Howard Knit Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Howard Knit Products, Inc. and International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case
I1-CA-3529
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
February 12, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 21, 1968, Trial Examiner Owsley
Vose issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged
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 affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Charging
Party, and the General Counsel, all filed exceptions
to the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Howard Knit
Products, Inc., Gastonia, North Carolina, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified below:
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
her 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.
2. Add the following as the last indented
paragraph of the notice:
WE WILL notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of her 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.
OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner- This case heard at
Gastonia, North Carolina, on June 28, 1968, pursuant to
charges filed the preceding January 29 and April 2 and- a
complaint issued on April 25, presents the question
whether the Respondent discharged Frances Lutz on
January 19, 1968, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, my consideration- of
the brief filed by the General Counsel, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , a North Carolina corporation, is
engaged in the manufacture of athletic shirts and men's
underwear at a plant at Gastonia , North Carolina. During
the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, the
Respondent purchased from out-of -State sources and had
shipped to its plant at Gastonia , more than $50,000 worth
of goods and materials . During the same period of time
the Respondent shipped from its Gastonia plant to
out-of-State destinations in excess of $50,000 work of
finished products . Upon these facts, I find, as the
Respondent admits, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Frances J. Lutz in Violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
1. Lutz' employment record
Lutz was hired by the Respondent in 1958. At the time
of her discharge on January 19, 1968, she was one of
seven or eight girls engaged in sewing first shoulder, the
first operation in the manufacture of T-shirts. As both
General Manager Frank Jones, Jr., and Supervisor Fay
Wingenroth freely admitted, Lutz was a good operator.
The Respondent's employees are paid on a piecework
basis. According to Lutz' testimony, her production quota
was 175 bundles a day. However, Lutz' daily production
averaged about 215 bundles a day, or more than 20
percent more than her production quota. This is Lutz'
undenied testimony.
2. The supervisory setup of the Respondent's plant
The Respondent has approximately 140 production
employees of whom about 110 are in the sewing
department. All 140 employees work in one large room.
The overall operations of the Respondent are under the
supervision of Frank C. Jones, the Respondent's general
manager. Under him is Fay Wingenroth who is
responsible primarily for the sewing department. Rachel
174 NLRB No. 68
HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS
Lewis is a subordinate supervisor under Wingenroth and is
primarily in charge of quality control, which includes the
examining and folding operations. In Wingenroth's
absence Lewis acts in Wingenroth's place. Both
Wingenroth and Lewis spend almost all their time in the
room where the employees work and Jones frequently has
occasions to be present there also.
During the period of time involved in this case, from
December 12, 1967, through January 19, 1968, the
Respondent was loaning the services of Wingenroth to an
unrelated concern located in Great Falls, South Carolina,
which is some 65 miles from Gastonia. Wingenroth was
trying to establish a production program for this other
concern, to set up proper standards, and to train
employees. During this period Wingenroth worked only
intermittently at the Respondent's plant. At the hearing
Wingenroth estimated that between December 12, 1967,
and January 19, 1968, she was al the Respondent's plant
on about 15 days.
3. The union activities at the Respondent's plant and
Lutz' part therein
On December 12, 1967, Burl Robinson, a representative
of the Union, stationed himself just outside the parking
lot adjacent to the Respondent's plant as the employees
were leaving the plant at 2:30 p.m. Lutz and several other
employees approached him as he was passing out union
leaflets to employees leaving the parking lot. Lutz
obtained some 8 to 12 leaflets from Robinson and,
standing there beside Robinson, gave them out to
employees who were on their way to their cars in the
parking lot. She also gave leaflets to the riders in her
carpool. General Manager Frank Jones was informed by
employees of the distribution of the union leaflets by the
union representative "within a matter of minutes," as he
admitted.'
The next day Lutz called General Manager Jones over
to her machine and asked him if he was aware that a
union representative had been giving out union literature
at the plant. Jones said yes. Lutz also asked Supervisor
Lewis that day if she knew about the distribution of union
literature on the day before and whether she had received
any such literature. Lewis said she knew about it but that
none had been offered her and that she would not have
taken it anyway because she was "just not for the Union."
