Craddock-Terry Shoe Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP 33
Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation and Textile Work-
ers Union of America, AFL-CIO Cases
5-CA-4377, 5-CA-4570, 5-CA-4571, and
5-CA-4625
December 7, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On August 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Arthur M
Goldberg issued his Decision 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
attached Trial Examiner's Decision He further found
that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended dismissal of those allegations Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and 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 these cases to a three-
member panel
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 and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner
on an Amended Order Consolidating Cases, Amended
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, issued on
February 18, 1970, alleging that Craddock-Terry Shoe
Corporation (herein called the Company or the Respon-
dent) had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act)
The Amended Consolidated Complaint, based on various
charges and amended charges filed by the Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or
the TWUA), ' alleges that the Company violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by inducing employees at the Chase City
and Lynchburg, Virginia, plants of the Company to revoke
and to unlawfully assist employees in revoking authoriza-
tions given by the employees to the Union threatening
employees at Chase City with economic reprisal if the
Union was selected to act as their bargaining representa-
tive, and by disciplining an employee at Chase City for
engaging in statutorily protected activity At the hearing
herein the Amended Consolidated Complaint was further
amended to allege that the Respondent unlawfully
interrogated employees at the Chase City and Farmville,
Virginia, plants Section 8(a)(3) of the Act was allegedly
violated by the discharges of Paul Chapman and Mary
Madison at the Farmville plant and of John R Smith,
Margaret Smith, Mary Powell, and Diana Bacon at the
Chase City factory Respondent denied all the material
allegations of the Amended Consolidated Complaint
All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present oral
argument , and to file briefs Oral argument was waived and
briefs were filed by Respondent and the General Counsel
on May 22, 1970
Upon the entire record in the case, my reading of the
briefs , and from my observation of the witnesses and their
demeanor , I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation,
Chase City, Farmville, and Lynchburg, Virginia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommend-
ed Order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
ARTHUR M GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner Pursuant to an
order of the Regional Director for the Board's Region 5, a
hearing was held in Boydton, Virginia, on March 24 and 25,
1970, and in Lynchburg, Virginia, on April 7 and 8, 1970,
I The charge , first amended charge and second amended charge in
Case 5-CA-4377 were filed respectively on May 1 1%9 May 27 1%9
and June 6 1%9 The charge in Case 5-CA-4570 was filed on November
21 1%9 and the amended charge in that case was filed on February 18
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, a Virginia corpora-
tion, has several places of business in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including Chase City, Farmville, and Lynchburg,
the only plants involved in this proceeding During a 12-
month representative period the Company sold and
distributed products having a gross value in excess of
$50,000 to points outside the Commonwealth of Virginia
During the same representative 12-month period the
Company received raw materials valued in excess of
$50,000 which were transported to its places of business
directly from points and places outside the Commonwealth
of Virginia
The complaint alleged , the answer admitted, and I find,
that the Company is and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the
Board's standards for assertion of its jurisdiction
1970 The charge and amended charge in Case 5-CA-4571 were filed on
November 21 1%9 and January 28 1970 respectively The charge in Cass
5-CA-4625 was filed on January 12 1970
187 NLRB No 5
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, is and has
been at all times material herein a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. The organizing campaigns
The TWUA first undertook the organization of Respon-
dent's plants in Lynchburg, Virginia, in February 1968,
following the visit of a group of Respondent's employees to
the Union' s office . Following the Union' s success in a
Board-conducted election on July 25, 1968, a collective-
bargaining agreement covering the Lynchburg plants was
executed on February 7, 1969.
Following the Lynchburg campaign the Union began
organizing at the Company's Dillwyn and Farmville plants
in May 1968. The Dillwyn campaign led to a Board-
conducted election on October 30, 1968, which the Union
lost. A new petition for election, filed in March 1970, was
pending at the time of the hearing herein.
At Farmville the Boot and Shoe Workers Union filed a
petition for election. Following the TWUA's intervention
in that proceeding and a stipulation for consent election,
the Boot and Shoe Workers withdrew and the TWUA lost
the election held on October 3C, 1968. A second election
was agreed to in the wake of union objections to that
election. The Union won the second election held on March
19, 1969, and was certified by the Regional Director after
he overruled the Company's objections to that election. '; he
Company tested the certification by refusing to bargain
with the Union and on April 13, 1970, the Board affirmed a
Trial Examiner's decision finding that the Company had
violated its bargaining obligations under the Act.2
On January 14, 1969, the Union sent to Farmville Plant
Manager Charles Rosser a list of five members of its
employee organizing committee: John Vanover; Elsie
Chapman; Paul Chapman; Ruth Shuler; and Mary Francis
Madison.
The Union's organizing campaign at the Company's
Lawrenceville plant led to its certification for those
employees following a Board election held on June 12,
1969. A collective-bargaining agreement covering the
Lawrenceville plant was executed in March 1970.
The organizing campaign at Chase City was launched
late in June 1969 with the distribution of a leaflet and
mailback card. Thereafter handbills were distributed at the
plant gates on the average of 3 or 4 days a week. As well,
union organizers and employee volunteers made calls to the
2 181 NLRB No. 171
3 Unless otherwise noted all dates hereafter were in 1969
4 Testimony of Chase City Plant Manager Taylor
5 These were the plant rules incorporated in the contract between
Respondent and the Union for the Lynchburg plant Copies of these rules
were sent to all company plants.
6 Discipline was to be imposed only for just cause which includes
"failure to obey instructions of supervisor, violation of plant rules
failure of an employee to properly perform his job in accordance with
homes of company employees . A first meeting of the in-
plant organizing committee was held on July 13, 1969.3
During July, Roger Dove , a TWUA organizer , received
approximately 40 signed authorization cards from John R.
Smith , a member of the organizing committee. About
August 6, the date of the second organizing committee
meeting , Dove received about 30 more cards from Smith. A
third meeting of the organizing committee was held at John
Smith' s home on August 13 and thereafter the committee
met each week.
On August 22 the Company received two letters from the
Union listing six members of the organizing committee:
John R. Smith ; Mary R. Powell ; Margaret B. Smith; Diana
W. Bacon ; Nettie B. Sipes ; and Alma R. Hamlett.
Plant Manager Maurice Taylor testified that he observed
the leaflet distributions at the plant in June and July and
that during that period he was given a union leaflet. He
further testified that he knew there was a union organizer in
town but stated that he first became aware of the organizing
campaign in August . Dove testified that starting in
September Taylor came to the union representatives for
copies of handbills.
The Union lost the election conducted on December 11
and subsequently withdrew the objections it filed.
2. The Company's disciplinary procedures
In July or August 1968 the Company first instituted a
warning form system for disciplining employees at the
Chase City plant. The four-step warning system, providing
at the first step for a verbal warning, a written warning at
the second stage, then for a written warning with a layoff,
and finally for a written warning and discharge of the
offending employee, was for use in cases of infractions of
plant rules or performance of unsatisfactory work. The
plant manager and supervisors were to be responsible for
disciplining employees? There was no formal notification
to the employees at the time this warning system was
introduced. However, Taylor testified that formal warnings
were issued to employees prior to 1969.
Approximately 1 year later, in July or August 1969,
Taylor received from the Company's Lynchburg office a 2-
page list of plant rules 5 and a two-page addendum to the
plant manager's manual entitled "Disciplinary Procedure"
setting out the warning slip system and explaining the
actions to be taken in administering the procedure.
After first setting forth the purpose and uses of the
disciplinary procedure,6 the manual instructions spell out
the four-step warning system and the manner in which the
department manager working with the plant manager is to
invoke the procedure. The department manager is charged
with primary responsibility for administration of the
disciplinary procedure.7
company standards "
7 From the "Disciplinary Procedure" "In administering disciplinary
procedure , the department manager should use the official warning slips
the department manager should discuss the facts of the case with the
plant manager the department manager should make a record
The warning slips should be written by the department manager .. The
warning should then be discussed with the employee by the department
manager The department manager should explain the complete
details
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 35
Paragraph 4 of the "Disciplinary Procedure" manual
section provides:
4. In the event an employee refuses to sign
the warning, the following steps should be taken.
The plant manager and department manager
should again carefully explain the purpose of the
warning and the reason why it has been given.
They must advise the employee that they cannot
return to work if they refuse to accept the warning
slip. They should further advise the employee that
if he or she does not agree with the facts contained
in the warning slip, they can contact the Personnel
department to have a complete review of their
case. The plant manager should assist the
employee in arranging the review.
The final paragraph of the Company's manual section on
disciplinary procedure provides that in the event an
employee is discharged under that procedure "or an
employee quits rather than sign an official warning" they
cannot be reemployed without prior approval of the
personnel department.
At the time the list of plant rules and manual section on
disciplinary procedure were received, a notice was put up in
the Chase City plant advising that a copy of each had been
posted.8 As well, a copy of the plant rules was circulated
among the employees and each was required to sign.
B. Chase City
1. The supervisory status of Sheldon and Harris
General Counsel contends and the Company denies that
Virginia Harris and Bettye Sheldon, classified as
"Instructors" in the stitching department of the Chase City
plant, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.9
Sheldon and Harris are employed in the stitching room
where there are approximately 150 employees.10 If Harris
and Sheldon are not supervisors there is no supervision of
this 150-employee section other than Assistant Plant
Manager Philip Delancey, who spends part of his time in
the stitching room. Respondent last had a full-time foreman
in the stitching room in May 1969.
Employee Leola Pulliam testified 11 that when Hugh
Wallace was employed as stitching room manager,
Instructor Sheldon instructed employees in the perform-
ance of their job duties, teaching them how to sew. Now
Sheldon spends her time walking around the department to
see that the work is properly performed. During the 6
months preceding the hearing, Pulliam testified, Claudia
Hudson has been training new employees in the depart-
ment. When there was a full-time foreman, Pulliam went to
him with her problems and saw him when she wished to
take time off from work. Now, Pulliam testified, Sheldon
8 John Smith testified that this notice was posted on July 10.
9 Section 2(11) reads "The term supervisor means any individual
having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend,
lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign , reward, or discipline other
employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or
effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing
the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature,
but requires the use of independent judgment
10 This is the figure supplied by Plant Manager Taylor Employee
assigns her all her work, she takes her problems to Sheldon
and goes to Sheldon for time off.
