Capitol City Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1028 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CAPITOL CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL,
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL. Case No. 11-CA-680.
November 24, 195!
Decision and Order
On May 28, 1954, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his.
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the.
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent Company filed
exceptions and a brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and finds merit in the Respondent's exceptions for the reasons,
hereinafter set forth.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent discharged Opal
Smith and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. For
the reasons set forth below, we find that the preponderance of the.
evidence does not support the Trial Examiner's conclusion.
It is the Respondent's practice to circulate weekly, among its em-
ployees, two separate documents on which appear the names of its em-
ployees, clock numbers, and other information. The first of these doc-
uments is called a production efficiency sheet which, in addition to.
the names and job titles, contains a percentage efficiency rating of the
employees in the department for the previous week. The second
document is called a payroll sheet. On Friday, May 22, 1953, it was.
reported to the Respondent's production manager that an employee,
Lurline Williams, copied certain names from the production efficiency
sheet which was circulated among the employees that day. Williams:
admitted to Production Manager Zimmerman that she had copied the
names of employees from the production efficiency sheet. She was-
thereafter discharged.' On the following Monday morning, May 25,
the general manager, Young, in his regular talk over the loudspeaker-
system to the assembled employees, referred to the discharge of Lur-
line Williams with regret, and he cautioned the employees that such
misuse of the Respondent's records, as had occurred in the Williams"
I Duung the hearing , the Trial Examiner , after finding that Lurline Williams was dis-
charged for copying names from the production efficiency sheet, dismissed that portion
of the complaint alleging her unlawful discharge As no exceptions were taken to the,
dismissal of that portion of the complaint , we shall adopt the Tiial Examiner 's findings:
with respect to Lurline Williams.
110 NLRB No 168.
CAPITOL CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1029
'discharge, was a violation of the Respondent's rules and that such
violation carried the penalty of discharge.'
On Tuesday, June 2, Production Manager Zimmerman received in-
formation that Opal Smith had copied certain information from the
payroll sheet which had been circulated among the employees on Fri-
day, May 29. On the following morning, Zimmerman questioned em-
ployees Thomas and Holloway, and after both employees told him
that they had observed Opal Smith copying names from the payroll
sheet, Zimmerman thereafter confronted Smith with the information
he had received. Smith denied copying employee names from the rec=
ord.3 However, the Respondent discharged her. On the same day
that Smith was discharged, Zimmerman filled in a "Separation Re-
port" in which he stated Smith was discharged for : "Misusing and
removing company property without permission after warning.
Rules 14 and 16."
The Trial Examiner found that Opal Smith did not improperly
abstract the names from the payroll sheet, and he doubted that the
Respondent had reasonable grounds for believing that Smith had done
so. After reaching these conclusions, the Trial Examiner found that
the Respondent knew of and resented Smith's union activities and,
as a pretext, assigned improper abstracting of records as the reason
for the discharge.
On the basis of the entire record, we are unable to infer, as did the
'Trial Examiner, that the real reason for the discharge of Opal Smith
was based, in part, upon her union activities. We note that the Re-
spondent discharged Lurline Williams for copying names from its
records less than 2 weeks before the discharge of Opal Smith. The
'Trial Examiner found that the Williams' discharge was lawful, and
no exceptions were taken to his finding. We note further that the
Respondent thereafter warned its employees that such conduct war-
ranted discharge. Shortly, thereafter, Smith was reported as having
copied names from the payroll sheet, and after an investigation, she
too was discharged. Although the Trial Examiner, after discredit-
ing the testimony of employee Thomas that she had observed Smith
copying the names, finds that Smith did not copy the names and
doubts that the Respondent had reasonable cause to believe that she
had copied the names, it is uncontradicted that the Respondent also
learned from employee Holloway that Smith had copied the names
'Respondent 's rule 14 prescribes discharge for "theft or removal from the premises
without proper authorization of any company property or property of an employee" and
rule 16 prescribes discharge for "misusing , destroying , or damaging any company prop-
erty or property of any employee ." These rules were posted on the Respondent's bulletin
board at the time
8 During the course of the hearing , Opal Smith admitted at one point that she copied
names from the payroll sheet ; at other times during the hearing, she denied doing so.
