F. G. & W. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1105 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC. 1105
F.G. & W. Company, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment
Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4203. January 3,
1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 14,1960, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs, while the Charging Party filed a statement in support of In-
termediate Report and motion regarding remedy.'
The Board 2 has viewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and additions indi-
cated below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) by interrogation of employees (on some 12 separate oc-
casions), surveillance of employee union meetings, and antiunion
speeches by Plant Manager Jordan.
2. We also agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) by discriminatorily discharging Paul Bran-
yon and Laura K. Branyon on June 22, 1959; by discriminatorily
selecting Jean Simms and Louise Koon for layoff on July 9; by dis-
criminatorily failing to recall Lillian Martha Livingston, Opal
Murphy, Ruby Jean Sullivan, Lucille Whitten, and Lillie Ruth Webb
' The Respondent and the Charging Party allege that F.G. & W. Company, Inc, is no
longer in business , but was dissolved on December 29, 1959. The Respondent excepts,
therefore , to that part of the recommended order which would require reinstatement of
the discriminatees herein and posting a notice at the Gordo , Alabama, plant. The
Charging Party moves that the Board modify the Trial Examiner's recommended remedy
to require other companies allegedly dominated by Chester Goldstein , a one-third owner of
1+ G. & W., to reinstate the discriminatees herein and remit backpay . The Charging
Party moves alternatively that the Board reopen the record herein for the purpose of
taking testimony on this issue We find no merit to the Respondent 's exceptions and
deny the Charging Party's motion as premature , as the matters on which both rely are
properly matters for the compliance stages of the proceeding.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel ['Chairman Leedom and
Members Jenkins and Kimball].
129 NLRB No. 134.
586439-61-vol. 129-71
1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to work on July 15; and by discriminatorily discharging nine other
employees (named below) on July 16.
In sustaining the Trial Examiner's findings as to the discriminatory
nature of Simms' and Koon's layoff we rely, as did the Trial Examiner,
on credited testimony that (1) members of the Rubber Workers Union
at a different company assisted the ILGWU in its efforts to organize
Respondent; (2) Respondent prepared a list showing which of its
employees were married to members of the Rubber Workers Union ;
(3) Simms and Koon appeared on this list; and (4) Supervisor Dyer
was told to lay off the "Rubber Workers' wives." We are satisfied, in
light of all the circumstances, that the Respondent's directions to
Dyer were intended to make reference to those identified on the Re-
spondent's list as being wives of members of the Rubber Workers
Union. We find, therefore, that Simms and Koon were discrimina-
torily selected for layoff on July 9 because the Respondent believed
that their husbands belonged to the Rubber Workers Union.'
In considering the aspect of the complaint based on the discharges
of July 16, we note the credited evidence that when Margie Fair ar-
rived at the plant to work, she met Jordan in front of the plant. Dur-
ing the ensuing conversation he told her, "You are fired and that goes
for everybody that is for the Union; get off and stay off and don't come
back. You can go in there and tell them that I said so." After Fair
told the employees inside the plant what Jordan had told her to tell
them, about 7 or 8 of the employees left the plant with her. Jordan,
who was still standing at the gate, made no attempt to stop these em-
ployees as they were leaving. In these circumstances we are satisfied
that, in transmitting his discharge instructions to the employees, Fair
was acting as Jordan's agent. We find accordingly, as did the Trial
Examiner, that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Kathryn
Duren, Margie Fair, Grace Holsonback, Johnnie Montgomery, Mary
Pritchett, Edgar Sutton, Bernice Wallace, Bernice Wilson, and Nettie
B. Wood.4
3. The General Counsel excepts to the failure of the Trial Examiner
to find that the July 17 strike was an unfair labor practice strike. We
find merit in his exceptions. The record shows that, on July 16, after
the nine union adherents named above were discharged, a group of em-
ployees met with a union organizer at the Branyon's home. The fol-
8In the absence of exceptions we adopt the Trial Examiner 's dismissal of 8(a) (3)
and (1 ) allegations involving : ( a) the layoff , on July 9, of Martin and Smith, whose
names also appeared on the Respondent 's list as wives of members of the Rubber Workers
Union ; ( b) the layoff, on July 9, of Elmore , Fleming, and Windham ; and ( c) the layoff,
on July 13, of Frances Fair.
4 The omission of Nettie B. Wood from the list of employees discriminatorily discharged
on July 16 was apparently due to an oversight by the Trial Examiner . Therefore, and
in accordance with the General Counsel's request, we have included her name in this list.
F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC. 1107
lowing morning 28 of Respondent's employees, listed in paragraph
2 (b) of the Order herein, went on strike and picketed the Respondent's
plant with signs reading "EMPLOYEES OF F.G. & W. GORDO,
LOCKED OUT, ORGANIZING UNION. INTERNATIONAL
LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO." The
casual connection between the discharges and the occurrence of the
strike is clear. As we have found that the July 16 discharges were
discriminatory in nature, it follows that the strike commencing on
July 17 is an unfair labor practice strike. The 28 striking employees
are therefore eligible for reinstatement upon application as unfair
labor practice strikers. Our Order will reflect these findings.
ORDERS
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, F.G. & W. Com-
pany, Inc., Gordo, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment of its employees.
(b) Interrogating its employees concerning their own or other em-
ployees' union activities or sympathies in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
(c) Threatening its employees with closing the plant or discontiliu-
ing operations if they engage in union or concerted activities or if a
union becomes the collective bargaining agent of the employees or
threatening them with the loss of benefits for such reasons.
(d) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities or
threatening them with such surveillance.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
'As Alabama has a right-to-work law, we shall delete from paragraph 1(e) of the
Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order herein , and from the notice to be posted , the proviso
"except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959 ." Nebraska Bag Company, et at., d/b/a Nebraska Bag Processing Company,
122 NLRB 654, 656.
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining 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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to the following immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the
manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled,
"The Remedy": Paul Branyon, Laura K. Branyon, Lillie Ruth Webb,
Lucille Whitten, Opal Murphy, Lillian Livingston, Ruby Jean Sulli-
van, Hargie Fair, Bernice Wilson, Grace Holsonback, Johnnie Mont-
gomery, Mary Pritchard, Bernice Wallace, Edgar Sutton, Kathryn
Duren, Louise Koon, Jean Simms, and Nettie B. Wood.
