Galax Apparel Corp.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 159 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

GALAX APPAREL CORPORATION
Galax Apparel Corporation and International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 5-CA-
9318, 5-CA-9234, 5-CA-9364, and 5-CA-9495
January 8, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On September 28, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed
an answering 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Galax Apparel Corpora-
tion, Galax, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
' The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently erred in finding that Polly
Phipps started employment with Respondent in July 1976. The record shows
that she was hired in July 1977.
' We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respon-
dent discriminatorily discharged Polly Phipps. We rely on evidence that
Respondent had suspected Phipps of being a union adherent and had solicited
employee Webb to dissuade Phipps from supporting the Union or associating
with known union supporters. The evidence further shows that Phipps
continued to accompany and befriend these known union supporters, and
informed Respondent on March 17, 1978., that she would be traveling on a
vacation with one such individual for the next 2 days. On the afternoon of her
return to work from this trip, Respondent informed her of her discharge,
purportedly due to low productivity. The record shows that Phipps'
productivity, although consistently low since her hire in July 1977, had not
deteriorated in the period preceding her discharge, and in fact had improved
somewhat during that period. In view of the above, we find that Respondent's
reasons for Phipps' discharge are pretextual, and that she was discriminatorily
discharged.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge: International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, herein called the Union
or Charging Party, filed the charges and the amended charge
in the above cases between March 20 and May 23, 1978,'
against Galax Apparel Corporation, herein called Respon-
dent or the Company, alleging that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. Following issuance of the complaints, orders
consolidating the cases were issued on May 8 and July 18 by
the Regional Director.
The complaints allege that Respondent interrogated em-
ployees, told employees to discourage union support of other
employees, threatened employees with discharge, layoffs,
closing of the plant, and blacklisting, and created an
impression their union activities were under surveillance. As
violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is alleged that
four employees were discharged, two employees were con-
structively discharged, and two were refused rehire because
of their actual or putative union activity or support.
Respondent's answers admitted the commerce and juris-
dictional allegations and, as amended, the supervisory status
of various officers and supervisors and the termination of
certain of its employees, but denied that it had violated the
Act in any manner. Respondent asserts that it terminated
the four employees because of their low production and
apparent lack of interest in their positions and that it had no
positions open for the two who sought to be rehired.
Concerning the alleged constructive discharges, Respondent
states the employees walked off their jobs and denied that it
had harassed or coerced them.
The principal question in this case is the resolution of
credibility. General Counsel produced witnesses who attest
to company knowledge of employee union support, state-
ments that it would rid itself of union supporters, and
actions which support violation findings. Respondent's
witnesses deny or do not remember statements, deny
specifically or inferentially knowledge as to some employees,
and assert it had good reasons for all the terminations. After
careful sifting of the testimony and the documentary
evidence, I have concluded that Respondent's evidence is not
reliable and in the main I have credited General Counsel's
witnesses and have found the 8(a)3) and (1) violations.
The parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally at
the hearing in this matter, held in Galax, Virginia, on
September 18-21 and November 1-3, 1978. General Coun-
sel, Respondent, and the Charging Party have filed extensive
briefs which have been carefully considered.
' Unless specifically stated otherwise, the events herein took place in the
latter part of 1977 and the early part of 1978.
247 NLRB No. 26
159
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record 2 in this case, including the exhibits
and the testimony, and on my evaluation of the reliability of
the witnesses based on the evidence and their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. COMMERCE FINDINGS AND UNION STATUS
Galax Apparel Corporation is a Virginia corporation
engaged in the manufacture and distribution of clothing at
its Galax, Virginia, plant from which, during the previous
year, Respondent sold and shipped directly to points outside
the State of Virginia goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union herein is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Facts
Respondent began its operations at the Galax plant in late
1976 and started hiring employees in December of that year.
The Company has cutting and sewing operations and,
according to its general manager, Al Zachary, who is also a
partner with Mr. Thornhill in the ownership of the Compa-
ny, it does contract cutting and sewing for other companies,
mainly in women's pants and shirts. The Company has over
100 employees, and most of them are engaged in sewing
operations.
Zachary was formerly a manager with Hanes Company in
a cutting and sewing plant, and his two principal supervi-
sors, Norma Collins and Peggy Dickens, were with him at
Hanes before they started with Respondent. According to
Zachary, a union organizational campaign had taken place
at Hanes, and his supervisors, Collins and Dickens, knew
from prior experience what they could and could not do as
supervisors. Dickens is the supervisor of the pants section,
while Collins is over the shirt section, and Bill Harris is the
supervisor of the cutting department.
Respondent runs a one-shift operation from 7 a.m. to 4
p.m. Monday through Thursday, and a 5-hour day on
Friday. Occasionally the employees work overtime. Accord-
ing to Respondent, the employees receive a 10-minute break
at 9 a.m. and again at 2 p.m. and have a half hour for lunch.
Respondent has no written or oral, formal or informal,
rules regarding employees and keeps no permanent records
of the employees except for their personnel files and its
production reports.
According to Zachary, prior to January 1, 1978, Respon-
dent paid its employees a guaranteed minimum of $2.50 an
hour, and most of the employees are on incentive rate or a
piecework basis. Employees are expected to make the
minimum or guaranteed rate, but a number did not. Zachary
said the incentive rates were designed so employees could
achieve a rate of $3.50 per hour. Around January 1,
Respondent instituted a guaranteed rate based on length of
service, with the rate starting at $2.75 for beginners; $2.85
for employees with 3 months' seniority; $3.00 for those with
6 months' seniority; and $3.15 for those with I year's
seniority. Respondent did not change the piece rate or
otherwise grant a raise, which meant that employees had to
produce more to meet the guaranteed rate and not fall below
production.
Zachary testified that he had no particular rate at which
employees were terminated for low production. He testified
that if employees were trying and seemed to increase their
ability, he would go along with them and there was no
particular limit. Respondent's records demonstrate that low
producers were not terminated solely for that reason and
usually a high rate of absenteeism accompanied and was the
trigger for termination.
In September 1977, the Union issued a statement that it
was going to start organizational activities in Southwest
Virginia and was going to organize the plants owned by Mr.
Thornhill. Zachary read this notice in a trade paper and
shortly thereafter issued a letter to all employees concerning
Respondent's feelings about being organized. Presumably
Zachary and the supervisors were thereafter on the lookout
for organizational activity.
Union activity at the Galax plant began sometime in
October, with union cards being signed in November and
thereafter.
