Hickman Garment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1168 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hickman Garment Company and Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case
9-CA-4236
July 12, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
shall be computed beginning with the date of April
6, 1967."
' With regard to the incident of February 1, 1967, the Trial Examiner in-
advertently stated that Maycel Phipps was one of the 19 protesting dischar-
gees However, Phipps testified that she was not at the plant on that date
and the complaint does not allege February 1, 1967, as the date on which
she was laid off. Consequently, her loss of pay, if any, should be computed
for the period beginning April 6, 1967, the date on which her employment
was terminated
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
On April 19, 1968, Trial Examiner Max Rosen-
berg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. He further found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the single excep-
tion noted in the margin herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Hickman Garment Company, Hickman, Kentucky,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified.
At the end of paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order, add the following
sentence:
"Any loss of pay which Maycel Phipps may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG , Trial Examiner : With all
parties represented , this case was tried before me in
Hickman , Kentucky , on November 1 and 2, 1967,
on complaint of the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board and the answer of
Hickman Garment Company, herein called the
Respondent .' The issues posed by the pleadings are
whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
laying off or terminating various employees and
refusing to recall or reinstate some of them because
of their activities on behalf of the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , and whether Respondent inde-
pendently violated Section 8(a)(1) by certain con-
duct to be detailed hereinafter. At the conclusion
of the hearing , the parties waived oral argument.
Briefs have been received from the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent , which have been duly con-
sidered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding
and my observation of the witnesses , including their
demeanor while testifying on the stand , I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent, a corporation duly organized under
the laws of the State of Kentucky, maintains a plant
in Hickman, Kentucky, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of clothing and garments. During the
annual period material to this proceeding, and in
the course and conduct of its business operations,
Respondent sold and shipped products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points located outside
the State of Kentucky. The complaint alleges, the
answer admits, and I find that Respondent is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I The complaint , which issued on July 27, 1967, is teased upon charges
and amended charges filed on April 3 , and April 21, 1967, respectively,
and were served on April 4 and April 26, respectively
172 NLRB No. 118
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 1 169
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Respondent ter-
minated 19 employees2 between February 1 and
April 6, 1967,3 and failed to recall or reinstate cer-
tain of them, because of their sympathy for and ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union or because they en-
gaged in protected, concerted activities, and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. It further alleges that Respondent, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1), interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7, by threatening to close its
plant because the employees engaged in protected,
concerted activities; by instructing its employees
not to report their concerted activities or com-
plaints to the National Labor Relations Board; by
distributing antiunion handbills and literature
which, inter alia, threatened that the employees
would be caused trouble, possible violence, and loss
of paychecks and jobs if they selected the Union to
represent them; by promising its employees in-
creased benefits, including free ambulance service,
better insurance, a new lunchroom, and extra
holiday benefits in order to wean them away from
the Union; by coercively interrogating its em-
ployees; by requesting employees to solicit other
employees to renounce the Union; and, by
threatening employees who had engaged in a strike
that they would be prevented from drawing unem-
ployment benefits for having done so. Respondent
generally denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Respondent's plant here involved is located in
Hickman, Kentucky. Phillip Roseman is the pre-
sident of this installation, and his wife, Nettie, is the
secretary. Another factory situated in Ridgely, Ten-
nessee , some 35 miles distant, which is managed by
Nettie Roseman, is similarly owned by the
Rosemans who are the principal officers of that en-
tity. James Holcomb occupies the position of plant
manager at Hickman and William Tony is the
foreman. The parties agree and I find that the
foregoing individuals are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.' During the times material
herein, the Hickman factory was engaged in the
production of military raincoats under contract
with the United States Defense Supply Agency, and
operated with a work force of between 250 and 260
employees
Beverly Callison testified without contradiction
and I find that the Union's campaign to organize
Respondent's plant was initially launched during
the first week in January when approximately five
or six employees, including Callison, circulated a
petition among the employees at the factory to
determine whether they desired to form or join a
labor organization. Although quite a number of em-
ployees signed the petition indicating that they
favored such a development, Callison and her
cohorts destroyed the document and solicited or-
ganizational sentiment verbally because they feared
that their supervisors had observed their activity
and might discharge them for engaging in it. On the
evening of January 31, the Union conducted its first
meeting at Callison's home which was attended by
four employees. Agents of the Union explained the
need for collective representation to the assem-
blage and authorization cards were distributed to
them with the instruction that they were to obtain
the signatures of their fellow employees. Callison
and one or two of the plant personnel in attendance
at this meeting executed their designations that
evening.
Callison further testified without denial and I find
that, on her way to work on February 1, she
procured signed cards from several employees.
During her morning break, Callison walked to the
door of the plant with two other workers where she
solicited their signatures while she enjoyed a Coke
and a cigarette. At this juncture, Phillip Roseman
approached her and stated that she was not per-
mitted to remove Cokes from the plant.5 Where-
upon, Callison retrieved the card which one of her
fellow workers had just signed, placed it in her
handbag, and returned to the production area. Dur-
ing her lunch break, Callison continued to enlist the
support of employees for the Union. In all, she
spoke to 28 or 29 of them by lunchtime and ob-
tained between 20 and 25 signed authorizations.
She was assisted in this activity that morning by ap-
proximately 10 or 12 other solicitors, including
Alice Merryman.
These are Beverly Callison, Katy Adams, Christine Levy, Frankie Wil-
liams, Peggy Bing, Alice Merryman , JoAnn Burchman , Geneva Duty,
Lavada Mansfield. Ed Bing, Shelby Parnall , Shirley Calhson, Jimmy Mc-
Clure, Pat Lowery, Glenda Edgm, Claudia Bing, Nita Stowe , Doris Aquino,
and Maycel Phipps At the hearing and by stipulation of the parties, the
name of Myron Graham was stricken from the complaint
' Unless otherwise indicated, all dates fall in 1967
' The General Counsel contends that Mildred Ghdewell, Ruth Yates,
and Dorothy Argo also are statutory supervisors whose statements and
conduct are binding upon Respondent It is undisputed on this record and I
find that the duties and responsibilities of these ladies are identical and
that , in the course of their workday, they are authorved to and do grant
time off to employees and rehire them without prior consultation with the
other officials of the Company, that employees are informed upon hire that
these individuals are supervisors, that this trio exercises independent
judgment in the direction and assignment of work, that they reprimand em-
ployees, and that they attend supervisory meetings Moreover, Ruth Yates
and Mildred Ghdewell, when called to the stand by Respondent, readily ad-
mitted that they were supervisors, and Nettie Roseman, confirmed that, at
least , Ghdewell "is one of our supervisors " Accordingly, I find and con-
clude that Glidewell, Yates, and Argo are supers isors within the purview of
Section 2(1 I ) of the Act and that Respondent is accountable for their ac-
tivities See Wilder I nu+hin,u Co , Division ofJerio Corporation, 138 NLRB
1017, 1018
' It is undisputed and I find that Respondent forbade the taking of Coke
bottles outside the confines of the plant
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS R' ARD
Respondent's workday begins at 7:30 a.m. and
terminates at 4:15 p.m., with a 45-minute lunch
break which extends from 11:45 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.
In addition, for almost 12 years Respondent had af-
forded its employees a 10-minute rest break both in
the morning and in the afternoon, which were di-
vided into four periods. However, by a notice dated
January 31, Respondent announced that.
Beginning Wednesday, February 1st, all after-
noon breaks and rest periods will be discon-
tinued This decision was made after much
consideration and thought. The price of our
garments is based on the old minimum wage
standards. The new national wage affords us
very little room for any breaks or interruptions
which hampers our production schedules. In
other words every minute counts during our
daily efforts. The regular morning break will
still remain in effect ....