Employee Mildred Stevens testified that when she was
subpenaed to appear at the instant hearing she took her
subpena to Instructor Harris who gave her permission to
attend.
Mary R. Powell, one of the alleged discnminatees, also
testified that she went to Harris for time off.
Diana Bacon, another alleged discriminatee, testified that
when Hugh Wallace was stitching room foreman she went
to Wallace for time off, took her problems to him, and that
Wallace gave the work assignments to Sheldon who would
pass the instructions on to the employees. After Wallace left
work was assigned by Sheldon, Bacon took her work-
related problems to Sheldon who also granted Bacon's
requests for time off, and it was from Sheldon that Bacon
received all of her instructions.
Sheldon and Harris now share the use of the desk in the
stitching department which had been Wallace's before he
left.
Plant Manager Taylor testified that Assistant Plant
Manager Delancey is temporarily in charge of the stitching
department while the Company looks for a full-time
foreman. Delancey, in charge of personnel for the Chase
City plant, does all interviewing and hiring for the plant
and locates employees to fill needs reported to him by the
foreman. In addition, Delancey is responsible for samples
and for the "sheet system," the production control for plant
production. Taylor estimated that Delancey spends 35
percent of his time in the stitching department.12 As well,
Delancey fills in for foremen who are absent and is in
complete charge of the plant when Taylor is away.
Instructors and employees enjoy the same insurance
program. Supervisors are covered by a different plan.
Instructors do not attend supervisors' meetings, punch the
timeclock while supervisors do not, and are hourly paid
while supervisors receive a salary.
Taylor testified that the instructors cannot hire or
promote employees, are not empowered to lay off
employees for lack of work, and that it is Delancey who
determines when overtime is to be worked in the
department. While Harris and Sheldon cannot transfer
employees from one job code to another they can transfer
employees in their own departmentdl"for an hour or so."
Taylor further claimed that the instructors cannot
discipline employees for infraction of rules nor can they
discharge employees. As explained by Taylor the Compa-
ny's warning system provides for a four-step procedure
leading to discharge of the offending employee after receipt
of a fourth warning for infraction of plant rules or the
performance of unsatisfactory work. The warning slips
used in this procedure have a space for "Signature of person
issuing warning or effecting disciplinary action." The
witnesses gave varying lower estimates It must be assumed that the plant
manager's employment figures would be the most accurate
11 Pulliam is presently employed by the Company and was knowingly
testifying against the interest of her Employer. Accordingly, I attach great
weight to her testimony Federal Envelope Company, Division of Nationwide
Papers Incorporated, 147 NLRB 1030, 1036
12 Delancey testified that almost 50 percent of his time was in the
stitching room
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exhibit files in this proceeding contain a number of such
warning slips issued to employees at the Chase City plant,
several of which led directly to the layoff or discharge of the
employees involved . Certain of these warning slips were
signed by acknowledged supervisors 13 at the spot specified
for the "person issuing warning or effecting disciplinary
action ." Others were signed by Virginia Harris and Bettye
Sheldon . Thus, a warning issued to employee Annie
Watson on August 5, 1969, for "poor quality stitching,"
imposed a 1-week layoff on Watson and was signed by
Sheldon as the person "effecting disciplinary action." Mary
Powell received a warning on September 30, carrying with it
a layoff, which was signed by Harris. And, on November 4,
Powell was discharged as the result of a warning signed by
Harris and Delancey . Sheldon also signed warnings to
Diana Bacon on September 30 and one to Leola Pulliam on
March 4, 1970. Thus, it cannot be said that Harris and
Sheldon do not "lay off . . . discharge . . . or discipline
employees" when in fact employees were laid off,
discharged , and otherwise disciplined in connection with
warnings they issued . This is clear evidence of supervisory
status.
In sum, based on their authority to lay off, discharge, or
otherwise discipline employees , 14 their authority to give
employees time off from work, to transfer them, and to
assign work to the employees , and with consideration of the
otherwise unrealistic ratio of supervision to the working
force , I conclude that Harris and Sheldon are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act . Regency Electronics, Inc.,
169 NLRB No. 49 , enfd . sub nom . International Union of
Electrical Workers v. N.L.R,B., 69 LRRM 2886 (C.A.D.C.);
C & M Sportswear Manufacturing Corporation, 183 NLRB
No. 29.
2. Revocation of union authorization cards
Company President Lockridge spoke to the assembled
employees at Chase City during the afternoon of August 11.
As he was concluding his talk Lockridge told the employees
that if they had signed cards for the Union and wanted the
cards returned they could speak to their foremen or
supervisors and make arrangements to sign a letter asking
for their return . Lockridge said there would be no red tape
and no hard feelings.15
The following day, August 12, various company supervi-
sors approached employees reminding them they could get
their union authorization cards back by signing a paper.
Reba Gilliam was with a group of inspectors who were
given this message by J. B. Hoyle, packing room foreman.
Alease Walker was told by fellow employees that her union
card would be returned if she signed a letter in the plant
office . The employees said to speak to a supervisor . Walker
talked to Hoyle who told her to go to the office where she
was given a typed letter which she signed and returned to
the secretary. Walker did not mail the letter which was
is Maurice Taylor; J. B. Hoyle , supervisor of finishing and the packing
room; Paul A . Dunaway , supervisor of the stock fitting department and
first packing ; and Philip Delancey.
14 While my finding as to Hams' and Sheldon 's supervisory status is not
based solely on their authority to discharge , lay off, or otherwise discipline
employees , this standing alone would support such a finding . "[T]he
possession of any one of the authorities listed in Sec . 2(11) (of the Act]
places the employee invested with this authority in the supervisory class"
dated August 12 and received by the Union in an envelope
postmarked the same day.
Frances Singleton was told by Hoyle that all foremen had
been given a booklet containing the Lynchburg collective-
bargaining agreement with instructions to pass it among the
employees to read . Hoyle later told Singleton that if she
knew of any employees who wanted their union cards back
they could get in touch with him, sign a letter in the office,
and get their cards back with no red tape.
Geneva St . John was given the book to read by Hoyle and
told that if she had signed a union card she could get it back
with no red tape. St. John read and returned the book to
Hoyle but did nothing about her authorization card.
Instructor Bettye Sheldon told Diana Bacon that she
knew Bacon had signed a card for the Union. Sheldon
advised Bacon that if she knew any girls who had signed
union cards and wished to get them back Sheldon would
arrange for their return if she was given the names and
addresses of the signers.
Sheldon told Leola Pulliam that most of Pulliam's friends
had signed letters to the Union asking that their cards be
returned. Sheldon asked if Pulliam wished to sign such a
letter . Pulliam replied that she would have to give the
matter some thought . When Pulliam later told Sheldon she
would sign a letter to the Union Sheldon had Pulliam sign
and return to her three copies of a letter. A few days later
Sheldon asked Pulliam if she knew of any others who had
signed union cards . Some weeks later Sheldon asked if the
Union had returned Pulliam's card. If the card had not
been returned Sheldon advised Pulliam to go downtown
and talk to a lawyer.
Mildred Stevens testified that Instructor Virginia Harris
spoke to her twice about the return of her union card. The
first instance was the day after Lockridge spoke when
Harris came to the work tables and told the employees that
if they had signed union cards they could go to the plant
office , sign a letter, and get their cards back. The following
day as Harris was transferring Stevens from one job to
another she again told Stevens she could sign a letter in the
office to secure the return of her card.
During the lunchbreak on August 12 Assistant Plant
Manager Delancey asked Mary Powell what she had
thought of Lockridge's speech and for her opinion of the
Union. 16 Powell replied that she could not express an
opinion of the Union because she did not know enough
about it . Delancey then gave Powell a copy of the
Lynchburg contract to read . After lunch Plant Manager
Taylor asked if Powell had read the book . Powell returned
the book to Taylor saying she did not understand it. That
afternoon Virginia Harris came to Powell's work station to
say that if Powell wanted her union card returned she
should go to the office and sign a letter for that purpose.
Plant Manager Taylor denied that he tried to persuade
employees to revoke their authorization cards. He did
for that "section is to be interpreted in the disjunctive." Ohio Power
Company v, N,L.R. B., 176 F.2d 385 , 387 (C .A. 6), cert. denied 338 U.S. 899.
is This account of Lockridge's speech is based on the credited testimony
of Mary Powell and employee Frances Singleton. Respondent 's Personnel
Director Walter Brown Holston, Jr., testified that he heard Lockridge
speak but stated that, "1 didn't hear him make any such statement dung
his talk ." Lockridge did not testify.
16 This interrogation violated Section 8(axl) of the Act.
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 37
testify that he told employees how they could get their cards
back from the Union . When Alma Kimball asked how she
could . get her card back , Taylor testified , he told her to write
to the Union and to send a copy of her letter to the Board.
Taylor said he knew the procedure the employees should
follow to secure the return of their cards because they had
gone through the same thing at his former place of
employment.
Thereafter a typed petition was circulated among the
employees for their signature stating that the signers had
asked for the return of their union cards and wanted to
have nothing to do with the Union . Plant Manager Taylor
posted on a plant bulletin board this list of those who had
signed letters to the Union asking for return of their
authorization cards.
In all the Union received 55 typed letters from employees
at Chase City asking that the Union return their
authorization cards . Three of the employees who signed
such letters had not signed union cards.
I find that by soliciting employees to withdraw their
union authorizations and by its preparation of the
revocation letters , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act . N.L.R.B. v. Movie Star, Inc., 361 F.2d 346, 348-349
(C.A. 5); N. L. R. B. v . Yale Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
356 F.2d 69, 72-73 (C.A . 1); Normandy Square Food Basket,
Inc., 163 NLRB 369, 373.
3. The discharge of John R. Smith
John Raymond Smith was employed by Respondent at
Chase City from 1950 until his termination on August 13,
1969. Smith was the only edge trimmer in the plant
trimming the soles down to the shoe itself.
Smith was approached by the union organizers early in
the campaign at Chase City and attended meetings of the
union committee starting with the first meeting on July 13.
Most of the union meetings were held at Smith's home. In
the campaign Smith spoke to other employees seeking to
enlist their support and distributed authorization cards to
solicitors who in turn passed the signed cards back to him.
In all Smith estimated that he received 164 signed cards
which he turned in at meetings to union representatives.
