Bernhard Conrad Embroidery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1056 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bernhard Conrad Embroidery Company and United Textile
Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-2398. Jan-
uary 18, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 3, 1965, Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relation Act, as amended,
and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other
unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dis-
missed as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief. The Re-
spondent thereafter filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
additions and modifications.
1. In finding that employee Janie Edmonds was constructively dis-
charged, the Trial Examiner relied, inter alia, on the fact that her
transfer to a job as machine watcher occurred on or about
March 9, 1964, shortly after an incident at the Greenwood Cafe at
which Edmonds was denied admittance to a meeting of employees who
were opposed to unionization. While some of Edmonds' testimony
is susceptible of such an interpretation, her later testimony indicated
that she had been transferred some 2 weeks earlier. Apart from this
factor, other evidence discussed hereinafter establishes that she was
transferred because of her union activity, with the purposes and effect
of causing her to quit her job.
Union activity commenced at Respondent's plant in January 1964,
culminating in a letter from the Union to Respondent on Febru-
ary 18, 1964, requesting recognition. Edmonds' union activity during
the organizational period consisted of attending several union meet-
156 NLRB No. 84.
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1057
ings at the home of her brother-in-law, Morris Hyder. Morris' brother,
Hugh Hyder, was then an International representative for the Union.
Edmonds also attended meetings at the union hall in Asheville, North
Carolina, signed a union card, and distributed cards to other employ-
ees. That Henry Conrad knew or suspected her involvement in union
activities is apparent, for while interrogating Roger Doan about the
union meetings on March 7, the morning after the Greenwood Cafe
incident, Henry Conrad asked, "What has Janie Edmonds got to do
with this? Does she do all the talking?" Conrad also asked if
Edmonds went to union meetings at Hugh Hyder's house. Again, on
March 9, Conrad, while talking to Edmonds, told her that he under-
stood her brother-in-law was behind the union campaign. Edmonds
denied this fact. Conrad then made the remark, "Do you mean to tell
me that you didn't sign a Union card?" at which point Edmonds
admitted she had.
From these facts, it is clear that Conrad was attributing a preemi-
nent role in the organizational campaign to Edmonds' brother-in-law,
and that he had suspected for some time that Edmonds had taken an
active part in the union meetings and campaign activities. Also bear-
ing importantly on Respondent's motive for transferring Edmonds to
the machine watchers job is the fact that the Respondent knew from
an earlier experience with Edmonds that she was unable to perform the
work of machine watcher. Back in December 1963, before any union
activities had begun, Foreman Ottomano had transferred her to the job
of machine watcher and, after several days in such position, she
advised Ottomano that she could not physically do the work where-
upon he returned her to her former position as a spool changer. After
the advent of the Union, she was transferred back to the job of
machine watcher by Foreman Ottomano although no evidence was
offered to establish that it was either necesary or advisable to change
her job, particularly in view of Respondent's acknowledgement that,
as a spool changer, she was a superior employee. Finally, although
Edmonds asked to return to her old job several times, she was refused
and finally told the job had been filled.
Under all these circumstances, we conclude that Respondent's
transfer of Edmonds was because of her union activities and for the
purpose of forcing her to quit. Such conduct we find to be violate of
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The Respondent discharged Wayne Doan on March 10, 1964,
shortly after the Greenwood Cafe incident at which Doan, along with
several other prounion employees, was denied admission to an antiunion
meeting. On the morning of March 9, Henry Conrad approached
Doan and angrily stated :
I hear that you are a damn party-crasher; you are the
damned son of a b- who started this whole damn union. What
1058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did the union promise you? Did they promise you more money
or anything like that?
When Doan denied receiving any promises, Conrad became more
angry, began criticizing his work, and said it would have to improve
or "I will have to let you go." Later that morning, Henry's son,
Bernhard Conrad, returned to Doan's work station and demanded that
he sign a paper admitting inefficiency. Although Doan initially re-
fused to sign, Bernhard threatened to put him "on time until Friday"
[apparently suspension without pay] and Doan then signed a slip
which stated he had been warned about inattentiveness, that he had
made a number of bad emblems, and that he agreed to a probationary
period until March 14. According to Doan's testimony which was
credited, the following morning Bernhard Conrad resumed his criti-
cism of Doan's work and stated that he [Doan] had done enough to get
himself "thrown out of the plant." At that point Doan testified he
stated that "if he wanted to throw me out, he and I could step outside."
Shortly thereafter, Henry Conrad returned with Bernhard and accused
Doan of wanting "to beat up my son" and offered to fight Doan himself.
Although all three started to go outside, they ended up in the office
with Henry Conrad announcing to Doan that he was fired. As Doan's
dismissal slip was being made up, Henry Conrad called an employer
association and said, "Well, I have got another one. He tried to beat
me up. What do I do now?" After a short discussion, the telephone
conversation ended and Doan's discharge was completed.
The Trial Examiner found that the record strongly indicates that
Respondent had formed an intent to dispense with the services of
Doan because of his union activities but he concluded that Doan's
challenge; i.e., to "step outside,"' provided a valid reason for discharge.
We disagree.
The Respondent took the same approach with Doan that he had
taken with employee Fisher whom the Trial Examiner properly con-
cluded was discriminatorily discharged. In a context of criticism of
employees' union activities, the Respondent began rather obviously to
find fault with the. work habits of both employees although, prior to
that time, their work had been acceptable. Doan was vitriolically
criticized for his union activities and, in almost the same breath,
criticism was directed at his work and his work product. Clearly, he
was goaded into making the challange for which he was assertedly
di scharged.1
In the overall circumstances of this case, we are convinced that
Respondent had determined to rid itself of union adherents and that
Doan was a victim of this discriminatory purpose. The Trial Exam-
iner found that Respondent would have had no compunctions about
i Cf. N.L.R.B. V. M & B Headwear Co, Inc., 349 F. 2d 170, 174 (C.A. 4).