Phillip and Nettie Roseman testified that, because
of difficulties which they had been experiencing at
the Hickman and Ridgely plants concerning the
quality of the work being performed which caused
a severe financial drain, and because of the im-
pending increase in the Federal Minimum Wage
scheduled for February 1, they discussed the feasi-
bility of eliminating the afternoon break at both
plants. According to Nettie Roseman, this discus-
sion took place on or before January 29 because it
was decided to post a notice at the Ridgely installa-
tion on January 30 announcing the cancellation of
the postnoon break and to post a similar notice at
Hickman on February 1.1' Phillip Roseman
testimonially conceded and I find that he did not
provide advance notice to Hickman employees that
the afternoon break would be curtailed on Februa-
ry 1.
News of the elimination of the afternoon rest
period quickly came to the attention of the em-
ployees on February 1 and this intelligience trig-
gered the incidents which gave rise to this litigation.
Alice Merryman, who had been employed by
Respondent for 8 years, during which she enjoyed
an afternoon Coke respite , testified that she had
signed a union authorization card at lunchtime on
February 1 at the request of Beverly Callison. Upon
learning that the break had been taken away, she
and 33 fellow employees who shared the same rest
period decided to proceed to the lunchroom "To
take our break and to talk to [Roseman ] and ask
him why he was taking our break away from us." It
is Merryman's uncontroverted testimony and I find
that when her supervisor, Eddie Mayo, learned of
this action , the latter remarked that " He hoped that
we took that break, that we deserved it and it
would serve the Company right if we took it." As
Merryman and her cohorts approached the
lunchroom, they noticed that the entrance was bar-
ricaded by benches and that Roseman and Super-
visor William Tony were standing in front of the
ladies' room blocking ingress. The employees
thereupon removed the benches and entered the
eating place, explaining that they did so in the be-
lief that Roseman was more likely to discuss the
matter in that locale. After they gained entrance to
the lunchroom, Roseman made his appearance and
"started flinging his hands around and telling us
that we were committing mutiny and was acting
like we was on strike. Somebody asked him why he
was taking the break away from us," to which he
replied that there was nothing left to discuss
because he had already made his decision to
eliminate the rest period as evidenced by the notice
which he had posted in the plant. Merryman
protested that she did not believe it was fair for
Respondent to deprive them of the rest period after
so many years of its enjoyment. Roseman then
warned that he was going to bring a legal suit
against the employees . When one of the girls
inquired why he deemed it necessary to pursue this
course of action, Roseman exclaimed that "we was
acting like we was on strike , and committing mu-
tiny , and going against the Federal Government
contract . and that he was going to call the
Federal Government," ' and Merryman retorted
"Well, while you're at it call the National Labor
Relations Board ." This remark angered Roseman
and, looking at Merryman, he asked for the number
of her timeclock card. After obtaining it, he
punched the card and informed her that "You're
fired." As Merryman began to leave the room,
Roseman inquired as to her destination . After she
rejoined that she wished to pick up her purse and
snips at her machine , he stated "Hurry up and get
out."
Merryman's testimony concerning the events
which transpired on February I was generally cor-
roborated by other employees. Thus, JoAnn
Burchman , who signed a union card on February 1
at the solicitation of Beverly Callison, averred that
she and several other employees observed the
notice curbing the afternoon rest period while they
were taking their morning break and this caused
considerable commotion in the plant later in the
day. According to Burchman, "Just about
everybody didn't want [the elimination of the
break], but some of them were just afraid to stand
up for their rights and go to talk to the man about
it." With the blessings of Supervisor Mayo, and
after discussing the matter among themselves, Mer-
ryman and other employees decided to force the
issue and meet in the lunchroom for his purpose
'Phillip Roseman claimed that he personally drafted and typed the
notice and pinned it to the bulletin hoard on January 28 or 29 Certain em-
ployees called to the A itness stand testified that the announcement was first
posted on January 31. while still others stated that they observed the notice
for the first time on February I In view of the findings hereinafter made
and the conclusions drawn therefrom I deem it unnecessars to resohe this
conflict
Roseman had apparent reference to the tact that Respondent was en-
gaged in performing work under contract with the United States Defense
Supply Agency is hich it obtained in 1966
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 1171
because it was difficult to meet with Roseman in his
office due to the fact that a "Do Not Disturb Sign"
usually was hung on the office window. The em-
ployees ventured into the lunchroom where they
were met by Roseman who ordered them to return
to work. The employees persisted, however, and
removed some benches which blocked the door and
gathered in that room. Roseman entered and
excitedly asked, "Just what do you think this is?"
The girls replied that he should calm himself and
that they simply desired to discuss the elimination
of the break with him, that "We wanted our break
back, it wasn't fair." Roseman countered that there
was nothing to discuss because the decision had al-
ready been made to abandon the rest period,
proclaimed that the employees were engaged in a
mutiny, and threatened to summon a "Government
man." When Alice Merryman suggested that he
contact the National Labor Relations Board while
he was at it, Roseman stated "No, there is no use in
that. It's just a family discussion." Roseman once
more directed the girls to return to work, but they
again demurred, demanding that he discuss the
restoration of the break, whereupon he terminated
the meeting by stating "There is nothing to talk
about. You're fired," and he proceeded to clock
the employees out.
Doris Aquino, who had signed a union authoriza-
tion card for Merryman on February 1, related that
she visited the lunchroom that afternoon and heard
Roseman shouting that the girls were mutinous by
leaving work and insisting upon the retention of the
work break. When mention was made of the Board,
Roseman pleaded that "We would get him in
trouble" if the employees utilized the services of
that agency. After the employees insisted that their
grievances over the elimination of the rest period
be aired, Roseman flatly refused and shouted "You
are all fired." Turning to Aquino, he ordered her to
"Clock your card." Aquino replied, "No, sir. If I'm
fired, you clock it," whereupon Roseman did so.
Laura Kaye (Katy) Adams testified that she
signed a union card at lunchtime on February 1 at
the request of Alice Merryman. Later that after-
noon, she and approximately 20 fellow workers
jointly decided to meet in the lunchroom to discuss
the loss of the break with Roseman. When they ar-
rived in the room, Roseman was gesticulating wildly
and shouting "This is mutiny." At this juncture,
Merryman pleaded with him to "wait a minute,
calm down. We'd like to speak to you about getting
our break back." Roseman shot back that there was
nothing to discuss because the decision had already
been made, and warned that "I am going to sue
you." When one of the girls inquired as to the basis
for the suit, Roseman stated that "If the Labor
Board gets ahold of what has happened I may lose
my Government contracts." Roseman repeated that
the girls had staged mutiny and threatened to call
the "Government men and have some of them
come down here," at which point Merryman in-
vited him to contact the National Labor Relations
Board. Roseman replied, "No, there is no need to
get them involved. It's just a little family squabble
that we can settle among ourselves."' Once more,
the girls implored Roseman to compose himself and
discuss the matter of the lost rest period with them
"because we felt like we deserved our break in the
afternoon because we worked as hard as anyone."
Roseman responded by shouting "You are all
fired," and then proceeded to obtain the timeclock
numbers of the employees and time punched the
cards as each employee left the plant.