In view of the conclusions reached hereinafter, we deem it unncessary to resolve this
conflict in her testimony.
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the payroll sheet. Furthermore, the evidence in the record does
not convince us that the Respondent manifested any intention to
frustrate the Union in its organizational efforts among these em-
ployees, or engaged in any other conduct that would tend to warrant
the kind of "pretext" rationale that the Trial Examiner relied on to
justify his finding of a discriminatory discharge. In this connection,
we note that the complaint does not allege, nor does the Trial Ex-
aminer find, any independent acts of interference, restraint, or coer-
cion on the part of the Respondent. In view of the foregoing, and
on the basis of the entire record, we conclude that the preponderance
of the evidence fails to establish that Opal Smith was discriminatorily
discharged. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The primary issue herein is whether Opal Smith was discharged on June 3, 1953„
because of membership in and activities on behalf of International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL, herein called the Union, or because she improperly abstracted
information from certain records of Capitol City Manufacturing Company, Inc h
herein called Respondent.'
THE EVIDENCE
Smith worked for Respondent from August 19, 1949 , until June 10, 1950, and
from November 1, 1950, to June 3, 1953 . Smith's starting wage was $20 per week
and at the time of her discharge in June 1953 , she averaged above $50 per week.
Smith's production record during 1952 and 1953 was outstanding and she was fre-
quently rewarded and commended therefor.
The Union made two efforts to organize the workers at the plant involved herein.
One in the summer and fall of 1952 and the other in April 1953. Smith joined the
Union during the first attempt of the Union to organize the workers and was there-
after (up to the date of her discharge ) active on its behalf-she solicited others to
become union members, and was a contact for union representatives.
On or about Monday, April 27, 1953, the Union, because of a dispute involving
workers at Respondent 's Martinsburg , West Virginia , plant, established a picket
line at the plant involved herein ( the Columbia, South Carolina , plant).2 Smith
and others ( Mildred Rucker , Isabell Hartley , and Lurline Williams ) started not to
cross this picket line but changed their minds and entered the plant, when Herbert
Young, general manager of Respondent , called to them as they were returning to
the automobile which they had parked . That morning Young assembled the workers
present at the plant and told them that they had seen acts of Hitlerism and com-
munism that morning and "he was glad that the girls had stuck by him and come
on in and worked and said any girl that did not want to work could turn around and
walk the other way."
On or about Friday, May 1, 1953 , Smith and employee Jessie Boulware visited
Young's office and Smith told him she ( Smith ) had heard a rumor that she "was
supposed to have been fired on" Tuesday, April 28. Young said he did not know
that Smith "was supposed to be fired but he heard that I [Smith ] was expecting to
be fired." Smith told Young that she ( Smith ) "belonged to the Union " and was
active on its behalf and Young stated he was aware of this fact and "knew every-
1 At the hearing in Columbia, South Carolina , on April 27 , 1954, the Trial Examiner
granted a motion, by counsel for Respondent , to dismiss the allegations of the complaint
to the effect that Lurline Williams was unlawfully discharged on May 22, 1953 The
Trial Examiner has reconsidered this matter and adheres to the ruling made, at the
hearing
2 None of the employees at the Columbia plant engaged in picket activities.
CAPITOL CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1031
thing that went on in the plant." This meeting ended with an understanding that
another meeting would be held at lunchtime. However, a second meeting never
occurred.
On June 3, 1953, Smith was called to Young's office and discharged. There is
conflicting evidence concerning what happened at this time but before considering
this matter the Trial Examiner deems it advisable to outline the facts concerning
Smith's alleged copying of records.
On Friday of each week papers with columns headed:
Clock No. Operator's Name Operation Worked on this week and
Efficiency percentage
are circulated among employees for them to fill in the desired information. These
papers are passed from hand to hand by adjacent workers. These papers pass, in-
sofar as material herein, to Smith then to Katie Holloway and finally to Enoree
Thomas.