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1059
carrying out its intention to discharge Doan because of his union activ-
ities but that the challenge to "step outside" provided a valid reason
for the discharge. We believe that Respondents did carry out its un-
lawful intention and that the so-called challenge has been asserted as a
pretext to mask the discriminatory motivation. We shall modify the
Order and notice to conform with such finding.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications: 1. Paragraphs 2(a) and (b) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order are amended by adding the
name of Wayne Doan. 2. The fourth indented paragraph and the
"Note" statement in the attached notice are amended by adding the
name of Wayne Doan.]
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
In this proceeding the complaint 1 alleges that Respondent (herein called the
Company) committed unfair labor practices by interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, and by discharging
three employees because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Charging Party (herein called the Union), and that Respondent thereby violated
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent answered, admitting the discharge of two of the three employees, but
denying the commission of unfair labor practices. A hearing on the issues so raised
was held before Trial Examiner Sidney D. Goldberg at Asheville, North Carolina,
on September 1, 1964, at which all parties were represented and afforded an oppor-
tunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and argue upon the facts and the
law. During the hearing, references were made to the Board's proceeding in Case
No. 11-RC-1938 on the filing of a representation petition by the Union for employees
of the Respondent and it was stated that official notice would be taken thereof 2 In
view of, however, the importance of the various dates therein and to assure a com-
plete record in this proceeding, I subsequently issued an order directing that, after
the parties hereto were afforded an opportunity to show the contrary of anything
contained therein, the record of that proceeding be marked in evidence herein. No
request was filed for such opportunity and the record has been so marked. Briefs
filed by the General Counsel and by counsel for the Respondent have been considered.
For the reasons hereinafter set forth in detail, I find that Respondent interfered
with its employees' rights and that it discharged Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds
because of their activities on behalf of the Union but that the evidence does not
sustain a similar finding with respect to the discharge of E. Wayne Doan.
Upon the entire record in this case and the demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The Company, during the year previous to the issuance of the complaint, imported
into and exported from the State of North Carolina, goods and materials valued at
more than $50,000. It admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in inter-
state commerce.
'Issued July 13, 1964, on a charge filed April 4, 1964, and an amended charge filed
May 12, 1964.
2Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 123 NLRB 1146, 1150. See Riss & Co., Inc.
v. United States, et al, 117 F. Supp. 296, 304 (CA 8), affd. per curiam, 346 U S.
890; United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, 327 U.S. 515, 529-530; Paramount Cap
Manufacturing Company v. N L.R B , 260 F. 2d 109, 113 (C A 8) ; N.L R B v. M. L
Townsend, 185 F 2d 378 (C.A. 9) , Kithcart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co , 188 F. 2d 407,
411 (CA. 8). See also: N.L.R.B. v. Fox Manufacturing Company, 238 F. 2d 211 at 213
(C.A 5), in which the court took judicial notice of a Board certification not directly
involved in the case where attention was directed to it In Respondent's brief.
217-919-66-vol. 156-68
10'60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent's business is the production of emblems to be worn on uniforms,
mostly as shoulder patches, by a process of machine needle embroidery called "Swiss
embroidery."
The president of the Company, Bernhard Conrad, is a young man about 22 or 23
years old. His father, Henry Conrad, stated that he was the general manager "to
some degree" of the plant at Weaverville, North Carolina, involved in this proceed-
ing, but was not a corporate officer of Respondent. From all the testimony, however,
it appears, and I find, that Henry Conrad held and exercised full directive power
over the enterprise.
The other management officials involved herein, whose status is admitted, are
Winfred McGraw, personnel manager, and Anthony Ottomano, a foreman.
The plant at Weaverville, which appears to be an extension of an established busi-
ness at Union City, New Jersey,3 was acquired by Respondent in May 1963 and
began operating about November 1963.
According to Henry Conrad, only he and his son were experienced on the special
machinery used for this embroidery work and it was necessary for them to give
on-the-job training to the new employees needed to operate the machinery. For this
reason, operations began with four machines and the labor of a few of the employees
who were already in the plant. In March 1964,4 when he alleged unfair labor prac-
tices occurred, eight machines were being operated and in September, when the
hearing herein was held, there were 11 being operated.
The plant had two sizes of embroidery machines, one about 40 feet long and the
other about 60 feet long. In each of them, the cloth upon which the emblems are to
be embroidered is stretched the length of the machine and a number of needles 5
perform the work simultaneously. For each needle at the face of the cloth there is
a shuttle at its back. The number of stitches in an emblem, and the time needed for
its manufacture, would be fixed by the extent and intricacy of its design- the Amer-
ican Red Cross shoulder patch, for example, containing 2,200 stitches and requiring
40 to 50 minutes for completion Each machine has one attendant, called a watcher,
who walks around the machine, viewing it from front and back, watching for defects
in the operation of the machine. One of the major problems is the loosening of the
shuttles which maintain the necessary tension on the thread. If the loosened shuttle
is tightened, however, before too much time has elapsed, the emblem is not lost but
can be repaired. A routine part of the operation consists of mending defective
emblems. Moreover, allowance is made for a small number of emblems in each
run which cannot be repaired.
There are other employees, called spool-changers, who work wherever a machine
requires that type of attention. In March, when eight machines were operating,
there were six to eight spool-changers.