Robin Webb began with Respondent in April 1977 and
was out for 2-% months because of a car accident, returning
to work on November 14. Shortly after she returned, Thelma
Widner and Dawn Dalton invited her out to lunch and
talked to her about the Union, trying to seek her support for
it. She continued as a sewing machine operator under
Collins until she left Respondent's employ in February.
After her return, she was questioned by Collins as to what
she knew about the Union. Webb stated her job was
important to her and she did not want to lose it, so she
denied knowing anything about the Union.
Thelma Ann Widner began working as a sewer under
Collins in mid-July 1977. She knew cutting department
Supervisor Bill Harris and in November began speaking to
him concerning the Union, telling Harris she thought
Respondent should have a union. Widner testified that
Harris seemed favorably disposed to a union in November,
saying he thought it was a good idea. In the first part of
December, Harris changed his position and said he did not
want to hear anything more from her about the damned
union.
Widner was placed on a number of different jobs in the
sewing department and did not make production on them.
She testified she was never spoken to about production until
December, when Supervisor Collins took her to Manager
Zachary's office. Zachary said he wanted her to improve her
production in making collars and that she should make 66
dozen collars a day. At that time Georgia Bryant was the
only other employee making collars. Bryant told Widner she
was called in by Zachary and Zachary corroborated that he
'General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript is hereby granted.
160
GALAX APPAREL CORPORATION
had spoken to her. She told Widner that Zachary wanted her
to make 50 dozen collars a day. Zachary did not deny telling
Bryant that.
Theresa Dawn Dalton started working for Respondent on
October I as a sewing machine operator under Norma
Collins and she, too, was switched around on a number of
different jobs. She testified that Zachary spoke to her in
November about her production and that she made produc-
tion on hemming sleeves a few times thereafter. Dalton's
sister was employee Carole Largen, who was one of the
union committee members.
Zachary stated he spoke to Dalton and Widner about their
production and wanted them to show some improvement
after they returned from the Christmas vacation.
B. Discharges of Widner and Dalton
The plant was closed for Christmas vacation from
December 23 until Tuesday, January 3. Robin Webb
testified to a conversation she had with Norma Collins and
Zachary which, in her direct testimony, she thought oc-
curred in mid-January. During cross-examination, she said
the conversation occurred in early January. When she was
questioned as to why she gave more details during cross-
examination than on direct, or than were in her affidavits,
she candidly replied she had not been so thoroughly
questioned before and the questions were helping her recall
more. In this early January conversation, Collins had her
come to the back of the room near the end of the day, and
Zachary was with Collins. Earlier in the day she had talked
to fellow employees about the handsome union organizer
who had come to her apartment. Collins and Zachary asked
what Union Organizer Boardman had said to her. She said
they had discussed union policies and what the Union was
about, and she had asked for a card but had not signed it.
Zachary told her the union representative was going around
to a number of the employees' homes at the time. Webb was
asked if she knew of anyone in the plant who was working
for the Union and said that she did not. They suggested a
number of names to her, including Thelma Widner, Dawn
Dalton, Sue Bennett, Carole Largen, Nancy Carroll, and
several others whom she did not know. She testified she
knew that Widner, Largen, and Dalton were working for the
Union but did not say so to Zachary and Collins. Zachary
told her if they joined the Union and the Union came into
the plant, they would close the plant and write it off as a tax
loss. They also told her they thought Polly Phipps might be
working for the Union because she was taking breaks and
going to lunch with some of the union sympathizers and
they wanted Webb to talk to Phipps and tell Phipps how bad
the Union was and not to hang around with union people or
she would get in trouble.
During this conversation, Zachary said he had given a
tape recorder to one of the girls to record the conversation
when Union Representative Boardman came to her home,
but apparently the representative found out about it and
never went to her house. Zachary said he would give a
recorder to any girl in the plant who wanted to take it home
and record the conversation for him.
Zachary and Collins agreed that they had talked about the
union organizer with Webb. Zachary did not answer
questions with direct denials but equivocated, saying he did
not recall more than just discussing Boardman. He said no
questions were asked about who was for or against the
Union. After much questioning, Zachary said he did not
recall that he or Collins named people they thought were for
the Union. This is not a true denial. Zachary said there were
no statements about Phipps or about a tape recorder and
that he did not have a recorder.
Collins did admit she told Webb that if she was against the
Union she should talk to people and convince them to be
against it. In the main Collins said she did not recall the
items being discussed.
On a morning thereafter, and Webb placed it as the day
that Widner and Dalton were discharged, she talked to
Zachary on her way to the restroom around 9 a.m. and
reminded him she wanted to take a trip to Florida and had
her reservations. Zachary said that he might let her go but
that it would depend on her behavior. She said she was
afraid she might lose her job and tried to make it clear to
Zachary that she was not a union sympathizer. She then told
Zachary that after she returned from sick leave in Novem-
ber, Dawn Dalton and Thelma Widner asked her to go to
lunch with them and they discussed the pros and cons of a
union. She told Zachary that Widner and Dalton were
working to get the Union in the plant.
Zachary placed the first conversation in mid- to late
January and the second conversation as occurring some time
later. He said Webb reported she had been to lunch with a
couple of employees, including Carole Largen, who wanted
to talk to her about the Union, but she was not interested in
it, and a part of the conversation dealt with Webb going to
Florida.
I credit Webb's version of both these conversations and
find they occurred on January 3 and 4. Webb was positive
the second conversation occurred on the same day that
Widner and Dalton were discharged and the second conver-
sation logically had to follow the conversation in which
Zachary and Collins were seeking confirmation of their
suspicions of employees Widner, Dalton, Largen and others.
Zachary was not forthright in his testimony and appeared
to equivocate and quibble whenever he could. As an
example, he admitted making a speech concerning the
Union, but then quibbled as to whether he was talking about
the Charging Party. After further questioning, he admitted
he was talking about the Charging Party. A number of his
answers were of the "do not recall" variety without being
direct denials. In support of a proposed exhibit, Zachary said
that rehires would show on a company book as of the date
the person was rehired. When this book was brought into the
hearing, it contradicted him in that rehires were not shown
on the date of rehire but went back to original hire dates. In
regard to employees Russell and Caldwell, Zachary stated
they were constantly going to the bathroom throughout the
time they worked there, but at another point stated that they
were good workers. Since their records show that they made
considerably more than the production requirements, it is
inconceivable that they could have wasted the amount of
time Zachary suggested. There are other examples of
Zachary's stating something as a fact but having to recant it
on further questioning.
161
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In contrasting the testimony of Webb and that of Zachary
and Collins, I credit Webb. Webb was a straightforward
witness who has nothing to gain from her testimony, and her
spontaneity in stating that she recalled further details
because of being more closely questioned than previously
adds to that credibility.