Thomas testified that on Friday, May 29, 1953, Smith copied off of the papers
being circulated as outlined above, passed the papers to Holloway, got the papers
back from Holloway and copied "some more names, then passed it on down to my-
self which was the last machine." Holloway did not testify herein and Smith denied
that she copied from these papers.3
According to Thomas, the following Monday, June 1, while eating lunch with
other employees, including Mildred Hutchinson, she (Thomas) remarked that she
(Thomas ) had seen Smith copying the names as outlined above and the following.
Tuesday, June 2, Forelady Ellen Hauser told her (Thomas) that Mr. Zimmerman,
production manager at the Columbia plant, wanted to see her (Thomas) "about the
Union." Thomas further testified, on direct examination, that Zimmerman:
asked me had Opal Smith ever talked to me about the Union, and I told him
that she had mentioned it to me, and I told him to start with that I did not
want anything to do with it, and he said, "Well, I understand that you saw her
copying names off the payroll list," and I told him I did.
Q. Then what did he say?
A. Well, he did not say-he said "Well, that is all I want to know."
Q. Did he ask you for any details about when you saw it?
A. No.
On cross-examination Thomas testified:
So I went into the office and he [Zimmerman] told me to have a seat, that he
had heard that I had saw Opal Smith copying names from the payroll list.
Q. Did he say who he heard that from?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Is that all that was said? Was that all that was said in Mr. Zimmerman's,
office?
A. Well, he just asked me had I seen her and I said I did.
Q. See her what?
A. Copying names from the payroll list.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I told him I did.
Q. You had seen her do it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say when you saw her do it?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. That she had done that on Friday.
On or about March 20, 1953, Thomas was interviewed by a field examiner of this
Agency and signed an affidavit purporting to cover the matters involved herein.
The only reference in that affidavit to a meeting with Zimmerman is as follows:
None of the supervisors ever said anything to me about the Union except one
time about the time when the picket line was up in 1953. Ellen Hauser came
and told me they wanted to see me in the office. I went in and Zimmerman
and Ollie Whitehead were there. Zimmerman asked me if I had saw any-
3 While the record shows that Smith answered , "Yes" when asked "Did you ever take
any names from the payroll list?," it also shows, in many places, that she denied taking
names from the papers involved herein In the light of her entire testimony the Trial
Examiner believes it clear that Smith steadfastly denied copying the information which
Thomas testified she did copy.
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thing and had Opal said anything to me about the Union. I told him that she
had mentioned something about it at one time but she hadn't asked me to sign
a card. I told him I didn't want to have anything to do with it. I believe this
was before Opal Smith left. He didn't say anything about Lurline. Lurline
was already gone I think.
This affidavit makes no mention, directly or indirectly, to Smith's having copied
records of Respondent and no mention of Zimmerman questioning Thomas about
such a matter. In addition, there are other respects in which this affidavit and
Thomas' testimony at the hearing are not entirely consistent.
Thomas testified, on direct examination as a witness for Respondent, that Smith
was discharged on Tuesday, June 2, approximately an hour after she (Thomas) had
talked with Zimmerman. When it was pointed out to her that the record shows
that Smith was discharged on June 3 and that June 3, 1953, was a Wednesday,
Thomas testified she was not positive about the date Smith was discharged.
Thomas was far from a convincing witness. She was antagonistic to counsel for
the General Counsel and her bearing, mien, manner, and delivery were such that
considerable suspicion was cast upon her oral testimony.
Charles Zimmerman, production manager at the Columbia plant, testified that
on Tuesday, June 2, at about 4 p. m., Forelady Ollie Whitehead told him that she
had information that Smith had copied from the payroll sheet and that Mildred
Hutchinson and Enoree Thomas had observed Smith engaging in this conduct.
Zimmerman testified he then sent for Hutchinson and questioned her about the
matter and Hutchinson said she had not seen Smith copy the names but she had been
told by Thomas that Smith did copy the names. Zimmerman testified that the fol-
lowing morning he called Thomas to the office and questioned her in detail about
this matter, and that Thomas stated she and Katie Holloway had observed Smith
copying the names in question. Zimmerman testified he then sent for Holloway,
and. after she confirmed Thomas' account of what occurred, sent for and discharged
Smith.