8. Union organization
Organizing activities by the Union among Respondent's employees began about
the beginning of January. Several meetings were held at the home of the Inter-
national representative, about 2 miles from Weaverville, and two meetings were
held at the union hall in Asheville. Employees Roger Dale Doan (herein called
Roger Doan), Edward Wayne Doan (herein called Wayne Doan), Earl David Fisher
(herein called David Fisher), and Janie Edmonds testified that they attended these
meetings. Those participating in the meetings were given cards to have signed by
their fellow workers.
s The name, ownership, and management of this business do not appear In the record.
Henry Conrad , however, referred to It In terms Indicating that it was his basic business.
4 All dates hereafter are 1964.
6 There are two rows of needles, an upper and lower row. On a 40-foot machine there
are 171 needles In a row so that 342 emblems are being stitched simultaneously. On a
60-foot machine there are one-and-a-half times as many needles. These measurements
Indicate that the needles In rows are less than 3 inches apart. There Is nothing In the
record to show the distance between the rows except that It Is possible , by reversing the
cloth, to Insert another row between them.
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1061
Henry Conrad testified that he first learned of union activity among the Com-
pany's employees when he received, from the Regional Office of the Board, a copy of
the petition for election with a letter stating that it had been filed. He also testified
that, after learning of the Union's activity among his employees, he "talked to many
people in my class of people, manufacturers , and then got from them . . . the idea
of how a union is organized ." He also, as will appear, subscribed to or joined an
association of employers to obtain advice on countering the organizational activity.
On February 18, he prepared a letter to the employees outlining benefits to be
granted.6
Since the record of the Board's proceeding in the representation case shows that
the petition was filed on February 20, the copy thereof, with its letter of transmittal,
could not have been received by Respondent before that date and his testimony, if
restricted to its own terms, is palpably incredible. However, the record also shows
that on February 17 the Union wrote a letter demanding recognition and that, on
February 18, Respondent's counsel wrote a letter of refusal. But even if it be
assumed that the two letters were inadvertently transposed in his mind and that he
meant to identify the letter from the Union , rather than the letter from the Regional
Director , as his first knowledge of organizational activities , he progressed , according
to his testimony, from complete unawareness of the Union's activities through
response by counsel and preparation of a countermeasure-all within the same day.
This I find highly improbable. From all of his testimony and his demeanor while
testifying, I am convinced that Henry Conrad was aware, well before February 18,
of the Union 's activities among his employees and that he cannot be regarded as a
credible witness.
C. The meeting at the Greenwood Cafe
On Friday, March 16, in the late afternoon, there was a meeting of some of the
Company's employees at a roadhouse, about 11/2 miles from the plant, called the
Greenwood Cafe. There is no direct evidence in the record to show who called the
meeting, which of the Company 's employees were "invited " or how they were notified.
However, Wayne Doan, Roger Doan, and Janie Edmonds all testified that they had
heard about the meeting from other employees, who referred to it as a "nonunion"
meeting. Wayne Doan and Miss Edmonds testified that the machine operators and
a few other people, including themselves, were held over in the plant for about 15
minutes after the others left. When they finished work, Wayne Doan, Roger Doan,
David Fisher , Janie Edmonds , and five or six others of the employees held over, drove
to the cafe and went in. The man in charge of the meeting-who is not otherwise
identified herein-asked them why they were there. Roger Doan asked whether it
was a "nonunion meeting" and the man , in reply, asked him whether he had an
"invitation ." Roger Doan said : "No sir, not a personal invitation" and the man
said: "Well, you are not wanted." The group then left.
D. Interrogation and threats
Roger Doan: The following morning, Saturday, March 7, Roger Doan was
one of a small number of employees working in the plant. At about 9:30 a.m., Henry
Conrad came to him at his work station and said: "I hear you are a party-crasher."
Doan said: "Not exactly" and Conrad said: "What about the Greenwood Cafe
this week?" Doan said he had gone to the "nonunion meeting" to see what they had
to offer but that he had "got run out."
Conrad then asked him how he felt about the Union and Doan answered that he
did not know and was not making up his mind yet. Conrad also asked who ran
the union meetings ; whether Janie Edmonds had attended union meetings at Hugh
Hyder's house; what she had to do with the Union and whether she did all the talking.
Doan said she did not . Conrad, apparently referring back to the meeting at the
Greenwood Cafe, then asked what David Fisher had to do with it and Doan said
that Fisher, like the others in the group, had gone up to see "what they had to offer."
Conrad then asked how Wayne Doan felt about the Union and Roger said that, like
himself, his brother wanted "to see what both sides had to offer."
Having completed his inquiries, Conrad then said that, if the Union came in, he
had three choices: he could sell out to the "gangsters in Detroit ," 7 he could "close
up and go back to New Jersey," or he could leave the plant there for his son, and that
he preferred the last.
9 The complaint alleges interrogation , threats, and coercion during the month of March,
beginning on the 5th , and discriminatory discharges on March 10 , 11, and 13. In
view of Henry Conrad's undisputed testimony that the letter was prepared on that date
but was not distributed until about April 6, the letter itself was rejected as evidence.
7 Not otherwise identified.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Henry Conrad denied having the foregoing conversation with Roger Doan and
testified that he did not hear about the meeting at the Greenwood Cafe until Monday
or Tuesday of the following week; that he knew some of his employees had been
there but that "advisedly " he did not inquire concerning their names.8 Having con-
cluded that Conrad was not a credible witness, I reject his denial and find that the
conversation occurred as Roger Doan testified.
