Edinburg Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 121 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

EDINBURG MFG. CO.
Edinburg Manufacturing Company and
Upper South Department , International
Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO.
Case 5-CA-3476.
April 26, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On December 6, 1966, Trial Examiner Alvin
Lieberman 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. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommended that
those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision together with a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Edinburg
Manufacturing Company, Petersburg, West
Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALVIN LIEBERMAN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
with all parties represented, was heat d by me in
The complaint was issued on charges filed by Upper South
Department, International Ladies Garment Workers Union,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union). During the trial the complaint
was amended in several respects Paragraphs VI(c) and VI(d)
were amended by substituting the name "Leota Alt " Paragraph
VI(h) was amended by inserting the words "and/or supervisor"
between the words "agent" and "of " Finally, paragraph VII was
amended by inserting the words "and/or lay off" between the
words "terminate" and "the."
2 The General Counsel has moved to correct the stenographic
121
Petersburg, West Virginia, on September 8 and 9, 1966,
upon a complaint' of the General Counsel and
Respondent's answer. The issues litigated were whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act).
More particularly, the questions for decision are as
follows:
1. Did Respondent threaten and coercively interrogate
employees and thereby engage in independent violations
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?
2. Did Respondent create the impression that the
activities of its employees in support of the Union were
under surveillance and in that manner further
independently violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?
3. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by laying off Ersley Whetzel, one of its employees?
4. Are two individuals in Respondent's employ, Nora
Park, referred to in the complaint as Nora Parks, and
Ronald Berg, supervisors within the meaning of the Act?
5. If Berg is not a supervisor is he an agent of
Respondent?
Upon the entire record,2 upon my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and upon
careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT';
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent, a Virginia corporation having a place of
business in Petersburg, West Virginia, is engaged there
and elsewhere4 in the manufacture and sale of ladies' and
children's clothing. From about July 1965 through
June 27, 1966,' a representative period, Respondent sold
and shipped directly to customers located outside the
State of West Virginia goods valued in excess of $50,000.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the
assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the National
Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) is
warranted Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Briefly, this case concerns itself with the Union's efforts
to organize Respondent's employees, which began early in
1966, and Respondent's reaction to this. During February,
March, and April, the Union held several meetings at the
home of Ersley Whetzel, employed by Respondent as a
seam closer, and at a firehouse in Moorefield, West
Virginia, a nearby town. Also during this period the Union
transcript of this proceeding, by substituting the name "Herman"
for "Thurman," on various lines and pages.
3 The motion to dismiss the complaint made by Respondent at
the close of the trial is disposed of in accordance with the findings
and conclusions set forth in this Decision
" Respondent also has places of business in Edinburg, Virginia,
and in Wardensville, West Virginia The facts in this case,
however, relate only to Respondent's Petersburg plant
5 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates mentioned in this
Decision fall within 1966
164 NLRB No. 18
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
distributed authorization cards among Respondent's
employees.
The Union's organizational campaign soon came to
Respondent's attention and in April Respondent took
countermeasures. These, the General Counsel contends,
included threatening and interrogating employees, and
creating the impression that their activities in support of
the Union were under surveillance, all in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and, in contravention of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, laying off Whetzel. Respondent, for its
part, asserts that the sole reason for Whetzel's layoff was
that there was no work available which she could
efficiently perform and denies generally having violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In the latter connection,
Respondent further contends that any statements made by
its supervisors or agents which may be determined to have
been coercive or threatening were quantitatively
insufficient to furnish a basis for concluding that they
constituted violations of the Act and that, in any event, no
employee was actually intimidated.
It is also the General Counsel's position that Nora Park
is a supervisor and that Ronald Berg is either a supervisor
or an agent of Respondent and, accordingly, Respondent is
responsible for their conduct. Respondent, on the other
hand, urges that neither Park nor Berg has authority to
perform any function set forth in Section 2(11) of the Act
and that, therefore, both are mere rank-and-file
employees, the former an office clerk and the latter a
mechanic. Insofar as Berg's agency is concerned,
Respondent argues that he is not so closely identified with
Respondent's management as to constitute him an agent
of Respondent.
B. Facts Concerning the Status of Nora Park and Ronald
Berg
The complaint alleges that Respondent independently
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by, inter alta , conduct
engaged in by Nora Park and Ronald Berg. In order to
ascertain whether Respondent is responsible for their
actions a determination must be made as to their status.
Nora Park. Park is employed in Respondent's office. In
addition to other duties, which include serving as the
secretary to Jack Parker, Respondent's plant manager,
she performs certain functions in connection with the
hiring of employees for Respondent. Thus, she accepts
employment applications and interviews the applicants
during which she forms an opinion as to their suitability'
and makes appropriate comments to this effect on the
applications. Parker testified, in this connection, that he
"[relies] on her to do this because when [he] first came
[to Petersburg he] was a total stranger" and "felt that she
was more qualified to interview [applicants]. "it
When it becomes necessary for Respondent to hire
employees, Park is informed of the number of employee$
needed and the type of work they will be required to do.
Park then reviews the employment applications on file in
her office. Based upon the qualifications of the applicants
and her comments appearing on the forms, she chooses an
applicant "that [she thinks] would be suitable for the
operation," and recommends to Parker, Respondent's
plant manager, that the applicant be hired.