I conclude and find that these conversations violated
Section 8(a)(1) as illegal interrogation, directing employees
to discourage other employees from supporting the Union, a
threat to close the plant if the Union came in, and an
attempt to give employees the impression that union
activities were under surveillance.
Norma Collins stated that on the evening of January 3,
she showed the production sheets, particularly those of
employees who had low production, to Zachary. Zachary
told her to talk to those who were not making production.
It would not be unusual for production to be low the first
day back after a 10-day vacation because it takes time for
employees to pick up the rhythm and skill to start producing
again.
Widner testified that about 8:20 a.m. on January 4,
Collins told her to go to Zachary's office. Zachary said her
production was low the day before and said she would have
to do better or he would put somebody else on her machine.
She replied that the machine did not sew right-it kept
breaking threads; they had tried to fix it and could not do so.
Zachary said he wanted her to be making $22 a day by
Friday.
Dawn Dalton was also sent to see Zachary on the morning
of January 4 and was told that she would have to get her
production up or he would let her go. She told him she was
making production some of the time and went back to her
machine. There is no indication that any other low produc-
ers were sent to talk to Zachary that morning.
There is no testimony as to whether Widner and Dalton
took the regular break at 9 o'clock, but both agree they went
into the restroom sometime around 10 o'clock. Dalton stated
that she believed it was after the 9 o'clock break that she was
sent to see Zachary, and shortly after she returned to her
machine she went on to the restroom. She had been there 2
or 3 minutes when Norma Collins came in and asked how
long she had been there. Dalton replied 2 or 3 minutes and
went back to her machine. Collins followed her and told her
and Widner to go to Zachary's office. Zachary saw Dalton
first and he said she had been in the restroom 10 minutes.
She denied it, saying she had only been there for 3 or 4
minutes. He said she could not make production that way
and he was going to have to fire her, that he could not put up
with it. Dalton told Thelma Widner, who was sitting
outside, that Widner might get fired since she had just been.
Widner, who had been in the restroom with Dalton, testified
that although that was not a regular breaktime, a large
number of employees took unauthorized smoke breaks in the
restroom during the day. Zachary told Widner that they
gave them a break in the morning and one in the afternoon,
and employees should have not to use the restroom at any
other time. Widner said that she had been in the restroom
only about 2 minutes when Collins came in. Zachary said he
was going to have to let her go. She asked why, since she was
making more collars than she had done before, even with the
thread breaking. He said that he hated to let her go but was
going to have to do so. She again asked why he was getting
rid of her and keeping Georgia Bryant, and Zachary said
that he was going to fire Georgia Bryant next.
Zachary denied saying that he was going to fire Georgia
Bryant; and he did not fire her.
Collins testified that Dalton was a low producer but
agreed that Dalton had complained a number of times about
thread breaking. As to Widner, Collins said that she took
lots of breaks which could hinder her production, and she
frequently told her to pick up her production. Collins
testified that shortly after they went back to work, Zachary
asked where Widner was and she replied Widner was
probably in the bathroom as usual. She went into the
restroom and saw Widner and Dalton smoking and asked
how long they had been there. They said only a couple of
minutes, and she said they had been there longer since she
had looked at the clock when they went into the bathroom.
According to Collins, Zachary told Widner that he had
given her plenty of chances and it did not look as though she
wanted to bring her production up; she was taking too many
breaks, and he was going to have to let her go. Zachary
testified that the fact that Dalton and Widner had both
taken second breaks that morning showed that they were not
attempting to make production and did not really want to
produce, and therefore he terminated them.
Neither Collins, Dickens, nor Zachary disputed that many
employees took unauthorized breaks. It is clear that a large
number of employees did not make production. Zachary
stated that he had no cut-off point as to what constituted too
low a production for employees or a time within which they
must make production or be discharged for low production.
Zachary testified that some employees were discharged for
low production. However, an inspection of the files of those
terminated showed that low production was always mingled
with excessive absenteeism and it was the absenteeism which
triggered the termination. When this was mentioned to
Zachary, he stated that absenteeism was a reason they could
not make production since those employees were absent for
excessive periods of time. There was no contention that
Dalton and Widner were absent for excessive periods of
time.
Zachary testified that where employees were trying to
make production and continually tried to improve, he would
go along with them. This rather nebulous standard does not
give employees anything by which to gauge their efficiency
or progress but makes their employment completely depen-
dent on the manager's whim.
As will be seen from testimony concerning employees
Caldwell and Russell being restricted about bathroom use,
the restriction here placed on Widner and Dalton was the
first placed on union proponents. Dalton and Widner were
in effect terminated, according to Respondent, for going to
the bathroom more than the allowed two breaks plus lunch.
However, Supervisor Dickens said there were no rules or
restrictions on the number of times employees went to the
bathroom.
As will be seen concerning other discharged employees,
notes concerning some employees were placed in their
personnel files, apparently by supervisors and sometimes
unsigned, at various times after the events. General Counsel
stated during court proceedings that he had gone through
162
GALAX APPAREL CORPORATION
the files of 74 employees who were terminated between
November 1977 and August 1978, and there were no reasons
given for their terminations in the files and no documents
setting forth a reason. This statement was made subject to
Respondent counsel's further checking on it if he disputed it.
There was no further statement from Respondent's counsel.
Zachary stated that he put notes in the file or had notes
put in the personnel files of terminated employees when he
anticipated that there might be some problem, such as the
employee filing for unemployment. Unspoken but rather
evident from this statement was the fact that he expected
some problem from these two employees and indeed from
the alleged 8(a)(3)'s and not because of employment com-
pensation claims but rather because of union affiliation.
Placing things in perspective, the credited testimony of
Webb shows that the conversation she had with Collins and
Zachary, in which they named employees they thought were
active in the union campaign, preceded the Zachary and
Webb conversation in which she told Zachary that Widner
and Dalton were organizing for the Union; and this
conversation she placed precisely on the day Widner and
Dalton were discharged. This demonstrates Respondent had
its suspicions of Widner and Dalton's union activity, and
such were confirmed immediately before their discharge.