(b) Upon application, offer to Juanita Boothe, Cordie M. Brown,
Evie Coker, Alice Nell Dillard, Sarah Ann Dillard, Shirley Jean Dil-
lard, Aline Driver, Lorene Driver, Maudine Driver Thelma Homan,
Bessie Mae Harris, Marcille House, Ruby Nell Hudson, Estelle John-
son, Annie Mae Lewis, Ruth Hudson, Effie Mae Mullinix, Helen Mc-
Cool, Blanch Ellen McGairty, Earline Parker, Emma Jean Perry,
Jackie Sanders, Lucy Kaye Smith, Letha Tilley, Wanda Ann Tingle,
Ella Fay Traweek, William R. Walters, and Mary Winston inunedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, dismissing if necessary, any person hired on or after July 17,
1959. If after such dismissals, there are insufficient positions, remain-
ing, those employees for whom no employment is immediately avail-
able shall be placed on a preferential hiring list with priority
determined among them by such system of seniority or other nondis-
criminatory practice as heretofore has been applied in the conduct of
the Respondent's business, and thereafter, in accordance with such list,
shall be offered reinstatement as positions become available, and before
other persons are hired for such work. The Respondent shall also
make the foregoing employees whole in accordance with the Board's
remedial policies (The Chase National Bank of the City of New York,
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827; Crossett Lumber Com-
pany, 8 NLRB 440; F.W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289) for
any loss of earnings which they may suffer by reason of the Respond-
ent's refusal, if any, to reinstate them in the manner prescribed above,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period beginning 5
days after the date on which he applies for reemployment or reinstate-
F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC. 1109
ment and terminating on the date of the Respondent's offer of employ-
ment.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or 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 rights to reinstatement and
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Gordo, Alabama, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Resonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
e In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to 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 our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership by any of our employees
in International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against any employee in regard to his
hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employ-
ment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their own
or other employees' union activities or sympathies in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closing the plant or
discontinuing operations if they engage in union or concerted
activities or if a union becomes their collective-bargaining agent
or threaten them with loss of benefits for these reasons.
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees' union
activities or threaten them with such surveillance.
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, join, or assist any labor organization; to
join or assist International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO ; to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion ; or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to the employees listed below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and will make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against
them :
Paul Branyon Grace Holsonback
Laura Kay Branyon Johnnie Montgomery
Lillie Ruth Webb Mary Pritchard
Lucille Whitten Bernice Wallace
Opal Murphy Edgar Sutton
Lillian Livingston Kathryn Duren
Ruby Jean Sullivan Louise Koon
Margie Fair Jean Simms
Bernice Wilson Nettie B. Wood
WE WILL, upon application, offer to the employees listed below
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any person hired
on or after July 17, 1959. If after such dismissal, there are in-
sufficient positions remaining, those strikers for whom no em-
ployment is immediately available shall be placed upon a prefer-
ential hiring list with priority determined among them by such
system of seniority or other nondiscriminatory practice as here-
tofore has been applied in the conduct of our business, and there-
after, in accordance with such list, shall be offered reinstatement
as positions become available, and before other persons are hired
for such work. We will also make the foregoing employees whole
for any loss of earnings which they may suffer by reason of our
refusal, if any, to reinstate them in the manner described above,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that
which he normally would have earned as wages during the period
beginning 5 days after the date on which he applies for reinstate-
F.G. & W. COMPANY , INC. 1111
ment or reemployment and terminating on the date of our offer
of employment.
Juanita Boothe Cordie M. Brown
Evie Coker Alice Nell Dillard
Sarah Ann Dillard Shirley Jean Dillard
Aline Driver Lorene Driver
Maudine Driver Thelma Homan
Bessie Mae Harris Marcille House
Ruby Nell Hudson Estelle Johnson
Annie Mae Lewis Ruth Hudson
Effie Mae Mullinix Helen McCool
Blanch Ellen McGiarty Earline Parker
Emma Jean Perry Jackie Sanders
Lucy Kaye Smith Letha Tilley
Wanda Ann Tingle Ella Fay Traweek
William R . Walters Mary Winston
All of our employees are free to become, remain , or to refrain from
becoming or remaining , members of any labor organization.
F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended (61 Stat. 136) herein called the Act, was heard at Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, on December 8 and 9, 1959, pursuant to due notice and with all parties
(except the charging union) being represented by counsel. The complaint, issued
by the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the
General Counsel and the Board) on September 25, 1959, and based on charges duly
filed and served, alleged in substance that Respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by various specified
acts of discrimination against employees because of their union activities and by
engaging in various specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein an Alabama corporation
having its principal office and place of business in Gordo, Alabama, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of women's garments. During the 12 months preceding
the issuance of the complaint, which is a representative period, Respondent manu-
factured, sold, and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers
located outside the State of Alabama.
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The setting and contentions
On or about June 22, 1959, Respondent's plant manager, Joesph C. Jordan, re-
ceived word from a fellow businessman that some of Respondent's employees had
attended a union meeting in the nearby town of Reform, Alabama. Thereupon
Jordan assembled the employees, confronted them with his information and pro-
ceeded to make an antiunion speech. The General Counsel contends that the
speech was coercive within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. Respondent
contends that it falls within the permissible limits of Section 8(c) of the Act.' In
addition to the June 22 speech, Jordan made two other allegedly coercive speeches
to the employees, the last one on July l5.
Starting on June 22, Jordan also began a course of individual interviews of em-
ployees regarding their union membership, activities, and convictions carrying
through to July 16, 1959. Also on June 22 he discharged Paul Branyon and the
latter's wife, Laura K. Branyon. These discharges are alleged to have been dis-
criminatory within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. Respondent contends
they were for cause. As of June 22 there had been little talk of unionism in the
plant. However, Paul Branyon had participated in what union talk there had been,
having advised employees of the desirability of having a union.