Claudia Bing , the wife of employee Ed Bing and
the mother of employee Peggy Bing, recounted that
she joined one of the groups which took an after-
noon break in the lunchroom on February 1. She
testified that she was unaware that the rest period
had been curbed at the time and that Roseman did
not make an appearance in the room while she was
there. After she learned that the break had been
eliminated, and after observing that her fellow em-
ployees were being clocked out because of the Tat-
ter's protest about the new working conditions,
Claudia Bing pulled her timecard and placed it on a
bench with the cards of these employees and left
the plant with them. According to this witness, she
was not told by any official that she had been
discharged when she quit work. It is Claudia Bing's
testimony, however, which is undenied and which I
credit, that the only reason for her leaving work on
February 1 was to protest Respondent's curtailment
of the break on that date and to join the dischar-
gees . Finally, she credibly testified that her husband
Ed joined her in the walkout and that he had not
been terminated by Respondent on that afternoon."
It is Peggy Bing 's testimony, undenied and
credited, that she took her afternoon break on
February 1 and visited the ladies' room. When she
emerged, she was met by Roseman who asked her
where she was going. Peggy replied that she was in
the process of returning to her sewing machine,
whereupon Roseman informed her "No you are
not. You are fired." Roseman then obtained her
clock number and punched her out. Peggy Bing
stated that she entered the ladies' room in protest
"The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Secti on 8(a)( I) "in
telling employees that they should not report their concerted activity or
complaints to the National Labor Relations Board " This allegation has
reference to the testimony of JoAnn Burchman and Katy Adams that, when
Alice Merryman suggested that Roseman contact the Board as well as the
Defense Supply Agency, Roseman stated " No, there is no need to get them
involved It 's just a little family squabble that we can settle among oursel-
ves" and "No, there is no use in that It's just a family discussion " While
Roseman denied that he made these statements , I do not credit the denial
However, I am hard pressed to understand just how these comments, made
in response to the employees ' suggestion , can he construed as an illegal in-
struction to employees not to convey their complaints to the Board I shall
therefore dismiss this allegation from the complaint
In his testimony, Phillip Roseman acknowledged that he was told by Ed
Bing that the latter was walking out because "If the others are leaving I
have to go along with them ," and Plant Manager Holcomb testified in a
similar vein
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the elimination of the afternoon rest period.
Shirley Callison, the sister of Beverly Callison,
who signed a union authorization card on January
3 1 at the latter's home, testimonially set forth her
version of the events which transpired the following
day. She related that she learned that the rest
period during afternoons had been canceled by
Respondent on February 1. At the time when Cal-
lison's work break was to start that afternoon, Su-
pervisors Glidewell and Yates approached the for-
mer's machine and urged the employees to take the
break, stating "We want you girls to take your
break so that we can have our break. After standing
on this concrete all day we need a break. You just
have no idea what that few minutes, how it helps us
out." Glidewell explained that she had come into
Callison's area during the break period because
Glidewell's daughter worked in the mother's de-
partment and the latter was fearful that Roseman
"would jump on her about it" if her daughter was
found taking a rest pause . 10 Following this conver-
sation, Callison entered the lunchroom. Roseman
rushed into the room and shouted that "We were
committing mutiny and acting like we were on
strike , for us to get back on our machines in three
minutes." One of the girls inquired whether the em-
ployees could enjoy the break on their own time
and Roseman replied in the negative. After further
shouting, he informed the girls that "You're all
fired," and he proceeded to clock them out as they
departed the plant.
Finally, Beverly Callison testified that she had
been informed by some of the girls on the morning
of February 1 that the break had been eliminated.
That afternoon, she and some of her fellow workers
went into the lunchroom for a break and, while
they were drinking Cokes and smoking, Roseman
appeared. Turning to the girls, he informed them
that " He was going to sue us, that this was mutiny,
it was a wildcat strike, and that he was going to get
rid of all of us, but right at that moment to get back
to our machines." Following this discussion, the
employees returned to work. However, moments
later other groups of employees commenced to
take their breaks. Learning that Roseman had
discharged these individuals, Callison and several
other employees sought out Roseman and told him
"We'd like to discuss this with you. Why are you
firing these girls, for something you know the rest
of us have done already." Roseman's response was,
"There is nothing to discuss, I am firing you any-
way." After clocking her timecard, he ordered her
to "get out." It is Callison's uncontroverted and
credited testimony that, as she was vacating the
plant premises in compliance with Roseman's
order, she was accosted by Foreman William Tony
"' Beverly Callison testified without contradiction and I find that, toward
the latter part of January , she spoke to Bulls Jo Bowers , the daughter of
Glidewell, who operated a sewing machine immediately in front of Cal-
lison During their conversation , Callison apprised Bowers that the former
had been active in soliciting Respondent 's employees to join the Union anti
who grabbed her by the arm and told her "that I
was a troublemaker, that I had organized these
women, that I didn't work; I had strolled up and
down the aisle, and that I didn't have the guts not
to stand up by myself, that I had to organize all the
women in the plant, that I didn't have the guts
enough to do anything myself, and that if he had his
way I would never ever set foot in the factory
again."" Rounding out her testimony on this
episode, Callison stated that she observed Roseman
clock out countless cards on this afternoon and that
during her 8 years of employment with Respondent
she had never known him to clock an employee out
unless the employee was being discharged.
For his part, Phillip Roseman testimonially de-
nied that he discharged anyone on February 1. Ac-
cording to him, several employees read his
published notice banning the afternoon break and
they discussed this subject with Roseman "joking-
ly" and showed no "remorse" over its loss. He
confessed, however, that he barricaded the
lunchroom on February 1 to deny its use to his em-
ployees and allowed as how he had punched out
between six and eight timecards on that date. He
then admitted that he clocked out in the neighbor-
hood of 40 to 45 cards, but failed to offer any ex-
planation for this action and, indeed, acknowledged
that the employees whom he clocked out were not
compensated by Respondent following their depar-
ture from the plant. Although Respondent called
approximately six employees to testify on its behalf,
all of whom were present in the plant on February
1 and observed the events of that day, not a single
one controverted the testimony of the foregoing
witnesses that they were told by Roseman that they
were discharged for having protested the elimina-
tion of the work break , nor did a single one support
his contrary assertion. In short, I find that Respon-
dent 's employees , including the 19 whose names
appear in a marginal reference above, learned that
Respondent had withdrawn the afternoon rest
period commencing on February 1 and proceeded
to the lunchroom to protest and discuss this uni-
lateral change in their working conditions. I further
find that, with the exception of Claudia and Ed
Bing , these employees were informed by Roseman
that his decision to curb the break was unalterable,
that he would not negotiate the matter with them,
that they were mutinous and were engaging in a
strike, and that he ordered them to return to work.
I find that, when certain employees, including those
referred to above, and again excluding Claudia and
Ed Bing, declined to perform their duties unless
Roseman considered their grievance , they were told
that they were discharged and Roseman accom-
plished this personnel action by clocking them out.
asked for Bowers' opinion as to her orgam7ational desires Bowers ex-
pressed a preference for unioni7ation but was apprehensive about actively
supporting this endeavor because she feared that her mother might lose her
job if Bowers did so
" Tony was not summoned as a witness in this proceeding
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY
I also find that, while Claudia and Ed Bing were not
discharged by Respondent on February 1, they
voluntarily joined in common cause with the other
employees who were discharged for registering
their opposition to the loss of the break on that
date, and for this reason left the plant.
