Bear Brand Hosiery Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 6, 1952100 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1952) Copy Citation BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1355 6,1952, can be interpreted as a modification in the termination clause of the basic contract to remove the automatic renewal provision therein. Under the circumstances, the contract is not a bar to a petition filed within a reasonable time before the expiration date.4 Moreover, even if we should not regard the last supplement as eliminating the auto- matic renewal provision, it appears that the petition was filed within a reasonable time prior to the automatic renewal date, and therefore, in accordance with established Board decisions, such contract does not constitute a bar s 4. The appropriate unit: Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees with the usual exclusions.6 Aside from the part-time janitor whom the Petitioner would exclude and the Intervenors include, there was virtually no disagreement as to the composition of the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Alliance, Ohio, plant, including shipping and receiving em- ployees and the part-time janitor,? but excluding clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 Marine Optical Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 571. 5 Reynolds Metal Company , 85 NLRB 110 . The further contention of the UE that the contract is a bar on the ground that despite the earlier filing of the petition , no formal request to bargain was made until after the automatic renewal date, is equally without merit. The Board has held that the filing of a petition is sufficient to raise a question concerning representation without a formal request for recognition or for collective bar- gaining. Advance Pattern Co., 80 NLRB 29. York Bank Instrument Co., 87 NLRB 1576. 6 The petition was amended at the hearing to include all production and maintenance employees and shipping and receiving employees but excluding clerical employees , inspec- tors with supervisory authority , guards, professional employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 7 The Petitioner sought to exclude the part-time janitor on the ground that she had been excluded from the last contract . As it appears that this employee is a regular part-time employee she is included in the unit , in accordance with established precedents of the Board. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF - AMERICA, CIO BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 9-CA-398 and 9-RC-1035. October 6, 1952 Decision , Direction , and Order Upon February 19, 1952, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 100 NLRB No. 231. 1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and recommend- ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) ofahe Act and recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect to such allegations. With respect to the issue of the challenged ballot of Florence Brooks, the Trial Examiner found that she was eligible to vote in the runoff election, i. e., that her vote was valid and should be counted. Thereafter, the General Counsel and CIO 1 each filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the AFL 2 filed a statement in support of the Intermediate Report; 3 and the Respondent filed a reply brief to the exceptions and brief of the General Counsel. The Board 4 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 ex- ceptions, the statement and the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner.-9 There remain for disposition the challenges in the pending. repre- sentation proceeding. As shown in the Intermediate Report, a runoff election was conducted on May 8, 1951. There were no objections to the conduct of this election or to conduct affecting the results of this election. The CIO had submitted to the Board on April 18, 1951, a waiver in which it agreed not to assert the unfair labor practices al- leged in the charges filed in this case as grounds for objections to the runoff election. At the conclusion of the runoff election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that there were 243 eligible voters, and that 230 cast ballots, of which 111 were for the CIO, 112 for the AFL, and 7 were challenged. The Regional Director duly investigated the issues with respect to the challenged ballots, which were sufficient in number to affect the outcome of the election, and on July 25, 1951, issued his report on challenged ballots. The report recommended I Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. 2 United Textile Workers of America, AFL. 2 The AFL also filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the CIO's exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report In view of our findings herein , it is unnecessary for us to pass upon this motion 4 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, Murdock, and Styles]. 5 We note particularly that the Respondent failed to file exceptions to any of the Trial Examiner 's findings of violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and that , on the part of the General Counsel and the CIO , no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's failure to find or to his adverse findings with respect to certain other conduct of the Respondent alleged as violative of Section 8 (a) (1), of the Act. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1357 that (a) the challenge to the ballot of Rudy Burris be sustained, and that his ballot not be opened and counted, and (b), that a consolidated hearing be conducted with respect to the remaining 6 challenges,6 of which 5 involved the ballots of persons alleged in the complaint here- in to have been discriminatorily discharged before the date of the runoff election. In the absence of exceptions, the Board on August 15, 1951, adopted the report of the Regional Director and issued an order directing hearing. The hearing in these consolidated proceed- ings was accordingly held on various dates from September 24 to October 25, 1951. The issues with respect to the 7 ballots challenged in the runoff -election have thus been resolved. As noted above, the challenge of Rudy Burris' vote has been sustained in an earlier ruling of the Board. It has been found herein that the discharges of Ida Mae Jones, Faye Stone, Shelby Jones, Mary Catherine Hill, and Helen Nunn Walker were not discriminatory. Accordingly, as they were not employees of the Respondent at the time of the runoff election, these individuals were ineligible to vote in such election. We shall, therefore, sustain the challenges to their ballots, which shall not be opened and counted. In the case of Florence Brooks, as already noted, we agree with the Trial Examiner that she was eligible to vote at the time of the election, particularly in view of the fact that her status on the company records at such time was that of an employee on temporary leave thus indicating a definite expectation of her reem- ployment. As her vote is sufficient to affect the results of the runoff election, we shall direct that her challenged ballot be opened and counted. Direction As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bear Brand Hosiery Company, Henderson, Kentucky, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region shall, pursuant to National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction open and count the ballot of Florence Brooks cast in the runoff election on May 8, 1952, and cause to be served upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count of Florence Brooks' ballot. The Regional Director is further authorized to issue a certification of representatives should the supplemental tally of ballots indicate that either of the contending unions has received a majority of the valid votes cast. 6 Florence Brooks , Ida Mae Jones , Faye Stone , Shelby Jones, Mary Catherine Hill, and Helen Nunn walker. 