Durant Sportswear, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 906 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or closing the plant
because of their membership in, sympathy for, or activity on behalf of, any
union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form unions,
to join or assist Miscellaneous Warehousemen & Production Employees Union
Local No. 781, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other union, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring union
membership as a condition of employment as permitted by Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-named Local 781,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the unit described
below with respect to wages, hours, and other working conditions and embody
in a signed agreement any understanding reached. The unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our plant, exclusive of
all office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, professional em-
polyees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
Frozell Pittman James Jenkins George Haywood
Ernest Melton Robert Davis Joe Powell
All our employees are free to become or remain, and to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
PERMACOLD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated----- - ----------- -- BY---------------
(Representative) (Title)-------------------
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap-
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
. This notice must remain posted, for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 176 West
Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any
questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Durant Sportswear , Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America , AFL-CIO . Ca.ee No. 26-CA-1595. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1964, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent 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 De-
147 NLRB No. 110.
, DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. 907
cision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party each filed
exceptions to the Decision with a supporting brief ; and the Respond-
ent filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts 1 the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Durant Sportswear, Inc., Durant, Mississippi, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from : .
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discriminatorily discharging any of
its employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to
their' hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
' We find it unnecessary to pass upon the comments made by the Trial Examiner in
footnote 10 of his Decision . Since the Trial Examiner's finding of a violation of Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (1) based on the placard incident is cumulative and our disposition of the find-
ing would in no event affect the remedy ordered herein because of the numerous other
violations of Section 8.(a) (1) that have been found , we also find it unnecessary to con-
sider Respondent 's exceptions in this matter and, therefore , do not pass upon this issue.
s The. Board finds no merit in the Respondent 's contention that it had offered Ann Otts
valid reinstatement on August 27, 1963, thereby cutting off backpay and reinstatement,
when it required as a condition of reinstatement that Otts procure a doctor's certificate
"as to the nature of illness , whether it is expected that it will be recurring , and- whether
or not he feels that you are fully able to perform the job you have had." Otts replied that,
in view of her past record , this condition was unreasonable, but she assured McNeese that
if she was reinstated she would not be absent from work unless for reasons beyond her
control.
We have found that Otts ' absence because of illness on August 7 and 8, 1963, was used
as a pretext for discriminatorily discharging her in violation of the Act, and the record
shows that her other absences were not related to her health . There is no evidence that
Otts was physically unable to perform her work. The request for assurances as to the
state of her health , therefore , was unreasonable , unwarranted, and does not in our view
adequately support a finding of a bona fide unconditional offer of reinstatement. The
acceptance of such a condition , in the circumstances of this case , would be susceptible to
interpretation as an admission by Otts that she had , in fact, been discharged because of
bad health. Indeed, as Otts' absenteeism because of a 2-day illness had previously been
used as a pretext for unlawful discharge , the condition attached to the offer of reinstate-
ment would reasonably tend to make the duration of her employment doubtful since it con-
tained an implication that any further absence by Otts would again be utilized as a pretext
for a discharge motivated by the same unlawful 'considerations.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Ann Otts immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any
loss of:pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Durant, Mississippi, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, shall, after be-
ing duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to. comply
herewith.-
3-In the event that this Order 19 enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage union membership or activities in
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. 909
any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging
any of our employees, or by discriminating in any manner in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment of any of our employees.
WE WILL offer to Ann Otts immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination practiced against her with interest thereon at 6 per-
cent per annum.
AVE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------- -------- By--`=---------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 746 Federal Office Building , 167 North Main Street , Memphis,
Tennessee , Telephone No. 534-3161 , if they have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on August 12, 1963, by Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America , AFL-CIO , hereinafter called the Union , the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the General Counsel' and the
Board, respectively, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region ( Memphis,
Tennessee ), issued its complaint dated September 18, 1963, against Durant Sports-
wear, Inc., herein called the Respondent. The complaint alleged that Respondent had
engaged in and was 'engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor
Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended , herein called the Act . Copies of
the charge , complaint , and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
Union and Respondent.
Respondent duly filed its answer admitting certain allegations of the complaint but
denying the commission of any unfair labor practice.
1 This term specifically includes the attorneys appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a hearing thereon was held at Kosciusko, Mississippi, on Octo-
ber 29, 30, and 31, 1963, before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson. All parties to
the hearing were represented by counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
material and pertinent to the issues, and were advised of their right to argue orally
upon the record and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions or both.
Oral argument was waived. Briefs have been received from General Counsel,
Respondent, and the Union on December 18, 1963.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Durant Sportswear, Inc., is now, and has been at all times material herein, a
Mississippi corporation engaged in the manufacture of clothing in its plant at Durant,
Mississippi. During the past 12 months, Respondent, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, manufactured, sold, and shipped from its Durant, Mississippi,
plant, finished products valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points outside the
State of Mississippi.
The Shutzer interests, which own and operate Respondent, own and operate an-
other clothing manufacturing plant in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE UNION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO , is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III.. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
Respondent employs approximately 250 persons in its Durant, Mississippi, plant,
where it is engaged in manufacturing, packing, and shipping of outerwear on order
to retail outlets. The general manager of the Durant plant, as well as the plant at
Lawrence, Massachusetts, is Alvin Shutzer, and the assistant general manager is his
brother, Larry Shutzer, both of whom have their headquarters in Massachusetts.