Janie Edinonds• On March 9, the Monday following the Friday meeting at the
Greenwood Cafe, Miss Janie Edmonds heard snatches of talk in the plant about her
and her union activities and she felt were unfriendly. She spoke to her foreman,
Anthony Ottomano , and said she "didn't appreciate" the comments and asked what
she had done . Ottomano did not answer her but went to the office and soon returned
to tell her that Henry Conrad would see her when she finished work in the evening.
At quitting time Edmonds went to the office. Henry Conrad opened the conversa-
tion by saying that he had been away on Friday until the employees had gone.
Edmonds referred to the fact that some employees had been held on Friday until
after the others left: she said it was not fair because she had asked permission to
leave early to vieit her father. Conrad then said: "I understand that your brother-
in-law is behind all of this." She explained that her brother-in-law was Morris Hyder,
the brother of Union Representative Hugh Hyder, and that. he had nothing to say
about "all this." Conrad insisted that her brother-in-law belonged to the Union
and she admitted that he did. Conrad then said "Do you mean to tell me that you
didn't sign a union card9" Edmonds stated that she had and Conrad said "How
about Sandra Ballard?" 9 and she agreed that this employee had also signed a
union card.
At the same conversation, Edmonds complained that Bernhard Conrad made a
habit of standing at her machine and watching her but saying nothing and that this
made her nervous. Henry Conrad finished the interview by stating that he had pre-
pared a statement granting wage and vacation benefits but that he could not issue it
by reason of the upcoming union election 10
As she left the conference, Foreman Ottomano told her that, in the morning, she
was to go back to work as a machine watcher, a position from which she had been
transferred, at her own request, in December.
Wayne Doan: At 9 a in. on Monday, March 10, according to Wayne Doan, Henry
Conrad came to him at his work station and angrily said:
I hear that you are a damn party-crasher, you are the God-damned son of a bitch
who started this whole damned union . What did the union promise you9 Did
they promise you more money or anything like that?
Doan denied receiving any promises and, when Conrad asked him what the Union
was going to do for him, he said that a man couldn't be blamed for trying to better
himself. This, he testified , made Conrad angrier and he began to walk around the
machine, criticizing Doan's work and saying that it would have to improve "or I will
have to let you go." During this conversation , Bernhard Conrad was standing nearby
but did not participate in it.
Henry Conrad testified that he never had a conversation with Wayne Doan about
the incident at the Greenwood Cafe and that even at the time he discharged Wayne
Doan, 2 days later, he knew nothing about his union activities . I reject this denial
and find that the conversation occurred as described by Wayne Doan.
E. Conclusions concerning interrogation and threats
Henry Conrad 's questioning of Roger Doan, Janie Edmonds , and Wayne Doan
concerning membership in or adherence to the Union by them or other employees
was not related to any object of legitimate concern to Respondent since it had sum-
marily rejected the Union 's request for recognition weeks earlier ." Respondent's
8 In view of Henry Conrad 's admitted preparation of the letter of February 18 upon his
receipt of the Union ' s request for recognition and the other credited testimony herein
concerning his activities , his statement that , when Personnel Manager McGraw told him
about the meeting and "row" that occurred there , he "advisedly " did not ask which em-
ployees were present because he "did not want to be involved " and he "did not want per-
sonal animosities, excitements " is not only unconvincing but lead me to conclude that he
knew all about the meeting and the effort to attend by employees not invited.
O Another employee , but not named as one in the group which went to the Greenwood
Cafe with Edmonds, Fisher , and the Doan brothers
iu Edmonds impressed me as a careful and truthful witness and I accept her account
as a credible one.
u Cannon Electric Company, 151 NLRB 1465 ; cf. Blue Flash Express, Inc , 109 NLRB 591
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1063
hostility to the employees' self-organizational activities was manifested to the employ-
ees, as is shown on this record, by the bellicose tone of the interrogation itself. Under
the circumstances set forth above, I find that Henry Conrad's questioning of these
employees constituted interference with their right of self-organization and violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
It is difficult to construe as otherwise than "coercive," at the very least, Henry
Conrad's statement to Wayne Doan that "you are the God-damned son of a bitch
who started this whole damned union." I find it coercive and violative of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
The threat of shutdown implicit in Henry Conrad's statement to Roger Doan that
"if the union comes in," he would either "sell out to the gangsters in Detroit" or
"close up and go back to New Jersey" constitutes restraint and coercion and makes
this statement violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Similarly violative of the
section was Henry Conrad's statement to Edmonds that he had formulated and set
down certain employee benefits which he could not put into effect by reason of the
Union's activity in the plant.
F. The discharges
1. David Fisher
David Fisher began working for Respondent November 22, 1963, and was being
trained as a "pattern puncher," a skilled operation involving close visual work and
the use of a pantograph in preparing a tape to guide the embroidery machine through
formation of the emblem. However, Fisher's former work as a welder had affected
his eyes and the strain of this close visual work caused his eyes to water. After a few
weeks of this work, Fisher decided that the eye strain prevented him from perform-
ing his job satisfactorily and told Henry Conrad that he was ready to leave. Conrad
testified that he thought Fisher "had the makings of a good worker" and, when
Fisher asked whether there was something else he could do, he said: "we will find
something for you to do." Fisher was then transferred to the job of machine watcher
and performed that task until he was discharged.
Henry Conrad testified at length and in detail concerning the complexity of the
embroidery machines in the plant. He also stated that it was his practice personally
to train each of his employees since the machine embroidery process was unusual
and understood by very few people in this country.
On Monday, March 9, Henry Conrad came to Fisher at his machine and said:
I hear that you are the chief complainer in the plant; that you are involved in
this mess and I want to hear some of your complaints.