1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Bear Brand Hosiery Com- pany, Henderson, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or United Textile Workers of America, AFL, or any other labor organization, or threatening its employees with reprisals because of their union activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other 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 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 Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at its plant in Henderson, Kentucky, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix A."' Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, shall after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days 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. (b) Notify the Regional Director of the Ninth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, be, and the same is, hereby dismissed. IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of the 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." BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 1359 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, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their sym- pathies toward and activities on behalf of TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO; UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL; or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named labor organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activity, 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. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY (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. Intermediate Report STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended charge duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, respectively called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director of the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio), issued a complaint dated August 22, 1951, against Bear Brand Hosiery Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the Respondent: (1) From on or about October 1, 1950, engaged in certain acts of interference, restraint, and coercion; (2) discharged the following employees on 1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or about the dates set forth after their respective names because of their sym- pathy for, membership in, and activities on behalf of the CIO: Mona Shelton December 9, 1950 Serena Gibson March 13, 1951 Iona Cole March 13, 1951 Ida May Jones March 13, 1951 Faye Stone March 13, 1951 Shelby Jones March 13, 1951 Mary Catherine Hill March 13, 1951 Helen (Nunn) Walker March 13, 1951 and (3) at all times since said discharges has failed and refused to reinstate any of said employees other than Gibson and Cole who were offered reinstatement on or about April 5, 1951. On August 15, 1951, the Board issued an order in which it directed a hearing in Case No 9-RC-1035. The Regional Director consolidated Cases Nos. 9-RC- 1035 and 9-CA-398 by order dated August 22, 1951. The Respondent filed an answer on about September 29, 1951, in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the com- mission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Henderson, Kentucky, commencing on September 24, 19.;1, and ending on October 25, 1951, before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and the CIO by its i epresentative United Textile Workers of America, AFL, herein called the AFL, also appeared at the hearing through its representatives. Upon objection of the General Counsel, the Trial Examiner limited the AFL's participation in the hearing to Case No. 9-RC-1035. Other- wise, full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the General Counsel's case and at the close of the whole case, the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. Ruling was reserved. The motion to dismiss is disposed of as hereinafter indicated. The General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof, as to names, dates, and other minor variances. The motion was granted without objection. After the close of the hearing the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the AFL filed briefs with the Trial Examiner' - Both from the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is an Illinois corporation which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing hosiery at Henderson, Kentucky, and else- where. Within a given period of 1 year, the Respondent purchases raw materials having a value in excess of $100,000, and consisting of cotton, nylon, and wool. In excess of 50 percent of said raw materials has a source outside the State of Kentucky or Illinois. During the same period the Respondent sells finished products valued in excess of $150,000, in excess of 50 percent of which is sold to sources outside the State of Kentucky or Illinois. I At the Respondent's request the time for filing briefs was extended to January 14, 1952. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1361 Textile WorkersUnion of America, CIO, and the United Textile Workers of America, AFL, are labor organizations which admit to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE STATUS OF FLORENCE BROOKS On October 27, 1950, the CIO filed a petition for certification The Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election, dated February 7, 1951. Pursuant thereto an election was conducted by the Board among the Respondent's em- ployees on February 27, 1951. The ballot provided for a selection between the CIO, the AFL, and "no union " The results of the election were not' conclusive, inasmuch as none of the choices on the ballot received a majority of the votes cast. The orginal charge in the complaint case was filed by the CIO on March 28, 1951. This charge was amended on April 9, 19512 On April 18, 1951, the CIO signed a waiver, and a runoff election was conducted on May 8, 1951. The ballot provided for a choice between the CIO and the AFL. Of 243 eligible voters, 111 votes were cast for the CIO, and 112 were cast for the AFL. No ballots were voided. Seven ballots were challenged, one of which was that of Florence Brooks' No objections to the conduct of the election or to conduct affecting the results of the election were filed. Brooks was employed by the Respondent as a looper for about 41/, years. During about the summer of 1950, she was on a leave of absence for 2 weeks due to nervousness. On April 7, 1951, she asked Alvin J. Kruse, superintendent of the Respondent's plant, for another leave of absence. She told him, in substance, that she did not feel like working as she had been very "nervous," that the medicine she had been taking did not seem to do her much good when she was working, and that she thought she would feel better if she did not work "for a while." Kruse granted Brooks' request, and told her to keep him informed as to how she was feeling. Brooks started her leave of absence on Monday, April 9, 1951.