Respondent argues that it was privileged to ter-
minate the employees who left their work on
February 1 because this constituted an act of insub-
ordination and hence was not an activity protected
under the statute. This argument lacks legal tena-
bility. On that date, some 50 employees objected to
the elimination of the afternoon rest period, most
assuredly a "condition of employment" within the
purview of the Act, and sought to discuss its
recoupment with Phillip Roseman by visiting the
lunchroom for that purpose. Roseman refused to
entertain their grievance and summarily ordered
them back to work, whereupon the employees per-
sisted in their effort to persuade him to reconsider
his decision . This led to their discharge and they
left the premises. Claudia and Ed Bing , while not
terminated by Roseman, made common cause with
their fellow employees by adopting their protest
and quitting work. It is now well settled that such
conduct is protected activity within the meaning
of Section 7 of the Act and an employer may not
punish his employees for indulging in such activity
unless it is removed from the protection of the Act
for some reason. 12 1 perceive no such reason in this
case . Accordingly, I find that the 19 employees
named in the complaint 13 were engaged in a pro-
tected, concerted activity when they protested the
curtailment of the work break on February 1 and
ceased work on that date. I therefore conclude that,
by discharging them because they did so, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(I). I further conclude
that Respondent also violated that section by
Tony's statement to Callison that she would be
barred from employment because of her assistance
to the Union.
After the employees who were discharged by
Roseman , or who joined with them, departed the
plant on February 1, they met outside to plot their
future course of action. It is undisputed and I find
that at this time Beverly Callison openly solicited
the signatures of her fellow employees on union
authorization cards in full view of Roseman. After
discussing the prospect of drawing unemployment
compensation, the workers decided to drive to
Mayfield, Kentucky, for that purpose. However, be-
fore leaving, they agreed to meet at the home of
employee Doris Aquino the following morning,
which was situated behind Respondent's plant. On
the morning of February 2, approximately 50 em-
" See N L R B v Washington 4lunumun Conipam, his , 370 U S 9.
Wilder FuinhmgCo ,Bin rtumofJenr%Coil) 138 NLRB I017
i ` As reported heretofore, Myron Graham is not included in this group
'A Six girls traveled to Paducah, including Beverly and Shirley Callison,
Alice Merryman, and Katy Adams, all of whom were denied reemployment
on February 2
1173
ployees gathered at Aquino's home. With Beverly
Callison acting as spokesman, they decided to
telephone Nettie Roseman to discuss their rehire
with her. Callison placed the call and requested
that Mrs. Roseman meet with them at Aquino's res-
idence to consider the matter, a request which she
declined to fulfill. However, Nettie Roseman
agreed to see them at the plant individually, but
finally was persuaded to meet with them as a group.
In the course of this conversation, the elimination
of the break was discussed and Nettie Roseman
mentioned that she had no intention of restoring it.
The colloquy terminated by Roseman's extension of
an invitation to them to come to the factory on the
next morning.
Following this telephone conversation, a group of
the women decided to drive to Paducah, Kentucky,
to lodge unfair labor practice charges against
Respondent, mistakenly believing that the Board's
offices were located there. It is undisputed and I
find that, upon their return to Aquino's house on
February 2, an employee dropped in to advise that
Mrs. Roseman had rehired several of the employees
who had been clocked out by Phillip Roseman the
preceding day, and that these rehired employees
had informed Nettie Roseman of the names of the
girls who had gone to Paducah.14
The next morning, approximately 50 former work-
ers presented themselves at the plant. According
to Beverly Callison's undisputed testimony, Nettie
opened the discussion by stating that the girls "had
acted childish" in protesting the elimination of the
rest period and walking out, and announced that
"part of the troublemakers that she did not want
back in her plant would not be called back "'S Cal-
lison complained that her action in taking a break
was prompted by Phillip Roseman's unavailability
to commune with his employees during the work-
day. Nettie then remarked that the acceptable
members of the group would be individually con-
tacted and interviewed to return to work and that
the remainder would not be reemployed. According
to Callison's further testimony, either on February
3 or February 6, she visited the plant to receive her
paycheck, which bore the notation "Paid in Full,"
which was given to her by Supervisor Dorothy Argo
without further explanation. As she stood on line to
receive her pay along with other former employees,
she overheard Mrs. Roseman remark that anyone
who wished to discuss their future reemployment
with her could do so. Turning to a girl on the line,
Callison reported this intelligence to the former. It
is the undenied and credited testimony of Callison
that Phillip Roseman then approached and,
clutching her by the shoulder, warned that "You
"' Callison's testimony in this regard was corroborated by that of Laura
Kaye Adams Adams testified that Mrs Roseman told the girls that "You
will be rehired, but I want you to know there are a few in this room that will
never come hack to this factory again "
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are not having any of your damned meetings on my
property, or signing any of your damned cards. I in-
tend to call the police and put you in jail ."" In-
forming Roseman that she had an appointment with
his wife, Callison proceeded to an interview with
his spouse during which the eliminated rest period
and Callison's recall to work were the topics of
discussion. Mrs. Roseman once more pointed out
that it was "childish" to protest the loss of this
working condition and that it would never be
restored." Attention turned to Callison's rehire,
and Nettie Roseman stated that the former's em-
ployment rested in her husband's hands. Roseman
and Plant Manager Holcomb were then summoned
.and, after a review of Callison's work performance,
it was agreed that she was a good worker who had
always made production and against whom no com-
plaint had ever been registered." However,
Roseman insisted that there was no work available
for Callison because she had been replaced,
although the latter testified without contradiction
that no one was operating her machine on that day
and that, while an individual named Gladys Critten-
don had been employed for 2 days during Callison's
termination, this work proved too difficult and Crit-
tendon quit work and was not replaced.'9 The inter-
view concluded with Roseman stating that Callison
was a "troublemaker."
In further pursuit of her job, Callison telephoned
Supervisor Glidewell on the evening of February 8.
It is the former's testimony that she inquired why
other girls in her department were being rehired
while the Rosemans refused to even discuss reem-
ployment with her. Glidewell replied that "They
knew that the girls were trying to organize the
union and they knew that I was, you know, one of
the main organizers." Glidewell continued, "I don't
want to know whether you are or not ... Phil and
Nettie say you are .... If you are even I don't want
you to come back .... They will never hire you
because they say you are a union organizer in the
plant." In her testimony, Glidewell conceded that
she received such a call from Callison in which the
latter stated that she was being barred from the fac-
tory because of her efforts on behalf of the Union.
While Glidewell proclaimed that she told Callison
that she "knew nothing about the Union," she
grudgingly admitted that the Rosemans made
reference to the union campaign to her. Glidewell's
demeanor as a witness, as well as the content of her
entire testimony, was not impressive. I credit Cal-
lison's testimonial utterances.-['
Based upon the foregoing credited testimony, I
find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
Phillip Roseman's statement to Beverly Callison
that she would be prohibited from soliciting mem-
bership in the Union on company property without
regard to the time and place of such solicitation,21
and by Mildred Glidewell's warning to Callison that
the latter would never be rehired by Respondent
[as long as] she was a "union organizer in the
plant."
On February 10, and on several dates during the
months of February and March, Callison persisted
in her quest for reinstatement but was unable to
speak with the Rosemans except on one occasion.
In late February, she managed to see Nettie
Roseman and was told not to visit the factory any
more because "She [Nettie] had no intention of
rehiring me, she didn't want me in her plant, and
she didn't want the rest of the girls that had been
fired and still fired in her plant. She told me that
the only way that we would ever come back in her
plant was at some later date if her lawyers advised
that she would have to rehire us we would be
rehired. Until that time there would be no need of
bothering her." Rounding out her testimony, Cal-
lison stated that she received a termination slip
from Respondent which indicated that she had
been discharged for insubordination and, for this
reason, she was denied unemployment benefits
after a hearing before a referee of the Kentucky
Division of Unemployment Insurance . By letter
dated August 22, Callison made her final plea for
reinstatement. This letter, like her other pleas, went
unanswered, despite the fact that Respondent con-
tinuously advertised for help through various news
media from the date of her discharge.