Fisher told Conrad that he had complaints about the heat: that it was too cold in
the morning and too hot in the afternoon; and that the wages were too low. Conrad
asked him whether the other men felt the same way and Fisher said he did not
really know but that several others were "griping" about the same things.
Shortly after this conversation Fisher left his machine to get a box of thread. He
testified that it was necessary for him to do so because the employee who had formerly
brought thread to him was no longer there. Fisher was gone 15 or 20 minutes.
When he returned, Bernard Conrad was standing at his work station and, although
Fisher explained his absence, Bernhard Conrad advised him, "stiffy," that he was
not to leave his machine unattended "at any time under any circumstances "
The next morning Fisher noticed that Foreman Ottomano, who was usually
friendly, did not speak to him and appeared to have changed in his attitude. When
it became necessary for Fisher to change the thread in his machine, he asked Otto-
mano for a spool of thread and Ottomano said it should have been done previously:
that he had had "plenty of time" to do it. Fisher said he was having a poor day and
a hard time keeping up. Between 8 and 10 that morning, Bernhard Conrad again
came to Fisher's machine, looked at it for a time and went away without saying
anything. While Conrad was looking at the machine, Fisher also looked, noticed a
loose shuttle and tightened it.
After lunch, Bernhard Conrad, with Foreman Ottomano, again came to Fisher's
machine. It was time for the machine to be "rolled over" so that additional emblems
could be embroidered in the spaces between the completed rows. Conrad instructed
him to roll the frame over and while he was doing so, Conrad was closely scrutinizing
the work: he found a loose shuttle, shook his head and said- "I can't have bad work
like this. I guess I will have to let you go." Conrad pointed out '6 emblems in that
run that were bad-Fisher testified that his machine had produced around 1,300
emblems thus far that day.
Conrad then directed Fisher to go to the office and he did so. He found Henry
Conrad and Personnel Manager McGraw there. Bernhard Conrad told his father
that Fisher had "some bad work" and Henry Conrad asked McGraw to get out Fisher's
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personnel file. McGraw produced it and they all went out into the plant where
Henry Conrad looked at Fisher's work, said he could not have that bad work and
that he would have to let Fisher go. They went back into the office and Henry
Conrad looked at the file.
After looking into Fisher's file, Henry Conrad stated that there were several
warnings in it dealing with poor work and one for leaving his machine unattended.12
The file also appears to have recalled to Conrad the reason for Fisher's transfer from
his first assignment as a "pattern-puncher" because he instructed McGraw, who was
preparing a dismissal slip, to note on it that Fisher had trouble with his eyes "on
this operation."
Fisher then asked Henry Conrad whether he was being discharged for poor work
or because of his activities in the Union. Conrad said that he knew nothing about
Fisher's union activity and instructed McGraw to add to the dismissal slip that Fisher
"continues to be inattentive to his job."
Conrad insisted that he had given Fisher several warnings about poor work and
he purported to be reading them from the file while discharging Fisher. He admitted,
however, that there were no warnings in Fisher's file. He also conceded that Fisher
and all the other employees were "on a training program;" that he, his son and
Foreman Ottomano were constantly in the plant instructing the employees and that
they expected that the employees would make mistakes.
There is little conflict in the testimony concerning Fisher's discharge. Henry
Conrad's testimony that there was something unusual in the nature or number of
Fisher's mistakes, on Monday and Tuesday following his attempt to attend the non-
union meeting at the Greenwood Cafe, is not supported by the evidence. The testi-
mony concerning the number of spoiled emblems is quite vague-there are indica-
tions that the number was six or a dozen 13-and Fisher's testimony that his machine
had produced 1300 emblems from 7.30 a.m. until the time when he was discharged
about 1 p.m. was not disputed. According to Henry Conrad's testimony there was
an allowance for about a dozen ruined emblems in a double row of 342-about 11/2
percent-and Fisher's errors for this day appear to be less than 1 percent.
Based upon all the testimony and my rejection of Henry Conrad as a credible
witness, I find that the real reason for Respondent's discharge of Fisher was not his
incompetence but it was his participation in organizational activities on behalf of
the Union.
2. Janie Edmonds
Edmonds began working for Respondent November 18, 1963, as a spool-changer.
At the time she was hired she was interviewed by the office manager- she told him
she had left her previous employment because she had developed an allergy and was
under the care of a physician. He asked her what she thought about machines and
she said that she was a nervous person and would not be able to tend a machine.
For about 2 weeks she worked as a spool-changer and then, about December 2,
Foreman Ottomano put her on a machine as a watcher. She did this work for only
2 or 3 days and then told Ottomano that she was "too keyed-up to work the machine"
and that she could not do it. Ottomano said he would see what he could do about it.
He then returned her to her former work as a spool changer.
As stated above: Edmonds attended several union meetings, including those at
the home of her brother-in-law's brother; she attempted to attend the nonunion meet-
ing at the Greenwood Cafe on Friday, March 6, 1964; on the following Monday,
she was interrogated by Henry Conrad concerning the Union, her own activities, and
those of other employees in its affairs and, at the end of the interview, Foreman
Ottomano informed her that her work would again be that of a machine watcher.
Edmonds protested that she could not do that work because she was too nervous but
her protest was ignored. The following day, Tuesday, March 10, Edmonds worked
as a machine watcher, but was unable to stand the strain. On Wednesday, the 11th,
she asked Henry Conrad to take her off the machine or, at least, to assign her to a
small one. Conrad said: "I have nothing to do with it. You will have to talk to
Tony [Ottomano]." She then told Ottomano that she was not big enough or strong
enough to handle the machine and would have to quit. Ottomano asked her to work
for a week and she agreed to try to do so. He then suggested that her notice of quit-
ting be dated back one day, to the 10th, so that her final week would end on a
Tuesday-the same time as the payroll week. Edmonds worked the balance of that
12 Fisher admitted that back in January he had been reprimanded for leaving his
machine for a smoke and , although he had not signed any document, he conceded that this
might have been noted in the file.