Based upon this recommendation, which, as Park
testified, Parker "has never gone against," Parker actually
hires the person whose application Park has selected. On
occasion, Park, herself, without any consultation with
Parker, has hired employees. In this regard, Parker
testified that he gives Park "certain leeway if she knows
the girl, if she has been a former employee and has been
satisfactory or if she is an exceptional person."7
Park, in addition, maintains the time and attendance
records of Respondent's employees. When these show
that an employee has been late more than once in any
particular week Park is required to ascertain from the
employee the reason for the tardiness and report that
reason to Parker."
Ronald Berg: Berg has been employed by Respondent
as a mechanic since 1962. He is responsible for repairing
and maintaining Respondent's sewing machines, and is
assisted in this by another employee. Like most of the
other persons employed by Respondent he is paid on an
hourly basis."
From time to time Respondent's supervisors meet with
Parker. Berg is present at these meetings, but only when
the subject under discussion is the quality of the products
manufactured by Respondent. As Parker credibly, and
without contradiction, testified in this connection, Berg is
called upon to attend these meetings because "the
mechanic indirectly is responsible for the quality of [the]
machine and how the machine works ... and [Berg is
often called] in on these meetings . to make him
understand the importance of keeping the machines going
properly."
In addition to Parker and Berg there are three other
men in Respondent's employ. They perform janitorial,
maintenance , and shipping duties.
Early in 1966, because of a scarcity of work in
Respondent' s plant , these men, not having much to do,
would gather in the vicinity of the production lines and talk
to the machine operators. To eliminate this condition,
Parker, in their presence, told Berg, as Berg put it, "to see
that the men ... keep busy at all times." 10
Since then, whenever Berg saw the other men idling he
would find something for them to do." It does not appear,
however, that Berg has any authority to enforce his orders
in this area. Beyond referring a refusal to comply to
Parker, he, himself, seems to be powerless to compel
compliance. In the single instance reported in the record
in which this occurred Berg made no suggestions to
Parker as to disciplinary action and Parker asked for none.
On one occasion when it became necessary for
Respondent to hire a shipping clerk Parker asked Berg if
he knew anyone qualified to do that kind of work. Berg
presented Parker with a list consisting of the names of
6 Parker has resided in Petersburg since 1962, whereas Park
has been there 19 years and acknowledged that she " [ knows] a
lot of people who live in [the] area "
' These findings are based on a synthesis of the testimony given
by Park and Parker
8 The findings concerning Park's duties in this respect are
based on her testimony
9 Parker, Respondent's plant manager, and Park are the only
persons in Respondent 's employ who are salaried
10 Parker ' s version of his instructions to the employees in
question was , in essence , that they were to help Berg, who had too
much work to do at the time, when he asked them for assistance
Because, in the circumstances, Berg 's account appears to be the
more plausible one, I accept it as true rather than Parker's
11 Insofar as it may be material , I find that despite his exercise
of this function Berg has no privileges which the other men in the
plant do not also enjoy
EDINBURG MFG CO.
three individuals, on behalf of all of whom Berg "gave
reference." One of the men named on this list was
subsequently employed by Respondent. 12
C. Contentions and Concluding Findings as to the Status
of Nora Park and Ronald Berg
The General Counsel contends that Park is a supervisor
because of her responsibilities in the hiring of employees.
Asserting that Berg responsibly directs the work of other
persons, the General Counsel argues that he is either a
supervisor or so closely allied with Respondent's
management as to be considered its agent. In opposition,
Respondent urges that Park is merely a clerk who
performs all her duties including those relating to hiring
under instructions from Parker. Insofar as Berg is
concerned, Respondent claims that his authority to direct
the work of others is insufficient to bring him within
the Act's definition of supervisor and that there is no
agency relationship between Berg and Respondent.
Regarding Park, it is clear from the evidence that she
plays a very large part in hiring employees. She interviews
applicants for employment, notes her opinion as to their
suitability on their application forms, makes
recommendations to Parker as to whether they should be
hired, which he "has never gone against," has "leeway" to
hire employees, and, exercising independent judgment,
has done so without consulting Parker.
It is well settled that "the possession of any one of the
authorities listed in Section 2(11) [of the Act] places the
employee invested with this authority in the supervisory
class." Ohio Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 176 F.2d 385, 387
(C.A 6). As Park effectively recommends the hiring of,
and in the exercise of independent judgment herself hires,
employees, both of which "authorities [are] listed in
Section 2(11)" of the Act, I conclude that Park is a
supervisor."
The record requires a different conclusion as to Berg .\
There are three possible bases upon which he can be held
to be a supervisor. 14 These are (1) his function of keeping
other employees "busy"; (2) his having given Parker on
one occasion, at Parker's request, a list consisting of the
names of three persons, one of whom was subsequently
hired, thought by Berg to be qualified to perform the
duties of shipping clerk, to each of whom Berg gave a
"reference": and (3) Berg's attendance at supervisory
meetings.
Insofar as the first is concerned it does not appear from
the record that Berg's duties require him to do any more
than routinely assign work to other employees.
Furthermore, it does not appear that he has authority to
discipline the employees whose idleness he was directed
to check, or effectively recommend that they be
12 The findings with respect to Berg's status are based on a
synthesis of the testimony given by Berg and Parker,
Respondent's plant manager, which except as noted in fn 10, was
mutually corroborative
11 Even absent the independent hiring authority with which
Park is invested, the fact that she makes recommendations which
Parker, Respondent's plant manager, "has never gone against"
would he sufficient to qualify her as a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act See, in this connection, Canal Street Hotel
Corporation, 127 NLRB 880,883-884.