Claudia Bing testified that she and her husband,
who, together with her daughter Petty, had signed
union authorization cards on the evening of Janua-
ry 31, returned to the plant on February 2 in com-
pany with 40 other former employees where they
spoke to the Rosemans about returning to work.
Mrs. Roseman told the group that "She'd let us
come back to work when she needed us." Bing
steadfastly maintained that the Rosemans did not
offer immediate reinstatement to the group or any
individual in it. The Bings then met separately with
the Rosemans, and Plant Manager Holcomb was
summoned to the conference. Holcomb reported to
Ed Bing that the latter had been replaced and that
Ed would be recalled to work when the occasion
warranted it. Neither of the Bings was again reem-
ployed by Respondent.
Holcomb and Mrs. Roseman claimed that they
begged the Bings to return to work on February 2
but that the latter declined the offer. I do not credit
this testimony. Holcomb averred that he personally
proffered reinstatement to Ed Bing because he be-
lieved that Ed "needed the job, and he enjoyed the
work, liked the job." Yet, despite his admirable
" This testimony was corroborated by Shirley Callison
It is undisputed and I find that Respondent restored the break in
February because of the furor which its curtailment had caused
" I credit Callnon's testimony in this regard in view of Phillip Roseman's
evaluation of her work abilities as "satisfactory "
"' Callum testified without contradiction and I find that Supervisor
Glidewell had advised her that Callison's job had not been filled
-" For similar reasons, I credit Callmon's testimony that Glidewell ex-
horted the girls to take their break on the afternoon of February I
" See Stc ddaut(-tkurd Ma,ufac turut,¢ Co , 138 NLRB 615
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY
qualities , and the fact that Holcomb had to "shuffle
the factory around" to cover Bing's absence, and
the further fact that Holcomb could "use" Ed,
Respondent never once again attempted to contact
him or his wife. Claudia Bing was an earnest and
forthright witness who impressed me as consciously
attempting to speak the truth from the witness box,
and I credit her testimony.
Alice Merryman credibly testified and I find that
she returned to the plant on February 2 to seek
reinstatement . Meeting Phillip Roseman, she
inquired whether she had been discharged and he
answered in the affirmative. She returned to the
factory on February 10 and was again told she had
been terminated. When Merryman commented "I
guess that means I can draw my unemployment,"
Roseman replied, "You seem to know so much
about the law, go find out."
Phillip Roseman and his wife testified that all em-
ployees who presented themselves at the plant on
February 2 were offered unconditional reinstate-
ment to their former positions. I find their
testimony too fraught with implausibilities and in-
ternal contradictions to warrant credible ac-
ceptance. Roseman avowed that he began rehiring
employees on the above date, that he offered rein-
statement to them "as they were coming out" of
the plant, and that he "requested several of them to
go back to work immediately." When questioned as
to why he had not reinstated all of the employees
on that date, he responded that "They didn't want
to come back to work." I cannot believe that
testimony. Roseman acknowledged that he had
received letters from Beverly Callison and approxi-
mately 15 other former employees which were writ-
ten by Callison at the behest of the Union seeking
reinstatement. However, upon delivery of Cal-
lison's , as well as the other , letters by the postman,
Roseman refused to accept them , giving the curious
explanation that " I didn 't want to become involved
in anything I wasn't familiar with without proper
advice of counsel." Callison's testimony stands un-
denied that on several occasions after February 2
she visited the plant in search of reinstatement and
that her quests were ignored by the Rosemans. Su-
pervisor Glidewell admitted that, on or about
February 4, she received a telephone call from Cal-
lison in which the latter's availability for work was
made manifest. Moreover, it is undisputed and
I have found that Nettie Roseman stated on Febru-
ary 2 that she would not retain those former em-
ployees who were "troublemakers." Accordingly, I
find that Respondent did not offer unconditional
reinstatement to the 19 individuals in question
when they reported to the plant on that date.
Both Phillip and Nettie Roseman insisted that
their decision to eliminate the work break on
February 1 was arrived at prior to their receipt of
any knowledge that the Union was actively engaged
in enlisting the collective support of their em-
ployees. Inasmuch as the union campaign was not
1175
formally launched until the evening of January 3 1,
and in the absence of any probative evidence on
this record which demonstrates that the Rosemans
were aware of the inception of the campaign on
that night , I am willing to accept their testimonial
assertions and I find that the curtailment of the rest
period was not prompted by antiunion considera-
tions. However, I am convinced and I find that the
Rosemans became possessed of this knowledge, as
well as the identity of the employees who were in
the forefront of the union drive, on and after
February 1. Thus, it is uncontradicted that
Roseman learned of the Union's organizational ef-
forts on February 1 or 2 when employees informed
him that authorization cards were being distributed
and signed in the plant. While Roseman denied that
the name of Beverly Callison or any other name
had come to his attention, it is undisputed that,
when Callison walked out of the plant on February
1, Foreman Tony accused her of organizing "all the
women in the plant" and warned that she "would
never ever set foot in the factory again," and
Roseman did not deny that Tony had told the
former that Callison was a "troublemaker" who in-
stigated the February 1 walkout. Moreover, it is un-
controverted that on February 3 or 6 Phillip
Roseman warned Callison against "signing any of
your damned cards" on pain of being jailed.
Furthermore , Glidewell admitted that she received
a telephone call from Callison shortly after the walk-
out during which the latter indicated that she was
an active union adherent. In view of Phillip
Roseman's testimony that he makes it a point of
keeping abreast of developments at the plant, and
that in his estimation a union causes "trouble"
when it organizes a factory, I am unable to believe
that Callison's union activities at all times on and
after February 1 were foreign to his kin. Nor am I
convinced that Respondent was unaware of the
identity of the other union sympathizers and the ex-
tent of their activities. As indicated heretofore,
Roseman admittedly was kept apprised of the union
campaign by several of his employees and Mrs.
Roseman learned the names of the individuals who
left Doris Aquino's home on February 2 to lodge
unfair labor practice charges against Respondent
with the Board, a group which included Beverly
and Shirley Callison, Alice Merryman, and Katy
Adams. Moreover, Mrs. Roseman was clearly
aware that Beverly Callison was the leader and
chief spokesman for the employees who walked out
on February I because the latter telephoned Nettie
Roseman to request an audience with her on behalf
of the girls, and Nettie knew that Aquino was a
prime movant in this cabal because the protest
meeting was held at her residence.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire
record made in this proceeding, I am convinced
and I find that Respondent failed and refused to
reinstate Beverly Callison, Shirley Callison, Katy
Adams, and Alice Merryman on February 2,
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
despite their unconditional offers to return to work
on that date, because they were ardent, known,
union activists,22 and because Respondent was op-
posed to their efforts to unionize the plant.23 By so
doing, I conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
I turn next to a consideration of the terminations
of Doris Aquino and Maycel Phipps, and to other
individual acts of interference, restraint, and coer-
cion in which Respondent is alleged to have in-
dulged.
Aquino, at whose home the employees met in
February to discuss their grievance, quit work with
her fellow employees on February 1. On February
3, she visited Roseman's offices to obtain her
paycheck and was told by Nettie Roseman that any
employee who desired reinstatement would be
required to speak to her individually. Mrs.
Roseman then remarked that she would make cer-
tain that none of the employees who quit work on
February 1 would draw unemployment compensa-
tion during their absences.21 Seeking reinstatement,
Aquino submitted to a personal interview with Mrs.
Roseman during which the latter "asked me why
did I act so childish by walking out, what did I think
I'd gain." At the conclusion of the conversation,
Aquino was offered and accepted reinstatement
and resumed work on February 6.