With the nebulous standards of production, with there
being no actual cutoff point at which Respondent terminated
low producers, and with Widner and Dalton making
production some of the time, there seems no reason for the
extreme haste used in terminating them on January 4 except
for their confirmed union activity. They had just resumed
work on January 3 after a 10-day layoff and would not have
worked back into a rhythm and speed to allow them to make
production in that period of time. Secondly, the production
figures had been raised just about that point. Next, they were
the only two of all the low producers who were called in,
insofar as the evidence discloses, and talked to by Zachary
concerning low production on January 4, with Zachary
having told Collins on January 3 to talk to the low
producers. With the Webb-Zachary conversation occurring
at that same time, and with Dalton and Widner appearing to
act in concert and the sister relationship between Largen and
Dalton known, it is evident that the precipitating reason for
their termination was Respondent's confirmed suspicion of
their prounion activities, and I find and conclude that such
terminations violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
C. Refusal To Rehire Helen and Rita Coleman
Helen Coleman started with the Company on October 10
as a sewing machine operator under Norma Collins. Her
daughter, Deborah K. Coleman, also worked for Respon-
dent, as did two nieces, Jean Fink and Joan Coleman. Her
sister-in-law, Rita Coleman, had previously worked for and
left Respondent. Another relative by marriage, Sharon
Trimble, worked for Respondent, and the company supervi-
sors knew of all these relationships.
Helen Coleman worked until the Christmas vacation,
December 23, and was due to report back on January 3, but
was unable to leave her young daughter who had the
mumps. After a partial recovery, the daughter caught the
flu, and Helen Coleman later came down with the flu. Helen
Coleman telephoned Respondent's receptionist on January
3, stating that her daughter had the mumps and she would
be unable to work that week. Her husband called the
Company either at the end of that week or the beginning of
the following week and told Respondent that Helen Cole-
man had the flu and would not be in. On January 10, Helen
Coleman called and told the receptionist that she was still
sick and was told that the receptionist would tell Norma
Collins and Zachary.
Prior to the Christmas vacation, Helen Coleman and her
daughter, Deborah K., had signed union cards at her home.
Around mid-January, a minor supervisor named Greene
asked Deborah if she thought her mother would like to come
back to work, and Deborah said yes. According to Deborah,
Greene left and came back, saying that Collins said if her
mother wanted to return, she could come back to work on
January 23. She related this to her mother. Helen Coleman
thought that any message to come back to work should
come from Supervisor Zachary and, on January 24, she
telephoned Zachary but was unable to contact him. On
January 25, she again called the office, said she had been out
sick and wanted to come back to work. The receptionist said
she would pull the file so Mr. Zachary could see it. After
waiting a few minutes, Zachary came on the line and asked if
she could come to work on January 30 at 7 a.m. She said she
could, thanked him, and hung up.
When Helen Coleman reported on the 30th, she received
her timecard from the office and went into the factory.
Somebody was at her machine, and Norma Collins asked
why she had not reported to work earlier and why she had
not called in. She replied that she had, that she had spoken
to the receptionist, who remembered her, and had also
spoken to Zachary about it. Collins sent her to Zachary's
office. Zachary said he had nothing for her to do and did not
have a position for her.
Helen Coleman went home and later called Zachary,
asking if she was terminated, and he said she was.
Rita Coleman had worked for Respondent for about 6
weeks from January until mid-February 1977. Her mother
became ill and died, and she quit work to be with her father.
She decided to come back to work and called Respondent on
January 25. She spoke to the receptionist, asking if they were
hiring, and the receptionist said they were and asked if she
had worked there before. Rita Coleman said she had and the
receptionist said she would pull her file and talk to Zachary.
After a few minutes, Zachary came on the phone, used her
name, and asked if she would like to come to work. She said
she would. He asked what she had done before and she said
she had sewed pants. He told her to come in on the following
Monday, January 30, at 7 o'clock and report to work, and
she would be working on the shirt side.
On Monday, January 30, she reported to Zachary's office
at or about 6:45 and was asked to wait. Several other
women, including her sister-in-law Helen, came in. Others
received their timecards from Zachary and went into the
plant. Zachary had her personnel file and asked why she had
decided to come back to work. She said her husband's work
was slow and she wanted to go back to work. He said he was
sorry that he did not have anything for her. She said he had
to be kidding, she had come there to go to work. lie said that
because of the weather they had not gotten a shipment of
163
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cloth and he did not have anything for her to do. She went
home.
Besides the statement that they had not gotten any cloth
in, Respondent produced nothing to show that it did not
have work for these two women. Zachary testified he only
told Rita Coleman he would see if he had work for her. He
did not recall whether there were other applicants that day.
Despite Zachary's statement, Rita Coleman's personnel
file, in addition to being marked with her original hire date,
was marked "RE 1/30/78," indicating, according to the
Company's interpretation of these markings, that she was
rehired as of January 30, 1978. Similarly, Helen Coleman's
file, in addition to showing her original hire date, also
showed a date of 1/30/78 in the same manner but without
the "RE." Zachary attempted to denigrate the significance
of the dates, saying they meant nothing, but it is clear they
demonstrate the two were to be rehired.
Bearing significantly on Respondent's refusal to rehire
Helen Coleman and Rita Coleman is the fact that on
January 26 the Union sent a telegram to Al Zachary
informing him that the Union was conducting an organizing
campaign at Respondent and warned him concerning the
rights of the employees to organize. The telegram listed the
following employees as members of the organizing commit-
tee: Jane Paisley, Carole Largen, Thelma Widner, Deborah
Coleman, Joan Coleman, and Jean Fink. Deborah Coleman
is Helen's daughter, and Joan Coleman and Jean Fink are
her nieces. So three of the five members of the union
organizing committee still employed were members of the
Coleman family.
Zachary testified that he received this telegram on the
27th or 28th and he left it unopened until Monday, January
30, the same morning that Helen and Rita Coleman reported
to be rehired. On January 30, a second telegram was sent to
Respondent which Zachary stated he received and opened
on the morning of January 31. The second telegram added
the names of Cathy Russell, JoAnne Caldwell, and Helen
Coleman to the Union's organizing committee.
The personnel file notes derogating Helen Coleman's
working ability are ex post facto attempts to cover Respon-
dent's efforts to remove union supporters and are not worthy
of credence.
The facts are that Respondent was prepared to rehire
Helen and Rita Coleman as its records indicate, and then
refused to do so after learning from the Union's telegram
that a number of Coleman family members were part of the
union organizing committee.
On these facts, I conclude and find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to
rehire Helen Coleman and Rita Coleman on January 30,
1978.
D. Events Through Deborah Coleman's Discharge
Respondent placed these telegrams on its bulletin board
and on January 31 it wrote letters to each still-employed
employee who was named in the telegrams, stating that it
had received a telegram from the Union advising that the
individual was a member of the Union's organizing commit-
tee. The letter, signed by Zachary, stated that the employee
had no special status, privileges, or rights because of her
membership on that committee. It also contained the
following paragraph:
You should bear in mind that if you do not follow
Company rules, if you do not do your work properly, if
you neglect your work or if you interfere with the work
of others, you will be subject to discipline, including
discharge just as any other employee. The fact that you
are a member or official of a union will not put you in
any different position from that of any other employee.