14 The same considerations which compel my conclusion that
Berg is not a supervisor are applicable to the General Counsel's
agency contentions
15 In view of this conclusion, I will recommend the dismissal of
paragraph VI(h) and the relating portion of paragraph VIII of the
123
disciplined . Accordingly, I cannot , on this score , conclude
that Berg is a supervisor . Proctor-Silex Corp ., 131 NLRB
57, 58.
With respect to the list of names requested by Parker of
Berg, and Berg ' s "reference ," this seems to me to be
nothing more than any plant manager might request from
any employee or other person in whom he had confidence.
It does not, in my opinion , bring that person within the
statutory definition of supervisor even if, as in this case,
one of the individuals so recommended was subsequently
hired . Cf. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and
Enginemen , 145 NLRB 1521, 1534; Oregon Teamsters'
Security Plan Office, 119 NLRB 207 , 209-211 ; Manson
News Agency, Inc., 93 NLRB 1123,1125-26.
Finally, Berg's attendance at some meetings also
attended by supervisors does not, I feel , endow him with
supervisory status, for his presence there was not to
participate in discussions or decisions relating to
supervision. The limited purpose of Berg's presence at
such meetings was, as stated by Parker , Respondent's
plant manager , to impress him with the importance of
keeping the machines in proper repair so that the quality
of the products produced on the machines would not
suffer. This is not a function falling within the ambit of
Section 2(11) of the Act.
Accordingly , I conclude that Berg is not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act , nor is he so closely allied to
Respondent ' s management as to be considered as its
agent. t 5
D. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Independent
Violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Parker's speech: The complaint alleges that during a 4-
day period in April,is Respondent independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating and threatening
employees and by creating the impression that their
activities on behalf of the Union were under surveillance
by Respondent. Included among Respondent's assertedly
violative acts is a speech made on April 15 to
Respondent's assembled employees by Parker, its plant
manager. Aside from the question of whether the speech,
itself, contained statements which independently
contravened Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, its general tenor,
insofar as the Union is concerned, casts much light on, and
must be taken into account in evaluating, Respondent's
other conduct of which complaint is made.
In pertinent part, during the course of his speech,i7
which Parker testified was made to allay the "unrest"
which he sensed was present among Respondent's
employees because they had been on "short time" since
the previous Christmas, Parker stated, as he further
complaint which alleges Respondent's violation of Section 8(aXl)
of the Act by reason of Berg's interrogation of Respondent's
employees
16 As set forth in the complaint this period encompassed
April 14 through April 17. April 17, however, fell on a Sunday and
there is no evidence as to the occurrence of any event on that day.
Accordingly, I believe that the reference in the complaint to
April 17 was inadvertent, and that April 16 was intended In any
event, I shall so construe the complaint
17 In addition to Parker, Leota Alt, one of Respondent's
supervisors, and Mary Vance, Ersley Whetzel, and Linda
Sherman, all employees, testified as to the substance of Parker's
speech To the extent possible I have synthesized their testimony
The source of quoted portions will be identified by an appropriate
reference in the text or in a footnote
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified, that he "hoped" and "felt" that Respondent
"would ... have a good [ spring] season" with "plenty of
work for everyone" and exhorted the employees to
maintain their production and quality levels. He then
talked about what he termed the "union problem."18 In
this regard he said that he had "specialized information"
that Ersley Whetzel , 19 and other employees , including
Linda Burke, had been attending meetings at Whetzel's
home and at the Moorefield fire hall with Harry Reisling
and Mary Shoup ; 20 that the employees ' attendance at
these meetings was their business , but that if Whetzel and
Burke were "as interested in the [ quality and quantity] of
[their] work as [they were ] in having meetings at
[Whetzel's] house with Harry and Mary, then [he was]
sure [they] could do much better."21
Concerning benefits which the employees might obtain
through the Union, Parker stated, as he testified, that the
Union "could" make "fantastic promises of $3 or $4 an
hour," but that no employer in the industry "paid ... that
type of wages." Alluding to a wage increase which had
been given to the employees of a local tannery after their
organization by a union , Parker said that they had received
"a five cent raise ... but what did it amount to."22
While still on the subject of the "union problem,"
Parker, in his words, asked the employees "to feel free to
bring" their "problems" to him and if they were
"reluctant" to do so personally to avail themselves of the
services of a committee elected by an employee club.
Parker concluded his remarks on this score by telling the
assembled employees that because of "these problems"
Respondent sometimes lost "good operators ," citing, as an
example, the case of Geraldine Thorn, a former employee,
who, as Parker put it, had quit "because of pressure from
home that we had to have a union in order for her to
work."23
Respondent 's interrogation , Threats, and Other Conduct
Parker , Respondent 's plant manager , not only discussed
the Union publicly, as set forth above, but also did so
privately with two employees, Mary Vance and Viola
Schrieve.