Alvin Shutzer visits the Durant plant about every 2 weeks whereas Larry Shutzer
visits Durant as occasion demands. The local Durant plant manager since about
April 1963 has been William H. McNeese. At all times mentioned herein the sewing
department at Durant has been under the supervision of Robert Young, the finish-
ing department under the supervision of Al Reed, and the shipping department under
Hart (Bud) Harris.
Ann Otts was first employed •by Respondent in April 1962 as a sewing machine
operator. A few weeks thereafter she was transferred to the shipping department
as a packer under Foreman Harris. She remained at the packing job until laid off
during Respondent's slow season in October 1962. According to Harris, her attend-
ance record during this term of employment was very good.
In February 1963, Respondent recalled Otts to work as a packer.
In April 2 Otts signed an application card for the Union. Although she attended
no union meetings, union organizers visited her at her home and she did occasion-
ally drive in the city of Kosciusko in company with the union organizers.
As the main product manufactured at the Durant plant is children's fall outer-
wear, it follows that Respondent's "critical shipping period." according to Respond-
ent's assistant general manager and self-styled "management consultant," Larry
Shutzer, who seems to be in charge of shipping for the various Shutzer plants, extends
annually from July 1 to August 15 in order that its merchandise may be on the
merchants' shelves at "back-to-school" time in September.
As most, but not all, of Respondent's shipping from Durant occurs in this July 1
to August 15 period, Respondent's production of finished outerwear has to be placed
in large bulk cartons according to size and color and warehoused until the in-
dividual orders of the customers are pulled, packed, and shipped in accordance with
the individual order.
2 All dates are in the year 1963 unless otherwise specified.
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. 911
Respondent's productive season in 1963 had been such that its finished garments
had to be warehoused in every available spot in the town of Durant including, among
others, the armory, the pool hall, the fire station, and even the railroad roundhouse.
This, of course, was in addition to the space in its plant. In addition to the diffi-
culties caused by such widespread warehousing Respondent was building a new and
enlarged warehouse shipping section to the plant which, for reasons not disclosed
in this record, was not completed in time for the "critical shipping period." Hence
the shipping department was in the midst of its critical shipping period at the very
time that it was engaged in moving from its old and inadequate area to its new and
more adequate area.
At least by the time of his trip to- Durant on July 23 Respondent knew that it had
shipping difficulties at Durant because Alvin Shutzer became very critical at a super-
visors' meeting of the amount that Respondent was shipping from Durant. At this
supervisors' meeting Shutzer severely criticized Foreman Harris about this problem.
Harris defended himself on the ground that on the previous day one of his three
packers, Ann Otts, had been absent which, according to Harris, had cut his shipping
that day by one-third.
The record shows without contradiction that throughout the whole of the critical
shipping period of 1963 there had been only eight employees in the shipping de-
partment and that, excluding two pullers who were members of the shipping de-
partment, Respondent had no substitute packer trained to replace, a regular packer
on those days when a regular packer might be absent. The evidence showed that
it took about 2 weeks to train a packer. It was also admitted that Respondent made
no effort to train a substitute packer until, at least, August 8. Hence when Ann
Otts was absent on business on July 22, as she had been, Harris could legitimately
contend that with one of his three packers absent, his production was thereby
reduced by one-third.
At this same supervisors' meeting Alvin Shutzer commented unfavorably about
the absentee record at Durant but, according to Harris, such comments on absen-
teeism were a regular part of Shutzer's biweekly meetings.
On July 24 Harris called a meeting of the eight employees in his shipping depart-
ment and spoke about the importance of not being absent and of giving him advance
notice of such necessary absences. Harris testified that he ended this talk on
absenteeism as follows:
while I had them in a group I asked them if there was any problems they
had among each other that I could help them with. If they did I was willing to
help. If they had any problems, to come to me with them and I will try to
help them.
At or about this time it became known that on August 13 the Board would conduct
a representation election at the plant to determine whether or not the employees
desired the Union to act as their bargaining representative.
On or about July 30, for reasons best known to himself, Harris, according to his
testimony, just picked Otts "out at random" to remind her of the impending Au-
gust 13 election, to inform her that she had been seen riding around with union
organizers, and to tell her that from his experience in Respondent's plants up north
that "anyone who could go for the Union would be sorry for themselves." Harris,
in his own words, also "mentioned about what I had seen up north and things that
could happen, and they do happen." Although Harris testified that Otts said nothing
during this conversation, it was either at this or another similar occasion when Otts
called over fellow employee Billie Faye Perry as a witness and told Harris that she
had not been riding around with union organizers but that she was 100 percent for
the Union. Harris told Otts that "It was her privilege (to vote for the Union) but
she would be sorry." 3
' The above finding is based on the composite testimony of Otts, Harris, and Perry. In
his testimony Harris originally denied knowing whether Otts was for or against the Union,
ever having talked to her about the Union, or having mentioned her having been seen rid-
ing with union organizers. Of these Perry and Otts contradict him as to the first, he him-
self related his conversation with Otts about the election, and Otts contradicted him as
to the third.