11 The Conrads , however, both generalized on this point : testimony which I reject as
not credible.
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1065
payroll week, with the exception of the last day, Tuesday, because she was ill. On
Friday, the 13th, Miss Edmonds talked with Bernhard Conrad, said she wanted to
stay with Respondent and asked whether she could go back to her job as a spool-
changer. Bernard Conrad told her that her job as spool-changer had been filled and
said. "You have turned your notice in and it will be up." 14 She then spoke to
Ottomano, pointed out that she had asked for her old job as spool-changer before
it had been filled and asked why this had been done. Ottomano replied "Maybe they
(those transferred to spool-changer jobs) were more efficient." 15 Edmonds left
Respondent's employ in accordance with her notice.is
Upon all the foregoing, I find that Edmonds' resignation was not voluntary but that
it was forced upon her by Respondent and constituted a constructive discharge based
upon her union activities.17
3. Wayne Doan
Wayne Doan started working for Respondent about the beginning of December
1963 as a floor helper whose function was to keep the machine supplied with thread
and material. In February he was transferred to the position of machine watcher.
As stated above, Wayne Doan was not invited to the nonunion meeting but tried,
unsuccessfully, to attend and was berated by Henry Conrad for doing so. According
to Wayne Doan's testimony, which I credit, when Conrad finished asking him about
the union meeting and the participation of other employees, he began to find fault
with Doan's work, directed him to thread up the machine to show what he was
being paid $1.25 an hour for and threatened that, unless Doan's work "picked up,"
he would have to let him go. At this time Bernhard Conrad stood by, saying nothing.
Later that morning, Bernard Conrad returned to Wayne Doan's station with
McGraw. Conrad demanded that Doan sign a paper admitting inefficiency. Doan
declined to sign without first showing the document to his father. Conrad said that
unless he signed he would be "on time until Friday." 18 Doan then signed the slip,
which "certified" that he had been warned about inattentiveness and that he was
14 The testimony of Henry Conrad and Bernhard Conrad with respect to their con-
versations with Edmonds, although vague, does not seriously convert her account: where
it does, it is rejected.
is Henry and Bernhard Conrad both testified that Edmonds was very efficient as a
spool-changer and that her first transfer to machine watcher was a recognition of her
ability. Ottomano's statement at this time, in my opinion, evidenced Respondent's de-
termination to get rid of her because of her union activities.
1e At the hearing of Edmonds' claim for unemployment insurance, Respondent was
represented by Personnel Manager McGraw. Edmonds was not present: she testified that
when she reported at the State agency office claims desk, she was asked why she had not
appeared at the hearing. The Determination by Claims Deputy recites McGraw's appear-
ance for Respondent and reads as follows:
FACTS: The claimant last worked for Bernhard Conrad Embroidery Company as
a spool changer. She quit this employment on March 17, 1964, giving her reason that
the work was too hard Employer furnishes information that the job the claimant
was doing was one of the easiest jobs in the plant and the claimant did not ask for
any other job within the plant.
CONCLUSIONS: Claimant quit her last employment without good cause attributable
to her employer. She is, therefore, subject to disqualification under Section 96-14 (1)
of the Law
DECISION: The claimant is disqualified eight weeks on separation beginning
April 14, 1964, and ending June 8, 1964.
McGraw testified herein that lie told the claims deputy that Edmonds had been a spool-
changer ; that she had been promoted to machine watcher and that machine watching
was, "physically," the easiest job. The hearing before the claims deputy was held
May 4; the determination was mailed to Respondent May 5 and McGraw testified that
when he received it he looked at it but he did nothing to correct it. McGraw's testimony
in this proceeding is not only incredible but strongly indicates that he gave false testi-
mony in one or the other of the two proceedings The incident reeks of vengefulness and,
although it occurred almost 2 months after Edmonds was forced to quit, I find in it a
reflection of Respondent's animosity toward her based upon her union activities.
17 See Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, 143 NLRB 494, 510, enfd. 339
F. 2d 203 (C.A. 6).
se This expression was not explained but the context indicates that it meant that Doan
would be suspended.
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
overlooking more misses than allowable; that on several needles he had made six
bad emblems out of seven and that he agreed to a probationary period ending
March 14.
Later that day, according to Doan, he asked McGraw for a copy to show his
father but McGraw referred him to Bernhard Conrad.19 Doan found Bernhard
Conrad and asked for a copy; Conrad said none was made; Doan said that McGraw
could type a copy; Conrad said he did not need a copy but Doan insisted he needed
one to show his father To this Conrad replied that the matter did not concern
Doan's father and that he wanted to hear no more about it.
The general course and content of the foregoing conversation, to this point, are
not disputed and appear in the testimony of both Bernhard Conrad and Wayne Doan.
According to Doan, it ended there and the bickering between them resumed the next
morning. Conrad, however, testified that when he had refused, with finality, to
provide Doan with a copy of the slip to show his father, Doan said: "We'll settle
this. Come on, let's go down the road" but that he, Conrad, turned and left without
further comment.