On July 9 the blouse line of about 50 or 60 people was laid off, along with 3
people from the pedal pusher line and at least 1 from the shipping department the
following day. The three laid off on the pedal pusher line were Carolyn Martin,
Jean Simms, and Louise Koon. Willene Smith was the one laid off in the shipping
department. These four employees were wives of men who belonged to the Rubber
Workers' Union at a different plant. The Rubber Workers had been assisting in
the organizing at Respondent's plant. For that reason these four are alleged to have
been selected discriminatorily for layoff. Also alleged by the General Counsel to have
been discriminatorily selected for layoff at that time for the reason that they were
Rubber Workers' wives were the following blouse line workers: Rose Marie Elmore,
Johnnie Fleming, and Irma Windham. Additional people laid off on the blouse line
on July 9 were Lillian Martha Livingston, Opal Murphy, Ruby Jean Sullivan, Lucille
Whitten, and Lillie Ruth Webb. The selection of these people for layoff is not
questioned by the General Counsel but the failure to recall them on July 15 is alleged
to have been because of their union activity.
In addition to the foregoing alleged acts of discrimination the General Counsel
contends that on July 16 Jordan further discharged and directed all union adherents
to leave the plant. This alleged discharge included the following employees: Kathryn
Duren, Margie Fair, Grace Holsonback, Johnnie Montgomery, Mary Lou Prichard,
Edgar Sutton, Bernice Wallace, Bernice Wilson, and Nettie B. Wood. With that
incident a strike began with picketing starting on the following morning. Respondent
denies having discharged or ordered all union adherents out of the plant on that
occasion and contends that the employees walked out on strike voluntarily as had
been planned in a union meeting the night before.
Let us examine the evidence as to each of these allegations.
B. Interrogations and other 8(a) (1) allegations
1. Plant Manager Jordan's speeches
According to evidence adduced through the General Counsel's witnesses,2 in his
speech of June 22 Jordan told the employees that he had information that some of
them had attended a union meeting at Reform, Alabama, over the weekend. Among
1 Section 8 ( c) of the Act reads, "The expressing of any views , argument , or opinion, or
the dissemination thereof, whether In written , printed, graphic , or visual form, shall not
constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this
Act, If such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit."
9 Those who testified substantially as shown were William R. Walters , Paul Branyon,
Thelma Homan , Shirla Dyer , Lucille Whitten , and Alice Dillard.
F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC. 1113
other statements attributed to Jordan either in his speech or in the other two he gave
were that (1 ) he would close the plant before he would allow the Union to come
in; (2) the plant would never operate under a union ;3 (3) if the Union came in
the employees would lose the hospital insurance, paid vacations, 10-minute breaks
and free cokes which they were currently receiving ; (4) he knew that some of the
employees were in the Union and were working for the Union and could point them
out but would not do so; and ( 5) he further told them , "If the Union comes in, the
plant will close down and I am not bluffing."
Arleithia Waites, called by Respondent, testified that in his first speech Jordan
told the employees that he wanted to inform them that if they organized the plant
it could not operate "under any more expense or stress" than it was already under.
He also told them , "I don 't see where the Union can offer you all any more than
what the Company is offering or already giving you" and pointed out to them their
free cokes , 10-minute breaks, insurance , and paid holidays . She also denied that
Jordan had said that if the Union came in he would close the plant explaining that
what he had said was that the Company could not operate under the wages it
would have to pay if the employees were represented by a union. According to
her further testimony Jordan said about the same things in his other two speeches
except that in the last speech he said "that he had once said that if the Union was
recognized [ organized?] that he wouldn 't let them have it on a silver platter . .
but that he had changed his mind and that neither he nor Mr. Goldstein (the owner)
would now stand in the way of the Union.
Waites was substantially corroborated by the testimony of Supervisor Florence
Winters and of Helen Wakefield. Winters, however, testified that "actually it has
been a long time ago and I can't remember what was said in . . . these speeches
and I have not tried to memorize his speeches ." She also was uncertain whether
Jordan had said anything about moving the plant. Wakefield, when asked on direct
examination if Jordan had made the statement that he would close the plant if the
Union came in, answered "not that I remember."
In his testimony Jordan testified as follows:
I started out by telling them that I was amazed and disturbed about what I had
heard; that I had just received a phone call whereby the party told me that some
of our employees were there at a union meeting which is a different type of an
article than we manufactured, and I told them that they should stop to con-
sider what they were doing That the plant was put there by local business and
local capital for the purpose of creating employment for the local people.
I told them that this is a home owned thing; that it is here to provide labor for
you people. I told them that I was not antiunion. I couldn't stop them from
joining the union if they wanted to and I wouldn't attempt to, but they were
receiving fringe benefits beyond some union plants which I had managed; there-
by, I could see no need to burden the firm with additional expenses.
* * * * * *
I told them that in several speeches; that the company was operating at a loss.
I told them that when I first come down and when I had a meeting with all the
people; every time I made a speech and I called it a meeting, that it was for the
only sole purpose of making them realize that it was not afree institution and
that they had to earn their money in order to be employed there. The firm
only received monies from what they produced,
When asked if in any of the three speeches he had told them that if the Union
came in he would close the plant he replied, "I told them that if the union came
in-if that is what they want, we could not operate." When asked to explain the
"not bluffing" remark he testified:
Well, some one came to me. I had quite a few informers that were concerned
about the plant. I didn't ask them to come in. They came on their own accord.
They told me what they had heard. These people called them up. Some of
them were called up and threatened on the phone; if you cross the picket lines,
something is going to happen to you; I received several phone calls and they
hung up after I would ask them who they were. I told them, I am not just
bluffing, because the men in the union had told them that I was only bluffing;
however if I was bluffing, they could open the plant in four days. So I told
8 On cross- examination at least two of these witnesses emphasized that Jordan had
said the plant would not work under a union and denied that he said could not work
under a union.
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them that if the union wanted to buy the plant it was for sale. I also told them
that the union operated in Appomattox, Virginia, which they lost a quarter of
a million dollars in around five years. It was offered to me for nothing to run it.
Jordan also testified that in his July 15 speech to the employees he indicated that he
knew who some of the prounion employees were and that he was aware of the
activities of the union organizers in the area, that he knew their names and where
they stayed.