On or about July 10 a notice pertaining to the quality of
work was posted on the timeclo7.ks and copies were passed
among all the employees. However, while on occasion work
was returned to Smith, at no time prior to August 8 did he
receive either a verbal or written disciplinary warning for
bad work. In Smith's words, before August 8 he had no
disciplinary problems "to amount to anything whatsoever."
During the morning of August 8 Plant Manager Taylor
and Paul Dunaway , Smith's supervisor , came to Smith and
"suggested" that he was using the wrong sized cutter in
it Taylor appeared to be an impressive witness with instant recall of the
dates, of warnings issued to Smith and other employees , their dates of hire
and breaks in employment , identity of employees involved in disciplinary
situations and the like. However , while he was testifying I noticed that he
had in his lap a notebook which he consulted from time to time . I ordered
that he produce this pad and it was introduced in evidence as Trial
Examiner's Exhibit 1. Examination of the notebook revealed that
unbeknownst to Respondent 's attorney , Taylor, in preparation for his
appearance in this proceeding , had made a list of dates and names and
other pertinent information which he used while testifying . Thus, Taylor's
testimony became suspect , not only because it did not represent his
edge trimming a particular style of shoe . They asked that
Smith use a larger cutter on those shoes . Smith testified that
he had been using the smaller cutter on that style for 2 years
or more . Smith switched to the larger cutter and nothing
more was said at the time. That afternoon Dunaway
returned some shoes to Smith to be checked over . Shortly
thereafter Taylor and Dunaway came to Smith and Taylor
asked what was wrong with Smith , inquiring why Smith
could not properly trim the shoes , and stating that the shoes
in question were unsatisfactory . Taylor said that the shoes
did not meet his standards adding, "I should put you on
report . By the way , I believe I will ." Smith testified that this
was the first time that Taylor had complained about his
work. Taylor testified that this verbal warning on August 8,
given in accordance with the four-step disciplinary
procedure instituted in August 1968, was the first recorded
warning issued to Smith . Taylor explained that the shoes
had been unevenly trimmed , with a little more taken off the
sole on one side of the shoe than had been trimmed from
the other side. Taylor testified that the poor work was
shown to Smith who agreed that the work was poor and
reworked the shoes.17
On Monday , August 11, a group of company officials
visited the Chase City plant.is Taylor, Mitchell, Taylor's
supervisor , and Assistant Plant Manager Delancey spent
time on the floor, came up the production line, and
examined some shoes . Smith was sent for but when he
arrived only Dunaway, his own supervisor , was there.
Dunaway showed Smith some shoes , stated that they were
unsatisfactory and that he was going to issue a written
warning to Smith . Smith testified that Dunaway said the
shoes were unsatisfactory but did not say in what way the
work was unacceptable. Further , Smith stated , Dunaway
did not point out to him the alleged defects on the shoes but
instead picked up and set down shoes as he complained
about the work . Smith insisted that the shoes were
"trimmed good" and so advised Dunaway . Dunaway took
Smith to the office where he wrote up a warning for "Edge
trimming-sole to [sic] full, and not trimmed in pairs
(knots on toes)." 19 Smith signed the warning after
Dunaway stated he would be automatically discharged if he
did not . Taylor also signed the warning . When asked to
explain in what respect Smith's services had been
unsatisfactory on this occasion, Taylor testified, "Well, the
way this is written ..." repeating the words of the written
warning.
Smith received his second and it developed last written
warning on August 13. Once again he was called to the
floor where Taylor, Delancey, and Dunaway had been
examining shoes . Taylor said that the shoes were not
trimmed right and were not up to their standards. While
unaided recollection of the events but also because of the surreptitious
manner in which he used his notes to refresh his recollection. Accordingly,
I do not credit Taylor except when corroborated by credible evidence.
is This was the date of Company President Lockridge 's speech to the
employees which was followed by the campaign to secure employees
revocation of their union authorization cards.
19 It was explained that shoes not being trimmed in pairs was a
condition where one shoe in the pair was trimmed closer than the other.
"Knots on toes" refers to small bumps on the edge of the sole where the
cutter may have hit a knot in the leather.
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Smith was not shown the particular shoes about which his
supervisors were complaining20 he saw the cases of shoes in
question and protested that they were in good shape
because he had trimmed them as he trimmed samples.
Smith was again taken to the office where a written warning
was prepared carrying with it a layoff from August 13 to 18.
This warning read that his services had been found to be
unsatisfactory because of:
Knotty foreparts and shanks (second time) on edge
trim shoes- no line on shoes.
The August 13 warning was signed by Dunaway as the
person issuing the warning and countersigned by Taylor.
Smith asked if he had to sign the warning and Taylor
replied that Smith did not have to sign but would have to do
so before he could return to work. Smith testified that
Taylor said he could think about signing during his layoff
and sign when he returned to work on Monday, August 18.
Taylor said he would be in touch with the Company's
Lynchburg office about the warning. Smith then clocked
out and left.
As with the warning of August 11, Taylor's explanation
of what work or services by Smith were found unsatisfacto-
ry and led to issuance of the warning was confined to a
reading of the warning itself . Taylor testified that Smith
had asked if Taylor would discharge him if Smith refused to
sign the warning. His reply had been, Taylor stated, "No, I
cannot discharge you, but I cannot put you back to work."
Taylor claimed to have advised Smith that he could appeal
the case to Lynchburg by getting in touch with Holston in
the personnel department. Smith did not indicate an
intention of appeal. Taylor testified that he spoke to
Holston on August 13 to inform him as to what had
transpired and to alert Holston that Smith might be
appealing his case.
At the expiration of his layoff on August 18, Smith
returned to the plant prepared to sign the warning of
August 13 and to go to work. Smith testified that he waited
for Taylor to arrive and then was told by the plant manager
to sit in the conference room until Taylor could speak to
Lynchburg, explaining that he had not as yet discussed
Smith's case with the personnel office. Some time later
Smith was called to Taylor's office and informed that
Taylor had spoken to Lynchburg the preceeding week and
had suggested to Personnel Director Holston that Smith not
be put back to work. Accordingly, Taylor told Smith, he
could not return to his job.
According to Taylor, on August 18 Smith did not ask for
the right to sign the warning but did ask for hisjob. Taylor
testified that he told Smith that he had not appealed the
case and was terminated . The termination was caused by
Smith 's refusal to sign the warning. Taylor denied that
Smith's discharge was in any way motivated by his union
membership or activity and Taylor claimed that he had no
knowledge at the time that Smith was a member of the
Union. As to the termination for refusal to sign the
warning, Taylor testified that while the manual provisions
on disciplinary procedure do not provide for automatic
termination of the employee involved, "Craddock-Terry
20 Taylor testified that out of three or four cases of shoes (36 or 48
pairs), there might have been six bad pairs.
21 The Union's letters hstmg the members of its Chase City organizing
policy is that if they do not sign the warning slip, they are
automatically terminated and if they want them [sic] to
appeal the case in Lynchburg, we will help them do it."
As noted, I do not credit Taylor except when his
testimony is corroborated by a credible witness or other
credible supporting evidence. In the matter of Smith's
discharge such support for Taylor's version of the events is
lacking. In any event, there is a contradiction between
Taylor's testimony as to what he told Smith on August 13,
i.e., "No, I cannot discharge you, but I cannot put you back
to work," and his later testimony that upon Smith's failure
to sign the warning on August 13 he was automatically
terminated.
Although there is no direct evidence of company
knowledge of Smith's union activity at the time of the
events leading to his discharge ,21 I believe that a reasonable
inference can be drawn from the sequence and timing of
those events that Respondent's conduct toward Smith was
not unconnected with the Union's campaign and Smith's
role in it. After almost 20 years of employment and a full
year after the Company adopted its disciplinary procedure,
suddenly and contemporaneously with the launching of its
campaign to induce the employees to revoke their union
authorizations Smith received three warnings for bad work,
one verbal and two written, including a disciplinary layoff.
Moreover, Smith's discharge following his refusal to sign
the warning slip of August 13 was contrary to Respondent's
disciplinary procedure. Under the four-step procedure
discharge is to come only at the fourth step, with the
issuance of the third written warning. The warning of
August 13 was Smith's second, yet Taylor recommended at
that point that Smith's services be terminated. Additionally,
Taylor misled Smith on August 13 when he told Smith that
he would not be discharged for refusal to sign the warning.
Rather, Taylor advised Smith that he would not be returned
to work until he signed and that Smith could think about
signing during the layoff period and sign when he returned
to the plant on August 18. I find that Respondent was
aware of Smith's union activity , was engaged in a campaign
to unlawfully subvert employee adherence to the Union,
and was engaged in a design to harass union activists by use
of the disciplinary procedures. Further, I find that
Respondent seized upon Smith's refusal to sign the August
13 warning as a pretext to discharge him although such
action was contrary to the procedure spelled out in the
plant manager's manual. Accordingly, I find that by its
discharge of Smith the Company violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4. The discharge of Margaret Smith
Margaret B. Smith , wife of John Smith , was employed at
Chase City from 1947 until her discharge on October 20,
1969. For at least 10 years Mrs. Smith worked as an
antiquer , using a spray gun to antique shoes , shading and
evening the colors. Mrs. Smith antiqued sample shoes at the
direction of her foreman , J. B. Hoyle . Employee Frances
Singleton testified that to her knowledge Mrs. Smith
antiqued all samples unless she was helped in that work by
committee , including Smith , were not received by Respondent until August
22
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 39
Hoyle. After Mrs. Smith's termination, Singleton observed
only Hoyle antiquing samples. Inspectors Reba Gilliam
and Alease Walker testified about the quality of Mrs.
Smith's work. They were able to identify Mrs. Smith's work
by her employee number which she affixed to the shoes she
antiqued. Gilliam testified that of the two antiquers, Mrs.
Smith's work was the better. Both stated that on occasion
they had returned work to Mrs. Smith which they felt did
not pass inspection. However, Gilliam testified that there
had been no increase in bad work by Mrs. Smith in 1969 as
against the quality of her work in prior years. Walker stated
that she had not had to return "too much" work to Mrs.
Smith any time. Both characterized Mrs. Smith's work as
"good."
Foreman J. B. Hoyle testified that he had spoken to Mrs.