A few days later Union Representative Robinson went
to Lutz' home and gave her additional union leaflets and
some union application cards. Lutz gave Robinson the
'Union Representative Robinson testified that while he was passing out
union literature at the parking lot entrance , an employee who was later
identified to him as Grady Fronaberger, came up to him and told him that
Frank Jones had sent him out there to tell him not to pass out any more
union leaflets on company property At the opening of the hearing the
General Counsel moved to amend the complaint to allege an 8(a)(1)
violations based upon this incident, also one other which is discussed
,below . However, this motion was subsequently withdrawn upon the
suggestion of the Trial Examiner , who stated at the time that if the motion
to amend were withdrawn , he would not make any findings of violations of
the Act based upon the incidents relied upon in the motion to amend. In
these circumstances I do not deem it proper to make any finding of a
violtation of the Act based upon this December 12, 1967, incident. In any
event, it is implicit in Jones' testimony about this incident , which I credit,
that he did not give Fronaberger instructions of the nature testified to by
Robinson The record wholly fails to establish that Fronaberger is a
supervisor for whose actions the Respondent is responsible For these
reasons I must reject the General Counsel ' s request in his brief that the
Robinson December 12, 1967, incident be made the subject of a remedial
order
411
names and addresses of some of the Respondent's
employees whom she thought would be interested in the
Union.
Lutz passed out union cards in the plant lunchroom, in
the plant restroom, and in the parking lot. Lutz also
solicited signatures on union application cards at the
homes of various employees. Later on Lutz returned some
20 to 30 signed cards to Union Representative Robinson.
Lutz arranged for a union meeting to be held at her
home on the night of January 11, 1968. She spoke to
approximately 25 employees in the plant about the
meeting and asked them to pass along to their fellow
workers information concerning the meeting. The meeting
had to be cancelled at the last minute because of snow
and ice on the roads.
4. Jones warns the employees about improving their
production and maintaining a cooperative attitude
About the middle of January, General Manager Jones
commenced giving a series of talks to groups of the
employees. In the course of these group talks, he reached
all of the employees except those' who happened to be
absent. Jones testified that he mentioned to the employees
the problems the Respondent was facing due to the
imminent completion of a government contract, the
impending increase in the minimum wage under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, which was to take effect February
1, 1968, and the increased cost of overall operations. In an
effort to solve these problems, Jones warned the
employees that he was going to "weed out" piece rate
workers who failed to earn the minimum wage, and said
that in deciding which employees to retain, he was going
to take into consideration not only the quality of their
work, but also "their abilities to get along with other
people, their cooperation, their general attitude and
everything else."
About January 16, Jones had the following notice
posted on the bulletin board:
It has been the company practice -that anyone
punching another employees time card or leaving their
work area before the buzzer sounds, at break, lunch, or
quitting time is subject to reprimand and/or dismissed.'
On January 17, in a telephone conversation with
Wingenroth, Jones reported the substance of his talks to
groups of employees and the contents of the notice which
he had posted. Jones further told Wingenroth on this
occasion, as he testified, that "things were getting pretty
lax with her being away and me (Jones) being away off
and on, that we were shorthanded (of management
personnel), that we were going to crack down." This
statement signalled a significant change in the working
conditions in the Respondent's plant, for as set forth
below in part 7, up until this time the plant had been
operated in quite a relaxed manner. Under all the
circumstances, including particularly the timing of the
adoption of this policy, I conclude that Jones' decision to
"crack down" on the employees was prompted by the
union activities then going on in the plant, and that the
posting of the rule quoted above was part of Jones' new
"crack down" program
'Although , as found below, Jones ' posting of this rule was part of the
Respondent ' s response to the union activities which were then being
intensified in the plant , it is conceded by Supervisor Wmgenroth, who
effected Lutz' discharge , that this rule played no part in Lutz' discharge
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Lutz has a union meeting at her home on the night
of January 18, 1968
The union meeting which had been planned for January
11, 1968, was rescheduled for January 18. Before the
meeting Lutz contacted about 25 to 30 employees about
attending. Lutz spoke to some of the employees during
break or lunch periods in the plant and to others in the
plant parking lot. Burl Robinson and two other
representatives of the Union spoke at the meeting at Lutz'
home. An undisclosed number of the Respondent's
employees attended.
6. The circumstances of the discharge of Lutz on
January 19
Supervisor Wingenroth returned to the plant from
Great Falls at 11 45 a.m. on January 19, 1968, and
immediately engaged in a conversation with Rachel Lewis
at the desk which both apparently used. While she was
talking to Lewis, Wingenroth noticed Lutz, whom she
assumed was on her lunch hour, talking to two girls,
Mabel Dameron and Mary Cable at their work stations.