Wayne Doan's testimony was quite different: he testified that the next morning,
about 9.30, Bernhard Conrad returned to his station and resumed criticizing his
work, although in a "friendly" way; that after a while Conrad said that what he,
Doan, had done was enough to get him "thrown out of the plant." To this, Doan
testified, he said: "I will probably have to step outside with you." Another version
by Doan of this same exchange, given on cross-examination, was that, after Bernhard
Conrad had said something about throwing him out of the plant, "I told him that
if he wanted to throw me out, he and I could step outside" but that Bernhard Con-
rad left.
About half an hour later, according to Wayne Doan,20 Bernhard Conrad returned
with his father. Henry Conrad said, they all agree, "I hear you want to beat up my
son" The rest of the conversation is strongly disputed- the Conrads testified that
Doan admitted it and offered to include the elder Conrad- Doan testified that he
denied it and that Henry, asking him whether he had changed his mind, said: "If
you want to fight me, I will fight you" and started to take off his coat. They again
agree that the three of them started for the outside door but that, as they passed the
office door, they went into the office and Henry Conrad said: "You are fired." Henry
Conrad then instructed the office clerk to make out Doan's "time" and directed
McGraw to prepare a dismissal slip showing that Doan had threatened him with
violence and with retaliation from his father. As these instructions were being
carried out, Henry Conrad made a telephone call which, he conceded, was to an
association of employers and said: "Well I have got another one. He tried to
beat me up. What do I do now?" After a pause during which, presumably, the
party on the other end said something, Conrad said: "That is what I am doing now."
Doan declined to sign the dismissal slip and Henry Conrad ordered him to leave
the premises and never to return.
The testimony detailing the sequence of events leading to Wayne Doan's discharge
is in some respects vague and in many respects sharply disputed. Accepting, how-
ever, Doan's testimony and despite the preposterousness of the match,21 I find that the
first proposal for fistic combat came from Wayne Doan.22
The formation of the procession from Doan's machine, headed for the road out-
side the plant but shunted into the office, upon which the three participants agreed,
supports the conclusion, and Doan testified, that Doan expected to engage in a fight.
Doan's testimony, to the extent that he claimed to have denied Henry Conrad's
query whether he had challenged Bernhard to fight, must be rejected as inconsistent
with his other testimony and his conduct.
Except for Henry Conrad's effort to make all-inclusive the reasons to be stated on
Doan's record of discharge and his characterization of Doan as "another one" in his
telephone call, after Doan's first reference to physical combat there was no mention
12 McGraw also said, according to Doan, that the preparation and forced signing of
the warning was not his idea and he thought it unjustified. Despite McGraw's denial of
this statement, I find that he made it.
20 Whether the interval between the two incidents was only half an hour or overnight,
there is no evidence of anything breaking the continuity between the two conversations.
21 Wayne Doan was then less than 18 years old ; he appeared very slight in build and
testified that he weighed 120 pounds. Bernhard Conrad is 22 or 23 years old, appeared
to be about 6 feet tall and to weigh about 170 pounds ; Henry Conrad is about as tall
as his son and testified that, at the time of this incident, he weighed 215 pounds.
22 The statement by Bernhard Contrad set forth in Doan's testimony was, I find, only a
threat of discharge and cannot be construed as provocation for Doan's challenge to fight
(see Mitchell Transport, Inc, 152 NLRB 122).
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1067
of any other subject in his discussions with the Conrads and no outward indication
the other factors were considered in connection with his discharge . Although the
record strongly indicates that Respondent had formed an intention to dispense with
the presence of Wayne Doan because of his union activities and that it would have
had no compunctions about carrying out that intention , Doan's challenge , I find, pro-
vided Respondent with a valid reason for discharging him and made it unnecessary
for Respondent to take action that, without such justification , might have constituted
an unfair labor practice
As the foregoing indicates , I find, on the basis of Doan's testimony , as well as that
of the Conrads , that Doan's threat to fight Bernhard Conrad was the real reason for
his discharge by Respondent.23
This is not a case where the assigned reason for the discharge is a pretext to mask
the real cause which is antiunion discrimination ,24 nor is it a case where the offense,
although a possible cause for discharge , would not have resulted in discharge absent
the employer's union animus . 25 In this case not only is the assigned reason for the
discharge adequately established but it is one which, in my opinion, would constitute
ample cause for discharge under almost any circumstances . I reach this conclusion
because it seems to me that a threat of personal violence to management personnel-
albeit couched in terms of a challenge to combat and no matter how ludicrous it
may appear ( assuming strict adherence to Marquis of Queensberry rules )-is virtu-
ally in a class by itself when considered as cause for discharge . 26 Accordingly , I shall
recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
G. Incident concerning Pauline Robinson
Mrs. Pauline Robinson , a thread-cutter and inspector for Respondent , testified
that one day late in March her supervisor sent her to the office and she had a con-
versation with Henry Conrad. He asked her whether she had heard about the
"union mess " and she said she had. He asked her who first mentioned it to her and
she said that another employee , Nora Brown , had been saying that she, Robinson,
23 The applicable rule for decision was recently stated, In N.L.R B. v. Park Edge
Sheridan Meats, Inc., 341 F. 2d 725 , 728 (C.A. 2 ), as follows.