1" This characterization is Parker's.
is Whetzel's layoff later that day is alleged by the General
Counsel as having been violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
20 Neither Reisling nor Shoup was called as a witness by any
party to this proceeding As to their identity, however, Park, who
is Parker 's secretary and who , I have concluded , is a supervisor,
testified that Reisling "is supposed to be involved with the
Butcher Union"; Whetzel testified that Reisling was instrumental
in organizing a tannery located in Petersburg , and Parker, that
"anybody in Petersburg usually thinks when you mention a union
of Mary Shoup or Harry Reisling "
21 The quoted material appearing in the text at this point,
except for the expression " specialized information ," is taken from
Parker's testimony Mary Vance, an employee who heard the
speech , attributed the use of that term to Parker Her testimony in
this regard was not contradicted by Parker and was corroborated
by Whetzel , who testified, similarly, that Parker said he had
"specified information " about the meetings
22 This finding is based on Vance's credited and undenied
testimony
i1 Parker testified that the basis for his statement as to Thorn
was a rumor which he had heard
21 Vance admitted that at the time her production had, in fact,
been lower than usual.
25 These findings are based on Vance 's undemed testimony
On April 14, the day before his speech, Vance was
asked to go to Parker's office. There, Parker asked Vance
whether union cards were the cause of her low
production24 and whether she knew "anything about the
meetings at Moorefield with Harry [Reisling] and Mary
[Shoup]."
Although Vance had, in fact, attended the union
meetings at the Moorefield fire hall, had signed a union
authorization card, and had distributed such cards to other
employees , she denied having done so, and suggested to
Parker that she was being charged with such conduct
because her husband worked in a "union shop." Parker
replied that he had "nothing against unions" and had
"mighty good union friends."25
On the next day, several hours before he made his
speech, Parker, Respondent's plant manager, spoke to
Schrieve.26 As soon as Schrieve entered Parker's office,
he asked her whether she "wasn't afraid she would get
[herself] in trouble." When Schrieve told Parker that she
did not understand him, Parker , in essence , suggested that
she was lying and asked her whether she was "guilty."27
Beginning to suspect that Parker ' s questions resulted
from his belief that she was involved with the Union,
Schrieve told him that she was not interested in it; that she
had been asked by Whetzel to sign an authorization card,
but had refused to do so; and that she had not attended the
union meetings.
During Schrieve's denial of any relationship with the
Union, Parker, without stating that he did not have the
Union in mind when he asked her about getting into
"trouble," again suggested that Schrieve was lying, and
told her that he "knew about [Ersley Whetzel's] little
meetings ." Althougn not too clear as to sequence, at one
point during their conversation Parker said to Schrieve
that if a sufficient number of employees wanted a union
they could have it."28
Park, who I have concluded is a supervisor , and Leota
Alt, an admitted supervisor, also spoke to employees about
the Union. Insofar as Park is concerned, about the time of
Parker's speech she had a conversation with Darlene
Turner, a machine operator in Respondent's employ.29
Park asked Turner whether she signed a union card and
Admitting that he discussed the Union with Vance, as she
testified, Parker stated that lie asked Vance and other employees
about their relationship to the Union in order to determine the
extent of "this general problem "
26 Like Vance, Schrieve also heard Parker's speech
27 This question was prompted by Schrieve's offer to tell
Parker whether she was "guilty" if Parker clarified his reference
to "trouble "
2s These findings are based on Schrieve 's credible testimony.
Although Parker admitted knowing that Whetzel favored the
Union , he denied that lie mentioned her name during his
conversation with Schneve He did not deny any other part of
Schrieve's testimony concerning her interview with him , stating
merely in this connection, that his recollection of it was
"muddled ." In view of this, and of Schrieve 's demeanor on the
witness stand I credit her testimony in its entirety
29 Although my findings as to the conversation between Turner
and Park are based on Turner 's testimony , Turner was unable to
fix the time of this conversation with certainty She stated,
however, that it occurred shortly before a layoff in the springtime
Inasmuch as many of Respondent 's employees had been laid off
during the week of April 18, and the entire factory was closed on
April 22, 1 find that the conversation between Park and Turner
took place on April 14 or 15
EDINBURC MFG. CO. 125
whether she "knew what the union was." Upon receiving a
negative reply to both questions Park told Turner that
"we had one of the nicest plants and ... a nice cafeteria
[and] the plant is one of the nicest ... around here for
someone to work in.1"30
At the time of her conversation with Park, Turner had
been steadily employed by Respondent since February. In
addition to this period of employment, Turner had
previously worked for Respondent from October 1, 1964,
until July 1,1965.
At about the time of her conversation with Turner,
Park also spoke to, Thurman Smith, who was then
employed by Respondent as a shipping clerk. On April 14,
as Smith was returning from lunch, he called on Park for,
as he stated , "a social visit ." During their ensuing
conversation Park told Smith, who had attended one of the
union meetings , that "Fooling around with the union could
get ... an employee in trouble."
The foregoing is Smith's version of his conversation with
Park. Park's account is somewhat different. She testified
that on the day in question she took advantage of her after
lunch "chat" with Smith to ask him, as she was required to
do, why he had been late for work; that Smith told her that
Harry Reisling stopped him on his way to work every
morning and talked to him; and that she thereupon told
Smith that "he might get ... involved in trouble by not
reporting to work on time."
In view of Reisling's reputation, as Parker,
Respondent's plant manager , testified , of being, in
essence, "Mr. Union" in Petersburg,31 I find that,
analytically, there is no substantial distinction between the
two versions. Whichever one is accepted, their import is
the same. Both refer to "trouble" and both have reference
to a union as the source of the "trouble," one expressly,
and the other with reference to a name, which, in the
community, is virtually a synonym for union.