No testimony was given at the hearing herein by Whitehead, Hutchinson, or Hollo-
way and there is no evidence concerning their availability or nonavailability.
Concerning the circumstances of the discharge, Smith testified that on June 3,
1953, she was sent to the office and, in the presence of Young, Whitehead, and a
clerical office employee, discharged by Zimmerman. Smith testified that:
Zimmerman told me that for some time they knew that I had been engaged in
union activities, but it had come to their attention that I had done it during
working hours, and I told them that I had not, that I did it during my own
time, and he had three sheets of paper and they told me that it was three girls
had saw me working during company time and that they had, I guess they had
written statements from them and he read them out, and one of them had a
card attached to it and it said that I gave this girl a card at four o'clock one
afternoon, and the other said that I copied names off the payroll slip during
working hours, and the other said that I had asked a girl to sign a card during
the breaktime one afternoon, and I told them that I did ask the girl to sign the
card during break time but the other statements were not true, that I did not do
them, and Mr. Zimmerman told me that due to those statements that he was
discharging me and my name would be taken off the payroll, and I told him
well the job did not mean that much to me, and I did not like girls to sign their
names to lies about me.
Q. Did they show you the names of those girls?
A. No, I asked him who was the girls that signed them and he would not
tell me, and then Mr. Young said, "Well, Opal, if you don't care then you are
resigning, are you9" And I said no, "You just fired me, Mr. Zimmerman, you
are the manager," and I told him I signed the girls during my time and during
breaks and he had already fired me than [sic] and that is about all.
Q. Was that all Mr. Young said?
A. He told me that, when I said I had signed the girls during break times,
he told me that break time was not my time, and I told him that it was, and
he said it was not?
Q. Did you admit copying names from the payroll?
A. No.
4 Except for the testimony of Thomas, whom the Trial Examiner considers an unre-
liable witness, there is no evidence herein that Smith engaged in union activities at the
plant at tunes other than during break or lunchtimes.
CAPITOL CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1033
According to Zimmerman, he discharged Smith in the presence of Young,
Whitehead, and a clerical office employee named Alma Williams. Zimmerman
testified:
Mrs. Smith came in, I spoke with her and I said, "Opal, it has come to our
attention that last Friday when the payroll sheet reached your place you copied
names off of that list Now the company considers the names of our employees
and that list as very confidential information. You knew that you were not
supposed to copy names off of the list. Mr. Young had just finished talking
to you last week about that, when we had occasion to fire another girl for the
very same thing that you did." She said, "I did not copy any names." I said,
"Opal, there is no use denying it, I have statements from girls whom I con-
sider unimpeachable that they saw you doing it last Friday," and she said
"What if I did, there is nothing wrong with that," and I said "Whether there
is anything wrong or not, it is purely a company prerogative and we think it is
extremely wrong and we intend at all times to protect our people, to publish
about who works here and for any information for any purpose whatsoever,
and we ask you to return the list." Opal said she would not return it. I said,
"In that case we will have to let you go, you have been clearly guilty of violat-
ing a serious company rule, we cannot keep you on the payroll any longer."
She said, "I know you are firing me because of union activity." I said, "Your
union activity has nothing to do with the case, whatever you do for the union
is your own business and we are not interested in it whatsoever, you are fired
because you copied the names off that list when you were not supposed to."
She said, "Well, if that is the way you feel about it, I quit," and Mr. Young
said, at that time, "Do we take this as your resignation," and she said, "Well,
I want you to fire me, we are looking for you to fire me, and you will hear
about this thing further," and I said, "Well, there is no point in going along
with this conversation, we have no further interest in what you have to say,
Mrs. Watson will write your check outside.5
Young was in the courtroom throughout the trial of this matter and , concerning
Smith 's discharge, testified:
Q. Was the conversation [at the time of the discharge] substantially as
related by Mr. Zimmerman in his testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything that he omitted in that conversation?
A. As I recollect, Opal laid stress on the fact that she had copied names on
her own time at which point I reminded her that actually break periods are paid
for by the Company.