During Respondent's redirect examination of Harris, Respondent brought out that Harris
had just learned some disturbing family news. This may well account for some of the
inconsistencies apparent in Harris' testimony.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Also about this same time Al Reed, foreman of the finishing department, spoke
to Otis telling her of his experiences with a union in Winona , Mississippi , where,
according to him, the union campaign resulted only in a strike and the layoff of
the employees? -
Early in August Reed approached Sibyl Cain with a typewritten sheet of paper
containing the names of the employees in his department followed by two columns
headed "for" and "against." Reed told Cain that he had all the other employees
` on his side but [Cain] and was not sure about her" and inquired as to how she
felt about the Union. Cain noted the number of checkmarks on the sheets under
the column headed "against." Cain's answer was that "that was none of his business."
At or about this same time Cain heard employee Kay Rucker ask Reed what would
happen if the Union came into the plant. Reed answered Rucker that the, plant
would definitely leave Durant and "that the site had already been picked 'out at
Hattiesburg, Mississippi."
Having heard of these episodes, Otts approached Reed, saw the document as above
described, and inquired as to it. Reed told Otts that he was going to find out which
of his employees were for or against the Union and that Harris had a similar docu-
ment for the shipping department .5
Later that same day Reed told Otts that the only way the Respondent's employees
would ever get a union into the plant would be to walk a picket line for neither the
Company nor the Industrial Council would ever allow the Union in the plant and
that, if the Union did get in, the Company -had already investigated a site in Hatties-
burg to which to move.6
Also about August 6, on orders from headquarters in Lawrence, Massachusetts,
Plant Manager McNeese posted on the plant bulletin board a number of newspaper
clippings with stories and pictures of violence growing out of union management dis-
putes in plants located in Mississippi and Alabama. One picture included therein
was of a man killed at a plant in Prentiss , Mississippi . On August 7, while employee
Minnie Overstreet was reading some of these clippings, Larry Shutzer stepped up,
asked her how everything was going, and added, referring to the clippings, "It is
terrible, and it all happened- here in Mississippi and Alabama." Shutzer thereupon
walked off.
Larry Shutzer had arrived in Durant on the evening of August 6 because of the
shipping problems existing in Durant.
On the morning of August 7 Ann Otis, then one of the three packers in the shipping
department, sent word through her car pool that she was sick and would not be in
to work that day. This report was received by Foreman Harris and passed on to
McNeese and, in turn, upon his arrival at the plant, to Larry Shutzer.
According to Shutzer, the problem he faced was "the type of thing that can jeop-
ardize the entire operation of Durant Sportswear; not only jeopardize the entire op-
eration of Durant Sportswear but jeopardize the welfare of 250 or 300 people that
work at Durant Sportswear."
Upon being informed by McNeese that a packer was out, the following, in the
words of Shutzer, occurred:
Q. Would you tell us what the conversation was between you and Mr.
McNeese?,
A. Well, I asked him to find out what the score was on the packing situa-
tion, whether this girl who was out was coming in, when she was coming in,
was she coming in at noon time or what the score was. And I told him to find
out so that I could make my decisions.
4 Reed acknowledged that he had had many similar conversations about the Union with
employees Otte, Kay Rucker, and Sibyl Cain but maintained that all of these conversations
had been prior to his having become a supervisor 14 or 15 months before. However, he
testified that his conversation with Otts on this subject occurred in December 1962 or
January 1963. This choice of date was unfortunate because: (1) Reed was a supervisor
at that time; and (2) admittedly Otts was not employed at the plant at that time.
5 Reed acknowledged having had such a document but testified that he was merely secur-
ing the telephone numbers of his employees. These numbers were already contained in
the company files. Harris did not bring such a document to the shipping department.
U Reed denied ever having made any mention of a possible move to Hattiesburg. Larry
Shutzer also denied that Respondent had ever investigated a site at Hattiesburg. As the
coercive effect of this statement does not depend upon its truth, only Reed's denial is of
any importance here. In the light of all the other events herein, I find that the statements
were made by Reed.
Rucker, like Reed, denied the Hattiesburg statement but Rucker's credibility was badly
impugned by her testimony that she noted no unusual events in the plant on August 9.
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, TNC. 913
Q. What type decisions are you referring to now, Mr. Shutzei?
A. Well, if this particular girl was going to not come in and we didn't have
any definite idea as to when she was coming in, we would have to replace her.
Now this is the kind of decisions that I would have to make.
Q. Why was it so important that she be replaced immediately if she -wasn't
coming in?
A. Well, as I said before this merchandise had to get to the stores. Every
hour is important. If you don't get it to the store we get cancellations.
A. And, as a matter of fact, we had already received cancellations, now, be-
cause of merchandise that wasn't shipped properly or on time. So I told him
,to find out. I was down there. I want the situation clarified. I didn't have
that much time to spend down there, but I wanted to know what was going on.
So I told him to find out for me, give me all the information. Well, Mr.