Both Dameron and Cable were working at the time.
While Lutz was standing talking to Dameron and Cable,
Betty Bradley, whose work station was nearby, asked Lutz
for a union card. Lutz put a union card and some union
literature on Bradley's machine. At the time of this
incident Wingenroth was standing facing Lutz about 30
feet away. After a few minutes, Lutz walked past the desk
where Wingenroth and Lewis were engaged in
conversation. Lutz asked Lewis whether the employees
were going to work the following day, Saturday. Lewis
said no. Wingenroth said nothing to Lutz about her
visiting with Dameron and Cable. On her way back to her
machine Lutz detoured almost two-thirds of the way to
the other end of the plant and stopped and talked with
Odessa Floyd and Georgia McClure "just briefly."3 Both
Floyd and McClure were at work at this time McClure
gave Lutz some signed union cards which Lutz put in her
purse. Then Lutz returned to her machine and commenced
working. The whole incident took not over 10 minutes.'
As Lutz commenced sewing Wingenroth came to her
machine and told her that since she (Wingenroth) had
returned she (Lutz) had stopped and talked with
Dameron, Cable, Floyd and McClure, that she had
previously been warned about talking to girls on her lunch
hour, and that she was dismissed. Wingenroth had one of
the office girls fill out her termination slip and give it to
Lutz It gave as the reason for the separation "disobeying
a company rule [of] which [Lutz] was aware." When Lutz
asked the office girl which rule she had violated, the office
girl said that she did not know and went to get
Wingenroth. When Wingenroth came in , Lutz told her to
specify the rule she was relying on. Wingenroth refused
Lutz then asserted, "Well Fay, everybody has been doing
what I did " Wingenroth replied, "Well, we're starting
now." Lutz refused to take her termination slip that day,
declaring that she wanted to talk to Jones.'
At the close of work that day, Wingenroth discharged
Betty Woods for violating the recently posted rule against
'This is Lutz' uncontradicted testimony.
This finding is based on my reconciliation of the testimony of Lutz and
Wingenroth . The former testified that the whole incident took from 5 to 10
minutes , while the latter testified that it lasted 10 to 13 minutes
'The above findings are based mainly on Lutz ' credited and undenied
testimony.
leaving her work area before the buzzer sounded.-
The following Monday, Lutz went back to the plant
accompanied by her husband She asked Jones at this
time whether he knew she had been fired. Jones said he
had been told about it. Lutz told Jones, "Well, I've been
working here 10 years and I would like to keep on
working here " Although Jones told Lutz on this occasion
that she "was his best first shoulder operator and that
with them firing [her] he had to . . take three of his
collarette girls off their machines that morning," he did
not rescind Lutz' discharge. The collarette operation is a
subsequent operation on T-shirts., Lutz brought out that
Wingenroth refused to specify the rule which she had
violated. Jones told her that she had been "running
around into the area." This is Jones' credited testimony.
Lutz said that she was going to take her termination slip
under protest and, as Jones also testified, he "would
certainly hear about this -thing, that she was working for
the Union." To Lutz' assertion that "You have found out
that I had union meetings at my house," Jones responded
simply "Oh," as he further testified.
7. The relaxed working conditions in the
Respondent's plant up until about the time of Lutz's
discharge
Lutz testified that employees customarily talked to the
employees next to them at work and that it was
permissible to leave your work to talk to someone on
another row.' Mary Ryan, who had left the Respondent's
employ after Lutz' discharge and prior to the hearing,
testified, in response to a question about talking in the
plant, as follows:
Well, everyone talked. They would leave their work
station and go somewhere else and tell somebody
something
TRIAL EXAMINER: They would leave their work
stations and go talk to somebody else?
THE WITNESS: Some did; some didn't.,
General Manager Jones' testimony on the subject of
talking in the plant, is as follows:
Q. And was part of the general problem where
various employees talked among themselves?
A. Well, I've never discouraged talking up to a point
among themselves. You'll never stop women from
talking; you can control it, but you'll never stop it all
together. Now, for instance, if a girl happens to be
sitting on an end row and a girl happens to pass her
and she might be four rows up but it's in the path of
her objective, the ladies room, usually; and she might
stop there for a second or so and say, `Hey, pick me up
tonight; I don't have a rid home,' or something like
that. You just can't stop things like that. And that, in
general, is what the discussions usually are.