On January 31, President Thornhill gave a speech to the
assembled employees at the plant. According to Patricia
Carpenter, who voluntarily left Respondent's employ,
Thornhill said that Respondent did mostly contract work for
nonunion companies, and such companies liked nonunion
suppliers because they were assured the work would be done
but could not be assured with unionized contractors. He said
that if Respondent became unionized, the companies would
not give them contracts because they would be afraid of
strikes and not getting their orders on time. Thornhill added
that he was at Galax to make money, not because he loved
them.
Sara Jane Paisley reported that Thornhill said the Compa-
ny did mostly contract work, and if the Union came in, the
plant could become involved in a strike and there would be a
layoff and slowup in the work, and Respondent would lose
its contracts and Thornhill would probably fail to make a
profit. If that happened, he would have to close the plant
because he was there to make money, not because he loved
them. She said he tried to impress on them that it was
important that the Union not get in because if it did, it might
cause him not to make a profit and the plant would close and
what the Union would get them was a job walking the
streets.
Thornhill did not testify. Some of Respondent's witnesses
said they did not recall hearing Thornhill say the things
General Counsel's witnesses testified to. Although the
witnesses stated that Thornhill appeared to be reading his
speech, no transcript or copy was offered.
Respondent claims that at most General Counsel proved
Thornhill was making a prediction of the plant's closing if
things uncontrolled by Respondent should happen. How-
ever, as Paisley and Carpenter testified, this was more than
mere speculation on Thornhill's behalf. The message he
attempted to get across, and did, according to these
employees, was that, if the Union came in, there would be
strikes and layoffs, and the contractors would withdraw
their work from Respondent, and Thornhill would then
close the plant because it would not be making money. This
was bolstered by his statement that there was another plant
in Virginia that had closed because of the Union. This
speech was made by the president of the Company to a
group of unsophisticated women concerning what would
happen to their jobs if they supported the Union. The
message was clear that if the Union got in, they would be
without their jobs.
Where Respondent chooses to walk the brink in stating its
antiunion policy and ventures over the edge, as the testimo-
ny of the General Counsel witnesses indicates, then Respon-
dent must be held accountable for the 8(a)(1) nature of the
remarks. I find and conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by President Thornhill's speech
164
GALAX APPAREL CORPORATION
warning employees that selection of the Union as their
representative would lead to layoffs and closing of the plant.
Cathy Russell and JoAnne Caldwell worked next to each
other. Russell hemmed the tops of pants and Caldwell
hemmed the bottoms, under Peggy Dickens' supervision.
Both employees were good sewers and averaged nearly $4.00
an hour, according to their testimony and the production
records.
When employees made mistakes on work which were
found by the inspector, the work was sent back to them to
repair; this was called back-work. Where something hap-
pened to the garments somewhere in the manufacturing
cycle and the work had to be done over and sent back
through the line, this was called repair work, and the
employees who did it were paid the base rate of $3.00 per
hour. Repair work was passed around among the employees
on a rotating basis, according to the supervisors. Caldwell
testified that she had very little back-work, and this was true
of Russell as well.
After Respondent received the Union's second telegram
on January 31 naming Russell, Caldwell, and Helen Cole-
man as members of the organizing committee, and following
the speech by Thornhill, Russell and Caldwell went back to
work on their machines. Supervisor Peggy Dickens said that
after the speech she observed Caldwell and Russell at their
machines talking very loudly. She later admitted she did not
hear what they were saying and in fact did not hear them at
all. She went to each of them and said they were talking too
much and told them to cut it out. They asked if that went for
everyone, and she replied that they were the ones who were
doing the loud talking. She testified that they did not pay
attention to what she had said, since after she left, they
started talking again. She told Zachary she had asked them
not to talk and they were continuing to talk loudly, and he
went to them and said that the talking would have to stop.
She did not remember Zachary saying anything about their
going to the restroom and stated that there was no rule
against talking unless you are bothering someone else or
making a disturbance, and she felt they were making a
disturbance but did not say who they were disturbing. She
said the operators can talk to one another and that there are
no restrictions on the use of the restroom.
Russell testified that following the speech Peggy Dickens
jumped on her, saying that she was talking and was not to be
talking. Dickens came back later and said that was warning
number one. Shortly thereafter, Dickens and Zachary came
to her machine after she and some others had been to the
restroom, and Zachary said she was not allowed to take any
breaks other than the regular breaks, that she could not go
to the bathroom or talk any more. She asked if this was just
for her or was it for everybody, because everybody did so.
Zachary said he was talking to her. She heard him tell
JoAnne Caldwell that the same thing went for her. Caldwell
asked why, and Zachary said that Caldwell was not going to
get any more breaks either. Caldwell asked if that was just
for the two of them and Zachary walked away.
Sara Jane Paisley, who as a bundle-person serviced
Caldwell, said that following the Thornhill speech she saw
Dickens and Vicki Vaughan, the quality control person,
inspecting Caldwell's garments; and that they did so for one
whole day and on the days thereafter would do it parts of the
day.
Pat Carpenter stated that following the Thornhill speech
the supervisors were watching the employees to the point
that one of the girls was crying and the atmosphere in the
plant became very tense.
Jeanette Hamby, who was an inspector and left Respon-
dent's employ voluntarily in March 1978, worked under
Peggy Dickens inspecting pants and knew both Caldwell and
Russell. She would check for open seams and defects and
sometimes would measure the hems of garments but usually
did not do so unless they looked bad or were sample work.
She testified that following the telegram naming Russell and
Caldwell as members of the organizing committee, the
method of inspecting changed concerning the size of hems.
The inspectors were told that, if hems were too wide, they
were to send them back; and her supervisor told her to send
Caldwell's and other work back if the hem was over an
eighth of an inch off. Previously such work had been passed.
Hamby further testified that on January 31 the supervisor
told Caldwell that her hems were too wide and that they
checked her hems one whole day until Caldwell was pale
and crying. She said she saw Zachary and Dickens constant-
ly watching Caldwell throughout the day and measuring
Caldwell's work. As a result, many more garments were sent
back than had previously been because of the changed
standards. Previously, they used to have to ask Zachary to
come out and look at something but after the telegram
concerning the union committee he was out inspecting
things much more frequently.
On February 2 a letter from Respondent was handed out
to employees in the plant, and they were instructed to read
it. Webb testified that while she and Polly Phipps were
reading the letter, Norma Collins and Zachary came over to
them. By that time the telegrams from the Union naming
organizing committee members had been posted by Respon-
dent on the bulletin board. Webb asked Zachary and Collins
what was going to happen to employees like Paisley and
Largen who were still at the plant. Collins replied that the
first chance they got, the employees would be fired for doing
things such as taking too long a break or going to the
bathroom for too long. Zachary said that when they got fired
from this plant and went to other plants and gave Respon-
dent as a reference, he was going to say they were union
backers, and they would never get a job in that county
because they were union sympathizers.