` During her absence, Brooks called or reported to Kruse several times. On about April 19, she told him that she had developed a cold ; and he told her to take off another 2 weeks.' While she as on leave, Cooksey, Respondent's office manager, went to see her a number of times. He inquired about her health and urged her to return to work.' As related above, Brooks voted in the election held on May 8, and her ballot was challenged by the CIO. After sending notice to Kruse, she returned to work on May 15. She worked for about an hour and a half and then quit. She called Kruse the following day and told him that she would have to quit her job as she was "just too nervous." In accordance with her statement to Kruse, Brooks' employment was terminated by the Respondent on May 16, 1951. She was not paid the wages due her for work on May 15 until the next payday. s The CIO filed a second amended charge on May 21, 1951. The ballots of Shelby Jones, Ida May Jones, Helen (Nunn) Walker, Mary Catherine Hill, Faye Stone, and Rudy Burris also were challenged. The second amended charge alleges that Burris was discharged discriminatorily on about April 6, 1951. However, this employee is not named in the complaint As related above, the complaint alleges that the other five employees were discharged discriminatorily on or about March 13, 1951. 4 The testimony of both Brooks and Kruse concerning the above conversation is sub- stantially the same Kruse testified credibly and without contradiction to the above conversation s Brooks testified that Cooksey "came just about every day . . . all the time I was off on leave of absence " 1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While Brooks was in the Respondent's employ, she also worked for a restaurant about 2 nights each week and on Saturday and Sunday. During her leave of absence from work at Respondent's plant, her hours of work at the restaurant increased. At first she worked when other employees of the restaurant were absent, later she worked full time when one of the employees quit her job. Several witnesses for the General Counsel testified to the effect that Brooks told them that she had quit or was going to quit her job. Brooks denied that she made such statements to anyone. Marie Humpston testified that about 3 weeks after Brooks started her leave of absence she met Brooks one night and asked her if she was going to return to work and that Brooks replied, "No, I quit that place; I am glad to get out of it." Mattie Newman testified that on the morning of May 15 she had a conversation with Brooks as they entered the plant. Concerning this conversation, Newman testified as follows: Well, she was asking me if Pauline Parrish had come back to work and I told her she wasn't working, and she told me that she wasn't aiming to come back but the Company had kept wanting her to come back and she had told them that she had quit and they insisted that she come back, so she was going to come back and work maybe 30 minutes and then get up and go home. Humpston and Newman impressed the undersigned as reliable and credible witnesses. Accordingly, their testimony in this connection is credited. The AFL claims that the uncontradicted evidence shows that Brooks was on a leave of absence from April 9 until May 15, and that her employment was not terminated until May 16. Accordingly, the AFL contends in its brief that Brooks was entitled to vote in the election on May 8 and that her challenged ballot should be opened and counted. The CIO apparently contends otherwise? I am convinced and find that Brooks' leave of absence from April 9 to May 15, 1951, was bona fide, and that her employment was not terminated until May 16, 1951. In my opinion, the evidence adduced by the CIO is not sufficient to warrant any other finding. Brooks' statements to Humpston and Newman are not conclusive. So far as the Respondent knew, Brooks had asked for and re- ceived a leave of absence on April 7 and planned- to return to work. From Brooks' own testimony it is apparent that the Respondent, through Cooksey, urged her to return to work. However, it is undisputed that she had a good record as an employee. This may have been the reason for the Respondent's action. Any finding to the effect that the Respondent was motivated solely by reason of Brooks' challenged ballot would be in the realm of speculation and could not be based on any reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence in the case. IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint , and coercion As related above, elections at Respondent's Henderson plant were conducted by the Board on February 27 and May 8, 1951. Both the CIO and the AFL en- gaged in extensive campaigning before each election. Numerous handbills were distributed to the employees by the unions. The Respondent also took part in the campaign. It distributed letters to the employees which were signed by Henry Pope, Jr., Respondent's president. These letters denounced the CIO. The General Counsel contends that certain of the letters constitute interference T The undisputed evidence discloses that Brooks' ballot was challenged by a representa- tive of the CIO. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1363, since they, "contain subtle threats to close the plant if the CIO was successful -i i its campaign." It would unduly burden this report to set forth all of the letters specilfigd b' the General Counsel. Accordingly, the following letter, dated Decembpzz 28; 1950, has been selected as an example : Dear Employee : I am very sorry that, at this time, Bear Brand officials and Bear Brand employees are being subjected to the campaign of the C. I. O. to destroy our confidence in each other,-but our confidence in you is unshaken, and I am confident that Bear Brand employees will not be misled by the Communist- like methods of half truths, pretense, and general destructiveness, that the C. I. O. Textile Workers Union is using. May I urge you, at this time, to consider very carefully what these methods have led to over the world wherever they have been successfully used by "organizers" who come filled with empty promises,-who destroy confidence in what one has,-who then "organize" those who have been confused by false methods,-who then leave them in charge of "local leaders" to hold them in line and to remit the monthly dues, and who then go on to "organize" the next group. The C. I. O. "organizers" do not call themselves Reds and, so far as I know, they are not members of the Communist Party,-but they act like Reds,-first toward the employers and then, when they are once " organized", toward the employees. The C. 1.,0. organizers who have come to Henderson to "organize" you,- are here for one and only one purpose,-to fix things so that you will pay them some of your money every month during the rest of your lives. If you can find any other reason why they have come here, what is it? Do you think they are unselfish evangelists sent here by Heaven to do you good? Don't be fooled. They have no jobs, no payroll,-nothing to offer,-except trouble and loss and expense for you. They are bad eggs. So much for the Reds,-C. I. O.,-and the C. I. O. "organizers",-and their methods. The C. I. O. can, and if it wins the election at Bear Brand it will, we believe, make it impossible for us to operate in Henderson. I can assure you that, except insofar as our efforts are destroyed by the C. I. O.,-Bear Brand will succeed again in maintaining steady employ- ment, good pay, and good working conditions throughout 1951. I find that the last two paragraphs of the above letter constitute interference, restraint, and coercion, since there is a clear threat that the plant would-close if the CIO won the election. On about October 25, 1950, employee Dorothy Hancock had a conversation with Superintendent Kruse. -He told her, "I have a paper with the girls' names on it . . . I want you on your end [looper line] and I will get a girl on the other end to mark whether they are for the CIO or against it . . . I have got to have some- body I can trust." When Hancock refused his request, Kruse told her not to "tell anyone about it.". At sometime during November 1950, Kruse summoned employee Pauline Drury to the office and made a request similar to that made of Hancock. He told Drury that he wanted her to indicate on the list of names those employees who "would vote for a union and against a union and doubtful." When Drury agreed to do this, Kruse told her that the Respondent was "going 227260-53-vol . 