McNeese came back to me about 10 o'clock and told me that he had called and
that the girl that he had called, or that the neighbor that he had called to try
to find the girl . . . .
* * * * * * *
The WITNESS: And that the girl was not home. I said, "What do you mean
the girl is not home? If she's not home, why isn't she in to work?"
So he told me that previous to this when the girl had been out she was sick.
I said, "Find out if she's sick. If she's sick, when is she coming in, tomorrow,
the next day, five days from now? See what the story is. I have to make
decisions. I can't wait. I have got to know what is going on . I am going
back. I have got to report to my board. I have got to tell them what is going
to happen." I said, "Find out. Is she coming in; when is she coming in; if
she is sick. What is the story. How long is she going to be out."
Q. (By Mr. STOUT.) Did Mr. McNeese subsequently give you a report on
the subject?
A. Mr. McNeese came back to me somewhere around 4:30 or 5 o'clock and
told me that he still hadn't been able to get hold of the girl, that he had called
the doctor, the girl's doctor, and the doctor had told him that he had not seen
the girl that day and had no idea where the girl was.
I said, "What do you mean?"
.And he said, "Well, she's not at home and she hasn't been to the doctor."
The WITNESS: So I said to him, I can't go on any further. I am leaving here
in a couple of hours. The situation is disintegrating. I have got to do
something.
The WITNESS : So I gave instructions to Mr. McNeese after talking it over
with Mr. -McNeese to replace the girl, that we could no longer resist. We had
to get coats out and we had to take care of our customers, and for him to put
somebody else in that department. The-
* * * * * * *
A. The decision was mine to make. -
Q. Was there any further conversation on the matter between you and Mr.
McNeese?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss the situation of the absent employee with Mr. Harris?
A. No.
Q. Was the employee' s name-You have referred to "she," an employee,
throughout your testimony-was the employee's name mentioned on August 7?
A. The employee's name was never mentioned to me.
Prior to giving his order to replace "the girl" permanently, however, Shutzer
testified that on August 7, "Yes, but there was somebody else in there [replacing
Otts]-me. I took my coat off [and hat off and shirt and rolled up my sleeves
and went to work] and I went to work in there and I replaced four people."
He also found time that day to talk to a number of persons about the coming
election.
But, according to Shutzer; "Well, it seemed obvious to me that even with her
[Otts] replacement the situation still had to be helped. ..
However, when Shutzer stepped upon the plane that evening for his scheduled
return to Massachusetts, he was confident that he had remedied the shipping crisis
'756-236-65-vol. 147-59
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which had existed so long at Durant. In addition to whatever orders he may have
given in regard to "the packer," Shutzer had also ordered that a good part of the
Durant inventory then stored throughout Durant in bulk packages be shipped in those
packages to the Lawrence plant, where a Lawrence shipping crew would pull, pack,
and ship the individual orders to Respondent's customers. Although as Shutzer
testified, this order cost Respondent "a tremendous amount of money," it could not
help but remedy the situation in Durant.
Actually before he finished his testimony Shutzer acknowledged that the real
trouble in the shipping department at Durant had been a lack of space. A subse-
quent increase in the staff of the shipping department from 8 employees with 3 pack-
ers to 10 employees with 4 packers as of the time of the hearing probably helped
the situation also.?
About 5 p.m. on August 7 Otts made an appointment and saw Doctor Jackson
at the hospital. After the examination Dr. Jackson ordered her to rest the follow-
ing day and gave her the following note for Respondent:
8/7/63
Mrs. Bobbie Otts came in to see me because of illness shortly after our tele-
phone consultation. She should be able to return to work Friday 8/9/63.
Sincerely,
CLAUDE A. JACKSON, M.D.
At Otts' request her mother-in-law handed this notice to McNeese the following
morning.
When Otts reported for work on August 9, she was sent by Harris to McNeese
who told her that she was discharged for "absenteeism." 8 Otts left the plant after
being told that absenteeism was the only reason for her discharge.
August 9 proved to be a banner day at Respondent's plant. Throughout that day
at least, Respondent permitted antiunion signs, balloons, and placards to be carried
or otherwise displayed from machines, light fixtures, and other parts of the plant as
well as several groups of three or four employees to walk or march throughout the
plant singing antiunion songs. Almost exclusively these signs, placards, and balloons
were of a "vote no" variety referring to the elections scheduled for August 13.9
Although McNeese and every foreman who testified had noted these antiunion antics,
placards, balloons, and other propaganda in the plant during working hours, no
attempt was made to stop the demonstration which continued throughout the day.
Accordingly, I must find that on August 9 Respondent permitted or acquiesced in
an antiunion demonstration during working hours throughout its Durant plant.lo
In view of the allegations of the complaint the only part of this demonstration
which is of interest here was one placard about 2i/2 feet by 2 feet depicting a colored
girl saying to a white girl, "The President [or `Mr. Kennedy'] and the Union man
says we'uns must work with you white folk [or `you'uns']."
This placard was conspicuously hung in the raincoat department by Respondent's
bundle boy where it remained in full sight of the employees the whole day of
7 The record does not disclose when this increase in personnel occurred.
8 In the August 2, 1963, issue of "Coat Tale," Respondent's plant paper, it was noted,
over the signature of Alvin Shutzer, "last week we had a total of 133 people absent."