Smith about her work before August 1969. However, Hoyle
stated that there was no mention in the records of any
warnings to her prior to August. Mrs. Smith testified that
there had been no complaints about her work before
August 8.
Mrs. Smith participated in the Union's organizing
campaign, served on the organizing committee, made house
calls to solicit authorization cards, held meetings at her
home, and distributed union handbills at the plant gate
together with the Union's organizers and Mary Powell.
Mrs. Smith testified that she was observed handing out
leaflets by Plant Manager Taylor and Delancey, the
assistant plant manager. Mrs. Smith' s name was included in
the list of the organizing committee sent to the Company by
the Union in its letters received on August 22. About the
middle of September Mrs. Smith began wearing a badge
reading "Union Committee." She continued wearing this
pin until the time of her discharge.
During the morning of August 8 Hoyle brought an off-
color shoe back to Mrs. Smith to be shadowed. That
afternoon Delancey called Mrs. Smith to the inspection
line. After some colloquy in which Delancey complained
aboul the antiquing of certain shoes on which Mrs. Smith
had worked, Delancey directed her to go over the entire
case of shoes. Mrs. Smith took the case back to her work
table, and although she could see nothing wrong with the
shoes she shadowed about 2 pairs from the 12 in the case
and returned the shoes to the inspection line. That ended
the incident. Plant Manager Taylor testified that Mrs.
Smith received her first verbal warning on August 8 for bad
antiquing. Taylor testified that possibly one case of shoes
was involved but that not all 12 pairs were improperly
antiqued, stating that he did not count the number of shoes
embraced in the complaint.
On August 11 Foreman Hoyle returned a half case of
shoes to Mrs. Smith to be touched up. These shoes had
passed inspection. The inspector involved told Mrs. Smith
that she could see nothing wrong with the shoes Hoyle had
brought back. Mrs. Smith touched up the shoes and
returned them to the packing line.
Mrs. Smith received a verbal warning from Plant
Manager Taylor on August 19. Taylor spoke to Mrs. Smith
and fellow antiquer Kitty Willmoth about four cases of
shoes , only one of which had been antiqued by Mrs. Smith.
Taylor complained that the antiquing vaned on the shoes.
The plant manager said, "This is going to be a verbal
warning," adding, "If I have to, I can get nasty about it."
Taylor told them to wash off the antiquing and to redo the
shoes. Mrs. Smith took the shoes back to her work station
but could not work on them that afternoon. In the morning
the shoes were gone and could not be found. Mrs. Smith
never did get to reantique the complained-of shoes. Taylor
testified that some of the shoes were dark and others light
and that about 50 cases of the same style of shoes had been
returned by customers in the same condition.
A written warning was issued to Mrs. Smith on
September 29 for "Not antiquing shoes as they should be."
The warning was signed by Hoyle and Taylor. Taylor
testified that antiquing had been missed in spots or the
shoes had not been properly shadowed. Mrs. Smith did not
recall this written warning.
Mrs. Smith received a written warning and 3-day layoff
on October 1. During the morning she was called to the
inspection table and asked to examine a pair of red shoes
which Taylor was holding. When Mrs. Smith commented
that she could see nothing wrong with the shoes, Taylor
stated, "Well, they are not up to my standards." Mrs. Smith
replied that the shoes met her standards whereupon Taylor
said, "Well, dust take her on in the office and lay her off for
the rest of the week." In the office Mrs. Smith remarked to
Hoyle that there was nothing wrong with the shoes and that
the Company was picking on members of the Union's
organizing committee and those who were wearing union
committee badges. Hoyle replied that he would not say
that. Mrs. Smith testified that Hoyle asked Taylor what he
should write her up for and the plant manager said the
warning should be issued for work not up to standard.
Taylor then told Mrs. Smith to go home, "think this over,"
and return the following Monday. When she returned to
the plant the following Monday Mrs. Smith reported to
Taylor. After some discussion as to why she had come to
see him , she told Taylor that she did her work "the best I
know how." Taylor replied that that was all he asked and
told her to go back to work.
On October 20 Mrs. Smith was issued a third written
warning and discharged. That morning she was taken by
Hoyle to the packing area where Taylor had unpacked
some shoes which had been inspected, doublechecked, and
packed, ready for shipping. Taylor asked Mrs. Smith to
examine the shoes and when she stated she could see
nothing wrong with them, Taylor said, "How in the hell do
you think I am going to get shoes out of here like this?. . . I
could go get my five-year-old son in here and he could do
better than that." Mrs. Smith suggested that he do so and
noted that Taylor had not shown her how to antique shoes
in all the time he had been in the plant. Taylor then
instructed Hoyle to take Mrs. Smith to the office and
discharge her, saying, "I don't want her in this factory."
Turning to Mrs. Smith Taylor said, "You haven't tried to
do your work right since I got rid of your husband in here."
Mrs. Smith testified that Taylor complained that the shoes
in question, which were brown, were not dark enough.
Taylor testified that the warning of October 20 was for
improperly antiquing shoes, that the shoes had been shown
to her and she had been told what was wrong with them and
that he could recall nothing more of the incident. When
asked whether any action had been taken against the
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inspector who had passed the allegedly inferior work,
Taylor could not recall if anything had been done. Hoyle
stated that Mrs. Smith was terminated for poor work which
was not up to company standards. Hoyle further testified
that he was aware of Mrs. Smith's union affiliation at the
time of her discharge but that this fact had nothing to do
with her termination.
As with her husband the onset of Mrs. Smith's troubles
with allegedly bad work coincided with the launching of
Respondent's antiunion campaign at Chase City. However,
unlike the situation of her husband the Company had direct
knowledge of Mrs. Smith's work for the Union from the
letter advising Respondent of her membership on the
organizing committee, her distribution of union handbills
at the plant gate, and her wearing of a union committee
badge. Mrs. Smith had been employed by Respondent for
some 22 years, fellow employees who were charged with the
responsibility of checking quality testified that her work
was good and indeed better than that of the other antiquer,
and prior to August 8 there is no company record of any
verbal or written reprimand issued to her for poor work, a
period which emcompasses a full year of operation of the
disciplinary warning system at Chase City. Further, it does
not appear that the incidents of poor work of which the
Company complained and upon which Mrs. Smith's
discharge was based were other that ordinary occurances
which arise in production but were seized upon here to
build a case for terminating an outstanding union adherent.
Moreover, the subjective nature of the warnings, the
inability of Respondent' s witnesses to testify with particu-
larity as to Mrs. Smith' s malfeasance , and the lack of
evidence that inspectors, who in the course of their duties
passed on the allegedly bad work, were also disciplined for
improper work performance combine to make the chain of
warnings suspect . All things considered, I find that
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its campaign to
defeat the Union at Chase City, utilized its disciplinary
warning procedure to establish a pretextual basis for the
discharge of Margaret Smith, thereby violating Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The discharge of Mary R. Powell
Mary R. Powell was employed at Chase City on the
lockstitch operation from December 5, 1955, until her
discharge on November 4, 1969. During the period of the
events herein Powell was the only lockstitch operator in the
plant. In the lockstitch operation parts of the shoe are
joined together with long stitches. In the summer or fall of
1969, during the period when Powell was receiving
warnings for bad work discussed below, Powell and other
employees were assembled in the plant's conference room
and shown defective shoes returned by customers. As well,
the Company posted notices on the bulletin board stating
that it wanted better quality work and less rejects.
Powell's first contact with the TWUA was at its August 5
meeting . She joined the Union's committee, solicited
employee signatures on authorization cards, held meetings
22 This was the day that both John and Margaret Smith received the
first of the series of complaints which led to their discharges
23 Harris did not testify.
24 Powell was compensated on a piece rate basis which did not apply to
at her home and attended meetings at the homes of other
employees, and handed out leaflets at the plant gates.
Starting in September and continuing until the day of her
discharge Powell wore a union pin to work bearing the
Union's initials and its full name as well . Powell's name was
included in the list of organizing committee members in the
Union's letters to the Company.
Plant Manager Taylor testified that prior to August 1969
there was no evidence of bad work by Powell.
Mary Powell received a verbal warning for bad work on
August 8.22 That morning Taylor directed Powell to rip up
a case of shoes stating, "these damn shoes will not go."
Powell took the shoes back to her table and asked
Instructor Harris if she saw anything wrong with the shoes,
saying she could not see any defects. Powell testified that
Harris examined the shoes and agreed there was nothing
wrong with them. However, Harris said that Powell would
have to rip them as Taylor had told her to do.23 Thereafter,
Taylor passed Powell's work station and she asked him to
pick out the substandard shoes so that she would not have
to redo the entire case . Taylor replied that he had told her
"to rip these damn shoes" and that was what she was to do.
Powell spent 2 hours ripping the shoes.24
During the afternoon of August 8 Taylor brought five
cases of shoes to Powell which had been through five
different operations after Powell had worked on them.
Among others, the stitching room inspector had examined
the shoes. Taylor asked what was wrong with Powell, why
couldn't she do her work right. The plant manager directed
Powell to repound the shoes. Powell redid four of the five
cases of shoes but did not touch the last case. Nothing
further was said about the shoes she did not rework. From
this Powell concluded that there had been nothing wrong
with the entire lot of five cases which Taylor returned to
her.
Taylor testified that Powell received a verbal warning on
August 8 because in lockstitching shoes she had run off the
edges of the shoes. Taylor claimed that the bad work had
been shown to Powell who agreed the work was bad and
ripped and redid the shoes. Taylor did not refer to the
second incident on August 8 in his testimony.25
On August 13 Powell received a written warning for
"Poor quality work in cementing underlays in such a
manner the mark shows after fancy stitching and before."
Powell testified that some of the shoes had been fancy
stitched or that other operations had been performed on
them before they were brought back to her. She conceded
that the "mark" did show on the shoes but claimed that the
shoes had been done in that manner before because there
was no way of doing the job without the mark showing to
some extent. Harris brought Powell to the office where
Taylor and Delancey were waiting. Powell asked what was
wrong with the shoes, stating that they had been trying to
find fault with her work for the preceding week or two.