Aquino testified that, while at work on February
9, Phillip Roseman delivered an address over the
public address system. During his speech, he stated
that he was sorry for what had occurred during the
preceding week, "about the walkout and the people
getting fired and we should be careful of anything
we signed pertaining to the Union, and just because
we were working on a contract didn't mean that he
could not shut that plant down. He said that there
were rumors that a union was trying to come into
his factory, and that anybody caught passing out
cards would be replaced, and that he had fired the
one that had started that union and he didn't think
he would have any more trouble." Roseman added
that, if the Union succeeded in organizing the plant,
those employees who were receiving $1.50 per
hour would be paid at a lower scale. He concluded
by mentioning such subjects as benefits, insurance,
and enlarging the plant.
Roseman admitted delivering the aforementioned
speech during which he informed his employees
that they did not need the Union in the plant. With
a burst of commendable candor, he also conceded
that he informed the employees that "We would
close the plant" despite the Government contract
upon which he was working, and that he was trying
to keep the Union out. Moreover, he did not deny
_ The record discloses that Katy Adams was reinstated on some undis-
closed date thereafter
=' Mrs Roseman made no secret of her antipathy for labor unions when
she replied to a series of questions that " I don't think we need a union in
Hickman I don't think they [the employees need a spokesman I
think people themselves can speak for themselves - Phillip Roseman also
expressed similar sentiments
that he informed the workers that their wages
would be decreased if the Union came in. Ac-
cordingly, I credit Aquino and find the facts to be
as she testimonially portrayed them. Based thereon,
I conclude that Respondent violated Section
8(a)( I) of the Act by Roseman's statements that he
would shut down the plant if the employees signed
union cards, that he would replace any employee
who was caught distributing union cards, and that
the hourly wage rate would be decreased if the
Union successfully organized the factory.
Continuing the narrative concerning Aquino's
employment, she had first been hired by Respon-
dent in 1964 and, after a leave of absence, returned
to work, apparently in June 1966. Although she
walked out on February 1 with her fellow em-
ployees, she was rehired, as heretofore chronicled,
on February 6. On the morning of February 22, she
reported for duty after a 2-week bout with influen-
za only to notice that her timecard was not in its ac-
customed slot. As this was the first time that this
had happened to her, she approached Foreman
Tony to inquire into the reason for this happen-
stance. It is undisputed and I find that, in the course
of her ensuing conversation, Tony announced that
Aquino had been discharged on instructions from
Nettie Roseman because of "absenteeism." Aquino
protested that she had absented herself during the
prior 2-week period due to the flu, and reminded
Tony that "I called in every time, every day that I
was sick and was not here." Tony repeated, "Well,
Nettie told me to fire you, that we didn't need you
anymore," to which Aquino replied, "Well, I'll just
draw my unemployment." Tony retorted, "No, you
won't. You know how she [Nettie] feels about that
too." Aquino testified without denial that, with the
exception of her absence due to illness in February,
she had never been absent for any regular, ex-
tended periods of time and had never been warned
or reprimanded by any company official for this
conduct during the entire course of her employ-
ment with Respondent.
As indicated above, Tony was not called as a wit-
ness, Despite Tony's claim, as recounted by Aquino,
that Mrs . Roseman caused Aquino's discharge
for alleged absenteeism , Plant Manager Holcomb
sought to explain the reasons for this personnel ac-
tion, contending that he alone made the decision to
sever Aquino's employment ties on February 22.
His testimony in this regard is, to say the least, illu-
minating . Holcomb testified that he was himself
away from the factory on that date and, yet, he
somehow learned that she had been absent on
February 22. However, he nevertheless "wondered
about her absenteeism," and this prompted him to
" Both Phillip and Nettie Roseman admitted and I find that the% in-
formed their employees that Respondent would oppose their application
for unemployment compensation benefits for has ing protested the chmma-
tion of the break and for refusing to return to work on Februar % I unless
the break w.u reinstated 7 conclude that. by the foregoing conduct.
Respondent s iol.itcd Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 1177
instruct Foreman Tony to discharge Aquino
because he had not received any word from her.
According to Holcomb, he had warned Aquino on
two occasions that "I know of' that her absentee-
ism would not be tolerated, but then was unsure
when these warnings were given, and finally ad-
mitted that he had no idea whether Aquino had ab-
sented herself prior to February 22. When asked to
explicate Respondent's policy regarding absences
from work, Holcomb stated that if the employees
called in or otherwise sent word that they would
not be available for duty because of illness, or
otherwise, "that is fine" and they are retained on
Respondent's payroll regardless of the length or
regularity of such absences. Although Holcomb ini-
tially insisted that Aquino had been terminated for
failing to notify Respondent of her absence prior to
February 22, he ultimately brought himself to admit
that "One time she told me that she was sick. I
don't know whether it was the flu or not, and she
sent word in by her mother (who worked for
Respondent) that she was sick on one occasion,
and on another occasion I think it was-well,
several occasions she was sick, but I didn't know it
was the flu."
I do not credit Holcomb's testimony that he sin-
gled Aquino out for discharge because she had per-
sistently absented herself from work and failed to
report to him during her siege of the flu. In the first
place, Holcomb admittedly was not even present in
the plant on February 22 when she returned to duty
after her illness. Moreover, Holcomb conceded that
Aquino dutifully contacted him during her infirmi-
ty, a factor which by his own admission would have
excused her absences under Respondent's person-
nel policies.
Aquino, to Respondent's knowledge, had shel-
tered the group of employees, who concertedly left
work on February 1 in protest over the elimination
of the afternoon break, at her home on February 2
where Beverly Callison and other union proponents
decided to and did telephone Nettie Roseman to ar-
range for a meeting to discuss the situation. To be
sure, an employer may discharge an employee for
cause or no cause at all, provided that a reason for
the separation is not associated with a motive
proscribed by the Act. Here, Respondent contends
that it terminated Aquino's employment solely
because of her absenteeism. As it is made patently
clear from Holcomb's testimony that Aquino's con-
duct in checking in with Respondent during her ill-
ness in the month of February satisfied Respon-
dent's personnel policies and thus immunized her
against discharge, I am persuaded and I find
Aquino's termination can be associated with no
other reason than that she had allied herself with
known union adherents and had joined with them in
protesting Respondent's curtailment of the rest
period. I therefore conclude that, by discharging
Aquino, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
The discharge of Maycel Phipps is parallel to
Aquino's. Phipps first went to work at the plant in
August 1966 and was continuously employed until
her discharge on April 6. She executed a union
authorization card around April 1 and had success-
fully solicited approximately two employees at the
factory prior to her termination. Phipps testified
that, on March 16, she spoke to Phillip Roseman
concerning a loan from the factory outlet store. Ac-
cording to Phipps' testimony, Respondent main-
tains a policy of providing loans to its employees up
to a limit of $25 and, due to the advent of Easter,
she desired an advance to buy some items for her
children for the holidays. Roseman assured her that
she could obtain "as much as $50 at once" and of-
fered to extend as much credit "as you want
because you are one of our old hands and have got
steady work." Because she was aware of Respon-
dent's restrictive loan policy, Roseman's generosity
surprised Phipps. Following his approval of the
loan, and according to Phipps' further testimony,
Roseman "asked me would I go out and talk to
some of the girls about the Union. I told him I
thought it had gone too far to talk to anyone about
it, because there had been some cards signed," to
which Roseman responded that "We didn't need
the damned union." Roseman then remarked that
he intended to offer his employees free ambulance
service, extended insurance benefits, a more com-
modious lunchroom, and an enlargement of the
plant, promises which Roseman had previously
made around the middle of February in a speech to
the workers in the factory.