'Although Jones took the stand after Lutz had given the above-quoted
testimony, he was not questioned about it Jones did testify , however, that
he had related everything he had said to Lutz in this postdischarge
interview , and his version omits any mention of Lutz being his best first
shoulder operator and having to transfer collarette operators as a'result of
her discharge In other respects, the versions of Lutz and Jones of the
postdischarge interview are consistent . Under all the circumstances I do
not believe that Jones , by his omission of any reference to his favorable
comments about Lutz' work, intended to deny that he had made such
comments. I credit Lutz ' testimony above quoted.
'I accept Lutz' testimony in this regard only since it is corroborated by
the testimony of other witnesses in this case, including that of the
Respondent' s supervisors . Lutz ' further testimony on this point appeared to
be somewhat exaggerated
HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS
Q. Well, isn't it a fact that it was the practice among
the girls to talk whenever they chose to do so, wasn't
it?"
A. Up to a point.
Supervisor Wingenroth conceded at the hearing that
during the year before Lutz' discharge talking was pretty
general in the plant She also testified that "maybe once a
week" she observed employees going from one machine to
another to talk to their fellow workers.
8. The Respondent's contentions ; conclusions
Supervisor Wingenroth, whose decision it was to
discharge Lutz, testified that a few days before Lutz'
discharge she received instructions from Jones to tighten
up on discipline in the plant, to strictly enforce all
company rules, and dismiss employees violating - such
rules. Wingenroth further testified that during the incident
before Lutz' discharge, she observed Lutz interfering with
the production of the four employees and decided to
discharge her forthwith. Wingenroth denied ever having
seen a union card and further denied having any
knowledge of any union activities at the plant For reasons
discussed below, I do not credit this denial. In any event,
even if the discharge occurred as a result of Wingenroth's
attempting to implement Jones' "crack down" program,
since, as I have found, this program was instituted for
antiunion reasons, Lutz' discharge would be violative of
the Act regardless of Wingenroth's knowledge of Lutz'
union activities. General Manager Jones denied having
any knowledge at all of any union activities going on at
the plant, aside from the fact that a union representative
distributed union literature at the plant gate on December
12, 1967
It is inconceivable to me, upon all of the facts of the
case, that Jones would not have had more knowledge of
union activities among the Respondent's employees than
he admitted to having. Lutz passed out cards and
literature in the plant and on the parking lot, and
frequently spoke to employees about the Union on
company premises. Numerous of her fellow employees
who were spoken to by Lutz about the Union were aware
of her union activities, including the fact that she had
scheduled union meetings at her home. Jones was
admittedly informed by employees of the distribution of
union literature outside the plant on December 12, 1967,
within minutes after the distribution began. Concerning
the spread of information around the plant, Jones testified
that "if you've been around a ladies' sewing plant, all you
have to do is drop one word and it will get across the
plant."
An incident which occurred in the week after Lutz'
discharge further demonstrates the speed with which
information concerning union matters was communicated
to management. Mary Ryan was one of Lutz' coworkers
at the plant. One night during the week following Lutz'
discharge a man called Ryan at her home and, after
giving his name, identified himself as a union lawyer. He
sought to obtain Ryan's aid in connection with an
unemployment compensation claim which he was pressing
on behalf of Lutz. Ryan told the lawyer that she would
rather not appear and did not want to get involved. The
union lawyer's call apparently made Ryan apprehensive
about her job, for the next morning she told two of her
fellow workers about receiving the call. One or both of
these employees promptly reported to Wingenroth both
the fact that Ryan had received the call from the union
lawyer and the further fact, I infer, that Ryan was fearful
41.3
for her job because of having received the call. Later that
same morning Wingenroth went to Ryan and said,
"Mary, I've talked it over with Frank (Jones) regarding
the union lawyer talking to you . . . your job will not be
in danger."8 During this conversation Wingenroth told
Ryan that "she just hoped that Frances Lutz lost her
butt."