0 Although one supervisor purported to see as much prounion propaganda as antiunion,
the remainder of Respondent's witnesses made it clear that there might have been as many
as three "vote yes" balloons, a few wrappers from all day suckers with the words printed
thereon "I'm not a sucker, I'm voting yes," and one employee who wore such a candy
wrapper pinned to her dress.
10 Section 8(c), often referred to as the "free speech provision" of the Act, permitting
an employer to express his "views, argument, or opinion" in the absence of threats or
promises of benefit, does not, and was never intended by Congress to, convert a Board-
conducted representation election into a contest between the employer and the union so
as to permit an employer to allow the holding of antiunion demonstrations in his plant
during working hours. The law still requires that the employer maintain "strict neu-
trality" between the actual contending factions in such an election: Those employees in
favor of union representation and those opposed.
In view of the specific nature of the allegations of violations of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act contained in the complaint, which do not mention the antiunion demonstration of
August 9, I feel prevented by this omission from the complaint from finding the demonstra-
tion of August 9 to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. 915
August 9 at least . The display was seen by McNeese and all the supervisors except
perhaps one."
McNeese testified that sometime in the afternoon of August 9, after having seen
the placard in the morning , he telephoned his attorney for advice as to whether the
placard violated the law or not. Just before closing time that afternoon his attorney
returned the call and, after hearing McNeese 's description of the placard, stated that
he could not give a legal opinion without having actually seen the sign but suggested
that, "to be on the safe side," perhaps all the placards should come down. At the
end of the day's work McNeese testified that he told the bundle boy to remove all
signs the following morning, August 10.
There is conflicting testimony ,as to when the particular placard was removed.
Respondent McNeese thought that all signs were removed on August 10 . The one
nonseeing supervisor mentioned heretofore testified that he removed the signs on
Monday evening, August 12 . The consensus appears to be contrary to the testimony
of McNeese.
Sometime about August 9 employee Mary Armstrong went to Supervisor Marjorie
Cain and told Cain that she was for the Union in order, as Armstrong put it, "to
establish company knowledge ." Cain answered that that was Armstrong 's privilege
and walked off. About 5 minutes later Cain brought George Perry, a time-study
man, with her and asked Armstrong to repeat her statement which Armstrong did.
Perry then stated that "if the Union came in that we would have to work with
Negroes." Cain then added , "Well, maybe you don't care about working with
Negroes but I sure don't want to." 12
. On Monday , August 12 , the day before the scheduled election , employee Doris
O'Bryant, taking fellow employee Criswell with her as a witness , informed Supervisor
Robert Young that she wanted him to know that she was very prounion , that she
was telling him so because she had learned from City Councilman Cook of Pickens,
a neighboring town , that the city council had received a letter claiming that employees
O'Bryant, Ruby Lehner , and Lorraine Smith were for the Union and that she had been
told by Cook that she would be dismissed unless she told Respondent she was against
the Union , and therefore she wanted to establish "company knowledge" that she was
for the Union . 13 Young answered that O 'Bryant was entitled to her opinion but that
while there were some good unions , the Union involved here was associated with the
Communist Party.14 Young further told O 'Bryant _ and Criswell that if the Durant
employees voted in the Union then the unionized employees of the Lawrence plant
would have "seniority" and would get all the good work away from Durant as the
Lawrence Union had tried to do in an arbitration case at the Lawrence, plant.15
.Young ended his conversation with O'Bryant by telling her that she was not to discuss
.the Union in the plant or she would be discharged . When O 'Bryant objected to this
on the ground that the antiunion forces had been permitted to demonstrate the
previous Friday, Young merely repeated his admonition.16
31 The supervisor who purported - not to have seen . this,placard had been. instructed by his
'father prior to his departure from Lawrence for Durant to have nothing to do with the
race problem and " if I saw anything , turn my back and not talk to anybody." Apparently
this supervisor followed instructions literally.
12 Perry was not called as a witness. The only denial of this episode consisted of Super-
visor Cain 's testimony that she "did not hear" the conversation between. Perry and
Armstrong . By implication this may also be considered to constitute a denial of the state-
ment found above. However Cain also testified that she neither saw nor heard the anti-
union demonstration of August 9. Accordingly , I make the finding above.
13 During the previous weekend O 'Bryant had learned that Councilman Cook had such
an accusatory letter. She called upon Councilman Cook who affirmed the existence of such
a letter but refused to allow her to see it. Cook had advised O'Bryant to consult with
Respondent ' s officials regarding her union status.
14 In his testimony Young testified that he had read this in some unidentified book,
probably a biography of Sidney Hillman, where he also testified that he had learned that
President Roosevelt had appointed Hillman to the position of a Member of the National
Labor Relations Board. Young ' s 'reading habits were interesting , if inaccurate.
15 This record indicates that there had been an arbitration regarding the Lawrence and
Durant plants.