100-87 1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to try to keep that Union out ... if they got in the Henderson plant, ... [ Re- spondent] couldn't keep up both plants, Gary or Henderson, one would have to close." 8 With the help of employee Marie Humpston, Drury marked the list of names as requested and returned it to Kruse. It is found that the above actions and statements of Kruse constitute inter- ference, restraint, and coercion. At sometime during about December 1950, Kruse approached employee Marie Raley and told her not to let anybody talk her into joining the CIO ; and that if she did join, she would be "out of work." a It is found that Kruse's statement to Raley constitutes interference since it contains a threat of reprisal. _ Charles Latta was employed by the Respondent as a mechanic or fixer for the knitting machines.10 At sometime during about September 1950, Latta and some other employees were listening to a speech being made on the radio by Paul Swaity, a representative of the CIO. Otto Schoepflin, the knitting foreman, also was present. Schoepflin told the employees that Pope would not work with the CIO ; and that if the CIO organized it, the plant would "close down." Also during about September 1950, while Latta was visiting at Kruse's home, Kruse told him that Pope "wouldn't work with the CIO" and that the plant would close if the CIO succeeded in organizing it 11 No findings are made on the above statements of Schoepflin and Kruse since the original charge in the case was not filed until March 28, 1951. Under Sec- tion 10 (b) of the Act, the General Counsel had the burden of proving that the alleged violations occurred within the 6-month period of limitation. While Latta at first testified that he talked to Kruse at his home at about the. time of the first election, he later testified that the conversation took place in September 1950. His testimony is too vague, as to dates, for a finding that any of the above conversations took place after September. At about 8 a. m. on February 27, 1951, the day of the first election, Pope made a speech to the employees in the plant's cafeteria. It appears that he talked for the most part about strikes in which the CIO was involved. He also men- tioned a company that would have to close its plant because it gave "too much" in its contract with the union ; and said that if the demands on Respondent were "too high," he would be forced to close the plant.31 Pope's speech is not found to be violative of the Act. His reference to the possible closing of the plant is not a threat of reprisal because of the employees' union activities. It is clear that he referred to economic demands of the union, as was not the case in his letter of December 28, 1950, set forth above. On about March 6, 1951, Kruse asked employee Norma Moss to come to his office. Concerning her conversation with Kruse in his office, Moss was ques- tioned and testified as follows : 8 Hancock and Drury testified credibly to the above conversations with K ruse. Em- ployees Dolois Denton and Charles Latta testified without contradiction that Kruse made similar requests of them. Kruse admitted Drury's testimony concerning the list of names, but denied the other statements attributed to him by her. His denial is not credited. 8 Raley testified credibly to the above. Kruse denied that be made such a statement. His denial is not credited. 10 It is not claimed by any of the parties that fixers are supervisory employees. 11 Latta testified credibly to the above conversations Schoepfiln did not appear as a witness. Latta also testified that during August 1950, he and Kruse were standing in the plant and watching employees on the outside who were distributing CIO handbills ; and that Kruse stated that the "CIO sympathizers were making it hard on themselves." 12 Pope made a similar speech to the employees on May 8, 1951. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1365 Q. Now will you just tell us what he said' to you and you said 'to him at that time? A. Well, when I got down there, he met me at the door and he said, "Did you get your aspirin?" I said, "No, I didn't need any." So he said, "Sit down, I want to talk to you." So I sat down and so he asked me questions then, wanted to know my personal feelings toward the Union, which is the CIO, what I expected from it. And I told him I said, "Well, seniority and just things like that, that you get when you have a Union." And he said he would have to be making trips into Chicago, and I told him about our trip to Kankakee to see what kind of AFL Union they had, and about they didn't have anything according to what the people we talked to. Q. Kankakee, the Company has another plant there? A. Kankakee, Illinois, that is another Bear Brand plant, and they have an AFL Union. And we talked to some of those people when we made that trip. Mr. SMITH : That would be a conversation, may I ask? Q. (By Mr. Buckner) Is this what you told Mr. Kruse? A. Yes, I was telling him that ; that we made this trip to Kankakee and talked to some of those people that worked at Bear Brand there, and the way they talked to us they didn't have anything, and they were scared to talk. And I had their names and took notes while I was there, and I had them in a book, a little memorandum book and he asked me for the names and I told him I couldn't let him have them because I promised these people that I wouldn't tell their names. And he asked. me, he says, "Well, I want you to go back upstairs and talk to all the girls up there and bring them down." He said, "Don't make an issue of this, we will just see how they feel, bring them all down here." And I said, "0. K." And then after we talked a while he says, "No, I think it would be better just to bring them down gradually." He said, "Go on and talk to them and bring them down one at a time, gradually." Kruse admitted that he had a conversation with Moss on the day in question ; but testified, in substance, that his questions and remarks were confined to "the lack of efficiency" in the looping department. The undersigned believes that Moss was the more reliable witness in this connection, and therefore credits her version of the above conversation. It is found that Kruse's interrogation of Moss constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion. On about March 7, 1951, the Respondent posted a notice in its plant which prohibited union activities during working hours. It is undisputed that at about the same time Kruse spoke to a number of employees and warned them that they were subject to discharge if they engaged in union activities during working hours. Neither the rule nor Kruse's warnings are found to be violative of the Act since there is no proof that the rule was enforced discriminatorily. The evidence shows that for a number of years it had been the custom to permit the female employees in the looping department to work less than the regular plant hours when their children were attending school. The prac- tice was discontinued in September 1951. The General Counsel apparently con- tends that this was stopped by the Respondent in reprisal for the employees' mem- bership in and activities on behalf of the CIO. The Respondent's action in this connection is not found to be violative of the Act since the evidence conclusively shows that there was no discrimination against CIO adherents. 