Powell claimed and the company representatives denied
that she was being picked on. Powell signed the warning
after being told that if she did not she would not be
time spent redoing work
25 There was no reference to this second incident in the notes which
Taylor had in his lap while testifying
CRADDOCK -TERRY SHOE CORP. 41
permitted to go back to work. As she was leaving the office,
Powell testified , she was upset and began to cry. Stopping
outside to regain her composure Powell overheard Taylor
say that when he got through with her , she would wish she
had never heard anything about the Union. Powell returned
to the office and called Taylor a sneak . Powell was then laid
off for the balance of the day. Taylor testified that the
written warning of August 15 was issued for "The same
thing, the lock stitching was running off the edge of the
shoes , the margin , we call it ." Taylor did not controvert
Powell 's claim that he had stated after issuing the warning
that she would be sorry she was connected with the Union
and her retort to him.
Taylor issued two written warnings to Powell for
soliciting for the Union during working hours , the second
warning carrying with it a 1-week layoff. The first incident
occurred during the morning of August 19. Powell testified
that she had just returned to her work station from the
ladies ' room when Instructor Virginia Harris asked her to
come to the office . There , Taylor accused Powell of having
asked an employee in the washroom to sign a union card.
Taylor asked Powell what was wrong , why could she not
cooperate with them and said that Powell had been
reported for asking other girls to sign for the Union . Powell
denied asking anyone to sign a union card and requested
that they bring the employee involved to the office so that
the matter could be straightened out. Taylor refused to do
so saying he would take the other woman's word. Powell
testified that Taylor told her there had been a union in the
last place he worked , that he didn't like unions and would
do all in his power to keep the Union out, not giving a damn
who was hurt in the process . Powell replied that she was for
the Union and would do all that she could for it. Delancey
asked Powell why she had turned against the Company and
gone to the Union but Taylor said she did not have to
answer that question . Powell testified that on August 19 she
had discussed with Alma Kimball in the restroom the dirty
deal which the Company had given John Smith but that
there had been no discussion of union cards , noting, "Why
should I ask somebody to sign one when she had already
signed one?" Taylor first testified that Kimball came to her
supervisor and reported Powell's solicitation for the Union,
the supervisor reported this to Taylor who then took action
against Powell . Taylor then stated that Kimball was crying,
Foreman Dunaway went to her and she told him of the
incident with Powell . Taylor then spoke to Kimball and she
told the plant manager that Powell had asked her to sign a
card . Kimball did not testify.
On October 20 Powell was again written up by Taylor for
soliciting for the Union and a 1-week layoff was imposed.
At about 3: 30 p.m . Powell was taken to the office by
Instructor Bettye Sheldon where Taylor said that Powell
had been reported for asking girls to sign union cards.
Powell denied having done so. Whereupon , Powell testified,
"He jumped in my face and said to me , `Liar, liar, liar.' "
Taylor said he would take the other employee 's word, that
he did not want the Union in the plant , and that it would
not come in as long as he was there . The name of the
employee involved in the alleged incident was not
mentioned during this discussion in the office . When asked
about employee Eloise Thorpe during cross-examination
Powell testified that she had a conversation with Thorpe on
October 20 when she brought some work to Thorpe and
asked Thorpe how she liked the work to which she was
assigned . Powell stated that not a word was said about the
Union . At the time Thorpe was a new employee and Powell
did not know her name . Taylor testified that Thorpe came
to an instructor and complained that Powell was trying to
have her sign a union card . Taylor spoke to Thorpe who did
not say where the alleged conversation with Powell took
place . As to the time of that conversation , Taylor testified,
it "was sometime in the morning , I think ; now, I 'm not sure
on the time ." Thorpe did tell him , Taylor stated, that Powell
had bothered her during working hours and tried to get her
to sign a union card or something . Taylor testified that
Thorpe said this took place on the floor of the stitching
room . Thereafter , Taylor testified that he did not know
what time Powell was supposed to have talked to Thorpe,
that Thorpe did not say she was bothered during working
hours , but that Thorpe had come to Taylor during working
hours . Based on this investigation Taylor issued the
warning slip and layoff to Powell for soliciting for the
Union during working hours . Neither Sheldon nor Thorpe
testified.
Powell was again written up for bad lockstitching on
September 30 and given a 3-day disciplinary layoff . On this
occasion Instructor Hams wrote out the warning at
Assistant Plant Manager Delancey 's instruction . Delancey
asked Powell what she was trying to do, noting that Powell
earned over $2 an hour . Powell testified that she looked at
the supposedly bad shoes and could see nothing wrong with
them . She had asked Sheldon and Harris about those shoes,
Powell testified, and had been told to sew and pass them
along after Harris had picked out the shoes she did not
think would pass inspection . Delancey testified that he
"thinks" he issued a warning to Powell for the quality of her
work. This took place when Taylor was away but Delancey
could not remember the date . The warning was issued,
Delancey said , after he caught some bad work that Powell
had passed on. Taylor , testifying with his notes before him,
stated that the warning was for bad lockstitching but he
could not be sure . Taylor stated that Powell was shown the
bad work. As noted, Delancey testified that Taylor was not
present when he issued the warning.
On October 13 Powell was denied the opportunity to do
handwork which she had performed from the time she was
hired in 1955 . On this occasion Instructor Harris told
Powell she was a lockstitcher and that from that time on
when the lockstitching ran out Powell was to punch out and
go home . As a result Powell, who was called in to work at
12:30 p .m. on October 13, was required to clock out after
working only 1 hour.
When Powell reported for work on November 4 she
discovered that her machine had been moved from its usual
place to a spot facing some bins , limiting her view to the
boards facing her. The machine had not been hooked up
and Powell had to wait an hour before she could go to
work . After finishing the two cases of shoes available for
her to lockstitch Powell asked Rachel Morgan , the matchup
girl, to bring some work to her. Morgan said she would
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
speak to Instructor Harris. Powell waited an hour for
something to do and was told by Morgan that Harris had
told her not to worry about Powell's request for work.26
Powell testified that she was at work for 3 hours and 20
minutes on November 4 and earned a total of 68 cents
sewing the two cases of shoes. Thereafter, Harris took
Powell to the office to see Taylor. There were three or four
cases of shoes in the office which had been in the inspecting
room. Taylor told Powell, "These shoes won't go. I'm going
to have to write you up. You know what this means, that we
will have to let you go." Powell protested that there was no
way of knowing if she had done the complained-of work
because there was no tag with her employee number with
the shoes and a lockstitcher from the Lawrenceville plant
had been brought into Chase City while Powell was laid off
from October 21 to October 28 as a consequence of the
Thorpe incident. In any event, Powell stated, she could see
nothing wrong with the shoes and their condition did not
warrant her discharge. Taylor testified that Powell was
separated for bad work and that the warning on November
4 and the consequent discharge was because of bad
lockstitching.
Powell's case presents an almost classic example of the
harassment and discharge of an active union supporter by
an employer seeking to thwart a union organizing
campaign. Taylor himself spelled out the reason for the
warnings, layoffs, and discharge when, on August 13, when
he got through with Powell she would wish she had never
heard after issuing a warning to Powell, he told Harris and
Delancey that of the Union.27 As with John and Margaret
Smith, from the first warning issued on August 8 until her
ultimate discharge on November 4 there is an amorphous
quality to Respondent's explanations for the discipline
imposed upon her. Thus, on August 8 Powell was unable to
redo all of the work Taylor had directed her to do yet there
was nothing further said about those shoes, and as to the
allegedly unsatisfactory work involved in the warning and
layoff of September 30 Powell testified without contradic-
tion that she had asked Harris and Sheldon about the shoes
and had been told to sew and pass them on. Taylor's
testimony about the Thorpe incident involving alleged
solicitation for the Union during working hours, aside from
sharing the infirmity of his general vagueness about the
reasons for discipline imposed, revealed no evidence that
Powell had solicited Thorpe during working hours on the
plant floor. Delancey had no recall of the warning he gave
to Powell on September 30 yet Taylor, who was absent from
the plant that day, knew why the warning was issued and
was sure that Powell had been shown the bad work. Finally,
with the alleged bad lockstitchmg for which the third
warning and discharge were imposed the absence of a tag
with employee identification numbers and the fact that
another lockstitcher had been working at Chase City the
preceeding week during the layoff imposed on Powell for
the Thorpe incident raises serious questions as to whether
the bad work, if it was below standard, had been performed
by Powell. Accordingly, I find that Powell's discharge and
the disciplinary warnings and layoffs which preceded it
were part and parcel of a campaign directed against this
outspoken union partisan and that her discharge and the
layoffs violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The discharge of Diana W. Bacon
Diana W. Bacon was first employed at Chase City as a
bar tacker in May 1966. With two breaks in employment,
she worked for the Company until January 2, 1970.
Bacon became active in the Union's organizing campaign
in August 1969. Bacon was listed as a member of the
organizing committee in the Union's letter received by
Respondent on August 22. She made house calls after work
soliciting signatures to authorization cards, held two union
meetings at her home and while on layoff in September and
October distributed union leaflets at the plant. Taylor and
Delancey observed her while she was handing out
handbills. Commencing in the latter part of August Bacon
wore a union committee badge to work each day. Bacon
served as a union observer at the December 11 Board-
conducted election.
Plant Manager Taylor issued a verbal warning to Bacon
on September 12 for substandard work. Bacon testified that
the work Taylor said was bad did not carry a tag with
employee identification numbers so she could not tell if she
had worked on those shoes.
On September 30 Bacon received a written warning for
bad work. Bacon insisted that on this occasion she was laid
off for 3 days. However, the written warning received in
evidence indicates that no layoff was imposed.
Bacon received a second written warning on October 13.
On this occasion Instructor Sheldon brought Bacon and
fellow bar tacker Leola Pulliam to see Taylor in the plant
conference room. Bacon was wearing her union badge,
Pulliam was not. Taylor sent Pulliam back to work and
wrote up Bacon for stitching which was pulling loose on
shoes. Bacon testified there was no tag on the shoes with
employee identification numbers and she could not tell if
she or someone else had sewn the shoes in question.
As noted, Bacon served as a union observer at the
December 11 election.