10 In substance Young admitted the above conversation with O 'Bryant and Criswell but
denied having ordered O 'Bryant not to talk about the Union . Young, whom Shutzer char-
actermized as being " somewhat flippant ," was the young man who "turned his back" on
the race placard per his instructions from home . I credit the testimony of O'Bryant.
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Conclusions
1. Interference , restraint , and coercion
Any statement or tactic by an employer designed to create fear or apprehension
among its employees of possible retaliatory action against them in the event that they
establish or maintain any relationship or sympathy , overt or covert , with a labor
organization constitutes interference , restraint ,' and coercion and thus violates Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
With one exception , to wit, the poster appealing to race prejudice , Respondent's
violations of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act in the instant case are violations so usual,
routine, and so well recognized by both Board and courts as to require no further
discussion here. Accordingly , I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I) of
the Act by the following:
(1) The threat to employment and the interrogation implied in Foreman Harris'
statement to Ann Otts that she had been seen riding around with union organizers.
(2) The threat , subsequently fulfilled, contained in Foreman Harris' statement to
Otis that while it was her privilege to vote for the Union , she would be sorry.
(3) The threat and interrogation contained in Foreman Reed 's 'statement to Sibyl
Cain that he had all the employees on his side but Cain and wanted to know how she
felt on the subject of the Union.
(4) The interrogation and threat contained in the poll conducted by Foreman
Reed and shown to Cain and Otts.
(5) The threat of plant removal and loss of employment in Foreman Reed's state-
ment that Respondent had already picked out a site in Hattiesburg , Mississippi, to
which it would move if the employees voted for the Union.
(6) The threat of loss of employment and work contained in Foreman Young's
statement that , if the Union were voted in at Durant , then the Lawrence plant would
have "seniority" with the result that all the good work would go to Lawrence as the
Union had already attempted to do in an arbitration proceeding.
(7) The threat of discharge by Foreman Young if employee O'Bryant talked for
the Union in the plant.
That leaves but one unresolved issue among the allegations of interference , restraint,
and coercion . That one is , of course , the question as to whether Respondent 's action
in allowing the sign . or placard depicting a colored girl saying to a white girl, "Mr.
Kennedy and the Union man says that we'uns must work with you white folk," con-
stitutes interference , restraint , and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
Both General Counsel and Respondent give this somewhat novel question very
brief and cavalier treatment in their briefs. The union brief does not even men-
tion it.
The General Counsel 's argument is essentially contained in the following sentence
from his brief:
By displaying and acquiescing in the display of the above -described signs,17 Re-
spondent effectively coerced its employees by threatening "that the employees
would suffer enforced association with persons of supposedly inferior origins
if they accepted the union." 12
, .!2Pgtroleum Carrier Corporation of Tampa , Inc., 126 NLRB 1030, 1038.
In the scant discussion of this issue in its brief Respondent relies on two contentions
as indicated from the following sentences from its brief:
(1) Thus it cannot be said that Respondent instigated , authorized or ratified
the hanging of the poster, and
(2) No illegal threat was contained in the poster, and there is no evidence to
indicate that the poster did not represent . the views of the Amalgamated and/or
the Administration.
Although the evidence does not show that Respondent itself made the poster or
sign at issue here , the evidence does show , contrary to Respondent 's first argument,
that this 21/2-foot by 2-foot poster was hung during the morning working hours on
August 9 to a light fixture in Respondent 's plant by Respondent 's bundle boy where
it was seen by Plant Manager McNeese and all other supervisors ( except perhaps
the one who turned his back ) and that said poster remained thus on display without
objection from Respondent throughout the whole of the working day on August 9,
17 Due to the conflict between Supervisor Reed and employee O'Bryant as to whether
Reed wore such a sign on his back or not , I have in effect found that he wore no such sign.
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. 917
at least . McNeese acknowledged that he did not order the removal of the poster
involved (or any other) until after the close of the workday on August 9.18 It must
also be recalled that on August 9 Respondent also permitted the holding of an anti-
union demonstration in its plant without let or hinderance and that the particular
poster was an integral part of that demonstration.
Accordingly, the evidence requires the finding, here made, that Respondent per-
mitted, allowed, and acquiesced in the display of the poster at issue in its plant during
the whole working day of August 9 , at least , and is, therefore , contrary to Respond-
ent's contention , responsible therefor.
This reduces the matter to its fundamental issue: Does this poster constitute
"interference , restraint and coercion" of Respondent 's employees in their exercise
of their rights "to form, join or assist labor organizations" and thus violate Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
The first proposition which must be recognized is that unless there is such inter-
ference with the employees ' rights to form , join, or assist labor organizations or to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining as guaranteed
by Section 7, an employer may make appeals to race prejudice with impunity so far
as this Act is concerned.
The second proposition , which is suggested in Respondent 's brief, which also must
be recognized , is that an employer has the right to inform his . employees that the
Union, which is attempting to organize them , favors or pursues a policy for or
against integration , as the case may be, so long as that notification is made truth-
fully, factually, and without undue appeal to race prejudice.19
To get to the poster at issue here, this poster clearly and unmistakably notified
Respondent 's employees that the Union not only followed a prointegration policy
but also advocated the employment of colored personnel to work alongside white
employees.