1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On or about September 19. 1951, employee Eunice Briscoe had a telephone con- versation with Evelyn Kruse, a former employee of Respondent and daughter of Superintendent Kruse. Concerning the conversation , Briscoe was questioned and testified as follows : Q. (By Mr. Bruckner) Now will you tell the Court in your own words, if you can, what, if anything, was said with respect to whom you were eating with at the Company cafeteria? A. She asked me who I was eating with and I told her. Q. What did you say? A. I told her I ate with Dorothy Hancock, Marie Humpston, and Norma Moss, and she said, "What do you want to eat with them for", I believe is what she-said, the exact words. And I said, "Well, they have been friends of mine for several years and I always did eat with them." And she says, "Well, take a little friendly advice and don't eat with them." And I asked why. I said, "Marie told me yesterday morning when she asked me to eat with her that I may get fired, but I thought she was teasing because I didn't know anything about any of the Union trouble or anything." And I said, "She told me one girl got fired because of that, that ate with them." And I told her, I says, "Well, I don't want to get fired," and she says, "You may." Q Was anything said about your having five children and being off a lot, do J on know? A. Well, yes, but I told you yesterday I don't know that I said it, or she said it, but somehow in the conversation, me or her one, said that I had five children and didn 't waht to get fired. Q. I see. A. I think whoever said it, the other one agreed to it. And I took it as a friendly warning because she was a friend of mine. I didn't know any- thing about the trouble or anything. Evelyn Kruse testified that Briscoe told her the names of her luncheon com- panions ; but denied that she questioned her in this respect or that she warned her that she might lose her job. It is undisputed that Briscoe and Kruse were friends for a number of years and that Briscoe called Kruse on the day in ques- tion . The undersigned credits Briscoe's version of the above conversation. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent is responsible for the state- ments of Evelyn Kruse since she is the daughter of Superintendent Kruse. I do not agree . There is not sufficient evidence, in my opinion , to hold that she was acting as the agent of the Respondent. B. The discharges Mona Shelton was, employed as a looper by the Respondent from June 1946 until August 1947 and from July 1949 until her discharge on December 8, 1950. Shortly after the start of her second period of employment Shelton had trouble with her eyes. She told Kruse that looping work was too hard on her eyes and he suggested that she get glasses. About a month later, or during about August or September 1949, she asked Kruse for a transfer to another department. She told him that her doctor had told her that looping was ruining her eyes. Kruse told her that he did not have an opening in another department. About September or October 1950 Shelton became an active adherent of the CIO. She distributed CIO handbills in front of the plant on an average of about twice each week . Kruse saw her so engaged on a number of occasions. About the end of October 1950 she again asked Kruse for a transfer . She told him that she was having difficulty making production because of her eyes . Kruse refused BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1367 her request, saying that he never transferred the employees to different depart- ments and that if she could not loop she could not do anything. When Shelton• remarked that employee Peggy Carter had been transferred, Kruse replied, "I had my reasons for transferring Peggy Carter." On November 14, 1950, Kruse conferred with Respondent's officers in Chicago concerning poor production at the Henderson plant. At the conclusion of the conference, Pope instructed Kruse to "warn a group of his girls that they must do better or they would be discharged and to warn another group of his girls- that if they had any more minimum make-up pay, they would be discharged." 13 Some few days after the above conference, Kruse warned Shelton about her fail- ure to make production. She told him that she was having trouble making production "because the machine broke so many times." He replied that that was "no excuse for falling under production." " Kruse discharged Shelton on December 8, 1950. He told her at the time of dis- charge, "You didn't get out production. ... It isn't a matter of how much you, lacked ; you just didn't meet it." Shelton asked Kruse if he had an opening for, her in some other department, saying, "If I can't loop, I would like to have some- thing else." Kruse told her, "No, there is no place in this mill." Shelton stated that she was being discharged because of her union activities. Kruse did not make any reply. I find that Shelton was discharged by the Respondent for cause. The record discloses that she made production in only 4 payroll periods out of 26 during 1950, and that she failed to make production during her last payroll period. It is undisputed that the Respondent discharged another looper for poor produc-, tion on the same day as Shelton and that 9 other loopers were discharged after, November 14 and before January 1, 1951, because of the quality or quantity of their work. None of these employees are named in the complaint. Serena Gibson was employed by the Respondent for periods of time from October 1943 until March 13, 1951. Her last period of employment started on December 1, 1949, when she was reemployed as a boarder. Her foreman was George Burns. At the time of the first election on February 27, 1951, Gibson wore in the plant a "T-shirt" bearing the letters "TWUA, CIO." She also wore CIO buttons at that time and until her discharge. She was one of a number of employees who signed a CIO handbill which was distributed at the plant 1° On about March 7 Kruse warned Gibson against union activity during working time. About 2 weeks before her discharge Kruse told Gibson that her production was "low." She explained to him that her poor production was caused by "cold" forms and mixed sizes of socks in the same bundles.'g He replied that he could not do anything about it as "the rate was set." is John Zimmerman , assistant secretary of the Respondent , testified credibly concerning the above conference. 14 It is undisputed that Kruse warned a number of other employees concerning their low production at about the same time. Shelton had been assigned to a new Sotco Machine during 1950. Respondent's piece rates were increased during September 1950. 