The last conversation between one of Respondent's
supervisors and an employee concerns Leota Alt and
Linda Sherman, who, at the time, was employed by
Respondent as a sewing machine operator. On April 16,
the day after the speech made by Parker, Respondent's
plant manager, which was heard by Sherman, Alt, who
Respondent admits is a supervisor, told Sherman that
although Parker, in the course of his speech, had stated
that Linda Burke had attended a union meeting in
Moorefield, he had intended to say that she, "Linda Crist"
(Sherman 's maiden name ), had attended the meeting. The
fact is, as Sherman credibly testified, that Burke had not
attended any union meeting, whereas Sherman had.
During the same conversation Alt asked Sherman if she
had signed a union card and whether Whetzel or Vance,
both of whom were employed by Respondent, had given
such cards to her. Upon Sherman's refusal to answer
either question Alt, with respect to the latter, stated that
"It must have been Mary Vance, because we kept a close
tab on her."32
Berg, who I have concluded is a rank-and-file employee,
spoke to about 10 other employees about the Union and
three times reported to Parker, Respondent's plant
manager, his opinion that certain employees favored the
Union. I find, however, that Parker neither asked Berg to
inquire among the employees as to their attitudes toward
the Union, nor did he request Berg to make reports to him
concerning this matter. I likewise find that Parker did not
direct Berg to discontinue his activity in this regard, telling
Berg, on those occasions when Berg brought information
to him only, that he was already aware of what Berg had
reported.
E. Contentions and Concluding Findings as to
Respondent's Alleged Independent Violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act
As noted above, the General Counsel contends that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its
interrogation of, and threats to, employees and by creating
the impression that their activities in support of the Union
were under surveillance. Respondent, in support of its
denial that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, argues that
no threats were made; that whatever interrogation is
disclosed by the record was not coercive; and that the
evidence is insufficient to support the General Counsel's
contention with respect to surveillance. Respondent
argues further that if it be concluded that Respondent is
chargeable with violative threats or interrogation their
incidence was too isolated to warrant consideration by the
Board and that, in any event, no employee was
intimidated.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is violated by an employer who
engages in conduct which, in the language of the statute,
operates "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7."
Interrogation of employees as to their activities in support
of a union, contravenes Section 8(a)(1) of the Act only
when it is coercive. Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB
591. On the other hand, threats of reprisal for supporting a
union are, in and of themselves, coercive and hence
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Hendrix
Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100,
105 (C.A. 5). The same section of the Act is also violated
by an employer who creates an impression among his
employees that their activities on behalf of a labor
organization are under surveillance because such conduct
tends "to restrain and interfere with the ... exercise of
their rights guaranteed under the Act." Mitchell Plastics,
Incorporated, 159 NLRB 1574.
Taking the last item first, I find that Respondent plainly
fostered the impression among its employees that their
attendance at union meetings and their signing and
distribution of union cards were being closely watched by
Respondent. This was made clear by the announcement
made by Parker, Respondent's plant manager, during his
speech to the employees that he had "specialized
information" concerning their union meetings; by Parker's
expression of incredulity when Schrieve, an employee,
denied having had anything to do with the Union and his
10 Park testified that she renumbered her conversation Willi
Turner but did not recall talking to her about the Union Park
admitted, however, that she might have done so
ii Park testified that she (lid not know of Reisling' s reputation
at the time of her conversation with Smith In view of Parker's
testimony and the fact that Park has lived in Petersburg for 19
years and acknowledged knowing "a lot of people who lived in
[the] area," I do not believe her testimony in this regard
it All denied asking Sheunan about union cards With respect
to [hie Crist-Buike matter Alt, in effect, put the shoe on the other
foot saying that it was Sheinian who asked her why Parker had
meant Crist when he said Burke and that all she said in response
was "Is that so " Because of their demeanui while testifying and
because Sherman can be classed as a disinterested witness,
having, under apparently amicable circumstances , resigned from
Respondent 's employ in August, I credit her rather than All
126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statement to her that he "knew about [ Ersley Whetzel's]
little meetings "; by Parker 's response to Berg that he
already had the information which Berg was bringing him
concerning the attitudes toward the Union of the
employees whom Berg had questioned ;33 by Alt's
statement to Sherman , an employee , that Parker , during
his speech had intended to say that she rather than Burke,
another employee , had attended a union meeting; and by
Alt's admission to Sherman that "a close tab" was being
kept on Mary Vance, an employee, suspected by
Respondent of distributing union cards.
Insofar as interrogation is concerned, I have no
hesitancy in finding , on the record in this case, that
Respondent queried employees concerning the Union and
their relationship to it . Briefly, the evidence , in this
connection , shows, and I have found , that Parker
questioned Vance and Schrieve , Park questioned Turner,
and Alt questioned Sherman . 34 The issue is whether the
interrogation of these employees was violative of the Act
because it was coercive , as the General Counsel contends,
or, as urged by Respondent , untainted , in that regard and,
hence, not an unfair labor practice.
As I stated above (sec. D , ¶2) Respondent 's conduct
must be evaluated in the light of Parker 's speech. By
referring , during his talk , to the "union problem," by
telling employees that it would be "better" if they were as
interested in their work as they were in attending union
meetings, by asking them to bypass the Union in
connection with their "problems ," by suggesting that the
Union would be unable to fulfill its promises, and by
implying that the Union was the cause of employees'
quitting their jobs , Parker's hostility to the Union became
manifest . When viewed in juxtaposition with Parker's
speech demonstrating his animosity to the Union, which
immediately preceded or followed the interrogations, their
coercive nature becomes apparent . Lindsay Newspapers,
Inc., 130 NLRB 680 , modified on other grounds 315 F.2d
709 (C. A. 5).