It can hardly be said that the method of notification used was purely factual. As
to the,truthfulness of the notification , the record contains no evidence one way or
the other as to the Union's policy on integration . Respondent 's brief states:
the Amalgamated . and/or the administration. "
However in the Sewell case, the Board said on this point:.
However, the burden will be on the party making use of a racial message to
establish that it was truthful and germane, and where there is doubt as to
whether the total conduct of such party is within the prescribed bounds, the
doubt will be resolved against him.
Despite this failure of proof by Respondent, I will assume the truth of the claim
that the Union was prointegration for the purposes of the further discussion of this
poster.
This poster goes beyond mere notification that the Union favored integration and
the employment of Negroes . Otherwise why is reference made to President Kennedy?
What did he have to do with the union representation election to which the poster
obviously referred ? Could it be that he was mentioned in order to recall to the
employees recent events relating to integration in which he was- involved at Oxford,
Mississippi , located only 100 miles more or less , according to the map, from Durant?
Obviously , therefore , this poster was propaganda and was not restricted to a mere
factual statement of alleged union policy.
As propaganda Respondent is to be held accountable for whatever message the
theoretical "reasonable employee" may reasonably receive therefrom.
Such a theoretical reasonable employee would reasonably understand this poster
to mean that , in the event the employees voted this union to be their bargaining
representative at the forthcoming election , the Union in line with its aforementioned
18 In view of the length of time ' this poster was admittedly on display in Respondent's
plant , I find it unnecessary to resolve the conflicting testimony as to whether the sign was
removed on August 10 or 12.
19 Sewell Manufacturing Company, 138 NLRB 66 , where the Board said in part:
So long , therefore , as a party limits itself to truthfully setting forth another party's
position on matters of racial interest and does not deliberately seek to overstress or
exacerbate racial feelings by irrelevant , inflammatory appeals , we shall not set aside
an election on this ground.
There is no evidence to indicate that the poster did not represent the views of
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
policy would request or require (with the assistance of the administration as at
Oxford, if necessary) Respondent to agree to abandon its previous policy of hiring
whites only 20 and to commence hiring colored personnel even in skilled positions.
This same theoretical employee would further reasonably interpret this poster
to mean that Respondent would either voluntarily submit to this anticipated union
demand or would be forced to submit to such demand under administration pressure
with the result that:
. (1) Respondent would employ colored personnel to replace the present white
employees in retaliation for their having voted in favor of the Union; or
(2) Respondent would be forced ultimately to employ colored personnel in skilled
positions who would be working alongside the present white employees thereby
making the former all white working conditions supposedly more onerous or un-
desirable.
Thus this propaganda poster threatened Respondent 's white employees either with
loss of their job tenure 21 or that their former working conditions at Respondent's
plant would be made more onerous or less pleasant 22 Consequently, I must find
that the display of this poster by Respondent constituted a violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
2. Discharge of Ann Otts
The record here indicates that Respondent was rather vehemently opposed to the
idea that its employees should be represented by a labor organization . For a con-
siderable period of time prior to the scheduled election of August 13, Respondent
sent a number of letters and other propaganda to its employees opposing the idea
of union representation . Some of these letters to the employees rather openly
threatened the loss of employment in the event that the Union won the representation
election scheduled 23
Employee Ann Otts actually was not very active on behalf of the Union, as her
activities seemed to have been restricted to having signed a union card back in
April, receiving visits at home , and taking rides in automobiles on various occasions
with union organizers.24 Yet, even before August 6 , when Otts publicly announced
her 100 percent adherence to the Union to Foreman Harris, Supervisors Harris
and Reed both proved that they knew or suspected that Otts was prounion and
perhaps active on its behalf: Harris warned Otts on July 30 that she had been seen
driving in an automobile a week or so prior with union organizers and Reed took
occasion to let Otts know that Respondent was already looking over a site in
Hattiesburg to which to move in the event that the Union won the election.
The knowledge and suspicions of these foremen regarding Otts and her union
sympathies and activities is attributable to Respondent for even corporations do not
work in departmental vacuums even though Respondent here would have us believe so.
On August 7 Otts missed work because of illness. She so advised Respondent
by the usual word of mouth notification by a car pool member to her supervisor,
Harris. At the hearing Harris admitted having received this notification a few
minutes prior to the workday, but complained that he needed several hours'. notice
instead of minutes. Unfortunately , illness itself on occasion gives no such advance
warning.
On her doctor's advice Otts remained away from work on August 8, although by
this same car pool method of communication, she sent Dr. Jackson's note to that
effect to Plant Manager McNeese, who proved his lack of interest therein by not even
reading it for some hours after its receipt, if his testimony is to be believed.
When Otts• reported as per Dr. Jackson's note on August 9 to go to work,
she was discharged by McNeese allegedly for "absenteeism," this excuse being used
in spite'of the fact that during the previous week there had been 133 absences
among Respondent's 250 employees without 1 discharge for absenteeism.
If Otts were in fact discharged for absenteeism it must be obvious from the absen-
tee record of the previous week without one discharge that Rsepondent applied
its absentee policy in a disparate fashion as far as Otts was concerned.