'a It is undisputed that all of the employees who are named in the complaint were active adherents of the CIO. The record conclusively shows and it is found that the Respondent had knowledge of their union activities. Accordingly, such evidence will not be discussed in detail hereinafter. ' 16 Burns, who impressed the undersigned as a reliable and credible witness, testified to the effect that forms at times become cold by reason of steam condensation ; that when this occurred, the boarder was supposed to notify the bundle boy so that he could drain the water from the form ; and that when a boarder received a batch of mixed sizes, she got an "hourly allowance," provided that she notified the bundle boy so that she could receive credit "to that amount that she would have lost in boarding" 1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At about 2: 30 p. in. on March 13 and while grading the boarder's work, Burns pointed out to Gibson her "good work" and her "poor work" and called attention to the fact that she had failed to make the required production" Burns dis- charged Gibson at about 3 p. in. that same day. Upon advice of counsel, the Respondent offered reinstatement to Gibson on about April 6. She returned to work on April 9. I find that the Respondent discharged Gibson for cause. The undisputed evidence discloses that she had considerable make-up pay during 1951, par- ticularly for the last three payroll periods before her discharge. She had been, warned about her production by Kruse 2 weeks before her discharge. Further, the record shows that two other boarders also were discharged for unsatisfactory work during March 1950. Another boarder, who is not named in the complaint, was discharged on February 16, 1951, for the same reason . This evidence tends to substantiate Respondent's claim that it was making an effort to improve the quality and quantity of work at the Henderson plant and that it was not acting discriminatorily. Iona Cole was employed as a boarder by the Respondent from June 1947 until December 1948, and from March 1950 until her discharge on March 13, 1951. Burns was her foreman. Shortly after the first election, Cole was warned by Kruse that she would be discharged if she engaged in union activities during working hours. She was wearing a CIO T-shirt at the time. Cole was unable to make the required production. About a week before her discharge, she complained to Burns about cold forms and mixed sizes. Burns told her, "Just go ahead and board them, and do the best you can." 19 Cole was discharged by Burns on March 13. He told her at the time that her discharge was because of her "poor" production. On or about April 7 the Re- spondent offered reinstatement to Cole. She did not return to work. I find that Cole was not discharged discriminatorily. During 1951 she re- ceived make-up pay for four out of the six payroll periods. She received make-up amounting to $3.85 for the last complete payroll period of her employment. While it appears that her production was not as low as that of Gibson or boarder Faye Stone, whose case will be discussed hereinafter, I am unable to differentiate between the cases. _ Faye Stone was employed as a boarder by the Respondent frpm October 1947 until January 1948 and from October 10, 1950, until her discharge on March 13, 1951. She worked under Foreman Burns.20 "Gibson testified that Burns told her that her work was "good." Burns testified to the conversation as related above. I believe Burns to be the more reliable and credible witness in this connection. From all the evidence it appears that the quality of Gibson's work was good, but her production was poor. 11 Burns testified that both he and Kruse made the decision to discharge Gibson. Kruse testified that he consulted with Burns but that he (Kruse) made the final decision. 19 Cole testified that Burns told her that she was a "perfect boarder" the day before her discharge ; that he "always" told her that she was a "perfect boarder" ; and that "he got so he would come by every day and examine my work, and he would tell me every day he came by that I was doing good work." As in the case of Gibson, Burns testified to the effect that he complimented Cole and other employees when their work was good, and that he also pointed out to them their poor work, both as to quality and quantity. He denied that he told Cole that she was a perfect boarder. The undersigned believes Burns to be the more reliable and credible witness in this connection. 20 Stone testified that Burns "always" told her that she was "doing fine" and that he so complimented her about a week before her discharge. See footnote 19, supra. BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1369 On or about March 7, 1951, Kruse warned Stone not to engage in union activity on company time." She was discharged on March 13 by Burns who gave her the reason .as. "pn account of poor work." I find' that the Respondent discharged Stone for cause. The record discloses that she received make-up pay for five of the six payroll periods during 1951, and that her make-up amounted to $8.43 for the last complete period of her employment. The conclusions reached in the cases of Gibson and Cole, related above, also apply to Stone. Ida May Jones was employed by the Respondent from September 1948, until her discharge on March 13, 1951. From May 1949, she worked as a "unit boxer" under Foreman Burns. On or about March 7, 1951, Kruse warned Jones that she would be discharged if she engaged in union activity on company time. She was wearing a CIO T- shirt and button at the time. About a week before her discharge, Burns asked her to try to "speed up" her productionRZ He discharged her on March 13, giving as the reason her "low" production. Concerning her discharge and the reasons for her poor production, Jones was questioned and testified as follows : Q. Tell us what happened, in your own words. A. Well, he came by and-he came by with the production chart and he said the production chart showed "that your production has been low since January," and I said "George, I have made production during part of that time," and I says "You know why my production is low ; it's because my work has been mixed up." I worked on one type part of the day and another type another part, and maybe another type another part of the day ; and I said "We just can't make our production come out under those circumstances," and the work is kind of short at times, too, and we have to stand and wait for work. I remember one day I waited for 20 minutes till eleven, and that was before lunch, and I didn't have any work when we had to go to lunch ; and I still didn't have any work at 20 minutes till two, and I went and told George I still-didn't have any work, and I had been out since before eleven o'clock. Q. When was this first time? A. That was after the first election. Q. What'did he say when you told him? A. He said "I'll see what I can do about it," and I don't know how long I waited until I got work. Q. Let's go back to the conversation you had with Burns, at the time you were fired. What else did he say to you, and what did you say to him? A. After he told me my production was low, he said-he came back, and informed me I was fired. The documentary evidence in the case refutes Jones' claim to the effect that she worked on different styles of socks each day. With the exception of 1 day, she worked exclusively on "Penny work socks long" from January 29, 1951, 23 Stone testified that Kruse spoke to her the day after the first election. However, the evidence conclusively shows that Kruse warned the employees on or about March 7, the day the Respondent's rule was posted, as related above. as Jones testified to the above. Burns testified that he spoke to Jones "more than one time about her poor work" and that he asked her to speed up her production "many times." 