Polly Phipps testified that she heard some of the conversa-
tion that took place after the union telegrams were placed on
the bulletin board. She heard Robin Webb ask who was
named in the telegram, and Zachary replied Jane Paisley,
Jean Fink, Deborah Coleman, JoAnne Caldwell, and Thel-
ma Widner, whom he had fired. Norma Collins looked at
Phipps and said that Polly's friend was also in the telegram.
Phipps asked Norma Collins if she was talking about Carole
Largen, and Collins said yes. Webb asked Zachary what he
was going to do with those people, and Zachary said he was
going to get them out of there if he could. Phipps testified
that she usually took breaks with her friend Carole Largen.
Shortly after the telegrams were posted, Pat Carpenter
asked Supervisor Dickens why things were so tense, and
Dickens replied that it was usually that way when a union
165
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was trying to organize. Carpenter asked how long the
tension was going to keep up because you could not work
with people standing over you watching when it had never
been done before. She told Dickens she did not think it was
any big thing, that only a couple of girls were interested in it.
Dickens said that the Company could not let it go, it had to
do something about it. Dickens continued that she had
learned that Caldwell and Russell had signed cards but
could not understand why Paisley had signed, and said that
they had fixed themselves because they were not going to be
able to get a job anywhere in Galax. Carpenter and Dickens
also talked about how Paisley had requested an office job but
now there was no way she would be able to get it since she
had signed a union card. Dickens admitted she talked to
Carpenter about those named in the union's telegram and
said she was surprised at Paisley because she had felt Paisley
was happy with her job. She also said that Russell and
Caldwell were making good money but could not remember
what else was said. She denied saying anything about
employees not being able to get a job elsewhere in Galax.
Collins denied having any conversation concerning those
named in the Union's telegram and said she was not present
with Zachary for any such conversation. Collins also said
she was not aware of the Union's organizing until after the
Union's telegrams were received. This statement conflicts
with Zachary's stating that he and the supervisors discussed
the union campaign from September through February and
with the credited testimony of Webb.
Zachary did not specifically deny the conversation about
blacklisting union supporters but simply said that he did not
recall any other conversation with Webb concerning the
Union or union supporters.
As stated previously, I believe Webb to be a credible
witness, and her testimony is corroborated by Phipps. I
credit their versions of the conversation and I further credit
Pat Carpenter's version of her conversation with Supervisor
Dickens. Accordingly, I find and conclude that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to
discharge union supporters and to blacklist them.
Deborah Coleman started working for Respondent near
the end of October and was on a great number of jobs during
the time she was there. One of her longest jobs was pressing
collars, for about 6 weeks, and it was only while she was on
this job that she made production. Polly Phipps was the
other person pressing collars at that time. About 2 weeks
before Christmas Zachary talked to Coleman, urging her to
pick up her production. She had signed a union card in early
December and her name was on the first union telegram.
Deborah Coleman testified that on February 10 she had
two conversations with Zachary and Norma Collins in
Zachary's office. In that week she had worked on Monday,
February 6, and was then absent until the 10th. She said that
in the first conversation Zachary told her she was not
making enough and asked if she thought she could make
more. She said she could if she had the time. He said that her
application showed that she was experienced and he wanted
to know how much time she would need. She said 3 or 4
weeks at the most, and he said they had a lot of work to get
out and he would give her until the end of the week to make
production. At this time she was not pressing but was sewing
and setting sleeves and had only been on the job for 4 days.
At about 2:40 p.m., Collins took Deborah to Zachary's
office. Zachary said she had not made production, and he
terminated her.
Collins testified that Deborah at one time did fairly well in
pressing collars but in early February was on the job of
hemming the bottoms of shirts. She stated that Coleman was
called into Zachary's office and that Zachary asked what
was wrong that she could not do more than she was doing,
stated that she had not shown improvement on the various
jobs she had been on and said that she would have to show
some improvement or he would have to let her go. Coleman
was later called in again, although Collins did not remember
when, and told that she had been given a chance and had not
come up and had to be let go.
Zachary testified that he had talked to Deborah Coleman
numerous times about her production and on a Monday in
February he talked to her again about it, saying that she
would have to pick up her production. She was out until
Friday, and he said that on Friday "she did not seem to want
to do anything" and acted noncommittal about her job,
saying it was up to him whether he wanted her, and he
decided to terminate her. he stated that since she had been
out 4 days and then had come back to work, he made it a
point to see what amount of work she had done and had the
supervisor bring her production records to him; and since it
did not look as though she had done more than she had
before, he decided it was best to terminate her.
As is evident, Zachary gave Deborah Coleman very little
time to familiarize herself with a new operation and
terminated her very shortly after her name appeared on the
union telegram. Respondent made no complaint about
Deborah's absentee record but stated it was her failure to
make production that caused her termination. Coleman had
worked for Respondent only a little over 3 months and had
held a great number of jobs in and out of the sewing field in
that time. The amount of time given to Phipps and other
employees to make production is in marked contrast to the
treatment accorded Coleman. Further, the other employees
terminated for "low production" were all employees who
had extreme numbers of absences.
The treatment accorded Deborah Coleman is markedly
different from that accorded other employees, and the only
thing which makes her stand out is her known union activity
and that of her family.
I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by its termination of Deborah
Coleman.
E. The Further Treatment Accorded Russell and
Caldwell
As stated above, the rules were changed in regard to the
inspection given Caldwell's work following the Union's
telegram to Respondent containing Caldwell's and Russell's
names. Dickens testified that she had problems with Cald-
well's work but it was only after Respondent received the
telegram. Dickens agreed that she may have been at
Caldwell's machine but denied that she was there all day,
and did not remember Zachary's measuring Caldwell's
work. In his testimony, Zachary said that Russell and
166
GALAX APPAREL CORPORATION
Caldwell constantly were going to the bathroom throughout
the time they worked for Respondent and were wasting time.
If Caldwell and Russell were neglecting their work to that
extent, certainly they would not have been able to produce
not only more than the production standard, but substantial-
ly more than what the incentive rates were designed to give
good operators. They averaged nearly $4.00 per hour
compared to the $3.00 production standard and the $3.50
rate which Zachary testified the incentive rates were
supposed to provide for good operators.