Q. Was there anything else that Mr. Zimmerman did not relate that you
recollect?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything that Mr. Zimmerman related that you do not recollect as
having taken place?
A. No, I think not.
* * * * * * *
Q. Now, Mr. Young, will you state whether or not Mrs. Smith in the course
of the conversation ever admitted copying the names from the payroll?
A. Well, at first she denied copying the names but towards the end of the
meeting she said , "Well, if I did copy the names it was on my own time and not
on company time."
Q. Did she refuse at any time during that conversation to return the list?
A. She did.
* * * * *
Trial Examiner: I would like to get an answer to the question asked , did she
in that conversation admit that she copied them? You were asked that and you
said she responded, "If I did, I did it on my own time." My question to you is,
did she ever admit that she did copy them?
A. I don't recall that exactly.
Q. Do you recall that she originally denied it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she ever change that?
A. Well, it was my impression that she did from that, "If I did."
5 Smith testified she did not recall any mention being made to another discharge for
"doing the same thing," that she did not remember any mention being made of Young's
talk about copying of names, and denied that she was requested to surrender a "list "
1034 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Neither Whitehead nor Williams testified herein and there is no evidence concern-
Ing their availability or nonavailability.
On the same date that Smith was discharged Zimmerman filled in a "Separation
Report" in which he stated Smith was discharged for:
Misusing and removing company property without permission after warning.
Rules 14 and 16.
Rule 14 prescribes discharge for "theft or removal from the premises without proper
authorization of any company property or property of any employee" and rule 16
prescribes discharge for "misusing, destroying, or damaging any company property
-or property of any employee." In a talk over the plant loudspeaker on May 25, 1953,
Young made it clear that Respondent considered copying of company records viola-
tive of these rules.
On or before June 15 or 16, 1953, Respondent informed the South Carolina Em-
ployment Security Commission concerning Smith:
The subject [Smith] was discharged for engaging in outside activities during
work hours when she knew it was against the rules and she had been warned
against such practices.
This information was supplied to the commission by Homer Mask, an individual who
handles Respondent's matters before that agency. Mask did not testify herein.
After a careful analysis of this record the Trial Examiner believes that a complete
picture of what occurred at the discharge meeting has not been revealed by the testi-
mony with respect thereto and that what actually occurred probably lies somewhere
between the two varying accounts given by the witnesses herein.
Dorothy Shivah, a servicegirl 6 in the unit where Smith worked at the time of her
discharge, testified that on the date of Smith's discharge and prior thereto Zimmer-
man "called Alice Johnson, another servicegirl, and myself aside and asked us if we
had seen anyone copying names from the production sheet that they had handed
around and both of us told him no." Shivah further testified that she never saw.
-Smith copy the production or payroll list.
Jessie Boulware, an employee, testified on the day that Smith was discharged she
(Boulware) called Forelady Ethel Austin "over to my machine" and said, "Well,
Opal is gone" and that then Austin said, "Yes, and I wanted to talk with you for a
long time to find out if you signed a union card." Boulware testified this conversa-
tion ended when she (Boulware) remarked "Well, it is a free country." This testi-
mony is not disputed.
Lurline Williams testified that on one occasion while the plant was being picketed
,(in April 1953) several employees gathered in the canteen and discussed this situa-
tion and that at that time Forelady Wilma Kinard stated she did not see why the
Union kept trying to organize "because the plant would close before they would let
the Union come in." This testimony by Williams is not disputed.
DISCUSSION
Respondent's case is premised on a disputed fact-whether Smith improperly
abstracted information (names) from Respondent's records-and, as proof of its
version, Respondent relies upon the testimony of Thomas, one of two employees
who allegedly saw Smith copy the document in question. The other employee,
Katie Holloway, did not testify herein and there is no evidence that she was un-
available to testify. As noted above, Thomas impressed the Trial Examiner as an
unreliable witness. On the basis of observations of witnesses and the written record
herein the Trial Examiner is not convinced that Smith did in fact improperly
abstract the names in question.