In view of the scope of Lutz' union activities in the
plant and the speed with which the record shows that
information concerning such matters spread to
management, and bearing in mind the fact, as experience
demonstrates, that information concerning union activities
among an employer's employees is ordinarily a matter of
considerable interest to the employer and a matter which
members of management normally discuss with one
another, I cannot accept Wingenroth's and Jones'
sweeping denials of all knowledge of Lutz' union
activities. While there is no affirmative evidence that
Wingenroth was informed at the time she discharged Lutz
that Lutz had held a union meeting at her home the night
before, I am convinced, contrary to the testimony of both
Wingenroth and Jones, that both were aware of Lutz'
earlier union activities. Even though Wingenroth was
frequently away from the plant during the period the
union activities were in progress, Jones remained in touch
with her by telephone In any event, Wingenroth, by her
own testimony, was at the plant 15 days during the time
the union activities were in progress and thus had an
adequate opportunity to become apprised of such
activities.
Various circumstances cast serious doubt on
Wingenroth's explanation that Lutz was discharged for
talking and disrupting the production of other employees.
In the first place, Lutz was discharged without warning
for an offense which had not up to that time been
regarded as a serious violation of the Respondent's rules
It was quite a common occurrence for employees to leave
their machines to talk. Never before, as Jones admitted,
had an employee been discharged for such an offense.
Wingenroth had ample opportunity while Lutz was
speaking to Dameron and Cable to tell her to stop
bothering them, but she did not do so. Nor did
Wingenroth reprimand Lutz when Lutz passed by her
after leaving Dameron and Cable. Although Wingenroth
told Lutz when she discharged her that she had been
warned, at the hearing Lutz was unable to substantiate
this assertion in any meaningful way. When asked to be
specific about the number of warnings issued to Lutz in
the year prior to her discharge, Wingenroth answered
"about once. We warned the whole mill." Wingenroth
further testified that she had not warned Lutz about
talking any more than any other employees. While Jones
talked to Lutz once in the fall of 1967 about leaving her
machine and talking, this incident occurred in
Wingenroth's absence, and it does not appear that
Wingenroth was aware of it.
Secondly, Wingenroth's discharge of Lutz worked at
cross purposes with the Respondent's professed goal of
'The General Counsel urges in his brief that Wingenroth 's action in
telling Ryan that her conversation with the union lawyer had been
discussed with General Manager Jones was coercive in that it tended to
inhibit Ryan from testifying in Lutz ' behalf. This incident was the other
subject of the General Counsel's motion to amend made at the opening of
the hearing , which was withdrawn at the Trial Examiner 's suggestion For
the reasons discussed above , I do not deem it proper to make any finding
based upon this incident. Moreover , upon the facts found, I do not believe
that the inference of coercion which the General Counsel urges me to draw
is a reasonable one
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
achieving more efficient production and thereby helping to
solve the problems which it was then facing as the result
of the completion of a large government contract, the
coming increase in the minimum wage, and the overall
increase in its costs which it was then experiencing. At
such a time it was more important than ever that
Respondent hang on to its good producers. Lutz, a
10-year employee of the Respondent, was a good producer
who consistently made substantially more than her
minimum production quota. Lutz, as found above, was on
the first T-shirt operation, and the volume of her
production affected the volume of work available for
employees on subsequent operations. Particularly in
assembly line operations like the Respondent's it is
essential that good producers be retained, for without an
adequate number of satisfactory producers in the early
operations, production may have to be curtailed in
subsequent operations. This actually happened in this case
after Lutz' discharge. I have found that Jones told Lutz
after her discharge that as a result of firing her he had to
take three collarette girls off their machines.
Sound business procedures in such a situation suggest
finding some other solution to the talking problem than
dismissing one of the Respondent's better producers. If
the Respondent seriously regarded Lutz' visiting and
talking as objectionable, a word of warning to Lutz most
likely would have been sufficient to curtail such activity 9
Wingenroth's seizure upon this one incident as an
occasion to visit upon Lutz the extreme penalty of
discharge, contrary to past practice and sound business
considerations, strongly suggests that Wingenroth had an
ulterior motive for getting rid of Lutz. I so find.
What ulterior motive could Wingenroth have had that
could not have been brought out into the open? If
Wingenroth acted because of her disapproval of Lutz'
union activities, then there would have been reason for her
to conceal the true motivation underlying her action for
such action would have been illegal. Taking all the
circumstances of the case into consideration, I conclude
that such was the motivation behind Wingenroth's
discharge of Lutz.