Caldwell testified that there was a drop in her earnings
when following the telegram she began getting a number of
repairs. As of February 2 when she was paid her average for
hemming bottoms, her average was $3.90 per hour, which
demonstrated that this was her working level for the prior
week. By February 13, when she was switched to working on
darts, her average was down to $3.42 an hour.
Looking merely at the amounts she received each week
does not tell the complete story because she worked varying
hours during the week and sometimes was on a flat rate.
Although her pay stayed up through February 1 and 2, the
amount of work she produced on those 2 days dropped
considerably, but she was paid on the basis of her high
average. Her pay rate dropped in the second week after the
union telegram and by the third week it was at the $3.42
rate.
On February 19, Caldwell was switched to sewing bands
and asked Dickens how long she would have to make
production and how long she could stay on her average.
Dickens said she would have I week on her average and after
that she would have to make production. In the previous
times when she had been switched to other jobs, she had
always been paid her average. Her production records show
that for the week of February 18 she produced at a rate
which would pay an average of $2.01 per hour, although she
was paid at her average rate. Her job was changed again at
the end of that week, and on Monday, February 21, she was
sewing elastic bands for only her second day. She was still
getting a number of repairs back and was making less than
the production rate.
There is no explanation for changing Caldwell around to
different sewing jobs when she was so extremely proficient at
her original job and was able to make good production and
earn wages of nearly $4.00 an hour. Respondent made no
statement that her job was not available or that no one was
doing that job. Previously, when someone was needed in
another section, Dickens would send any employee other
than Caldwell because Caldwell did such good work on
hemming bottoms.
It is clear from the figures themselves that Caldwell's
wages dropped considerably after the union telegram, and
this drop must have been due, as she testified, to the volume
of repairs coming to her as well as to her being switched
inexplicably to these other jobs.
Russell's job of hemming tops changed somewhat after the
telegram in that she also received large bundles of repairs.
Shortly after the telegram she was put on a new style of tops
which the Company had not done before. She complained to
Supervisor Dickens that her machine would not pick up the
material. Dickens told her to go ahead and run it, as the
elastic girl's work would cover it. Quality Inspector Vicki
Vaughan, however, was bringing the work back to her and
telling her to redo it. This job lasted approximately 2 weeks,
and during that time Russell continued to get large volumes
of repairs. On one occasion Vicki Vaughan brought back a
bundle of work that was not hers and she told Vaughan that
it was not. Vaughan later brought back a bundle and said
that she knew it was Russell's work because she had
inspected it, and that every pair of pants had holes in them.
Russell checked each pair and found that every pair of pants
had an open spot of about 2 inches. She testified that the
machine did not do it nor did she, because the thread was
cut clean, which made her believe that somebody had
deliberately cut the thread. She testified that if the thread
had been broken by the machine, it would have had a rough
edge, not a clean edge. She also stated that if it was a mere
skip, the thread would still be there and would not have been
broken or cut. Russell's suspicions were further fired
because she saw Vaughan and two inspectors at the
inspection table laughing and looking at her when the
bundles were brought to her.
Prior to the union telegram, when Russell ran out of her
regular work of hemming tups, Dickens would give her work
on basting tops and that way she would continue to make
her average. Following the union telegram, Dickens would
switch the type of job but would not give her the other work,
although the other person who did it was still being given the
basting work if she ran out. Dickens told Russell that she
thought S3.00 an hour was plenty for her, that she would not
give her the work on which she could make her average.
Although there were some rules as to when employees were
to be given their average rather than the flat rate, Zachary
admitted that the supervisors had the discretion as to
whether to pay the flat rate or the average.
Caldwell and Russell discussed the fact that Dickens
seemed to be watching them all the time, that it made them
nervous, and that their wages had been cut by Respondent's
tactics. On February 21, they discussed it one more time and
decided that they could not stand being treated in that
manner and left the plant. They said that Peggy Dickens
would not let them speak, was standing watching them,
waiting for them to make a mistake and that they finally had
enough. When the two left the plant, Dickens went over and
pulled their timecards from the rack and loudly shouted
"Hallelujah." Dickens denied saying "hallelujah" but said
that when they left, employee Carpenter told her they were
fed up with the riding they had been receiving.
There were notes from Dickens in Russell's and Cald-
well's personnel files stating that Caldwell continuously had
hems too long or hems that were not even. Dickens testified
that she really meant one time, not all the time. Again, in
one of her notes, Dickens said that Russell had developed a
poor attitude but admitted that this poor attitude occurred
only after the union telegram had been received. In regard to
prohibiting Russell and Caldwell from speaking, Dickens
said that they were disturbing but did not say whom they
were disturbing.
Caldwell and Russell were excellent producers, and
Respondent was somewhat startled when it learned from the
second union telegram that they were members of the
organizing committee. The harassment started immediately
with special rules for Russell and Caldwell, including a
167
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prohibition against their talking. Respondent meddled with
their job content resulting in lower wages for them. They
were given repairs. Russell with some reason suspected that
her work had been cut. The constant looking and watching,
as other employees testified to, kept up until Russell and
Caldwell had enough and left. The purpose of the treatment
was clear and, as demonstrated by Dickens' yelling "hallelu-
jah," it worked as far as Respondent was concerned. It had
rid itself of two excellent employees because they were union
organizing members without discharging them for "low
production" or for some other reason. I find and conclude,
based on all the testimony, that Russell and Caldwell were
constructively discharged by Respondent in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
F. Termination of Polly Phipps
Polly Phipps started with Respondent in July 1976 on a
sewing machine in the pants section but after I week went to
the shirt side under Norma Collins. Phipps was put on a
number of different jobs and made production only once or
twice during her employment. Zachary spoke to her on
several occasions about making production.
During the first week of March, Zachary spoke to her
again, saying she was not doing enough work, they had to
pay her too much makeup, and she would have to make
production or be terminated.
On Friday, March 17, she asked to leave early. Carole
Largen also got off at the same time since they were going
together on a trip. Collins conferred with Zachary, and
Zachary told Phipps she could leave although they were
scheduled to work overtime, and, if she did not come back
Monday, he would know she had quit. He told Phipps that if
she came back Monday, she was going to have to give it a
heck of a try.
On Monday, March 20, Phipps was called into the office
about 3:30, and Zachary asked what he was going to do with
her since it appeared she could not do any of the work. She
told him she was doing her best. Zachary asked if she
thought she could do better. She said she had been moved
around on so many jobs, she did not see how she could have
made production and had done her best. He said he was
going to have to let her go, and she was terminated.
Norma Collins testified that Phipps told her she was
afraid Collins and Zachary would think she was for the
Union because she ran around with Carole Largen. Collins
replied that Phipps had a right to choose her friends.