Elsewhere in his testimony Jordan testified that he also told the employees that
their wage rates "were as good asthose in any union plant which [he] had managed,"
and confirmed on the witness stand that Respondent 's rates were as high or higher
than in the unionized plant he formerly was connected with.
For a number of reasons in addition to my observation of the witnesses I am in-
clined to and do credit the General Counsel's version herein. In making this
resolution I have been swayed by some admitted lack of certainty and recollection
on the part of the Respondent's witnesses, by certain inconsistencies in Respondent's
evidence, by the general lack of responsiveness in many of Jordan's answers as well
as by the logic of the situation. For example, in denying that a threat was made
to close the plant if the Union came in, Respondent's witnesses would explain that
what was said was that the Company could not afford to operate under more ex-
pense, i.e., higher wage rates. Yet Jordan testified that his rates were as high or
higher than union rates and that he told this to the employees. Furthermore, as
regards the threats to close the plant it seems to me that Jordan's testimony about
his "bluffing" comment can be interpreted only as confirming a threat to close the
plant. It will be recalled that he testified that "the men in the union had told [the
employees] that [he] was only bluffing"; and that if he was bluffing "they could
open the plant in four days." Obviously this referred to -a closing of the plant. If
the closing of the plant had to do merely with Respondent's prediction of what
could or would happen as an economic matter I doubt if the term "bluffing" would
have been used. Normally one does not "bluff" in making economic arguments;
(quite the contrary I should say) but one well might "bluff" in making a threat of
reprisal. The latter is the way I interpret this evidence.
2. Individual interrogation and threats
Paul Branyon testified that on June 22, before Jordan's speech, the latter called
him into .the office and told him that he had heard that Branyon had been attending
union meetings in Reform, Alabama, over the weekend. Branyon said it was a lie;
that he had been to the Dairy Queen at Reform with his wife and the Homans 4
for a few minutes Saturday night. Jardan replied that he had been informed that
they had been seen at a union meeting in Reform over the weekend.
According to William Walters' testimony, on the same day after Jordan had made
his speech, he was beckoned into the office as he was passing by. There, Jordan
asked him if he had heard the Union mentioned in the plant by any of the employees.
Walters replied that he had. Then Jordan asked who had mentioned the Union and
upon being informed that it was Paul Branyon asked what Branyon had said.
Walters replied that Branyon had said "This plant was fixing to be organized."
Jordan then told Walters that Branyon had ruined some cloth and mentioned the
value which Walters could not remember. According to Walters' testimony on
direct examination Jordan also told Walters at this time in connection with Branyon's
having ruined some cloth that "now since we know that he is backing the Union
. that is the reason we are letting him go." On cross-examination Walters'
testimony was that Jordan had said they were letting Branyon go because of his
having spoiled some material but "now we know that he is backing .the union .. .
that is what we have been wanting to find out." Walters further testified on cross-
examination that Jordan said that the main reason they were letting Branyon go was
"because of the material that he had messed up . . . but now that he had found
out that he was messed up with the Union, he was letting him go for that too."
Thelma Homan was called into the office on June 25. There she and Jordan
"went over" her being a supervisor. Then Jordan mentioned the rumors about the
Union coming in and told her, "Thelma, if the Union comes in, you will not work
for F.G.W. because we will not operate under a union. That Mr. Goldstein is a
man that will not set on one side of the desk and somebody on the other side
telling him what to do." On July 10 Mrs. Homan was again called into the office.
Jordan asked, "Thelma, did you sleep good last night?" Receiving an affirmative
answer Jordan said, "All these rumors about the union, I don't see how you slept."
4 Thelma Homan was also an employee of Respondent.
F.G. & W. COMPANY , INC. 1115
Then he went on, "I have a list of names of you people that have attended union
meetings ." When Homan asked who gave him her name Jordan replied, "Well,
you know that there is always someone to tell on you." Homan said, that there
were many things that required an eyewitness to prove. Jordan said, "Well, Paul
and Kay Branyon are trying to tear up the place" and pointed out that "Paul Bran-
yon has been fired once before for trying to organize a plant." Jordan indicated
that it wasthe Coca-Cola plant in Tuscaloosa and told Homan that she could tell
Branyon that he (Jordan) said so. Jordan further told Homan that he could dis-
charge her if he wanted to but added "understand , I am not threatening you."
Homan was again called into the office on July 13. This .time Jordan told her he
understood that they were having union meetings at her brother 's house. He also
told her that he had been told where to park his car to see who was attending. He
further said he knew the union representatives ' names and told her she could tell them
to come down and Respondent would "sell out to them."
Also called into the office on June 22 was Nettie B. Wood. There Jordan told
her, "Nettie, I have heard that you are going to a union meeting." She claimed
that it was not so and that the first she had heard about the Union was when he made
his speech that day. Jordan asked her if she knew that the Branyons were starting
the Union and told her that he had laid Paul Branyon off because he had ruined
some cloth and that Kay Branyon had "never kept up" her job so he had let her go.
Then he went on to say that be was not going to let the Union ruin the plant.
On or about July 13 Lucille Whitten, one of the laid-off employees, talked to
Jordan over the telephone to learn when she might come back to work. About the
first thing Jordan said was "your husband works at Tuscaloosa, doesn't he?" She
said, "yes." Then he asked her if she had been contacted by the Union. She did
not answer. He said, "I know you have; you won't admit it, but I know you have.
I don't know what you people think, but we won 't operate under or with a union.
We will close the plant down."
Also called into the office on June 22 was Alice Nell Dillard. Jordan accused
her of being a ringleader of the Union. She denied it and asked who had told him
that. He declined to tell but said that the one who told him had also told him
where to park his car so as to be able to see who went to the union meeting. He
further told her that the meeting was held at a Mr . Cook's house in Reform and
that Cook was Thelma Homan's brother. He also told her what time the people
arrived and what time they left the meeting.
In addition to the foregoing , six other employees testified regarding individual
interviews in which Jordan either interrogated them about the Union, made threats
of reprisals regarding the Union or inferred that their union activities were under
constant surveillance by the Company.5
Jordan admitted being concerned about the information that his employees had
attended a union meeting at Reform, Alabama, and testified that he "discussed it
with two or three dozen" of the employees. Nowhere in his testimony did he deny
interrogating the employees about their union activities nor of making various threats
of reprisals against -them in connection therewith . Again I credit the General
Counsel's evidence as set forth above.