On December 17, having heard a rumor that Instructor
Bettye Sheldon was quitting, Bacon went to Sheldon and
asked if she was really leaving. Sheldon replied that she was
and that Bacon would take her place while Mary Powell
would replace Virginia Hams. As Bacon was going back to
work Sheldon called after her and asked if Bacon had given
her 2-week notice. Bacon replied that she had not, that she
had plenty of time if she decided to quit. On December 22 a
fellow employee asked if Bacon was really quitting. Bacon
said she was not leaving and the fellow employee stated her
understanding that Sheldon had given Bacon's 2-week
notice. Bacon then asked and Sheldon said that she had
turned in Bacon's notice and that Bacon would have to take
up the matter with Delancey. When Delancey confirmed
that Sheldon had given Bacon's notice to the office, Bacon
insisted that she had not told the instructor she was
quitting. Delancey replied that he would have to take her
supervisor's word over Bacon's and that Bacon would have
26 Morgan did not testify
27 The account of this incident is based on Powell's credited testimony made the statement. Harris did not testify
Neither Taylor nor Delancey, both of whom followed Powell on the
witness stand, referred to the occurrence, let alone denied that Taylor had
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP.
to leave the Company on January 2, 1970, the day that
Sheldon said she would quit. On Friday, January 2, Bacon
asked Sheldon if she had to work the following day.
Sheldon replied that this was Bacon's last day of work
because she had given her notice. On Monday, January 5,
Bacon went to Delancey to ask if he would put her back to
work. Delancey replied that he could not do so because he
had hired a girl to take Bacon's place.28
While Bacon agreed that during December she had told
fellow employee Annie Brooks that she was thinking of
quitting, she insisted that at no time had she told anyone
connected with the Company that she would quit on
January 2 or indicated that she was giving notice that she
intended to quit.
Delancey testified that Bacon was terminated because
she had given notice on December 17 that she would leave
in 2 weeks. "That's the only reason," Delancey stated, "that
she had turned in her notice." The assistant plant
manager29 testified that Bacon had given her notice to
Sheldon who had immediately advised Delancey. Some-
time after Christmas (Taylor was back with the Company)
Bacon 's husband came to the plant to say that his wife did
not want to quit and had not intended to give notice.
Delancey testified that he told Mr. Bacon that he had
accepted his wife's notice in good faith, hired a replace-
ment, and Mrs. Bacon would have to leave on January 2.
Bacon 's replacement had previously worked for the
Company as a bar tacker. Delancey stated that he was
aware at the time of her termination that Bacon was on the
Union's organizing committee.
Brown Holston, Respondent's personnel manager, prod-
uced a compendium purporting to show Bacon's hours of
work and "rate" for the weeks of June 7 through December
27. During 21 of the 29 weeks shown on this exhibit,
Bacon 's "rate" was below the Federal minimum wage of
$1.60 an hour. Respondent's counsel stated that this record
of Bacon's failure to earn the minimum wage together with
her record of having left the Company's employ on two
previous occasions had weight in determining whether she
was a desirable employee and went to the Company's
reasons for refusing to reinstate or reemploy her. However,
I find that there are serious questions as to the value of the
record submitted by the Company of Bacon's hours of
work and "rate." This exhibit does not indicate how much
work was available for Bacon during each of the weeks
shown or the hours she was on the clock or whether some of
those hours were down time when no work was available
for her thus reducing her hourly piece rate earnings. No
explanation was offered as to how the "rate" on this exhibit
was compiled. In sum, I find that Respondent has failed by
this exhibit to establish that Bacon's efforts failed to earn
the minimum wage.30
It cannot be denied Respondent that it devised a novel
scheme to rid itself of Bacon, a leading union partisan.
However, I find that it was nothing more than that and that
28 The foregoing sequence of events is based on Bacon's uncontradicted
testimony
29 On December 17 Delancey was acting plant manager as Taylor had
left the Company and was on anotherjob Taylor returned to the Company
some time after Christmas 1969
30 Employee Leola Pulliam, a bar tacker still employed at Chase City,
testified that Bacon's work was "good " Further, Pulliam testified that
43
the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
terminating Bacon's employment on January 2, 1970.
Bacon's alleged notice of intent to quit followed close upon
her services as union observer at the representation
election. Thereafter, Bacon 's actions were totally inconsis-
tent with those of an employee serving out a notice period
prior to voluntarily leaving her employment. Moreover, Mr.
Bacon's visit to the plant in an effort to save his wife's job
was further notice to the Company that Bacon had not
announced an intention to quit. On the other hand
Respondent' s actions were entirely consistent with an
intention to be nd of Bacon . Delancey testified that the
only reason Bacon was let go was her 2-week notice to
Sheldon, yet Delancey was advised both by Bacon and her
husband that she had not given such a notice. The one
witness Respondent could have produced to give substance
to its claim that on December 17 Bacon gave her notice to
Sheldon was Sheldon herself. Sheldon was present in the
courtroom but was not called as a witness by the Company.
I find that Bacon 's alleged notice was a device manufac-
tured to drive her from the plant. In so concluding I am
mindful of the background of her open union activity, the
Company's animosity toward the Union and its advocates,
and the disciplinary warnings issued to her for work which
bore no evidence that it was her product.
C. Farmville
1. The discharge of Paul J. Chapman
Paul J. Chapman was first employed by the Company at
the Farmville plant in the early 1950's. There were two
breaks in his employment. At one time Chapman had a
"misunderstanding"31 with his foreman and did not work
for the Company for about 1 year. The second break was
occasioned by Chapman's imprisonment for 5 years. The
record is not clear as to the reason for this conviction.
Chapman testified that he "signed a false statement and
was sent to prison for 5 years by signing a false statement."
The record does not reveal whether his crime was signing a
false statement or his conviction was based on a confession
which Chapman now claims was not true. There was no
offer into evidence of any documentary evidence as to this
conviction. In any event, the circumstances of his
conviction do not appear to have involved the Company
and following his release the Company reemployed
Chapman and brought him back into the plant in 1966.
As noted, the Union launched its organizing campaign at
Farmville in May 1968. Chapman was a member of the
Union's organizing committee,32 solicited between 40 and
50 authorization cards, and attended all but one of the
Union's meetings . About 15 days before the second election
held on March 19, Chapman put a 16- by 25-inch sign in his
station wagon window reading, "Join the TWUA and get
what Lynchburg gets ." The station wagon with the sign was
parked in front of the factory. When Company President
because the piece rate for bar tacking was set low she was having difficulty
meeting the production requirements to earn the minimum wage at the
time Bacon left the Company's employ.
31 Chapman's characterization
32 Chapman's name was included in the roster of the TWUA organizing
committee set out in the Union's January 14 letter to the Company
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lockridge spoke to the Farmville employees he started his
speech by noting that the first thing he had seen upon
arriving in Farmville was the station wagon with the sign.
Chapman worked in the lasting department under
Foreman Richard Carwile. Mrs. Chapman worked in the
stitching room, supervised by John Rhymer.
Chapman testified that it was his custom, as well as that
of other men whose wives worked in the plant, to visit his
wife during working hours to advise her if he was leaving
early. Prior to April II Chapman had not been told he
could not do this and to his knowledge nothing had been
said to the other men who visited their wives at work.
On Friday, April 11, Chapman was released from work at
3:15 p.m. and went to the stitching room to inform his wife
that he was leaving the plant and she could find him in the
barber shop if she left work early. Chapman testified that
he had not been with his wife more than 2 or 3 minutes
when Stitching Room Foreman Rhymer came to them and
asked what Chapman was doing there. Chapman stated the
reason for his visit. Rhymer then said that Chapman could
not be in the stitching room unless he had permission from
his own foreman to be there. Chapman denied the existance
of such a rule and an argument ensued between Rhymer
and Chapman. Chapman testified that in a "right loud"
voice, motioning with his hands, he asked Rhymer three or
four times to come with him to the office to check on
whether there was such a rule. Rhymer insisted that
Chapman leave the stitching room at once. Chapman
agreed that he was interfering with the production of the
stitching room employees.
Rhymer agreed that he had asked Chapman if he had
obtained permission to be in the stitching room, reminding
Chapman that to be there he had to have permission from
his own foreman, Rhymer, or Plant Manager Rosser. After
some discussion, Rhymer testified, Chapman went to the
door, waving his arms and causing a commotion, calling for
Rhymer to come with him and saying, "You just come on
and I'll show you." Rhymer stated that Chapman did not
make clear where it was that he wanted the foreman to
accompany him.
Plant Manager Rosser, making his rounds of the plant,
arrived in the stitching room and noticed that most of the
employees had stopped work and were looking in the
direction of the door. Rosser heard someone calling in a
loud voice and as he walked up he saw Chapman waving
his arms and calling for Rhymer to come with him. Rhymer
explained to Rosser that Chapman was in the department
without permission and that he had asked Chapman to
leave. Rosser testified that he could see that Chapman was
red in the face and figuring that this was not the time to
discuss the situation and the best thing was to get Chapman
out of the building, ordered Chapman to leave.
When Chapman reported for work on Monday, April 14,
his timecard was missing from the rack. Chapman's
foreman, Carwile, got Chapman and his wife together and
told them that any time Chapman wished to go to the
stitching room to see his wife he was to see Carwile for
33 Rosser did not refer to or deny this exchange during his testimony
Accordingly, I find, as alleged in the amendment to the complaint, that on
April 14, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, Rosser interrogated
permission. Carwile then gave Chapman his timecard,
Chapman clocked in, and went to work.
About 10 a.m. Chapman was called to the office. There,
with Rhymer and Carwile present , Rosser presented and
asked Chapman to sign a written warning reading:
Threatening and interfering with supervisor in
Stitching Dept. Friday 4-11-69.
This was Chapman's first warning. Rosser read the
warning and said that when Chapman had three warnings
he would automatically be discharged. Chapman refused to
sign the warning as written but agreed to sign if it was
changed to read that he had interfered with the operators in
the stitching room. Chapman testified that Rosser replied
that he could not change the warning without first talking it
over with the Company' s office in Lynchburg. Rosser said
he could not permit Chapman to go back to work if he did
not sign the warning. As Chapman put it, Rosser said he
was not fired, not discharged, not laid off, but could not go
back to work because he had not signed the warning.
Rosser asked Chapman, who had attended a union meeting
in Lynchburg the preceding Friday, what meetings he had
attended in Lynchburg Friday night. When Chapman
replied that Rosser would have to go elsewhere for his
information, Rosser said that the factory was not union
then and would never go union.33
Rosser testified that he discussed with Chapman the
reasons for the warning and told him that he would have to
sign if he wanted to go back to work. When asked if he had
told Chapman he could have a review of his case in
Lynchburg as provided in the Company's disciplinary rules,
Rosser replied, "I don't know that I did." Rosser did not
recall discussing review with Chapman. Chapman testified
that nothing was said by any company representative about
a possible right of review. Further, Rosser stated that he did
not think anything was said during the Monday morning
discussion about Chapman's right to sign the warning at a
later time.