Assuming that Smith did not in fact improperly abstract Respondent's records, a
question arises as to whether, nevertheless, Respondent had reasonable grounds to
believe that she had done so. The only evidence with respect to this matter consists
of the testimony of Thomas, whom the Trial Examiner considers an unreliable wit-
ness, and the testimony of Zimmerman. There were others who allegedly had infor-
mation bearing on this matter (Hutchinson and Holloway) but they were not called
as witnesses and there is no showing that they were unavailable. Zimmerman has
a direct interest in this matter-as an official of Respondent and a principal in this
dispute-and, as noted above, the Trial Examiner believes his testimony colored.
The Trial Examiner has considerable doubt that Respondent, at the time of the
discharge , had reasonable grounds for believing that Smith had engaged in the con-
9 A servicegirl supplies materials to operators , such as Smith
CAPITOL CITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1035
•duct imputed to her. However, assuming Respondent had grounds for such a belief,
a question arises as to whether the discharge was also based upon Respondent's
desire to get rid of Smith and thereby scotch the efforts of the employees to organize
before they had progressed too far toward fruition. If employees are discharged
partly because of their participation in a campaign to establish a union and partly
because of some neglect or delinquency, there is nonetheless a violation of the Act.
N. L. R. B. v. Jamestown Sterling Corp , 211 F. 2d 725 (C. A. 2).
In considering this latter point it must be borne in mind that on May 22, 1953,
Respondent got rid of another active proponent of the Union (Lurline Williams)
and that this record reveals that Williams and Smith were the "spark plugs" for
the Union at Respondent's Columbia plant. Furthermore, as noted above, Young
characterized the picket line as an act of Hitlerism and communism and indicated
his opposition to the Union and Forelady Kinard indicated organizational efforts
would be defeated even if it took closing of the plant to accomplish this end. In
addition, as noted previously, Young remarked, before any alleged misconduct by
Smith and at a time when Smith was active on behalf of the Union that he (Young)
had heard that Smith was expecting to be fired and the circumstances of this remark
infer that Young was cautioning Smith about her union activities. Also, as noted
above, Thomas testified that she was sent to Zimmerman because he wanted to see
her about the Union and further testified that Zimmerman asked her (Thomas)
about Smith's talking about the Union. Furthermore, as noted above, Forelady
Ethel Austin immediately upon a remark from Jessie Boulware that Smith was gone
stated she (Austin) wanted to talk about the Union thus indicating there was a
relationship between Smith's union activities and her discharge. Add to all of this
that Smith appeared to be a credible witness, her account of what occurred at the
time of the discharge, and her outstanding production record.
All of the circumstances revealed by the record herein, considered together, indi-
cate to the Trial Examiner that Respondent knew of and resented Smith's union
activities and searched for a basis for getting rid of her and, as a pretext to conceal
the real motive, assigned improper abstracting of records as the basis for the dis-
charge. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner believes and finds that Smith's discharge
was based, in part at least, upon her union activities and that by discharging Smith,
Respondent violated the Act.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In view of the foregoing, and upon consideration of the entire record, the Trial
Examiner finds and concludes:
1. Capitol City Manufacturing Company, Inc., is engaged in a business subject
to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board and it will effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act, to assert
jurisdiction herein.?
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Opal Smith,
thus discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
.and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.8
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices occurring in connection with the opera-
tions of Respondent's business, 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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
7 hespondent is a South Carolina corporation having its principal office and a place of
business in Columbia, South Carolina. This proceeding conceins the place of business in
Colombia, South Carolina, where Respondent engages in the manufacture and sale of
ladies' dresses. During the calendar year 1953 dresses valued in excess of $250,000 were
manufactured at this plant and more than 90 percent thereof were sold and shipped to
customers outside of South Carolina During the same period in excess of $150,000 worth
of materials, supplies, and equipment were purchased by Respondent and more than 30
percent thereof were shipped to the plant involved herein from outside of South Carolina.
S In view of the 6 months' limitation of the Act (Section 10 (b)) and the absence
of allegations of independent acts of interference, restraint, or coercion of employees, no
finding is made herein that Respondent independent of its discharge of Smith violated
the Act.