3. Surveillance
In addition to Jordan 's having told Alice Dillard that he had been informed where
to park his car to be able to see who was attending union meetings which he said
were being held at Cook's house in Reform and as to which he knew the starting
and closing times, and his having told Thelma Homan on July 10 that he had a list
of names of employees who attended union meetings and on July 13 that he under-
stood they were holding union meeting at her brother's home and that he had been
told where to park his car so as to be able to see who was attending , the record
also reflects the actual engagement of such surveillance by Respondent . Thus we
have the undenied testimony of Shirla Dyer that she drove by the Branyons' home
on July 15, recognized some of the employees ' cars outside, returned to the plant and
discussed in a group with Jordan the automobiles parked at the Branyons. On the
same occasion Mrs. Branyon and Lenoria Elinore saw Supervisor Gloria Greer drive
by slowly looking toward the Branyons ' house. Gaynell Fair testified that Shirla
Dyer and Gloria Greer left the plant that afternoon in their automobiles and that
when they returned they said they had driven past the Branyons and discussed the
automobiles they had seen outside then.
6 Those six were Merle Keating, Helen McCool, Effie Mae Mullinix, Mary Louise
Pritchard , Lucy Kaye Smith , and Edgar Sutton.
1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The alleged discrimination against the Branyons
Laura Kay Branyon began working for Respondent in February 1958. When
Jordan became Respondent's manager in January of 1959, he classified Mrs. Branyon
as a handicapped worker due to a difficulty with her back which prevented her
from sitting at a sewing machine.6 This motivated his making an inspector out of
her which enabled her to stand at her work. Some weeks after Mrs. Branyon
began inspecting, she entered a hospital for an operation on her back. At that time
it was discovered that she had a condition that necessitated the removal of one of
her eyes. On Thursday, June 18, 1959, she returned to her job as an inspector on
the pedal pusher line. At this time, according to Jordan's undenied testimony,
Jordan asked her if she was capable of handling the job and reminded her that prior
to her hospitalization she had never made her rate. She maintained that she was
well and could do a good day's work. Jordan told her he would take her word and
that he expected her to make her rate.
Mrs. Branyon worked Thursday, Friday, and Monday. On none of these days
did her production exceed $2, although she showed an 8-dozen gain the second day
over the first .7 At the end of the shift on Monday she was told by Jordan that she
was no longer needed. When she asked the reason he told her that she had been
told when she returned to work that she "had to get production" and that she had
not done so. When she pleaded for more time he said that she was an experienced
hand and did not "deserve any more time," that "she didn't try." Branyon asked
Jordan at this time if she would be off long enough to draw unemployment com-
pensation. He indicated that he thought so.
When Mrs. Branyon made application for unemployment compensation she
learned that Jordan had informed the compensation office that she was employed by
the Unions She had not "instigated union trouble in the plant" prior to her dis-
charge. Thereafter at least two union meetings were held at her home on July 15
and 16. On the occasion of the meeting on the 15th Supervisor Gloria Greer came
by in an automobile.
According to Mrs. Branyon's testimony, about 2 weeks after her discharge, she
called Jordan on the telephone and asked him if there was any work for her yet.
Told that there was not, she said that she knew there were three new girls inspecting
that had not been doing so when she left. Jordan claimed that they were not new
hires but old employees who had been moved up. At this point Mrs. Branyon asked
again why she had been laid off. Jordan's reply was that she had been instigating
trouble at the plant. When she asked what kind of trouble Jordan replied that it
was "union trouble."
Jordan did not specifically deny this statement and what implication there is in
his testimony as a denial thereof I do not credit.9
Paul Branyon began work for Respondent February 4, 1959, in the cutting depart-
ment as a cutter's helper. Up to the time of his discharge on June 22 he had not
been in contact with any union officials nor attended any union meetings. In the
plant, however, he had engaged in conversations regarding a need for representation
of the employees by a union.
According to Jordan's testimony, on the Friday before June 22 he was informed
by Jack Baines , the cutting room supervisor, that Branyon had spoiled a batch of
material. Jordan instructed Baines to discharge Branyon at that time. Instead,
Baines "read him out good" and gave him another chance. On the following Mon-
9 Jordan testified that he "was on the committee to hire the handicapped" for which he
"received a citation "
Mrs. Branyon had trouble distinguishing the black threads on black cloth. When her
supervisor suggested she inspect other colors until she became more adjusted to the work,
she declined to do so on the ground that the other inspectors might feel that she was
choosing her work
B This was corroborated by Williams who testified that he was in the office a couple of
weeks after Mrs Branyon's discharge where he heard Jordan tell Greer to write on
Mrs Branyon's card "not employed by the Company but employed by the Union." No
mention was made of this by Greer in her testimony.
s When he was asked on direct examination "did you say anything to Sher about belong-
ing to a union and that you were letting her go because of tier union activities V" he
answered, "I didn't even know that she was union . . . a member of the union." It is
clear from the context of the colloquy that it pertains to the time and occasion of Mrs
Branyon's discharge and not to a time 2 weeks later. Respondent's defense to the
8(a) (3) allegation is a lack of knowledge regarding the Branyons' union activity at the
time of this discharge. This question will be disposed of later herein
F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC. 1117
day, Jordan "discovered" that Branyon had ruined some more corduroy material.
This was after Jordan had made his speech about the Union and after he had
accused Branyon of attending a union meeting in Reform . The damage was "dis-
covered" when an operator started sewing. It was caused by the material not having
been laid properly . The value of the spoiled goods in raw material alone amounted
to about $500 . Jordan thereupon instructed Baines to tell Branyon that his services
were no longer required because he could not follow instructions . When he learned
that Jordan had directed that he not come in the following day Branyon went to
the office . About this he testified:
So I went in, I said , "What is going on?" and he said , "Well, we are just about
to catch up on our work and we just don 't need you ," and I said, "Well, I
know better than that ," and I asked him how about the boy that came in
before I did . I mean after that I went to work. So he said, "I didn't think
that you assisted us very much back here." He told me that he didn't think
I was suited or fit for that place back there. I told him that I didn 't think that
he was fit for his job either. So he said that he didn 't want to have any union
activities . He said that you already have some people signed up.