Norma Collins testified she had to talk about production
with Phipps nearly every day because she was so slow. She
stated that, when Zachary discharged Phipps, he said that he
had warned her continuously and she had not improved and
he had put up with her as long as he could, and that they
had to get the work out and they were just going to have to
let her go. Zachary's testimony is similar.
It is clear that Phipps was a low producer and was not
active in union organization. The question is whether her
discharge was caused solely by low production or whether
her friendship with Carole Largen, a known union protago-
nist, influenced the decision.
Phipps was with Respondent nearly 9 months and,
according to the Company, was a low producer the whole
time. Respondent claims it moved Phipps around on jobs in
an effort to find something she could do. When her
employment is contrasted with that of Widner, Dalton, and
Deborah Coleman, it appears that Respondent was making
an effort to accommodate her in contrast to ridding itself of
them as soon as their union activity became known. As
Webb was told, the Company would not just sit back.
Phipps felt that Respondent suspected her of union
activity and so she told Collins that she was not supporting
the Union despite her friendship with Largen.
However, Zachary testified that on March 17 Phipps
asked to take off since she and Largen were taking a trip to
Georgia. It was then that Zachary warned her about
production and said that she must improve.
This case is extremely close. Because of the great animus
Respondent demonstrated against the Union and its adher-
ents, the fact that employees terminated for "low produc-
tion" also had absentee records which triggered such
terminations, and the absence of such a problem with
Phipps, I have concluded, and find, that Phipps' continued
friendship with Largen was part of the reason Respondent
terminated her. Therefore, 'he termination of Phipps violat-
ed Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.
G. Conclusions
The 8(a)(3)'s in this case run the gamut from top
producers Caldwell and Russell through medium producers
to Phipps. Widner and Dalton were cut off by Respondent
near the beginning of the union campaign. Through the
many conversations that Widner had with Supervisor
Harris, Respondent knew of Widner's union activity and,
from Dalton's close association with Widner, Respondent
felt they were both interested in the Union. This is evident
from Robin Webb's testimony that Zachary and Collins
named Widner and Dalton as two of the people they
suspected in being active in the Union and the confirmation
Respondent received from Webb immediately prior to their
terminations. Similarly, Deborah Coleman was given a week
to bring up her production but was fired after 2 days at
work, little more than a week after Respondent received the
first union telegram.
Rita and Helen Coleman, after being told they were
rehired and with Respondent's records demonstrating such,
were refused and terminated when the extent of the Coleman
family's union support became known through the first
union telegram.
Harassment began for high producers Caldwell and
Russell when Respondent received the second union tele-
gram. It would have been impossible to terminate them as
low producers so they were hounded from their jobs by
surveillance, imposition of stringent rules just for them, and
reductions of their wages.
Respondent's strong antiunion campaign hit at the major
employee organizers during the months of January and
February and finished, as far as this record discloses, with
the termination of Phipps.
Respondent, having violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the
Act, will be ordered to cease such activities and insofar as
possible restore the status quo ante by restoring these eight
employees to their jobs and making them whole.
168
GALAX APPAREL CORPORATION
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above,
and therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(i) and (3) of the Act, occurring in
connection with Respondent's business operations as set
forth 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair labor
practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discharged Thelma Wid-
ner and Dawn Dalton on January 4, 1978, Deborah
Coleman on February 10, 1978, and Polly Phipps on March
20, 1978, that it constructively discharged Cathy Russell and
JoAnne Caldwell on February 21, 1978, and that it refused
to rehire Helen Coleraan and Rita Coleman on January 30,
1978, 1 recommend that Respondent offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such
positions have been abolished or changed in Respondent's
operations, then to any substantially similar positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and that Respondent make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respon-
dent's discriminatory actions by payment to them of a sum
equal to that which each would have normally received as
wages from the dates of their terminations until Respondent
offers them reinstatement, less any net earnings in the
interim. Backpay is to be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation. 231
NLRB 651 (1977).' I further recommend that Respondent
make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll and
other records necessary to facilitate checking the amounts of
backpay due the eight employees and the other rights they
might be entitled to receive.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by its discriminatory terminations of Thelma Widner, Dawn
Dalton, Deborah Coleman, Polly Phipps, Cathy Russell,
JoAnne Caldwell, Helen Coleman, and Rita Coleman
because they engaged in union and concerted activities
among themselves and with other employees for the purpose
of mutual aid and protection.
'See, generally, Isis Plumbing A Hearing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules
and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings. conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
3. Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by: (a) unlawfully interrogating employees about their union
activities and the activities of others; (b) creating the
impression that union activities were under Respondent's
surveillance; (c) threatening to discharge union supporters;
(d) threatening to blacklist discharged union supporters; (e)
directing employees to discourage other employees from
supporting the Union; and (f) threatening layoffs and plant
closure if the Union came into the plant.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Galax Apparel Corporation, Galax,
Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminatorily terminating employees because they
engage in union and concerted activities among themselves
and with other employees for their mutual aid and protec-
tion.
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees about their union
activities and the activities of other employees.
(c) Creating the impression that union activities are under
its surveillance.
(d) Threatening to discharge union supporters.
(e) Threatening to blacklist discharged union supporters.
(f) Directing employees to discourage other employees
from supporting the Union.
(g) Threatening layoffs and plant closure if the Union
comes into the plant.
(h) In the same or any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the Act,
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reinstate Thelma Widner, Dawn Dalton, Deborah
Coleman, Polly Phipps, Cathy Russell, JoAnne Caldwell,
Helen Coleman, and Rita Coleman and make them whole
for the loss of pay they suffered by reason of its discrimina-
tion against them in accordance with the recommendations
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Post at its Galax, Virginia, plant copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being
duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board"
169
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing at which the Company, the Union, and
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
participated and offered evidence, it has been found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. We
have been ordered to post this notice and to abide by what
we say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT fire employees for engaging in union
and concerted activities among themselves and with
other employees for their mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
about their union activities or the activities of other
employees; and WE WILL NOT create an impression that
we keep union activities under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge union support-
ers.
WE WILL NOT threaten to blacklist discharged union
supporters.
WE WILL NOT direct employees to discourage other
employees from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten layoffs and plant closure if
the Union comes into the plant.
WE WILL NOT in the same or any other manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WI.L offer Thelma Widner, Dawn Dalton,
Deborah Coleman, Polly Phipps, Cathy Russell,
JoAnne Caldwell, Helen Coleman, and Rita Coleman
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
and reimburse them for the pay they lost as a result of
our discriminatory action.
Our employees are free to become or remain members of
the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other union.
GALIAX APPAREL CORPORATION
170