The Respondent's supervisory officials had knowledge
of Lutz' activities in support of the Union, including, I
find, her scheduling of union meetings at her home. This,
I find, based upon the scope of Lutz' activities on
company premises, the number of employees she
contacted both in and out of the plant concerning the
Union and union meetings, and the speed with which
Jones admitted that information of an unusual nature
spread through the plant. It will be remembered that
Jones testified that an employee reported to him the fact
that a union representative was distributing union leaflets
at the parking lot on December 12, 1967, "within a matter
of minutes" after the representative commenced such
activity.
After Lutz had scheduled a union meeting at her home
on January 11, 1968, Jones held meetings with groups of
employees at which he warned of impending dismissals,
and said he would take into consideration in deciding
whom to let go, among other factors, "their abilities to
get along with other people, their cooperation" and "their
general attitude." Even assuming that Jones had a valid
business reason for holding these meetings with
'The fact that Lutz continued to talk to Dameron and Cable for some
minutes in plain sight of Wingenroth and later went and briefly talked to
Floyd and McClure suggests that Lutz had np idea at the time that she
was committing a serious breach of the Respondent ' s rules.
employees, in my opinion, he utilized these meetings as an
occasion to issue a veiled warning to the employees
against becoming involved in the union activities then
going on among the employees. This is the impression, I
believe, Jones intended to convey by stressing the need for
employees to "cooperate" and watch their "attitude."
At the time of Lutz' discharge she had just held a union
meeting at her home, a meeting concerning which she had
previously given some publicity in the plant. When
Wingenroth arrived at the plant on January 19, she first
had a talk with Supervisor Lewis, who was in charge of
the plant in Wingenroth's absence and who was the
supervisor closest to the employees during this period of
organizing activity and therefore the supervisor most
likely to receive information concerning organizing
activities.10 Wingenroth thus had an opportunity to be
brought up to date on the current organizing activities.
The activity in which Lutz was engaged immediately prior
to her discharge in plain sight of Wingenroth - talking to
five employees and giving and receiving cards -
undoubtedly suggested to Wingenroth that Lutz was
engaged in further union activity.
The explanation given by the Respondent for the
drastic and unprecedented action taken against Lutz -
that she was interfering with production - does not
withstand scrutiny. Talking in the plant was quite
common and the discharge of one of the Respondent's
better operators," I have found, disrupted rather than
improved production in the plant. No other explanation
has been offered by the Respondent for the discharge
without warning of this efficient producer.12 Under all the
circumstances, including the timing of Lutz' discharge -
at a time when Lutz' activities in support of the Union
had reached a peak - I infer and find that it was Lutz'
activities in support of the Union which led to
Wingenroth's decision to discharge her. Such a discharge
is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and I so
find.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By discharging Frances Lutz because of her union
activities the Respondent has discriminated against Lutz
in regard to her tenure of employment and has
discouraged membership in the Union, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will direct the
Respondent to cease and desist from such unfair labor
practices and from like and related conduct, and that the
Respondent reinstate Lutz, with backpay from the date of
her discharge to the Respondent's offer of reinstatement.
"Lewis was not called as a witness and there is no direct evidence of her
knowledge of union activities among the Respondent 's employees.
"General Manager Jones ' testimony indicated that the Respondent had
marginal operators , average operators , and good operators . Lutz was in
the latter category
"The Respondent has not availed itself of the opportunity to file a brief
with the Trial Examiner and consequently the Examiner is without
knowledge whether the Respondent is still relying on the explanations
given by Wingenroth and Jones at the hearing or whether the Respondent
has some other contention regarding Lutz' discharge.
HOWARD KNIT PRODUCTS
In computing backpay, Lutz' net interim earnings shall be
taken into consideration , and the formulas set forth in F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, 291-293 and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co .. 138 NLRB 716, shall be
followed.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
there is hereby issued the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Howard Knit Products, Inc.,
Gastonia, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, by discharging or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Frances Lutz immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights previously enjoyed, and make her whole for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her, in the manner described in
"The Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports and all other records necessary
or useful to determine the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Recommended Order
(c) Post at its Gastonia, North Carolina, plant, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 11, 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 the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
415
defaced, or covered by any other material."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.,'
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"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, what 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 National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or
otherwise discriminate in regard to their hire, tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment,
because they have engaged in union or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
their right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in,
any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL reinstate Frances Lutz and reimburse her
for the wages she lost as a result of her discharge.
Dated By
HOWARD KNIT
PRODUCTS, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia
Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina 27101, Telephone 723-2911