So, after I told him that I didn't think that he was fit for his job, he told me
to get the hell out of there.
Branyon testified that he was "never consulted about any material being messed
up or anything like that"; that if he laid any cloth wrong he did not know of it and
that he was never told that he had done so ; that he had always followed instructions
as to cutting and spreading ; that the instructions were to use material out of one
box at a time, which he always did, but that sometimes there would be more than
one shade in a particular box because some of the material used was "seconds." io
Neither Baines nor the cutter who was supposed to have discovered the error
testified.
Whether or not Branyon spoiled some material on one occasion , two occasions, or
no occasions is immaterial because, as will appear , I am convinced and find that
but for his suspected union activity, Branyon would not have been discharged.
Although maintaining that he had no interest in, nor knowledge of, Bianyon's
union activity or sympathy therein before he was discharged the record as a whole,
including several admissions and undenied remarks made by Jordan to other em-
ployees refutes that position . Whether or not the Branyons had actually been
named to Jordan as having attended the union meeting at Reform, I am convinced
that he believed or surmised that they did. In reaching this conclusion I am par-
ticularly swayed by the following undenied and credited evidence:
1. Jordan's having accused Paul Branyon of attending the union meeting at
Reform before he made his June 22 speech.li
2. Jordan's testimony that he "had heard from Mr. Bill Walters that everytime he
[Walters] went to a drink machine before each break, Paul Branyon would go
there and tell him why don't you join the union ." Jordan added that he found this
out after he let Branyon go. But according to Williams ' undenied and credited
testimony, he talked to Jordan "right after" 12 the tatter's speech. It will be recalled
from Williams' credited testimony that Branyon's union advocacy was made clear
at this time to Jordan. Jordan also admitted that Williams told him that Branyon
had approached him on several occasions prior to June 22 about joining the Union.
3. Walters' credited testimony that Jordan told him that "now that he had found
out that [Branyon ] was messed up with the union , he was letting him go for that too."
4. Jordan's testimony that he was not interested in Branyon 's union activity at the
time of his discharge (which, of course, is denied by his whole course of action at the
time ) and his almost immediate contradiction of that testimony by his admission that
at that time he discussed Branyon 's union activities with his supervisor , Baines, as
well as a number of other people , conceding that he "was concerned" about it.
10 The specific complaint about the matter was that Branyon had spread different por-
tions of the material with the lap running in different directions which resulted in giving
the finished garment two different shades
13 In view of Jordan 's comments on the same day to Alice Dillard that he knew that
the union meeting had been held at a Mr . Cook's house and that Cook was Thelma
Homan's brother , Branyon's explanation at this time to Jordan that he and his wife had
merely been to the Dairy Queen in Reform with the Homans must have heightened his
conviction or conjecture that the employees in question had attended the union meeting.
12 Considering the context of the remark I find that the conversation with Jordan took
place a matter of minutes after the speech.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. His admission that he "still wasn't sure when [he] let Paul go" that he was
connected with the Union.
6. His admission that he questioned Edgar Sutton as to whether he had signed a
union card for Branyon.13
7. Jordan's query to Nettie Wood on June 22 if she knew the Branyons were start-
ing the Union.
The foregoing not only shows Jordan's knowledge or conjecture as to the Branyon
union sympathies and activity-they also tend to show and I find that the Branyons'
discharges were because of their interest in the the Union. In this connection I also
point to the following three items:
1. Jordan's remark to Thelma Homan that "Paul Branyon has been fired once
before for trying to organize a plant."
2. Jordan's telling the unemployment compensation office that Mrs. Branyon was
employed by the Union.
3. Jordan's admission to Mrs. Branyon over the telephone that she had been laid
off for instigating union trouble at the plant.
Jordan's consuming obsession with the Branyons as the bete noire of his union
troubles as is evidenced by the foregoing is sufficient to establish that as a major rea-
son for their discharge notwithstanding the possible existence of cause of such action.
I am not convinced that Branyon did not spoil some material on the 19th of June.
On the other hand I do not accept at face value Jordan's uncorroborated testimony as
to the second offense or its extent.14 Somewhere in between probably lies the truth.
But it is patent on this record that an important reason for his discharge was his actual
or supposed union activity. The same can be said about Mrs. Branyon. While
ostensibly there was cause for her discharge, the circumstances again point to a
pretext or at least a motivation at best mixed strongly with antiunionism on Jordan's
part. Her failure to make her rate can hardly have been crucial when she had never
done so prior to her operation. And this ostensible reason is all the more question-
able when viewed in the light of Jordan's self-professed championing of the physically
handicapped.
D. The layoff of July 9
As previously indicated, the husbands of several of Respondent's women employees
worked in a unionized plant and had taken it upon themselves to aid in the organiza-
tion of Respondent's plant. The evidence shows that sometime prior to July 9, when
a layoff of some 45 to 50 people occurred, Jordan had asked Head Supervisor Gaynell
Fair to prepare a list of employees whose husbands worked at the Rubber plant.
This she did, naming on the list Louise Koon, Jean Simms, Frances Fair, Johnnie
Fleming, Rose Mary Elmore, Betty Smith and Willene Smith. When Fair gave the
list to Jordan, he said something to the effect that he would lay these people off.
When the July 9 layoff occurred, its major impact was upon the blouse line.
However, three employees, Carolyn Martin, Jean Simms, and Louise Koon were
also laid off on the pedal pusher line. When Shirla Dyer, supervisor of the pedal
pusher line, asked Assistant Plant Manager George Diebers which employees were
to be laid off he told her that she knew who it was-"that it was the Rubber Workers'
wives." Supervisor Fair had identified Simms and Koon as being on the list of
Rubber Workers' wives that she had given to Jordan. However she was unable to
say and the record does not reveal whether Carolyn Martin was on that list or not.
Martin did not testify.
On the basis of the foregoing and considering the record as a whole I find that
Simms and Koon were selected for this particular layoff because they were wives of
the Rubber Workers. In his effort to support this allegation as to the other employees
named therein the General Counsel cites certain things said by both Jordan and Fair
in statements taken from then in the preparation of the General Counsel's case.