After Chapman refused to sign the warning Rosser
directed that he be escorted from the plant.
Chapman then went home and called Dernoncourt, the
Union's chief organizer and told him what had happened.
Dernoncourt advised Chapman to return to the plant and
sign the warning "under false pretenses ."34 Chapman
returned to the plant about 1 p.m., but Rosser would not
permit him to sign the warning, saying he would have to
contact Lynchburg and that Chapman should return to the
plant the following morning at about 10 a.m. Chapman
testified that the plant manager asked why he had changed
his mind about signing and that he explained he had done
so because his wife worked in the plant and they could
travel to work together.
Rosser testified that he would not permit Chapman to
sign the warning when he returned to the plant because it
was policy that when an employee refused to sign a warning
and left the plant he did not have authority "to re-employ
them or let them sign it and go back to work" unless it had
been cleared by the Company's personnel department.
Rosser claimed that these were the instructions issued to
Chapman concerning his union activities.
34 Chapman, who is illiterate, referred to this as "false precinct "
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 45
plant managers when the warning system went into effect in
August. 1968. "In a sense ," Rosser testified, Chapman had
quit when he left the plant without signing the warning.
Personnel Manager Holston was at the Farmville plant
the afternoon of April 14 and Rosser discussed Chapman's
case with him. This was after Chapman had returned to the
plant and had asked to sign the warning. Holston asked
Rosser what he thought should be done about Chapman
and Rosser recommended that Chapman not be put back to
work. Rosser stated that Chapman was discharged because
of his refusal to sign the warning.
As instructed by Rosser, Chapman returned to the plant
on Tuesday, April 15. Personnel Manager Holston was in
the plant at the time, saw Chapman, but did not speak with
him. Rosser told Chapman that he had not had an
opportunity to discuss the case with Lynchburg and told
Chapman to leave a telephone number with the secretary
where he could be reached. Having had no word from
Rosser by 4:15 p.m. Chapman tried unsuccessfully to reach
the plant manager in his office and finally called Rosser at
his home that evening. Rosser told Chapman that if he had
anything else to do, to go ahead and do it because it would
take some time to straighten out the matter. Rosser testified
that he told Chapman to find another job because the
Company could not use him any further. Rosser stated that
he spoke to Holston on April 15 and was advised not to
reemploy Chapman. Rosser testified that Chapman had
already been discharged at this point. The warning slip
bears the notation, "Quit."
Chapman's claim for unemployment compensation was
denied by the Virginia Employment Commission, not
because of the circumstances of his termination by
Respondent, but because of his failure to report to another
job to which he was subsequently referred. In his
conclusions concerning Chapman's discharge by the
Company, the appeals examiner stated:
... although the claimant was not without fault
in his failure to sign the warning slip, this was not
an act that would show a substantial, wanton or
willful disregard of his duties and obligations to
his employer. It is the opinion of the Appeals
Examiner that although the claimant was dis-
charged from his employment, it was not for
reasons which would constitute misconduct in
connection with his work.
As in the case with John Smith, Chapman's discharge for
his refusal to sign the warning slip was in disregard of the
Company's established disciplinary procedure. Discharge
was to come with the fourth warning, yet Rosser
recommended to Holston that Chapman be terminated on
the occasion of his first warning. Moreover, if in fact
company policy, contrary to the disciplinary manual
provisions, provides that an employee who leaves the plant
without signing a warning may not be reemployed, there
was an element of entrapment in Rosser allowing Chapman
to go home on April 14 without advising him of the
consequences to his employment or of his right to review of
his case in Lynchburg. Indeed, Rosser misled Chapman by
ss Rossei's question to Chapman indicated an awareness of union
activity and the identity of those participating.
36 Madison was corroborated on this point by Rosser and Cutting
telling him he was not fired , not discharged , not laid off, but
merely could not go back to work because he had not
signed the warning . In the context of the Company
antiunion campaign, Chapman's outspoken advocacy of
the Union, and Rosser's unlawful interrogation of Chap-
man about his attendance at a union meeting ,35 I find that,
as with John Smith , Chapman 's discharge for refusal to sign
the warning was a pretext utilized to rid the Company of a
union partisan.
2. The termination of Mary F. Madison
Mary F. Madison worked in the Farmville plant as a die
distributor in the cutting department from December 1966
until May 1969. From July 1967 until February 1968
Madison was out on maternity leave.
Madison became active on behalf of the Union in July
1968, serving on the TWUA organizing committee. Her
name was included in the list of that committee sent to the
Company by the Union on January 14, 1969. In the
campaign before the first representation election Madison
made house calls for the Union and obtained 30 signed
cards . In the union drive before the March 1969 election
Madison solicited cards at a service station across the
tracks from the plant and secured about 45 cards for the
Union. While so engaged Madison was seen by Plant
Manager Rosser and Cutting Room Foreman Foster.
Madison served as a union observer at both Board-
conducted elections and testified at the hearing held on the
Company's objections to the second election. In addition,
Madison served as vice president of the local union
established to serve the Farmville plant.
During her employment by the Company Madison
received no warnings, verbal or written.36
After work on Tuesday, May 27, Madison, her sister
Lorraine, and Delores Hendricks, their first cousin, went to
the Uniroyal plant in Farmville seeking employment. In
May the Craddock-Terry plant had been working short
weeks . At Uniroyal they spoke to John Wright, the plant
manager. Wright told Madison to fill out a Uniroyal
employment application at the local office of the Virginia
Employment Commission and to return to see him at 8 a.m.
on Thursday, May 29. Hendricks, who had completed a
Uniroyal application in March, was also told to return on
Thursday.
At lunchtime on Wednesday, May 28, Madison filled out
a Uniroyal application stating thereon that she was then
employed by Craddock-Terry She then returned to the
company plant and told Foster, her foreman, that she had
to be off from work Thursday morning but would be in at
10 a.m. Madison testified that Foster "didn't say anthing at
first." Madison then asked Linda Shreck, a fellow employee
who customarily filled in when Madison was not at work, to
work in Madison's place Thursday morning. Shreck agreed
to cover Madison's job. Madison testified that when she
returned to Foster and told him that Shreck would work in
her place the following morning the foreman replied, "You
know we come to work at 7:30." Madison said that she
knew this but that she had important business to attend to.
Department Foreman Foster Foster characterized Madison as a "fair"
employee.
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Foster testified that on Wednesday Madison asked for
permission to be off the following morning, explaining that
she had business to attend to but did not state its nature.
Foster replied that she was needed on the job. Madison said
that she had arranged for one of the other girls to do her
work but Foster replied that that employee had her own
work to do. Foster testified that during May the plant was
working short weeks and they were trying to finish all the
available work in 4 days so that the entire department
would be off on the same day. To have allowed another
employee to cover for Madison would have taken that
employee from her own work. Foster stated that he did not
excuse Madison from reporting for work at 7:30 a.m. on
Thursday.
Madison, together with her sister Lorraine and Delores
Hendricks, returned to the Uniroyal plant to see Plant
Manager Wright Thursday morning arriving shortly after 8
a.m., using for transportation a car belonging to another
sister who worked for Uniroyal. Madison was interviewed
by Wright who asked how she felt about the Union and if
she had any connection with it. Madison gave him her
opinion. When Madison arrived at the company plant at
about 9:55 a.m. her timecard was missing from the rack.
She asked Foster for her card and told her foreman that she
would have to leave at 3:30 p.m. for about 15 minutes to
return her sister's car. Foster then said there was no point in
her clocking in if she was "going to punch right out again."
Madison then left and attended to personal business during
the day. Hendricks did not report to the company plant that
day, sending word that she was sick.
Hendricks testified that she was told by Madison's sister,
Lorraine, that after Madison left the plant following her
conversation with Foster, Foster, Plant Manager Rosser,
and a third person identified only as Jimmy held a
conference following which Jimmy asked Lorraine if
Madison and Hendricks had gone to look for other jobs.
Lorraine denied that they had and Jimmy asked Lorraine to
be sure that Hendricks was at work on Friday, May 30.
Foster testified that Madison's timecard had been
removed from the rack on Thursday under a rule providing
for such action whenever an employee does not report for
work at the beginning of the shift. When Madison asked for
her card at about 10 a.m. Foster reminded her that she was
supposed to be at work at 7:30, and when she told him she
would have to be off again at about 3 p.m. Foster told
Madison that she might as well take off the balance of the
day.
Rosser stated that he became aware of Madison's
absence on May 29 when he noticed that her card was
missing from the rack. At about 10:30 a.m. Wright of
Uniroyal called Rosser for a reference on Madison,
explaining that she had applied for work at Uniroyal and
asked if she was then employed by the Company. Rosser
told Wright that Madison was on Respondent's payroll.
Madison was not scheduled to work on Friday, May 30,
as the cutting room was off that day. Hendricks testified
that when she reported for work on Friday her timecard
was not in the rack and she was told to go to the office
where Rosser asked why she had not been in to work on
Thursday. Hendricks replied that her nerves had been bad
so she had gone home. Rosser said that her foreman had
called her home but she had not been there. Hendricks
replied that he had probably called while she was on her
way there. Rosser then asked if she was sure she had not
been with Madison and when Hendricks said she had not,
the plant manager stated, "I'll suspend you until I
investigate the matter." Hendricks then left the plant, called
Madison and told her that Rosser was investigating, had
questioned Hendricks about whom she had been with, and
"then he said he was going to suspend us." Madison
testified that Hendricks called her at about 9:15 a.m. on
Friday to say that Rosser had told Hendricks to inform
Madison that they were suspended until further notice.
Madison received her last paycheck by sending a note with
Hendricks who picked up the check for Madison.
Hendricks did not tell Madison why they were suspended
and Madison never asked either Rosser or Foster why she
had been suspended.