I also find that the questioning of the employees
concerned violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act even when
considered without reference to Parker 's speech. Thus,
Parker's interrogation of Vance as to her knowledge of
union meetings included a question as to whether her low
production was caused by union cards. In the context of
the entire conversation between Parker and Vance,
Parker's tying a question as to production deficiencies
with union activity, together with the suggestion , implicit
in such a question , that the former was the result of the
latter, restrained Vance in the exercise of her right to
support the Union as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Insofar as Schrieve is concerned, Parker, Respondent's
plant manager, seems to have adopted a different tack.
Letting her believe that he thought she favored the Union
and that his questions concerned her involvement with the
.it Having concluded that Berg was not a supeivisoi of
Respondent's agent. I further conclude that Respondent is not
liable fox his conduct Not can I find, on this record, that
Respondent IS answerable lot Berg's conduct on the tlieoiy that it
encouraged Beig to continue his practice of uiteiugating
employees concenung then relationship to the Union and
iepoxtiug his findings to Parker On the contraxy. I find that, if
anything, Beig; s efforts tin this regard were discumaged by the
nature of Parker's response to Berg each time Beig repotted to
limn Cf httuiai EnoelopeCoiporation, 130 NLRB 1574, 1576-77.
CronNecrtle Conipiini, 96 NLRB 456, 478. I do find. however, that
Respondent availed itself of the urforniation which Berg brought
Union, Parker asked Schrieve whether she wasn't afraid of
getting herself into trouble and whether she was guilty. By
equating Schrieve's supposed support of the Union with
trouble and guilt, Parker's questions, if not actually
threatening , were coercive in nature . See, in this
'connection, Continental Motors, Inc., 145 NLRB 1075,
1076.35
Park, who I have found to be a supervisor, interrogated
Turner as to whether she had signed a union card and as to
her knowledge of the Union. At the same time Park told
Turner that Respondent's plant was "one of the nicest" in
the area for a person "to work in," and had "a nice
cafeteria." Park's statement, otherwise gratuitous
inasmuch as Turner, who at that time had been in
Respondent's employ for an overall period of about a year,
was capable of forming her own opinion in this regard,
was, as I construe it, a not too latent threat that the advent
of the Union would operate to destroy the "niceness" of
Respondent's plant and cafeteria. Susquehanna
Broadcasting Co., 139 NLRB 1294,1295. The threat, being
intrinsically coercive, imparted a coercive nature to the
interrogation which it accompanied. Continental Motors,
Inc., supra at 1076, 1079-80; N.L.R.B. v. General Shoe
Corporation, 207 F.2d 598 (C.A. 6).
Alt, one of Respondent's supervisors, interrogated
Sherman as to whether she had signed a union card and as
to the identity of the person who had given her the card.
During the same conversation, Alt also indicated to
Sherman that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, as I have found, was keeping under surveillance
its employees' activities in support of the Union.
Considered in the context of this unfair labor practice, I
find that Sherman's interrogation by Alt was coercive
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Janiel,
Inc., 129 NLRB 1191, 1197.
In addition to the foregoing "interrogation" violations of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I find that Respondent also
violated that section of the Act by Park's thinly veiled
threat to Turner, discussed above, and by her threatening
statement to Thurman Smith that an employee could get in
trouble by "fooling around with the union." Continental
Motors, Inc., 145 NLRB 1075, 1076.36
Respondent aigues, by way of avoidance, that should
the conclusion be reached that Respondent did in fact
interrogate and threaten employees, its conduct, in this
regard, was isolated and that no employee was actually
intimidated. These arguments are not well taken. With
respect to the former, it can hardly be said that
interrogation and threats which involve five employees,
two supervisors, and Respondent's plant manager is
isolated. Harbison-Fischer MaituJactunng Co., 131 NLRB
885, 888 , enfd. 304 F.2d 738 (C.A. 5). With respect to
whether any employee was actually intimidated by
Respondent's conduct, it is well settled that a finding that
to Packet tin pnnuoting the idea among its employees that then
union activities weie undei surveillance
" It will be ienienibeied that Paik and Alt ate supeivnsots
Paikei's statenient to \ ance that lie had "nothing against
Unions" and that lie had "nughts good union fiends." and has
ieniaik to Scbnese that if a sufficient nunibei of ennploiees
wanted a union "they could have it" do not. ui nn opuuun.
measure up to the safeguards descibed by the Boaif III Blue
Flash Express, hic , 109 NLRB 591.592-593
'" I would come to the same conclusion e',en if Pat k's %ei lion
of hen conversation with Snuth is accepted
EDINBURG MFG. CO. 127
an employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is not
dependent upon a showing that employees were actually
coerced. As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, "The test is whether the [conduct] tends to be
coercive, not whether the employees are in fact coerced."
N.L.R.B. v. Cameo, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804, fn. 6, cert.
denied 382 U.S. 926.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent independently
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively
interrogating employees concerning their activities in
support of the Union, by threatening them for supporting
the Union, and by creating the impression that their
activities in support of the Union were under surveillance.