Without these comments, which I do not rely on, the General Counsel's evidence as
to the others named in connection with this praticular allegation falls short of the
necessary preponderance to prove the remainder of that allegation. The most that
can be said for this evidence is that it raises a strong suspicion that the other em-
ployees too were selected for layoff on July 9 because of their relationship to mem-
la Sutton was one ofthose interrogated by Jordan right after his June 22 speech.
"In this connection it should be noted that Branyon's testimony that he was never
criticized about ruining material is not necessarily inconsistent or inherently conflicting
with the possibility that he may have done so. It is possible that Baines did not criticize
him at all. It is clear that Jordan did not do so, and Baines did not testify. If this is
what happened, the seriousness of the matter is, of course, considerably diluted.
F.G. & W. COMPANY , INC. 1119
bers of another union which had interested itself in the Charging Union' s organizing
effort at Respondent's plant. Suspicion is not enough to support a finding of an
unfair labor practice. Punch & Judy Togs, Inc. of California, 85 NLRB 499.
1. The failure to recall on July 15
On July 15, having need for more operators, Supervisor Gaynell Fair, with Jor-
dan's permission, had intended to call in the next day Lillie Ruth Webb, Opal Mur-
phy, Lillian Livingston, Lucille Whitten, and Christine Sullivan, all of whom had been
laid off on the 9th. That afternoon Lucille Whitten and Lillie Ruth Webb had gone
to the plant to invite employees to a union meeting at the home of Kay and Paul
Branyon. For this purpose they were standing on the parking lot with Willis and
Mitchell, union organizers, together with Kay Branyon and two or three other
employees. Standing across from them presumably at the plant entrance was Jordan
and a group of his supervisors soon to be joined by employee Nettie Wood and
Supervisor Fair. There, Fair overheard Lillie Ruth Webb and Lucille Whitten men-
tioned as being among the group who were asking employees to a union meeting.
According to Wood's credited testimony, after she joined Jordan and the others Jor-
dan said "-now you see who is a friend to the Union and who is ours." Wood told
Jordan that Fair had told her to tell Lillie Ruth Webb to come to work in the morn-
ing and asked if he wanted the instructions carried out.15 Jordan said ". . hell, no,
we don't want any of them." This is essentially confirmed by Jordan who testified,
"Then when this thing happened, this whole mob came over there, I said, well, we will
just go ahead and work with what we have." 16 It seems clear from the foregoing that
but for the union activity of Whitten and Webb that afternoon, not only they but the
other three, who were to have been called back the next day would have been so
recalled. I so find.
E. The discharges of July 16
On the morning of July 16, according to Marjorie Fair's testimony, when she came
to work, Jordan was standing outside the plant talking to two policemen. Edgar
Sutton, another employee was present. As she started into the plant, Sutton told
her that he did not have a job that morning. Fair asked why and Jordan said it was
because there was no material to be cut. Fair reminded Jordan that Sutton had not
been cutting material for 3 or 4 days having been working in the shipping department.
Apparently at this point she started into the plant and Jordan asked her to wait saying,
"Marjorie, I am really surprised at you. I treated you better than anybody else in
the plant. Why are you acting like this?" Fair asked what he meant. He said,
"Who have you been talking to?" She replied "nobody in particular, who do you
mean?" He said, "The Union." She said "I have." He asked, "Have you signed a
union card?" She replied, "I have." Jordan apparently asked her what was the
reason for the Union. She replied he ought to know-for one thing it was the way he
was treating the girls. Fair's testimony continued:
A. He told me; he says, "Marjorie, if you are going in there to start trouble,
you stay out." I said, "Mr. Jordan, I am not going in there to start trouble
unless they start it first." He says, "well, in that case, you stay out." He says,
"you are fired and he says that goes for everybody that is for the union; get off
and stay off and don't come back." He said, "you can go in there and tell them
that I said so."
Q. So what did you do?
A. I went in there and I told them.
Q. Did any of the other girls come out with you?
A. Yes.
Q. After you came out of the plant, what-where did you go?
A. Well, when we come out, Mr. Jordan says, ". . . Punk was still standing
there and he says, "I am going to get even with you two one way or the other;
I am going to get even with you; you had better get out and not come back"
because . . . I said, "we are getting out, but we will be back." He says, "you
had better not."
15 Presumably this was said prior to Fair's having joined the group.
1e Whether this refers to the group on the parking lot on the 15th or another group of
employees who congregated outside the plant the next morning is not material as the
conclusion to be drawn is the same-that because of union activity the recall was
countermanded.
1 1 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the time that Jordan was standing outside the plant on this occasion, as
various employees came up to go to work he would tell them there was no work for
them . Among these were Kathryn Duren and Alice Bonner . When Duren reminded
him that he had told her the day before to come in he replied , "well I have changed
my mind ." 17 As for Bonner , according to Fair's further testimony, when Jordan
told her not to go in she said "what am I going to do about my riders ?" He said
"that is their worry and not mine ." Fair did not know whether Bonner went in or
not. Actually Bonner did go in according to her credited testimony . When she
arrived at the plant that morning Jordan told her not to go in ; when she asked why,
Jordan told her that someone had told him that she had gone to a union meeting
the day before. She denied it. Thereupon he told her to go in to work. According
to her, Fair, Sutton, and Jordan were talking when she approached that morning
and they were still talking when she went inside . Edgar Sutton 's description of the
matter was that when Bonner protested that she had not "been to any union meetings
or anything like that," they talked a while and finally Jordan let her go in to work.
Duren testified credibly and without denial that she had attended a union meet-
ing Tuesday night at Cook's house in Reform and one on Wednesday at the
Branyons ' house.18 It was at this latter meeting that Supervisor Shirla Dyer drove
past in a car and saw her.
The foregoing testimony was substantially corroborated by several of the General
Counsel's witnesses. Eight employees specifically confirmed Fair's testimony that
she was told by Jordan that everyone for the Union was to get off and stay off the
premises,19 and two of them confirmed that Jordan had told her to inform those
who were in the plant. Bernice Wilson testified that after Jordan's ultimatum she
went into the plant to get her scissors. Someone asked what the trouble was. She
replied, "well, he said for all the union to get out." Bernice Wallace, who was one
of those in the plant at the time, testified that Fair and Wilson came in and said,
"Mr. Jordan said that all who was for the Union to get out of the building and off
the grounds and stay off."