Rosser testified that he had talked to Hendricks only
about her own case on Friday. Rosser claimed to have told
Hendricks that he would not discuss Madison with her
because Madison's situation was between Madison and
himself. Rosser denied giving Hendricks any message for
Madison. Further, Rosser stated that he had not talked with
Madison about her case at any time, either during the
incident or since. Rosser testified that when he told
Hendricks she was being suspended pending investigation
because what she had told him did not agree with other
information the Company had obtained, she replied, "You
don't have to investigate it; I quit." Madison testified that
she never got in touch with the Company because
Hendricks had told her that Rosser would be contacting
her.
Madison and Hendricks testified that they talked on
Saturday, May 31, speculating on how long they would be
suspended. Rosser and Foster also talked on Saturday.
They testified that they discussed Madison, Rosser telling
Foster that Madison had been to Uniroyal looking for ajob
on the day she failed to report for work on time. Rosser
alerted Foster to the possible need to make arrangements to
cover Madison's job in the cutting room.
Foster testified that had Madison reported for work on
Monday, June 2, it was his intention to put her to work, he
had no instructions to the contrary. Rosser testified that
while he could not say that Madison would still be
employed by the Company, and he might have given her a
written warning, she would not have been discharged had
she reported for work on any day during the week of June 2.
On Monday Foster removed her timecard from the rack
and kept it at his desk. At quitting time on Wednesday,
June 4, Foster "terminated the card and sent it to the
office" pursuant to a company policy of terminating
employees who fail to report to work for 3 days without
reason. At Foster's request, Rosser noted on Madison's
timecard:
Discharged. Asked for permission to be off
Thursday 5-29-69 to take care of some business.
Denied permission by supervisor. Did not report
to work 5-29-69 until 10:00 am and said she
would have to be off again at 3:00 pm for more
business. She was not allowed to go to work
Thursday. About 10:30, we received a reference
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP.
phone call from John Wright at Uniroyal that she
had be [sic] out at Uniroyal Thursday am
applying for work. Last day-5-28-69. Carrying
dyes. Not recommended. /s/ HER
Company rules, which have been made known to the
employees, provide that a written warning will be issued the
first time an employee is absent without leave; a written
warning and 3-day layoff will follow the second instance of
absence without leave; and a written warning and 1-week
suspension will be imposed for a third violation.
During cross-examination Rosser acknowledged that in
many cases, employees, including Paul Chapman who had
quit had been contacted by company representatives and
asked to return to the Company's employ.
I do not find that General Counsel has met his burden of
establishing that Mary Madison's termination was occa-
sioned in whole or part by her union activity. It cannot be
gainsaid that she played an outstanding role for the Union.
Further, in evaluating the facts as to Madison the
background of the Company's animosity to the Union must
be given weight. However, absent union considerations,
Madison's actions in absenting herself from work on
Thursday without permission, and indeed in the face of her
supervisor's indication that she was expected to be in to
work at the regular starting time, to seek other employment,
would justify disciplinary action by her employer. The
essential element in my determination is Madison's failure
to report for work on Monday, June 2, or thereafter, and
her total failure to take any action to ascertain whether her
employment had been terminated. I find unconvincing the
explanation that she refrained from contacting the
Company because Hendricks had told her that Rosser
would be in touch with her. As between Hendricks, who
had lied about her reasons for being away from work on
May 29, and Rosser, I find Rosser to be the more credible
witness and accept his testimony that he had not sent any
messages to Madison by Hendricks and had not informed
Hendricks that Madison, as well as she, was to be
indefinitely suspended. At that point Madison had offered
no explanation for her actions on May 29 and I note that
Hendricks' suspension pending investigation was based
upon the conflict between her story and other information
the Company had obtained. While company rules provide
for a series of warnings and layoffs in the event of absences
without leave, Madison's total failure to report for work on
June 2 and thereafter prevented the Company from
imposing such discipline on her and gave substance to the
conclusion that she had quit. At this point the company rule
providing for termination after 3 days' absence without
reason would appear to supercede the disciplinary proce-
dure for absence without leave. Moreover, such a
conclusion was made more plausible by the fact that the
entire transaction had been initiated by her efforts to seek
other employment. Accordingly, I shall recommend
dismissal of the complaint allegation that Madison's
termination violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
37 See In. 11, supra.
38 The parties stipulated that Reynolds was a supervisor within the
D. Lynchburg
47
A collective-bargaining agreement covering the employ-
ees at Respondent's Lynchburg plant, providing for a
voluntary checkoff of union dues, was executed on
February 7, 1969.
General Counsel presented a number of witnesses who
testified to company efforts to persuade them to revoke
their checkoff authorizations.
Barbara L. Heath, employed by the Company since
1953,37 told of an occasion when her foreman, Fred Barber,
brought a bill from the credit union to her. Barber asked if
Heath was for the Union and when she replied that she was,
Barber pointed out that the $5 taken from her pay each
month for dues would pay the credit union bill. Several
weeks later Barber told Heath that if she wanted to get out
of the Union he would tell her what to do. Heath did not
withdraw from the Union.
Paul Tardy testified to a time when Clyde Kiger, his
foreman, gave Tardy a card to withdraw from the Union.
Later Kiger told Tardy that Reynolds, the paymaster,38
wanted to see Tardy. Reynolds said that Kiger had
informed him that Tardy wanted to sign a card to get out of
the Union. Tardy denied having told this to Kiger. Tardy
remained in the Union until he left the Company's employ.
Margie B. Downey, employed by Respondent since 1960,
testified about a conversation she had with Claiborne
Craddock, plant manager at Lynchburg, after she applied
for a loan. Craddock asked if Downey was active in the
Union. Downey said that she was and asked about her loan.
Craddock replied that those who were more deserving and
loyal to the Company would get the loans. Downey
commented that she didn't know anyone who was more
deserving than she. Following this conversation with
Craddock, Foreman Bryant came to Downey and said that
he had heard that Downey was dissatisfied with the money
coming out of her pay for dues and told her that if she
wanted to get out of the Union she should let him know.
Some weeks later Downey went to Bryant to say she had
decided to get out of the Union. Bryant told Downey to
come to the office with him. There, the office girl dictated
and Downey wrote down a statement which she signed and
gave to the office girl. Some time later the Company
stopped deducting union dues from Downey's pay.
Dolly Lemon, who had worked next to Downey in the
packing department, testified that she had overheard
Foreman Bryant tell Downey that if she wanted to get out
of the Union she should speak to him about it. Lemon told
of a time in June 1969 when she was called to the office
about two doctors' bills which she owed. Lemon signed an
agreement permitting the Company to deduct $5 each week
from her pay which would be applied to those bills. At the
same time Paymaster Reynolds handed Lemon another
paper and asked if she wanted to sign to get out of the
Union. Reynolds pointed out that with the $5 for dues
coming out of her pay the total deduction would now be
$10. Lemon refused to sign the withdrawal and Reynolds
took back the proffered paper.
Respondent offered no evidence to contravene the
meaning of the Act.
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony summarized above. Accordingly, I find that the
Company, at Lynchburg, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by inducing "employees . . . to revoke and unlawfully
assisted them in revoking the authorizations given by such
employees to the Union authorizing the Union to represent
them for the purpose of collective bargaining"38 and
authorizing the checkoff of union dues from their pay.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Company's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully discharged
John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell, Diana
W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman, and prior thereto engaged
in a course of harassment against those employees
including the issuance of disciplinary warnings and layoffs,
I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate
the named employees to their former positions or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges and to make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of Respondent's
unlawful conduct, including losses suffered during periods
of unlawfully imposed disciplinary layoffs, and to expunge
from company records the warnings issued to said
employees. Backpay shall be computed in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.40
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
as Amended Consolidated Complaint, par. VI (d).
40 As the hearing closed I asked the parties to file briefs and "to devote
some attention on the question of remedy to the matter of interest to be
levied on backpay . . Specifically, the Isis formula which the Board has
applied to date provided for six percent interest . In view of the rising
interest rate in the national economy and the problems of interest on small
loans, particularly for wage earners , I believe that examination should be
given to the possibility that interest higher than six percent might properly
be payable on backpay due. And I would ask that the parties include a
section on this in their briefs."
Respondent's brief contained a thoughtful analysis and argument
against such an increase in interest rate on backpay. The only reference to
interest in General Counsel's brief was a request for "back pay at six
2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to
hereinabove in section III, B 2 and 5, C 1, and D, hereof,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct described in section III, B
3, 4, 5, and 6 and C 1, hereof, Respondent discriminated
against John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R. Powell,
Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman in regard to the
terms and conditions of their employment, in order to
discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and
thereby engaged in and is engaging 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. The Respondent has not committed other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER41
The Respondent, Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Questioning employees concerning their union
activities and opinions; soliciting employees to revoke their
union dues checkoff authorizations; soliciting employees to
revoke their designation of the Union as their bargaining
representative; or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other
labor organization, by discriminating against employees in
regard to the terms and conditions of their employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R.
Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J. Chapman immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against them as set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith, Mary R.
Powell, Diana W . Bacon , and Paul J. Chapman if presently
percent for the layoff suffered by Powell " The Charging Party did not file
a brief. In the absence of interest by either the General Counsel or the
Union in exploring the appropriateness of the present level of interest
levied, I do not believe it behooves me to delay issuance of this Decision to
undertake the study needed to develop the background required for such a
change.
41 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102. 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes,
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE CORP. 49
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 the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, 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, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Chase City, F'armville, and Lynchburg,
Virginia, plants copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."42 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 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 covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith 43
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Consolidated
Complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor
practices not found herein.
42 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
43 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 Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
union activities and opinions in a manner violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to revoke their
union authorizations or assist them in doing so.
WE WILL NOT Solicit our employees to revoke their
union dues checkoff authorizations or assist them in
doing so.
WE WILL NOT issue disciplinary warnings or layoffs
to employees because of their union activity.
WE WILL expunge from company records disciplinary
warnings issued to employees because of their union
activity.
WE WILL offer John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith,
Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon , and Paul J.
Chapman their jobs back with backpay and pay
Margaret B. Smith and Mary R. Powell the wages they
lost while they were discriminatorily laid off.
WE WILL notify John R. Smith, Margaret B. Smith,
Mary R. Powell, Diana W. Bacon, and Paul J.
Chapman if they are presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application as provided by law,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
All of our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
Dated By
CRADDOCK-TERRY SHOE
CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Federal Building, Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore,
Maryland 21201, Telephone 301-962-2822.