The rule of law applicable in a case like this requires a delicate factual determina-
tion. "If employees are discharged partly because of their participation In a cam-
paign to establish a union and partly because of some neglect or delinquency, there
Is nonetheless a violation of the National Labor Relation Act . . . " N.L R B v
Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F . 2d 725 , 726, 33 LRRM 2837 ( 2 Cir 1954 ) ; N L R B.
v. Great Eastern Color Lithographic Corp ., 309 F. 2d 352 , 355, 51 LRRM 2410 (2
Cir. 1962 ), cert denied 373 U S 950 , 53 LRRM 2394 ( 1963 ). On the other hand,
if an employee is discharged for neglect or delinquency , there is no violation simply
because he was engaged in organizing and the employer sheds no tears at his loss
N.L.R.B. v. Birmingham Publishing Co., 262 F. 2d 2, 9, 43 LRRM 2270 (5 Cir. 1958)
Ore-Ida Potato Prods., Inc . v. N.L.R.B., 284 F. 2d 542, 545-546, 47 LRRM 2194 (9
Cir. 1960 ) ; Local 357 , Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. N.L.R.B , 365 U S 667, 679-680,
47 LRRM 2906 ( 1961 ) ( concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan ). Reconciliation
of these two principles has its difficulties , especially In cases where the discharge
was placed on a permissible ground and the employee ' s conduct , while a sufficient
ground for discharge , was not so egregious as to demand it. The General Counsel
can win by proving that other employees who committed similar acts but were not
known to be engaged In union activity were not discharged , and he will normally
lose if the employer can establish a record of discharges for similar conduct See
Tompkins Motor Lines, Inc . v. N.L.R B., 337 F. 2d 325, 330 , 57 LRRM 2337 (6 Cir.
1964 ). In the many cases where no such proof is tendered , the General Counsel must
at least provide a reasonable basis for Inferring that the permissible ground alone
would not have led to the discharge , so that it was partially motivated by an impermis-
sible one.
u Compare C. 4 J. Camp , Inc, et al. , d/b/a Kibler- Camp Phosphate Enterprise, 107
NLRB 1068 enfd . 216 F. 2d 113 ( C.A. 5).
0 Compare Symons Manufacturing Company, 141 NLRB 558, enfd 328 (C A. 7) , Family
Laundry 4 Dry Cleaning , Inc., 147 NLRB 251 ; American Compressed Steel Coi poration,
152 NLRB 431.
sa See The Lau Blower Company , 146 NLRB 1226 , 1234, in which Trial Examiner Funke
( whose findings were adopted ), after finding evidence of union animus, wrote.
. . . neither union sympathy nor membership establishes an immunity against dis-
charge for cause and I believe that a threat to a foreman to "stomp his brains in"
Is sufficient cause for discharge.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was helping organize for the Union and that it was a lie. Conrad, she testified said
something about "closing up and going back to New Jersey" and that he then said:
"I would appreciate it if you would help us, young lady."
The foregoing is all Robinson remembered, she continued to work at Respondent's
plant and she testified that she was principally concerned about people "telling lies"
about her. She was certain however, that the incident occurred in the latter part
of March.
The evidence on this matter is too vague to support any specific finding and, in
view of its separation in time from the other incidents described above, cannot be
viewed as a part of that pattern of interference and discrimination.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, and therein found
to constitute unfair labor practices defined in the Act, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Respondent as outlined in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relations to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings herein that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Act. In view of my findings that Respondent discharged its employees Earl David
Fisher and Janie Edmonds because of their activities on behalf of the Union, I shall
recommend that Respondent offer them reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent position, in the case of Janie Edmonds, to the position of spool-
changer, and make them whole for loss of earnings in accordance with the remedial
policies outlined in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are of a character striking
at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of
employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging
in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. By discharging its employees, Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds, in reprisal
for their activity on behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent did not, in discharging Edward Wayne Doan, engage in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and the
entire record in this proceeding , it is recommended that Respondent , its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities or the union activi-
ties of other employees in a manner constituting interference , restraint, or coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
(b) Threatening to close its plant at Weaverville, North Carolina, if the Union
should become the collective-bargaining representative of its employees; represent-
ing that it would have conferred benefits upon its employees except for their self-
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY 1069
organizational or union activities or using vituperative language to employees with
respect to their self-organizational or union activities , to interfere with, restrain, or
coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees , by dis-
charging or in any other manner discriminating against employees with respect to
hire, tenure , or terms or conditions of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights to join , form or assist United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives 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 and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:,
(a) Offer to Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against them, in
the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of this Decision above entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the provisions of the Selective Service Act and Universal
Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll records, timecards , social security payment
records, and other records necessary to analyze and give effect to the backpay
requirement set forth above.
(d) Post in its plant at Weaverville , North Carolina, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix ." 27 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 11, shall, after being signed by the duly authorized representa-
tive of Respondent , be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or cov-
ered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 10 days from
receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply with the provisions
hereof.28
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities or the
union activity of other employees in a manner constituting interference, restraint,
or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close this plant if the United Textile Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization should become the
collective-bargaining representative of our employees; we will not represent that
we would have conferred benefits on our employees except for their self-
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizational or union activities and our officials will not use vituperative
language to employees with respect to their self-organizational or union activi-
ties to interfere with, restrain or coerce them in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to rein-
state any of our employees, or in any manner discriminate in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement with backpay to Earl David Fisher
and Janie Edmonds to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights to join, form, or assist United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to join or assist United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , or to refrain from doing so.
BERNHARD CONRAD EMBROIDERY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Earl David Fisher and Janie Edmonds if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and Universa? Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Telephone
No. 723-2381.
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, Local No. 573, AFL-CIO; Clatsop and Tillamook
Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-
CIO and Northwest Natural Gas Company and International
Chemical Workers Union, Local 133 . Case No. 36-CD-36. Jan-
uary 19, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Northwest Natural Gas
Company, herein called the Company, alleging that United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Plumbers, and Clatsop and. Tillamook Counties Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, herein called the Council, violated Section
8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Arthur J. Hedges on October 21 and 25, 1965. All parties appeared
156 NLRB No. 101.