Of the several witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent only Jordan
was in position to testify as to what occurred outside the plant on this occasion. Ac-
cording to the testimony of the others, Arleithia Waites was inside at the time. Flor-
ence Winters arrived 2 or 3 minutes after 9; Jordan was not outside then. Dona
Kyzer did not hear anything Jordan said but heard Fair say (this was outside-not
inside the building) "I have already checked in but I will check out and I'm going
to bring everyone out that will come out with me." Then Jordan asked Sutton if
he had checked in and upon receiving a negative answer said, "I'll advise you not to
and I'll advise you not to ask anybody to come out with you." The closest any of
Respondent's witnesses, apart from Jordan, got to the scene outside was Helen
Wakefield. She arrived before Jordan took his stand outside. In the plant, when
she heard there was a commotion outside, she went to the office door and looked out.
Jordan was around the corner from where she was standing. She could only see
part of his back. She heard him tell some of the girls there was no work, but did
not hear him say that the union adherents were to leave nor did she hear the Union
mentioned. Jordan was still outside when she went back to the plant.
As for what happened inside the plant Respondent's version is as follows: Waites
testified that either Fair or Wilson said "allright girls, let's walk out as we planned."
Hattie O'Hanlan testified that Fair and one or two others came in and said some-
thing about "are you all going with me or come on and let's go." Harlan further
testified that she did not know what the trouble was outside but that she figured
that they had been laid off.
Jordan, when asked if he had made the damaging remarks, testified "I am not
that stupid and I wouldn't make a statement like that. I doubt that the union.. ..
He did admit, however, that he did say, ". . . those are supposed to go into work,
14 Shirla Dyer testified that Duren had been laid off on the 15th but that she had talked
to Jordan who had told her "she could come back in and that he would try to find some-
thing for her to do." Later the same day outside the plant when Jordan was observing
the group that was inviting employees to the union meeting, he made the statement he
would not need Duren the next day. Dyer's testimony was "that he had heard that
Kathryn made a statement about his speech earlier that afternoon ; then we didn't have
work for her either because we didn't have anything for her to do."
18 This apparently was the meeting that Jordan saw being promoted the day before by
Lillie Ruth Webb and Lucille Whitten
19 So testifying were Nellie Wood, Sutton, Bernice Wilson, Grace Holsonback, Johnnie
Montgomery, Mary Pritchard, Cordie M Brown, and Effie Mullinix.
F.G. & W. COMPANY, INC. 1121
and are going in there for the purpose of working, go ahead, if you are going in
there to start trouble, please stay out."
I have no difficulty in resolving the issue here in favor of the General Counsel. I
believe Jordan said substantially what was attributed to him. I further believe that
that was the way it was put to those on the inside. Not only does the General Coun-
sel's version stand strongly corroborated against Jord an's lone and somewhat equiv-
ocal denial; but there are some fatal flaws in what little probative evidence the Re-
spondent presented on this question. For instance Kyzer's testimony that Fair said
she had already checked in is contra to the sense of the record 2° And Jordan's
alleged question to Sutton as to whether he had checked in is equally mistaken. It
is clear that Jordan knew that such was not the case. O'Hanlan's analysis of the
situation is interesting and not particularly helpful to Respondent's version: She
"figured that they had been laid off!"
The evidence shows and I find that Nettie Wood, Marjorie Fair, Bernice Wilson,
Grace Holsonback, Johnnie Montgomery, Mary Pritchard, and Bernice Wallace
either left work or failed to go to work on July 16 because of Jordan's directions,
and were thus discriminated against within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. I also find that although Edgar Sutton and Kathryn Duren had already been
prevented from going to work when Jordan so directed, the reason they were pre-
vented from going to work was because of their union adherence. Thus they were
similarly discriminated against.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
With respect to the discrimination found herein by Respondent against its em-
ployees I shall recommend the customary reinstatement and backpay order.21 In so
doing I am aware of the fact that not all of the discrimination here involved actual
discharges but also involved discriminatory selecton for layoff and failure to recall.
For practical purposes, however, since none had been called back to work at the
time of the hearing the recommendation will be adequate in this form. Also although
I am aware that there is some evidence in the record that Respondent was going out
of or had gone out of business, I believe that any problems in this connection with
respect to the remedy are better left to the complaince stage of this proceeding.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices may reasonably be,anticipated. I shall there-
fore recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees under Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against the employees with respect to their hire and tenure
of employment, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
21 Fair's testimony shows that she never did go in there except to tell the others to
come out and Jordan's testimony confirms this.
21This entails offers to them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
said discrimination by payment to each a sum of money equal to that which they would
have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against them to the date of the
offer of reinstatement to them less their net earnings during such period Loss of pay
shall be computed and paid in accordance with the formula adopted by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
586439-61-vol. 12 9-7 2
1122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Castle Hotel, Ltd., a Partnership and Bartenders, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees, Local No. 264, AFL-CIO
Castle Hotel, Ltd., a Partnership and Bartenders , Hotel and
Restaurant Employees , Local No. 264, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 17-CA-1567 and 17-RC-,0953. Janua"j 3, 1961
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
On July 13, 1960, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above consolidated proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. He further found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of such allegations. In
his report, the Trial Examiner also made recommendations as to the
disposition of objections in the representation case. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief
in support thereof.
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 Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations,' except as modified herein?
1Absent exceptions , we adopt, pro forma, the Trial Examiner 's findings that the Re-
spondent did not violate the Act by distributing dollar bills to recipients of union hand-
bills during Its organizing campaign and that the Respondent did not make statements
or threats which violated the Act. Also absent exceptions, we adopt, pro forma, the
Trial Examiner 's finding that the Respondent did not unlawfully interfere with the
election and his recommendation as to the disposition of objections In the representation
case.
z We agree with the Trial Examiner, and for the reasons given in the Intermediate
Report, that the Respondent discharged employee Selders because of her union activities
129 NLRB No. 131.