In his testimony, Phillip Roseman denied that he
requested Phipps to speak to the girls about
renouncing the Union. When questioned as to
whether he had told Phipps that she could receive
increased credit at th factory outlet store,
Roseman again entered denial, stating "Nothing
to do with that whatsoe er. There was no relation-
ship. That is automatic." Phipps impressed me as
an honest witness and I perceive no reason for
disbelieving her. I therefore credit her testimony in
this regard.
With respect to Roseman's announcement of the
promise of additional benefits such as free ambu-
lance service, extended insurance benefits, and a
better lunchroom and plant facilities, Roseman
acknowledged that he made these matters known to
the employees in three speeches which he made
beginning in February. However, Roseman
proclaimed that these added benefits were pro-
grammed well in advance of the advent of the
Union. While it is true that Respondent mailed a
letter to its employees in November 1966 which
recited that "Within the very near future, we are
planning a series of meetings with various departe-
ments [sic] throughout the plant in an effort to
determine with you exactly what would be the best
areas for over all improvements," not a single men-
tion was made in the document of any specific
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 3
1178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
benefit or emolument which Respondent had under
Consideration. Testimonially, Roseman insisted that
he had promised his workers, as early as November
1966, an additional holiday and yet he was unable
to recall what holiday it was. With respect to his
promised enlargement of the plant, Roseman
sought to explain this away by stating that "That
has been common knowledge for 6 years. The town
raised the money several years ago for the enlarge-
ment. It still is waiting, still pending." I fail to un-
derstand why, if as Roseman claimed, the plant ex-
pansion was "common knowledge," he should have
chosen to remind his employees of this known fact
at a time when he first heard the tocsin of unioniza-
tion. In short, I am convinced and I find that
Roseman elected to promise his employees free am-
bulance service, an improved insurance program, a
new lunchroom, an extra holiday, and the enlarge-
ment of the plant, only after he had learned that the
Union was making headway among his employees
and that, by promising these benefits, he hoped to
wean them away from that labor organization. I
therefore conclude that, by holding out these
benefits to his workers, Roseman and Respondent
violated Section 8(a)( I ). I further conclude that
Respondent violated the same section by
Roseman's attempt to utilize the services of Phipps
to persuade her fellow employees to reject the
Union, and by his promise to advance to Phipps an
open credit line.
Returning to the discharge of Phipps, she further
testified that she had been absent from work about
1 day each week ever since she was employed by
Respondent and had never been reprimanded for
doing so or informed that she would be discharged
on account of her absences. Sometime in February,
she stayed at home for 2 weeks because of an ac-
cident suffered by her two daughters. On April 3,
she informed her forelady, Supervisor Ruth Yates,
that she was suffering from a sore throat and that
she would not report for work the following day
because of this affliction. It is uncontroverted and I
find that Yates stated that it was perfectly permissi-
ble for Phipps to be off from work on April 4. On
the following day, Respondent sent word with
Phipps' daughter not to return to her duties until
April 6 because production had slackened and
there was no work for her. On April 6, Phipps
returned to the plant. When she went to the
timeclock, she observed that her timecard was been
pulled and she proceeded to the office to inquire
into the matter. Phipps met Plant Manager Hol-
comb and asked what had happened to her card,
and the latter replied "I'll tell you why you don't
have a card. You're fired." When Phipps queried
Holcomb as to the reason for her discharge, Hol-
comb stated "too much absentee." On three occa-
sions thereafter, Phipps visited the factory and
spoke to Phillip Roseman about returning to work.
On the first two of these occasions, Roseman in-
formed her that "the doors wasn't closed to me"
and that some day she would be reemployed. It is
undisputed that, on her last visit, she mentioned to
Roseman that she had received some papers from
the Board and stated that she would rather have her
job back than sign the papers because she needed
work. Phipps asked Roseman for his advice as to
whether she should sign the papers, to which he
replied that "it wouldn't matter one way or the
other what I did with them." Thereupon, Phipps
filled out the papers and mailed them to the Board.
Holcomb testified that he alone made the deci-
sion to discharge Phipps on April 6 because of her
record of absenteeism.25 At the outset of his
testimony, Holcomb related that Phipps had been
absent quite a bit in March and that he had given
her two warnings because of this. On April 6 when
Phipps failed to appear for work, he decided to ter-
minate her because she did not notify Respondent
that she would not report for duty. However, Hol-
comb then testified that under Respondent's policy
employees are given one warning for failure to call
in when they absent themselves, which would place
Phipps' second offense, by an interpolation of his
testimony, in April. Holcomb then confessed that
he could not remember whether Phipps telephoned
the plant on April 4 to report her sickness and
could not even remember her earlier absences or
whether she had in fact been absent in April when
he discharged her.
I am convinced that Phipps' termination for ab-
senteeism was a cloak to shield an illegal reason for
her discharge. Phipps testified that she telephoned
Supervisor Yates to report her proposed absence
due to illness on April 3. Although Yates was sum-
moned by a witness on behalf of Respondent, she
failed to controvert Phipps' testimony in any
respect . Moreover, Holcomb acknowledged that he
had learned that Phipps' absence for 2 weeks in
February was due to an accident which befell her
daughters and that he "took this into considera-
tion " when he discharged her. In light of the
foregoing , and in view of Holcomb's inability to
pinpoint whether and when he actually did repri-
mand her for absenteeism , I credit Phipps'
testimony and find that she had never been warned
by Holcomb or any other company official to curb
her absences or that she would be discharged for
failing to report them.
Phipps had been solicited by Phillip Roseman to
speak to her fellow employees to dissuade their ad-
herence to the Union and Phipps responded with a
distinctly unenthusiastic reply when she stated that
"it had gone too far to talk to anyone about it,
because there had been some cards signed."
Moreover , this response made it clear to Roseman
that Phipps was privy to certain intelligence regard-
ing the Union's campaign, intelligence which could
have reasonably led him to believe that Phipps
might have been involved in that drive. Further-
`' Phillip Roseman insisted that he discharged her
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 1179
more, it is undenied that Phipps successfully soli-
cited two employees at the plant prior to her
separation. In view of Roseman's testimony that he
was informed by certain of his employees concern-
ing such solicitation , I deem it also reasonable to
infer that Roseman learned of her activities in this
regard. Accordingly, I find that Phipps was
discharged on April 6, not because of any record of
absenteeism , but because Respondent knew or
suspected that she was espousing the Union's cause.
I conclude that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8 (a)(3) of the Act.
Employee Monnie Sue Campbell testified that
she had observed Supervisors Glidewell, Yates, and
Argo distributing antiunion leaflets to employees in
March and April. She testified that she had been a
friend of Glidewell for about 10 years and, on
March 22, engaged in a conversation with
Glidewell while at work. According to Campbell,
Glidewell "told me that someone was telling that I
was passing out union cards and collecting them,
and she also told me that it was a rumor that I was
missing a day's work to meet with the Union's offi-
cials. She felt that I would probably deny the fact
that I was, had anything to do with the Union."
When called to the witness stand and questioned as
to whether she had spoken to Campbell about the
Union, Glidewell claimed, "The Union was not
mentioned, as far as the Union as a whole. I told
her that I thought she was getting accused of a lot
of things that she wasn't doing, but there was
nothing said about the Union between she or I." I
cannot be led to believe that Glidewell failed to
mention the Union in this conversation, not only
because I deem it implausible that she would have
deliberately attempted to keep a treasured friend in
the dark about an accusation which might
jeopardize Campbell's job, but also because
Glidewell tipped her hand when she testified that
"she felt that [Campbell] was a strong loyal com-
pany employee." Accordingly, I find that Glidewell
initiated this conversation to draw Campbell out as
to her relationship with the Union and that this
constituted a form of interrogation. I conclude that,
in the context of this case , this interrogation was
coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1).