1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD until March 6. On March 6 she was transferred to another style on which she worked exclusively until her discharge. During the period from January 29 until February 21, her daily production of dozens amounted to 303 as a low and 400 as a high. On February 21 her production dropped to 134. From that date until her transfer on March 6, her production did not exceed 215 and dropped as low as 100. - During 1950, Jones received make-up pay for every payroll period beginning on April 22 and ending on September 23, ranging from a low of $1.15 to a high of $13.73. On September 25 the Respondent increased its piece rate by approx- imately 10 percent. Jones made the required production for three of the next four payroll periods. Thereafter she received make-up pay amounting to $7.02, $10.45, $10.20, and $13.66, the last amount being for the payroll period ending on January 13, 1951. On January 15 the Respondent again increased the piece rate for the style of sock on which Jones was working. Her make-up pay dropped to $1.62 and 40 cents for the next two payroll periods ending on February 10. For the last two complete periods she received make-up pay amounting to $12 35 and $22.67. The evidence shows that no other unit boxer with experience comparable to that of Jones had as bad a production or make-up record. During the payroll periods discussed above there were three of such boxers, Dorothy McManns, Elizabeth Oglesby, and Martha Hope. Oglesby received no make-up pay. Hope received a total of approximately $11 in make-up pay for the payroll periods in question and McManns received approximately $45. During 1951, alone, Jones received a total of make-up pay amounting to $52.24. For all of the reasons set forth above, I am convinced and find that the Respondenf on March 13, 1951, discharged Ida Mae Jones for cause. Mary Catherine Hill was employed as a looper by the Respondent from May 1947 until November 1949 and from February 1950 until her discharge on March 19, 1951. Shortly after the first election, Hill's looping machine broke down. As was the custom, she "hung up a sock" on the machine in order to attract the attention of the mechanic, Ralph Jacobs. After waiting for about half an hour for Jacobs to fix her machine, Hill complained to Kruse. Jacobs then fixed the machine za Concerning her discharge, Hill was questioned and testified as follows : Q. Tell us about the day you were fired. A. Well, all week I had been turning in all those holes, and Mr. Kruse came up with a piece of paper, showing the holes I turned in during the week, and he told me that was too many flaws, and he didn't need me any more ; and to go down at 3: 30 and get my check. Q. Do I understand you to say "piece of paper," and the piece of paper he showed you was the record of holes you had made during the week? A Just the week. It wasn't a record ; it was just a piece of paper. Q. Do you recall what else he said to you, if anything? A. Well, I had told him whenever he told me about-I was laid off ; I told him the machine had broke down, and I told him about it, and he said "That's no excuse." 28 Hill testified that her machine broke down again on the same day, that she had trouble with it thereafter, and that it caused flaws by making "holes in looping on the sock." From the testimony of employee Dorothy Hancock, it appears that Hill was more con- cerned about lost production than the flaws. Hancock testified, in substance, that on March 13 she and some other CIO adherents met with Kruse ; that she asked Kruse if it was true that he had told Hill that she would be discharged if she did not make her pro- duction ; and that he replied, "Well, yes, I have to tell them that." BEAR BRAND HOSIERY COMPANY 1371 Undisputed evidence in the case shows that Hill's percentage of flaws during the 4-week period prior to her discharge, amounted to 13.96 percent. The loop- ing department's average during the same period amounted to 2.33 percent 24 Other evidence discloses that Hill had the worst flaw record of any of the loopers. During 1 week her flaws amounted to 18.8 percent. The next highest weekly record was that of employee Caton with 10.1 percent for the week end- ing April 252' During May employee Thomas had a flaw record for 1 day of 24.6 percent. However, Thomas was discharged on May 25 for unsatisfactory work. So fttr as the documentary evidence in the case is concerned, none of the other loopers had a weekly percentage of flaws half as bad as that of Hill. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent discharged Hill for cause. Shelby Jones was employed by the Respondent as a "bag boy" in the inspect- ing department from November 27, 1950, until March 12, 1951. His duties were to distribute socks to the inspectors and the menders, to cut waste, and to keep the floor clean in the department. He worked under Bessie Barron, supervisor of the inspecting department. Jones received a wage increase of 5 cents per hour on January 15, 1951. Kruse told Jones at the time that he was "doing good work so far in the plant," that he would "have to work hard to keep it up," and that he (Kruse) thought that Jones had "a future." During January and February, Jones was active on behalf of the CIO. He was one of the employees who signed a CIO handbill and he distributed hand- bills a number of times in front of the plant. He wore a CIO button in the plant "once or twice" at about the time of the first election. 'oncerning his discharge, Jones testified that on Friday, March 9, he told Barron that he wanted the afternoon off as he was sick ; that she excused him "for the evening" ; that he returned to work the following Tuesday or Wednes- day ; and that Kruse told him that he was discharged because his "work wasn't satisfactory." Kruse testified that Jones did not keep the floor clean ; that he failed to dis- tribute the work to the other employees ; that he was behind in cutting waste ; that on three or four occasions during about the early part of February he -saw Jones lying down while separating socks ; that he told Barron to "put him ![Jones] on his feet" ; that for "a month or six weeks" after he was employed, ,Jones "went along all right with the job, and it just gradually got worse as he went along" ; and that he discharged Jones because he failed to perform his ,duties and because of his absenteeism and tardylstd. Barron testified credibly that Jones worked "quite well" until he received his raise; that thereafter "he started fooling around the place and killing a lot of time visiting with the girls and trying to avoid cutting his waste" ; that she spoke to Jones "a number of times" about his shortcomings ; that at the time of Jones' discharge "ten to twelve baskets" of waste had accumulated ; 26 that one time she caught Jones "lying down in the basket" and told him "to get on his feet and get up to the cutter and start cutting waste" ; 21 that on another occasion she found him help- ing employees in another department and told him "he had plenty of work to 24 Zimmerman testified to the effect that a drop of 1 percent in the average of looper flaws would be a yearly saving to the Respondent of from $8,000 to $10,000. At the time of the hearing the average had been lowered to 1.4 percent. 24 Caton had experience as a Iooper for only 2 weeks before the week In question. Her record improved each week until it was lowered to 1.2 percent for the week ending June 13. 24 Jones admitted that there was "a pile" of uncut waste at the time of his discharge. 21 Jones at first testified that no one had ever criticized his work, but later admitted that about a month before his discharge , Barron "told me to get on my feet." 1372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD do in his own department and for him to come back over there and get on the job and stay in that department because that was where he was needed" ; and that she complained to Kruse that Jones "would not stay on the job and work steady and that I needed somebody back there at all times to distribute the work and in order to keep up production for the inspectors and menders, and he wasn't there half the time to do it, and I needed someone I could depend on"; and that finally she recommended to Kruse that Jones be discharged. The undisputed evidence in the case shows that during the 15 weeks of his 'employment Jones was late for work on 13 days and absent 9 days or parts thereof. Further, from all the evidence it appears that he was remiss in his duties. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's discharge of Jones was not violative of the Act. Helen (Nunn) Walker was employed by the Respondent from September 12, 1950, until her discharge on March 12, 1951. Except for a short period of time when she performed "clipping" work, she worked as an argyle knitter. At about the time of the first 'election, Walker wore a blouse in the plant which had the letters "TWUA" on its front. On about March 7, Kruse warned Walker and some other employees they "could be fired for having union activity inside the mill during working hours." When asked if that included the CIO blouses and buttons, he replied, "Possibly." Walker was discharged by Kruse on March 12. Concerning her conversation with him at the time, Walker testified that he told her that she was a "poor worker" and that there were flaws in her socks ; and that she reminded him that he had complimented her work and that she was not the only employee who had flaws 28 Kruse testified that he gave Walker the following reason for her discharge: I told Helen Nunn Walker that we were going to operate the argyle ma- chines as we had planned, with four operators, two on each shift, and since her attendance record showed she wasn't reliable to be an operator on the machines, she was the one to be discharged 2° Zimmerman testified at length concerning the reason for Walker's discharge. A summary of this testimony and of the Respondent's contentions is set forth in its brief as follows : Argyle style socks have predominated in the men's hosiery industry since the last war. Up until 1950 they were manufactured by knitting separate squares which were then sewn together. In 1950 a new Hemphill knitting machine was developed which would permit the knitting of an argyle in one operation. Bear Brand Hosiery bought twenty-three of these new machines and in- stalled them in Henderson, the first being delivered in August, 1950, and the last in January, 1951. The manufacturer of the new machines advised that one operator could operate between thirteen and twenty machines and the Company ascertained that other manufacturers were making such job assignments. As the ma- chines were put into operation, however, the Company set a piece work rate on the job on the basis of one operator to eleven machines. 28 Walker testified that Kruse complimented her on her work "three or four times a week" before the first election, but "not as often" thereafter. She also testified that Kruse criticized her "quite a few times" for "cutting strings too short" and for flaws, and that he warned her "maybe once or twice" after the first election for making too many flaws. 29 Before March 12, the Respondent employed six knitters for the argyle machines. BEAR BRAND -HOSIERY COMPANY 1373 During the fall of 1950, the Company hired and began training six operators for this new knitting machine ( of whom Walker was one) and by the end of 1950 had three trainees on each of the day and night shifts. In February, 1951, the employment of two of these trainees was terminated and replaced by two others. By March 9, 1951 the Company felt that it had enough experience with the machines to put them on a piece work operation and decided to cut back from six operators to four or two on each shift operating eleven machines each-the basis on which the piece-work rate had been established in the Fall of 1950. The Company did not follow the manufacturer 's recommenda- tion of one operator to thirteen to twenty -three machines because it desired high quality work and the yarn going into the sock was extremely expensive. In the process of reducing the number of argyle knitters from six to four, one of those terminated was Walker. Respondent 's Exhibit 22 is an analysis of the hours worked between January 1st and March 9, 1951 by the six argyle knitters who were on that job on March 9th, when the Company put the job on piece work and reduced the number of such knitters from six to four as heretofore described. It shows that during this period (a) Helen Nunn Walker worked 80% of her scheduled work hours. (b) Ruth Gaines worked 88 .4% of her scheduled work hours . ( Gaines was laid off for one week and an unfair labor practice charge was immedi- ately filed by the C. I. 0. but later withdrawn. (c) Beatrice Stanley worked 97% out of her scheduled work hours. (d) Betty Cox worked 93% of her scheduled'work hours. (e) I'eail Betourne, who replaced one of the terminated argyle knitters in February, worked 100% of her scheduled work hours. (f) Elizabeth Carter, the other February replacement, worked 100% of her scheduled hours. _ To recapitulate, the poorest worker of the six was Walker who was discharged and is involved in the Complaint-and the next poorest worker, Gaines was laid off for a week-and of the four who were kept two had perfect records and the other two were 93.7% and 97% perfect. As testified by Zimmerman the new argyle sold at the highest price of any Bear Brand sock and the loss in high cost production of a high selling price article attributable to absenteeism, where there are only two knitters op- erating only eleven expensive new machines each per shift , could not be tolerated . This was something quite different than the loss of a day's production from any of the Company 's many hundreds of smaller machines used to manufacture a lower cost and lower selling price article. The evidence shows that Betty Williams, another argyle knitter, was dis- charged on February 9, 1951, because she "did not apply self at work." I believe and find that the Respondent did not discharge Helen Nunn Walker discriminatorily . In so finding I credit the testimony of Kruse concerning his conversation with Walker at the time of discharge and of Zimmerman with respect to the Respondent's reasons for the discharge. It is noteworthy that the Respondent discharged Williams and laid off Gaines at about the time in question . Neither of these employees are named in the complaint . The evidence shows that the attendance record of each was poor; and indicates that Williams also had a poor quality record, since argyle knitters were not working on piece rate at the time of her discharge . In my opinion , these facts show that the Respondent was concerned over the quality of the work and reliability of the knitters , and support its contentions with respect to Walker. 1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described 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 of commerce. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAw 1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, and United Textile Workers of America, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. 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. 3. The Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) 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. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY and RADIO & TELEVISION BROADCAST ENGINEERS UNION, LOCAL 1212, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. R -RC-4378. October 6,1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney Danielson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- 'ployees of the Employer. 100 NLRB No. 225. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation