation ended and the employees left
George's office.18 McHale put DeRoche through the procedure of being discharged.
Thereafter McHale went to Moore, who had resumed work, and discharged him.
Shortly after Moore's discharge, according to the testimony of Cote, George went
to Cote and said that Moore had been discharged for being out of his department
during working hours, but Cote replied that Moore had been to see him during the
lunch period, not during working hours. At that point McHale walked by and
George called to him, "Jimmy, what are we going to do about this?" George and
McHale walked out of Cote's range of hearing. Cote testified too that George did
not speak to him of employees called "edge trimers" who work in the making room
near Cote and that George did not say that Moore had threatened anyone.19 The
significance of Cote's testimony concerning edge trimmers and threats will appear
momentarily.
3. The Respondent's evidence concerning events on the day of the discharges
The Respondent's witnesses to events in George's office were George and Foremen
McHale and Vigue. 20 In addition, the Respondent offered the testimony of two
edge trimmers, George Brown and Neil McKusick, that Moore threatened them
shortly after the lunch period on April 4 in trying to impel them to sign union cards.
According to Brown and McKusick, shortly after the lunch period (when certain
witnesses for the General Counsel testified that Moore was at work at his bench),
Moore came into the making room, solicited their signatures to union cards, was
told that they were unwilling to sign, and threatened that if they did not sign they
would be discharged "when the union got in." Moore's presence in the making room
during working hours, if he was there as the Respondent asserts, was contrary to a
long-standing rule of the plant that "Operators are not to go into another department
unless they see their foreman and obtain permission." 21 According to Brown and
McKusick, the conversation with Moore lasted only a minute or so and the two edge
trimmers promptly decided to iquire of their foreman, Vigue, whether they might
be discharged as Moore had threatened. At that moment, according to McKusick,
Vigue was at the other end of the making room and they went to talk to him.22
15 See footnote 21, Infra.
16 Both Moore and DeRoche testified that George told her to shut her mouth, but whereas
Moore testified that DeRoche interjected by saying that she and Moore had sought
Doucette's address . DeRoche testified that she was prompted to interject because George
said that inquiries about employees should be addressed to foremen, and that she inter-
jected by saying that "our foreman ," McHale, did not remain in the plant at lunchtime.
17 The substance of Moore's and DeRoche's testimony is as set out. There are differences
in their testimony, however, and each of them displayed some difficulty in trying to detail
the conversation and the sequence of remarks
1s Moore testified that he said to DeRoche: "Esther, you've said enough, let's get out of
here." According to Moore, he made the remark because George "was talking too loud
and hollering" and there was no "further point in talking to the man." On the other
hand , DeRoche testified that Moore did not make the remark to her.
19 George unconvincingly denied that he had that conversation with Cote
=Much of George's testimony was given under Rule 43(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
a The quotation is from a rule which was posted in the plant. The quotation is com-
plete and the rule does not mention working or nonworking hours In this connection,
it may be recalled that Moore testified that, during the conversation in George's office,
Vigue said that Moore and DeRoche did not have a right to go into the department of
which he is foreman, the making room, without first talking with him. George testified,
however, that the rule is applicable only to working hours
22 Vigue's testimony is that he left the plant for lunch that day, that he did not see
Moore talking, -with' Brown and 'McKusik, and, indeed , that he never at any time saw
Moore engaging in union solicitation in the making room ' According to Vigue, he was
approached by Brown and McKusick about 12:40 or 12:45 p.m., about a minute after he
1476 DECISIONS OF .'NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vigue testified that he went to George's office after talking with Brown and
McKusick. There, according to George and Vigue, the latter reported to George
concerning his conversation with Brown and McKusick and asked whether George
had:given Moore permission to go into the making room and threaten the two edge
trimmers. George testified also that, without questioning Vigue, Brown, or
McKusick, he decided to have Moore brought to his office promptly so that Moore
might "have a chance to defend himself" and so that George could "find out if it
was true or not" that Moore had threatened Brown and McKusick. Thereupon,
George left Vigue in the office and went into the plant's work area for McHale,
Moore's foreman, to have McHale bring Moore to the office. George and McHale
testified that Moore was not at his workbench although it then was about 12:50'
p.m. Soon, according to McHale, he saw Moore coming from the direction of the
making room but he could not overtake Moore until Moore had resumed work.
McHale told Moore that he was wanted in George's office. Moore did not go there,
however, until it had been arranged that DeRoche accompany him.
When Moore, DeRoche, and McHale entered George's office, George asked Moore-
a question. George, Vigue, and McHale testified that George asked Moore who
had given him authority to go into the making room and threaten the edge trimmers.-
There are variations in the testimony of the Respondent's witnesses on that point,
but the variations need not be recited. Moore responded to the question and
DeRoche also spoke, and on these points we must examine the inconsistencies in
the testimony of George,23 Vigue,24,and McHale.25 Although none of the Respond-
ent's three witnesses admitted having understood what DeRoche said when she spoke,
those three witnesses testified, in substance, that George said to her politely that he
had been addressing Moore and that he would speak with her after he had finished.
speaking with Moore. Those three witnesses also testified that George, without
speaking further with Moore, immediately told DeRoche that he had received com-
plaints that she had threatened employees 26 The Respondent's evidence is clear,
however, that George had not heard anything more than unverified hearsay which,
as he acknowledged, he had not investigated because he does not follow "up every`
little piece of gossip." The hearsay had been told to him by Marjory Glidden, an
employee. Glidden testified for the Respondent that during March she said to
George, ". . . you should have heard what I heard in the girls' room yesterday,"'
and that she continued by saying that she had been ''inside one of the booths" in the
women's room where she could not see anyone but that she had heard unidentified
"voices coming towards" her saying that "Esther's bullying those girls" and that the
"girls are scared of her, that's why they're joining". After Glidden related the
hearsay to George, he and she agreed that DeRoche did not "seem like that type of
a girl." 27
returned to the making room. Vigue, who followed Brown and McKusick to the -witness
stand, had not been present to hear their testimony.
23 George first testified that before "Moore had a chance to answer" George's question,
DeRoche interrupted and that George could not remember what she said. George con-
tradicted himself by testifying also that before DeRoche "had a chance to interrupt,
Mr. Moore did say that he had a right . . . to go anywhere in the factory,", to which=
George responded, "Yes, but not during working hours " At that point, according to
George, DeRoche Interrupted George testified also that DeRoche was yelling when she
interrupted and that because of the interruption, Moore "didn't have a chance" to deny
that he had threatened employees
24 Vigue testified that Moore answered George's question by saying that he, Moore, had
a right to go anywhere in the plant, to which George responded that Moore did not have
a right to go anywhere in the plant except during lunchtime, and that at that point
DeRoche interrupted by "screeching and hollering" words which were unintelligible to
Vigue
25 McHale testified that DeRoche interrupted before Moore responded to George's ques-
tion. McHale contradicted himself by testifying also that DeRoche did not interrupt until
after Moore had said that he had a right to go anywhere in the plant With respect to
DeRoche's words, McHale testified that she hollered and that he could not understand
With respect to remarks by George to Moore, McHale testified that George said that Moore
could not go around the plant during working hours.
28 George testified that he told DeRoche that be had "received complaints that you have
been bullying and threatening the girls out there to sign union cards." Vigue's testimony
is that George said to DeRoche that "people tell me that you have been threatening and
bullying the girls around through the factory." McHale testified that George said to-•
DeRoche that he "had complaints on you threatening people."
27 George testified that Glidden' s remarks , to him were "one complaint , from one girl,"
the only "complaint" about DeRoche which he received . George testified also , however,-
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO ., INC . 1477
According to the Respondent's witnesses , when George told DeRoche that he
had received complaints that she had threatened employees , she said to him, "You
-are a God-damn liar," whereupon George asked if she was calling him a liar, she
-repeated the profane expression , George said that she was discharged , and Moore
then interposed by saying to DeRoche that she had said enough and that they should
leave.28 According to George and Vigue , George called more than once to Moore
to come back but Moore continued on his way to his workbench.
After McHale put DeRoche through the procedure of being discharged , George
told him to discharge Moore . McHale did so. George testified that he assumed
Moore did not care to "clear himself" because Moore had not obeyed George's
repeated direction to return to George's office.
4. Conclusions concerning the discharges
The General Counsel 's position is that Moore was called to George 's office because
Moore had talked with Cote in the making room and , as argued in the brief, that
"Moore never threatened anyone; that he was discharged by George in consonance
with George's plan to fire Moore as disclosed to [Eugene ] Mayo earlier." With
respect to DeRoche, the General Counsel argues that , during the meeting in George's
-office , only a few words had passed between George and Moore before DeRoche
interrupted, and that-
George . attempted deliberately to provoke Mrs. DeRoche . . . by falsely accus-
ing her of threatening employees into signing union, cards , and when Mrs.
DeRoche defended herself by asking to have her accusers confront her as one
might reasonably anticipate , George twisted this into an affront to his integrity
and discharged her. Thus, George was able to rid Respondent of a leading
union advocate. .
In determining whether DeRoche used the profane expression attributed to
her or whether she merely agreed with George 's characterization of himself as
a liar if he couldn 't produce witnesses to corroborate his baseless accusation, it
is necessary to comment . . . that George was, in fact, accusing DeRoche
falsely and, he knew that he was accusing her falsely for he had received no
complaints... .
The General . Counsel also contends that the right to engage in concerted activities,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the.Act, includes the right to protest a baseless accusa-
tion •that , one's concerted activities have been accompanied by coercive conduct.
On the other hand,- the Respondent . argues, with respect to DeRoche , that on
Apri l 4 George did not interview .her on his own initiative , that she was in his office
at the request of Moore , that "there is no reason to suppose that George's remark to
Mrs. DeRoche about the `complaint' was a conscious fabrication . . . and since, at
the time he mentioned this to Mrs. DeRoche, he was primarily concerned with Moore,
it is entirely likely that his misstatement was completely unintentional ." The Re-
spondent argues further that DeRoche , "without asking who had complained or
challenging George to substantiate his statement ," used a profane expression in
.calling him a liar, and then repeated the expression , thereby causing George to
discharge her for good cause. With respect to Moore, the Respondent argues that
Moore threatened the edge trimmers and that "George brought the threat, specifically
and immediately to Moore's attention ; that Moore neither denied nor explained the
allegations , indeed left the office without being excused or asking if the meeting was
over," that George repeatedly "but fruitlessly called to him to come back ," and that
"George had every reason to believe that Moore had made the threat as alleged,
without seeking any further explanation."
The first question to be decided is whether Moore threatened Brown and McKusick.
I find that Moore did not threaten them and that those edge trimmers did not report to
Vigue that Moore had threatened them . First , I was more favorably impressed with
that Glidden had told him that DeRoche had been in the women's room threatening and
bullying the girls into signing union cards It is clear , however, that Glidden, in talking
-with George , was gossiping, not making a complaint, and that Glidden did not tell George
that DeRoche had been in the women's room. It is clear too from George 's failure to
investigate and from his opinion that Glidden had spoken only a "little piece of gossip"
that George did not misunderstand what Glidden told him.
28 McHale and Vigue testified that the only remark made by DeRoclle during the entire
conversation which they could recall was twice to use the profane expression MdHale
testified also that the only remarks which Moore made during the conversation were
(1) to say to George that he had a right to go anywhere in the plant and (2 ) to say,to
DeRoche that she had said enough, that they should leave George's office.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the testimony of Moore , Martin , and Terrio that Moore was at work than I was
with (1 ) the testimony of Brown and McKusick that Moore was in the making room
and (2 ) the testimony that the edge trimmers reported a threat to Vigue. Second,
Moore impressed me as truthful in testifying that he did not solicit as union members
any employees other than handsewers , that he did not solicit anyone during working
hours, and that he did not threaten anyone at any time. It should be borne in mind
that nearly one-half the employees are handsewers and that they constitute a large
group among whom to solicit. Too, Doucette , who worked in the making room,
solicited for the Charging Party there, and Cote , who worked in that - room , testified
that Moore never solicited him. Vigue , the foreman of that room , and Cote both
testified that they never saw Moore solicit there. Third , Moore did not impresslme
as the type of person who, having unsuccessfully solicited a signature to a union card,
would forthwith threaten in an attempt to obtain the signature . Terrio , who did not
sign a card , testified that Moore told her that he was "not going to tell . . . [her]
what to do . [she] had to make up . . . [her] own mind."