Concerning the leaflets to which Campbell ad-
verted in her testimony , Phillip Roseman testified
that, on or about February 8, his supervisors began
distributing handbills to the employees. This hand-
bill, which was introduced into evidence, advised
the employees that "Your signature is valuable-
warning-do not give it away." It went on to state,
"Refuse to sign anything unless you know exactly
what will be done with your signature and how it
will affectt you!" The circular contained a series of
questions and statements including, "Will it involve
me in UNION Trouble?", and "Demand a written
guarantee that your signature will not be used for
something that could work to your possible harm."
The General Counsel contends that this handbill,
containing these inscriptions , threatened employees
with "trouble, possible violence, and loss of pay
checks and jobs" if they selected the Union as their
bargaining representative and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1). I am not convinced that these
legends verbally portray the dire results which the
General Counsel draws from them. Accordingly, I
shall dismiss this aspect of the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with Respon-
dent's operations described in section 1, 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
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend
that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
I have heretofore found that Respondent
discharged Beverly Callison , Katy Adams, Christine
Levy, Frankie Williams, Peggy Bing , Alice Mer-
ryman , Jo Ann Burchman , Geneva Duty, Lavada
Mansfield , Shelby Parnall , Shirley Callison, Jimmy
McClure , Pat Lowery , Glenda Edgin , Nita Stowe,
Doris Aquino , and Maycel Phipps on February 1,
1967, because they engaged in protected, con-
certed activities . I shall therefore recommend that
Respondent offer them , to the extent it has not al-
ready done so, immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent employ-
ment and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against them , by payment to them of a
sum equal to that which they normally would have
earned from the date of discrimination to the date
of offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings
during said period . The backpay provided herein
shall be computed in accordance with the Board's
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent per annum in the manner prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
I have also found that Claudia Bing and Ed Bing
voluntarily left their employment on February 1,
1967, to join in common cause with the employees
whose names are set forth in the paragraph im-
mediately above, and were not discharged on that
date . However , I have found that they applied for
unconditional reinstatement with Respondent on
February 2, which was denied to them. As the
Bings withheld their services to protest the commis-
1180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sion of unfair labor practices by Respondent when
it separated their fellow employees for engaging in
protected, concerted activities, they occupied the
status of unfair labor practice strikers who were en-
titled to reinstatement upon their unconditional
request. Accordingly, I shall recommend that
Respondent offer to Claudia and Ed Bing im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent employment, displacing any
replacements hired since February 2, 1967, and
make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
sustained by payment to them of a sum of money
equal to that which they normally would have
received from the date of denial of reemployment
to the date of offer of reinstatement, less net
earnings during that period. Their backpay shall be
computed in the same manner as set forth above,
with interest computed thereon as provided for in
Isis.
I have further found that Respondent discrimina-
torily discharged Doris Aquino and Maycel Phipps
on February 22, 1967, and April 6, 1967, respec-
tively I shall accordingly recommend that Respon-
dent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions
and make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination from
the date of the discharges to the date of their rein-
statement , less net earnings during said period.
Their backpay shall be computed in the same
manner as described in this section.'
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair
labor practices engaged in by Respondent, which
evince an attitude of opposition to the purposes of
the Act in general, I deem it necessary to recom-
mend that Respondent cease and desist from in any
other manner infringing upon rights of employees
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Beverly Callison, Katy Adams,
Christine Levy, Frankie Williams, Peggy Bing,
Alice Merryman, Jo Ann Burchman, Geneva Duty,
Lavada Mansfield, Shelby Parnall, Shirley Callison,
Jimmy McClure, Pat Lowery, Glenda Edgin, Nita
Stowe, Doris Aquino, and Maycel Phipps, and by
failing to recall some of them, and by declining to
reinstate Claudia Bing and Ed Bing , thereby dis-
criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, in order to discourage membership in
and activity on behalf of the Union, and/or to
discourage their engagement in concerted activities
protected under Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (I )
of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has also engaged
in and is engaging in independent unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , I recommend
that Respondent , Hickman Garment Company,
Hickman , Kentucky, its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities
on behalf of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America , AFL-CIO , or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees , by discharging employees, or
discouraging their participation in protected, con-
certed activities by discharging them and refusing
to reinstate employees who have done so, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to hire or
tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Requesting employees to solicit other em-
ployees to renounce the Union; coercively inter-
rogating employees; threatening employees that
they would be prevented from drawing unemploy-
ment benefits for engaging in protected , concerted
activities ; threatening employees that it would close
its plant if they engaged in the aforesaid protected
activities ; threatening employees that their wages
would be reduced if they selected the Union as
their bargaining agent ; warning employees that they
would be replaced if they distributed union
authorization cards, without limitation as to the
time and place of such distribution ; warning em-
ployees that they would be barred from employ-
ment for engaging in union activities; and promising
employees increased benefits , including free ambu-
lance service , an improved insurance program, a
new lunchroom , and extra holidays , if they rejected
the Union.
(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of their right to self-organization , to form labor
"' Both Aquino and Maycel are also entitled, of course. to hackpay from
February I, the day they were discharged for protesting the elimination of
the rest period, until the date or dates of their reinstatement
HICKMAN GARMENT COMPANY 1181
organizations, to join or assist the above-named
labor organization, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac-
tivities 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 I
find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Offer to Beverly Callison, Katy Adams,
Christine Levy, Frankie Williams, Peggy Bing,
Alice Merryman, Jo Ann Burchman, Geneva Duty,
Lavada Mansfield, Shelby Parnall, Shirley Callison,
Jimmy McClure, Pat Lowery, Glenda Edgin, Nita
Stowe, Doris Aquino, Maycel Phipps, Claudia Bing,
and Ed Bing , if it has not already done so, im-
mediate and full reinstatement of their former or
substantially equivalent jobs, and make them whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision en-
titled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Hickman, Kentucky, co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. "27
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 9, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered,
.defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, except as
hereinabove found, all other allegations in the com-
plaint be dismissed.
:v In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall he substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
=" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, w hat steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees
from joining or supporting the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or
any other union, by firing any of our em-
ployees, and we will not discourage our em-
ployees from participating in activities pro-
tected by Federal law by discharging them and
refusing to reinstate them.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to persuade
their fellow workers to reject the Union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
about their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
loss of unemployment compensation benefits
because they engage in activities protected by
Federal law.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that
we will close the plant for engaging in lawful
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that-
they will receive less money in wages if they
selected the Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees that they
will be replaced in their jobs if they pass out
union authorization cards on company proper-
ty during nonwork time.
WE WILL NOT warn our employees that they
will not be rehired or recalled to work if they
join or assist the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees in-
creased benefits such as free ambulance ser-
vice, improved insurance programs, a new
lunchroom, or extra holidays, if they defeat the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with the rights of our employees under the law,
or force them to give up any of their rights
under the law.
WE WILL offer back their jobs to Beverly
Callison, Katy Adams, Christine Levy, Frankie
Williams, Peggy Bing, Alice Merryman, Jo Ann
Burchman, Geneva Duty, Lavada Mansfield,
Shelby Parnall, Shirley Callison, Jimmy Mc-
Clure, Pat Lowery, Glenda Edgin, Nita Stowe,
Doris Aquino, Maycel Phipps, Claudia Bing,
and Ed Bing, if we have not already done so,
1182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and give them backpay from the day they were
fired or denied reemployment.
WE WILL notify these employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor union.
HICKMAN GARMENT
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Room 2407, Federal Office Building, 550
Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
684-3363.