F. Facts Concerning Respondent's Alleged Violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
Ersley Whetzel entered Respondent's employ in 1963.
Her layoff, which is alleged in the complaint as having
been violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, occurred on
April 15. Before that Whetzel's most recent layoff was
from April 1 through April 13.
During February, three union meetings were held in
Whetzel's home. Present at these meetings were several
employees of Respondent, representatives of the Union,
and two residents of Petersburg, Harry Reisling and Mary
Shoup, who were neither representatives of the Union nor
employees of Respondent.37 In March, Whetzel attended
two union meetings in Moorefield, an adjoining town. Also
during February, Whetzel distributed union cards to
Respondent's employees and obtained signatures to 10 or
12 such cards.38
At the time of her layoff on Friday, April 15, Whetzel
and seven other employees worked as seam closers. There
are 16 sewing machines which seam closers operate. Eight
of these are Union Special Safety Stitch machines and
eight are Wilcox & Gibbs Superlock machines (herein
respectively called Union Special and Superlock
machines). As Whetzel admitted, she could operate the
Union Special machine more proficiently than she could
the Superlock.
During the afternoon of Friday, April 15, Whetzel was
informed by a service girl39 that she "was laid off until
[she] was called back."40 Departing from the usual
practice in such cases, the service girl did not inform
Whetzel of the reason for her layoff. Instead, she referred
Whetzel to Parker for an explanation.
Whetzel, accordingly, went to Parker who told her that
he did not know why she was being laid off. During hei
conversation with Parker at this time Whetzel told Parkes
that "if he thought [she] was having meetings at [her]
house with Mary [Shoup] and Harry [Reisling] he was
making a mistake." Parker replied, as Whetzel testified,
that "it was too close [to] home."4i
Although Whetzel was not so informed at the time of her
layoff, Parker, Respondent' s plant manager , testified that
she had been laid off on Friday, April 15, because all work
available during the following week had to be performed
on the Superlock machine which Whetzel could not
efficiently operate; that no seam closers worked on
Monday, April 18, because there was no work at all for
them to do; that although all other seam closers were
recalled and worked on Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday, April 19, 20, and 21, Whetzel was not recalled
because of her lack of efficiency in operating the
Superlock machine; and that Respondent' s entire plant
was closed for lack of work on Friday, April 22. Although it
is Parker's testimony that Whetzel had been laid off
because no Union Special work was available during the
week of April 18, there was, as he ultimately admitted, and
as I find, a substantial quantity of such work actually done
that week. Parker' s estimates as to the amount of this
work varied from 75 to 100 dozen reordered garments.
This, he stated, would provide a day's work for one
employee.
Regular, as opposed to reordered, work to be performed
on the Union Special machine became available during the
week of April 25, and Whetzel was notified on April 26 to
return to work the next day. She did not do so, however,
because she was scheduled to enter a hospital that day for
surgical treatment and so informed Respondent. She was,
thereupon, placed on sick leave and was still in that status
at the time of the trial.42
In view of Parker's testimony as to the reason for
Whetzel's layoff it is appropriate to take note of
Respondent's policy in this area . Parker stated, in this
regard, that during "a slack period" Respondent " evened
out the work ... as much as possible, depending [on] the
efficiency of the girls operating the machines that do the
job."
G. Concluding Findings Concerning Respondent's Alleged
Violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
Although it is well settled that an employee who, as
Whetzel did, engages in protected activity is not thereby
immunized from layoff for a legitimate reason, it is equally
well settled that where "the explanation of the [layoff]
offered by the respondent fails to stand under scrutiny" an
inference can be drawn which is unfavorable to
Respondent. N.L.R.B. v. Dant & Russell, Ltd., 207 F.2d
165, 167 (C.A. 9). The court which decided Dant & Russell
17 See In 19 for a discussion concerning the identity of Reisling
and Shoup
18 'T'hese findings are based on Whetzel's credible,
uncontradicted testimony
39 As Parker , Respondent 's plant manager, testified , service
girls, among other things , give work to the operators No
contention is made by any party to this proceeding that service
girls are supervisors
40 Whetzel was notified of her layoff several hours after
Parker's speech in which he stated , as I have found , that he had
"specialized information " concerning the union meetings in
Whetzel's home , and that if Whetzel was as interested in her work
as she was in having meetings she "could do much better."
41 These findings are based on Whetzel's testimony which was,
except for that relating to the meetings , corroborated by Parker.
Although Parker denied that he and Whetzel talked about the
meetings , I credit Whetzel in this regard , l du this not only because
Whetzel impretsed me favorably as a truthful witness, but also
because experience teaches that an employee laid off without
being given a reason during the heat of a union organizing
campaign would normally conclude that the layoff was related to
the Union's organizing efforts and , for the purpose of having the
layoff rescinded, would seek to dispel in the mind of the employer
any notion that the employee was a union supporter . Expecially
would this be so where, as in this case, the unexplained layoff
follows hard on the heels of an antiunion speech made by the
employer in which he had singled out the employee in question
and had stated, in a derogatory manner, that he knew about union
meetings held in the employee's home.
42 In its brief Respondent represented that Whetzel returned to
work on October 3.
128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spelled out, in a more recent case, the extent of the
inference which can be drawn in such a situation. In
Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d
466, 470 (C.A. 9), that court stated with sharp explicitness:
If [the trial examiner ] finds that the stated motive for
a [layoff] is false, he certainly can infer that there is
another motive. More than that, he can infer that the
motive is one that the employer desires to
conceal-an unlawful motive-at least where ... the
surrounding facts tend to reinforce the inference.43
Although Parker, Respondent' s plant manager , testified
that Whetzel was laid off on April 15, because only
Superlock work was available the following week, the fact
is that there was a substantial amount of Union Special
work to be done.44 I find, therefore, that the stated motive
for Whetzel's layoff is false. Having so found, I draw the
inference, as did the Trial Examiner in Shattuck Denn with
Board and court approval, that the actual motive for
Whetzel's layoff was to discourage membership in the
Union.
Also, as in Shattuck Denn, the "surrounding facts tend
to reinforce [this] inference." Thus, Whetzel appeared to
have been the stauchest advocate of the Union among
Respondent's employees. Only hours preceding Whetzel's
layoff Respondent' s plant manager in a speech to its
employees demonstrated his hostility to the Union, which
was then engaged in an organizing campaign among
Respondent's employees, and derogatorily singled
Whetzel out for holding union meetings in her home.
Whetzel, contrary to Respondent's usual practice, was
given no reason for her layoff, but was told at the time by
Respondent' s plant manager in response to her feeble
attempt to deny that union meetings had been held in her
house that such meetings were "too close [to] home."
Although she had just been recalled to work on April 14,
following a 2-week layoff, Respondent did not adhere to its
policy of evening out work among its employees during
slack periods by recalling Whetzel during the week of
April 18, despite the fact that there was work available
that week which she could have efficiently performed.
Finally, Whetzel's layoff occurred contemporaneously
with the commission by Respondent of unfair labor
practices independently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
The foregoing factors strengthen my belief that
Whetzel's layoff was discriminatory. Accordingly, I
conclude that by laying off Whetzel on April 15,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent'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 Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, my Recommended Order
4' This statement of the law was specifically adopted by the
Board in Atlantic Metal Products, Inc , 161 NLRB 919, fn S
44 Although the Union Special work involved was merely of 1
will direct Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and
to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the
purposes of the Act. In this connection, inasmuch as
Respondent has already offered reinstatement to Whetzel,
Respondent will be required only to make her whole for
loss of earnings she may have suffered by the
discrimination practiced against her. Any backpay found
to be due to Whetzel shall include ipterest in the amount
and manner provided for in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices engaged in by Respondent my Recommended
Order will contain broad cease-and-desist provisions.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in sections III, D, and III, E,
hereof, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. By laying off Ersley Whetzel because of her
membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union,
thereby discouraging such conduct Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
in the manner set forth in paragraph VI, h, and the relating
portion of paragraph VIII of the complaint.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record in this case I hereby issue the
following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Edinburg Manufacturing Company, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their , or other employees ', activities in support of,
attitudes toward , attendance at meetings of, or
membership in, Upper South Department , International
Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO , or any other
labor organization , or concerning their , or other
employees, having signed a card , or distributed cards,
designating or authorizing Upper South Department,
International Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , to act as their, or other
employees', representative for purposes of collective
bargaining.
(b) Threatening employees with trouble or any form of
reprisal for becoming members of, attending meetings of,
supporting , or engaging in activities on behalf of, Upper
South Department , International Ladies Garment Workers
Union , AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization, or for
signing a card , or distributing cards, designating or
authorizing Upper South Department , International
Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO, or any other
day's duration, it looms large when compared with the brevity of
Whetzel's layoff which encompassed an operative period of only 5
days
EDINBURG MFG. CO.
labor organization , to act as his, or any other employees,
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining.
(c) Engaging in, or attempting to engage in, or giving the
impression that it is engaging in, surveillance of its
employees' activities on behalf of Upper South
Department, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(d) Discouraging membership in Upper South
Department, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discriminating against employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of said Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Make Ersley Whetzel whole for any loss of earnings
she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against her in the manner set forth in the section
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll reords, 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.
(c) Post at its premises in Petersburg, West Virginia,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 45
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 5 of the National Labor Relations
Board, shall, after being signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 46
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor
practices not specifically found herein.
45 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
46 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the
Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
129
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT coercively question any employee
about his, or any other employees', desires toward
any union; or whether he or any other employee has
signed a card, or distributed cards designating or
authorizing any union to act as his, or any other
employees', collective-bargaining representative; or
whether he, or any other employee, has become a
member of any union; or whether he, or any other
employee, has attended a union meeting; or whether
he, or any other employee, has supported any union in
any other way.
WE WILL NOT threaten any employee with trouble
or any form of reprisal for attending a union meeting;
for joining, or remaining a member of, any union; for
signing or distributing union cards; or for supporting,
or engaging in any activities on behalf of, any union.
WE WILL NOT spy upon, attempt to spy upon, nor
will we give the impression that we are spying upon,
any employee's activities on behalf of, or in support
of, any union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Upper
South Department, International Ladies Garment
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, or or any other union, by
laying off or by discriminating against any employee
in any other manner in regard to his hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce any employee in the exercise of his
rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL make Ersley Whetzel whole for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of her
layoff of April 15,1966.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain
from becoming or remaining , members of Upper South
department, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other union , except to the extent
that this right may be affected by the provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act.
EDINBURG MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
(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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707
North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202,
Telephone 752-8460, Ext. 2100.