Turning to the events in George 's office, we have seen that there are inconsistencies
in the testimony for the General Counsel and also in that for the Respondent. I
credit Moore 's testimony that George opened the conversation by asking Moore what
right he had to go into other departments asking employees questions and bothering
them, and I am persuaded , in part by Vigue's presence , that George had in mind the
fact that Moore and DeRoche had talked with Cote . I also credit Moore's testimony
that his answer was that he , as president of the "local union ," had a right to go into
departments on his "own time," and I reject as unreliable and unrealistic the Respond-
ent's testimony that Moore , who had worked capably as a foreman for 10 years and
who knew the plant 's rules and that working hours are for work , answered that he
had a right to go anywhere in the plant during working hours. With respect to
DeRoche 's remark upon interjecting , we have seen that none of the Respondent's
witnesses admitted any knowledge of what she said because , allegedly, she was
highly emotional and she spoke unintelligibly . We have seen too that DeRoche and
Moore contradicted each other with respect to whether she or he said that they had
called upon Cote to learn the address of Doucette . I credit Moore and I discredit
DeRoche, not because I think that she falsified deliberately but because I believe that
in this and in some other instances her recollection was not as good as that of Moore.
In addition , I believe that the Respondent 's witnesses denied having understood
DeRoche because, had they admitted having understood her, they would have ac-
knowledged that the visit by Moore and DeRoche to Cote was mentioned. I also
discredit the testimony of the Respondent that DeRoche used profanity , and I adopt
the General Counsel 's contention that George grasped an opportunity to pretend that
DeRoche had insulted him in order to create an ostensible reason for discharging
her. Finally , I credit Moore 's testimony that , when he was leaving George 's office
with DeRoche , George did not call to him to return.
In crediting and discrediting testimony as set forth above, I am persuaded that the
Respondent 's version of events does not have the ring of truth . In addition , I reiterate
my convictions that George is unworthy of belief and that Moore was an honest
witness who sought to tell the truth.
For the following reasons, I conclude that the record establishes that Moore and
DeRoche were discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act: First,
my findings concerning events on April 4; second, George's question of Eugene Mayo,
asked on two occasions , whether the handsewers would walk out if he should dis-
charge Moore , discloses that the Respondent was contemplating the discharge of a
man who had long tenure as a capable worker; third, George's remark to Mrs. Moore
that he had tried to protect her husband but that the matter was out of his hands
indicates such contemplation ; and fourth , the Respondent 's hostility to the Charging
Party is demonstrated by the Respondent 's violations of Section 8(a)(1) as found
above.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Certain activities of the Respondent set forth in section III , above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent 'has engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that the Respondent
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC. - 1479
offer Moore and DeRoche immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions (The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827), without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights or privileges, and that the Respondent make each of them whole for
any loss of pay he or she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, by payment to him or her of a sum of money equal to that which he or she
normally would have earned from the date of the discrimination, April 4, 1960, to
the date of the reinstatement, less his or her net earnings (Crossett Lumber Company,
8 NLRB 440, 497-498), during said period, the payment to be computed upon a
quarterly basis in the manner established in N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company
of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344. I shall recommend also that the Respondent preserve
and upon request, make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back-
pay due and the rights to reinstatement under the terms of these Recommendations.
In order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act,
I shall recommend further that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in said section. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing
Company, 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of Everett Moore and
Esther DeRoche, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, 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 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 affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2,(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, I hereby recommend
that Bangor Shoe Mfg. Co., Inc., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:-
(a) Discouraging membership in Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or in
any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of its employees
because of their union or concerted activities, or in any other manner discriminating
in regard, to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating or threatening employees concerning union affiliation or activi-
ties in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of
Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Everett Moore and Esther DeRoche immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights or privileges, and make each of them whole in the manner
set forth in "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due and the rights to reinstatement under the terms of these
Recommendations.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in its plant , copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
-consecutive days, thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other
material. .
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) File with the Regional Director for the First Region , in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report , a report setting forth in detail
the steps which the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless the Respondent , within 20 days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report , notifies said Regional Director in writing that
it will comply with the foregoing Recommendations , the National Labor Relations
Board issue an Order requiring it to take the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Boot and Shoe Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging
any of our employees because of their union or concerted activities, or in any
other manner discriminate in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees concerning union
affiliation or activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion
in violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Everett Moore and Esther DeRoche immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Everett Moore and Esther DeRoche for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members in good standing of Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
BANGOR SHOE MFG. CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Anderson-Rooney Operating Company and Ninth and Detroit
Building Corporation and Building Service Employees Inter-
national Union, Local 245, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1481.
December 22, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 14, 1961, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
134 NLRB No. 136.