20 The record shows that up to the time of the hearing Respondent had only hired
one colored person and that one only in a menial capacity.
21 Boyce Machinery Corporation, 141 NLRB 756.
22 Petroleum Carrier Corporation of Tampa, Inc., 126 NLRB 1031, 1038.
23 However, the complaint contains no allegations claiming these to constitute violations
of the Act, and, therefore, no such finding is here made.
24 The fact that Otts had been asked to be the union observer at the election had not
been brought to Respondent's notice so far as this record shows.
DURANT SPORTSWEAR, INC. 919
Respondent attempted to explain this disparate -treatment through the testimony
of its management consultant and assistant general manager, Larry Shutzer, whose ar-
rival on August 6, on one of his infrequent trips to Durant , was caused by a long-
standing lag in the shipping department 25
Originally , the testimony of Larry Shutzer created the impression , intentionally or
not, that the shipping crisis at Durant was caused by the absence of this one unnamed
packer and that he solved the trouble by substituting for the packer himself on Au-
gust 7 doing the work of "four men" that day and by ordering the permanent replace-
ment of the absent packer thereafter . It developed subsequently in his testimony
that the troubles in the shipping department were more deep seated and were caused
by a shortage of space, both for warehousing goods and for the shipping department
which Shutzer was able to solve only at "tremendous cost" by shipping the ware-
housed finished garments to Lawrence , Massachusetts , where a Lawrence shipping
crew filled and shipped the goods to the individual customers.
Thus even Shutzer's testimony finally proved that this allegedly unnamed packer,
who, of course, was Otts, had little , if anything , to do with the shipping problem
which had brought Shutzer to Durant . Her involvement therein was purely coin-
cidental : she just happened to be absent the day Shutzer solved the problem.
Accordingly , I can , and do, find that Otts was not discharged as part of the solu-
tion of the shipping problem.
The record is also quite clear that Otts was not discharged because of absenteeism
either. If absenteeism were the cause of the discharge, then Otts ' case was clearly
distinguishable from any of the other absentee cases which Respondent introduced in
evidence to prove that it actually did discharge employees for that cause. Otts'
record showed that she was absent from work eight times during her employment
from February 5 to August 7. At least three of these had been absences for one-
half days, all occurring prior to the so-called critical shipping period. In fact her
only absence during that period had been on July 22. The examples of absentee
discharges produced by Respondent were all cases where the employee had been
absent for such an extended period of time as to indicate that the employee had quit.
Otis is the only case where the employee was ordered discharged on her first day of
absence.
Actually the record indicated that absenteeism was a most unusual cause of dis-
charge at Durant as indicated by the examples mentioned above and by theFrecord
of 133 persons having been absent the week prior to Otts' discharge without one
single discharge.
As a matter of record Shutzer himself did not consult Otts ' work record prior to
ordering "the_ packer" permanently replaced. He could not have and still have
continued to maintain the alleged anonymity of the individual whose discharge he
ordered . In fact the record makes it highly doubtful if anyone looked at Otts' work
record much before the hearing herein.
Despite the testimony of Shutzer and McNeese to the contrary , testimony which
was hardly subject to possible refutation , the record as a whole casts grave doubts that
Shutzer had anything to do with the discharge of Otts other than to provide a con-
venient pretext for it.
Accordingly , I must find that Respondent in fact discharged Ann Otts on August 9,
1963, because of her known or suspected union membership , activities, and sympathy
and that Respondent 's excuse of absenteeism as a cause of Otts' discharge is a mere
pretext . I further find that Respondent 's discharge of Otts was in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. _
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations with the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
25 Shutzer ' s brother , Alvin, Respondent ' s general manager, had recognized the existence
of this problem at least as early as July 23.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It having been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Ann Otts by discharging her on August 9, 1963, I will recom-
mend that Respondent reinstate her to her former or substantially equivalent em-
ployment, and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal
to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
against her to the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period,
in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, in accordance with Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The Union has filed a brief herein dealing almost exclusively with a request that
a more "onerous" order be issued against Respondent here because of the prior un-
fair labor practice complaints issued against this Respondent in Cases Nos. 26-CA-
1164 and 26-CA-1454 of which I was asked to take administrative notice. I do
not feel that the facts of this case warrant more than the broad cease-:and-desist order
usual in such cases.
Because of the type of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, I
sense an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, and hence I
deem it necessary to order that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
3. By discharging Ann Otts on August 9, 1963, thereby discriminating in regard
to her hire and tenure of employment and discouraging union and concerted activities
among its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By permitting the display of an antiunion poster threatening the economic wel-
fare and working conditions of its employees and by otherwise interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. and United Automobile, Air-
craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
CIO), Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-553 and 21-HC-599. June
29, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 10, 1944, the Petitioner was certified as the repre-
sentative of a unit of hourly paid production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Long Beach, California, plant (Case No.
21-R-2025).' On October 18, 1948, following a consent election con-
ducted by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in a
voting unit confined to employees classified as general and special
tool investigators and designers "A," such employees were added to
the certified production and maintenance unit (Case No. 21-RC-553).
1 54 NLRB 67.
147 NLRB No. 91.