Kent-Coffey Maunfacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 1686 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kent-Coffey Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International
Woodworkers of America, AFL=CIO, CLC. Cases 11-CA-2827
and 2891. June 28,1966
DECISION AND ORDER ' '
On May 5, 1966, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and recommending that it -cease and desist therefrom and
take-certain affirmative actioi , as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision., Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions' of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board, has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Zagoria].
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 cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
'1 The address and telephone number for Region 11, appearing at the bottom of the notice
attached to'the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read: 1624 Wachovia Building,
301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101, Telephone 723-2911.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE '
This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton on Jan-
uary 11 and 12, 1966, in Lenoir, North Carolina, upon a consolidated complaint
issued by the General Counsel 1 alleging that Respondent discharged three employ-
ees in violation-of Section 8(a)(3) and committed certain independent violations
of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. All parties were represented at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to present relevant evidence. Oral argument on the
record and submission of written briefs were waived by all parties
Upon the entire record in the cases, and from my observation of the demeanor
of the witnesses, I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE AND JURISDICTION
Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of furniture at three plants in Lenoir,
North Carolina , which are particularly the subject of this proceeding . During the
1 The original charges by the Union were filed and served in Case 11-CA-2827 on Sep-
tember 2, 1965 , and in Case 11-CA-2891 on October 27, 1965 The General Counsel's
complaints , subsequently consolidated , were issued respectively on October 27 and Novem-
ber 19, 1965.
159 NLRB No. 136.
KENT-COFFEY MFG. CO. , 1687
year preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent had a direct,outflow in inter-
state commerce of goods and services valued in excess of $50,000, and a direct
inflow in interstate commerce of goods and services valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent's denial notwithstanding, I find that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act .2
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Union organizing campaign
On June 28 and 29, 1965,3 agents of the Union distributed- a- handbill with a
mail-back membership application card to employees at the, gates of the three
plants. Thereafter, the Union passed out different handbills once ,or twice a week,.
and generally engaged in various efforts to obtain card authorizations. On Decem-
ber 3, the campaign ended with the defeat of the Union in a Board election involv-
ing some 800 eligible employees. Paul Spicer, who mailed back a signed applica-
tion card, was contacted by a union organizer early in the drive, and subsequently
was active in distributing handbills, soliciting cards, and seeking employee 'support.
Other employees who assisted in the handbilling included Lester Coffey, Claude
Akers, Walter Stout, Ella Mae Bradley, and Bessie Mae Anders. Spicer, Bradley,
and Anders are the complainants herein.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion.
1. Promise and grants of benefit
About July 1, Respondent's chairman of the board, Harold Coffey, spoke to the
assembled employees. The substance of his speech was described by two employ-
ees who testified for the General Counsel? Coffey said he was out of the country
and did not know that, in his absence, Respondent's bonus policy had been changed
from a percentage basis to a formula predicated upon length of service .5 Upon his
return, he found that the employees would get more from the old system, and he
was therefore changing it back. At the same time, he stated that the employees
would get a vacation of 1 week at Christmas and 1 week about July 4. As was
testified, this 2-week vacation plan had earlier been posted on the bulletin board,
about the middle of June.
Toward the end of his speech Coffey said he was going to fight the Union any
way he could 6 and that Magnavox 7 "was backing him in it." He also warned
that employees would be subject to dismissal for union activities during working
hours.
About September 1, Respondent put into effect a general wage increase of 5 cents
per hour, and in September or early October, it decreased the employees' con-
tributing cost of hospitalization insurance by 25 percent.
On the basis of this evidence, I find that Section 8(a)(1) was violated. At the
inception of the union campaign and in the context of strong antiunion avowals
by Respondent's chairman, the announced restoration of the percentage bonus plan
more favorable to the employees 8 constituted a promise and award of benefit cal-
culated to influence the employees with regard to the Union. With similar effect,
21n October 1965, Board jurisdiction was asserted over Respondent in a representation
proceeding (Case 11-RC-2274).
3 All dates are in 1965 except as otherwise specified
4 For its part, Respondent produced no evidence' concerning the speech and the sub-
sequent action taken.
6The employees had been receiving a straight 4 percent bonus, which was changed in-
stead to a payment for 40 hours' work after 1 year of service with extension, for example,
to 65 hours' pay for 20 years of service
6 He appeared to be reading from a poster, which he said he was going to put on the
bulletin board over each clock The poster stated In effect that the Company would
oppose the Union by all proper means.
7 A contractor of Respondent.
$ Coffey so stated in his speech, and on Its face the 4 percent payment would exceed the
amount received by most, if not all, employees under the seniority formula.
1688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the later grant of benefits preceding the Board election, even though unaccom-
panied by'expressed conditions or threats relating to the Union, tended to induce
the employees by favors; and reasonably carried the implication to them that "the
source of benefits now conferred'is also the source from which future benefits will
flow. .. ." 9
2. Plant Superintendent Douglas Sigmon
James Collins' testimony was uncontradicted. Sigmon frequently stopped and
talked with him concerning work and other matters. In a conversation prior to
July 4, and during the period of union handbilling, "something was said about the
Union," and Sigmon asked him, "What do you think about the Union?" Collins
answered that he did not know what to think, and that he heard good things and
bad things about the Union. Considering Respondent's expressed antagonism
toward the Union, the contemporaneous commission of other unfair labor practices,
and the fact that the inquiry emanated from a high official of management, I find
that Sigmon had engaged in coercive interrogation, as alleged.
3. Finishing Foreman Charles E. Clontz
On November 30, Lois Nelson went to Clontz' office. She told Clontz that she
heard he had said that she was for the Union. He replied, yes, he had known it
for a long time. He commented that she was not working against the Union. She
responded that she was not working for it. He indicated, however, he could not
tell her how to vote. Further, he made the statement: "Put yourself in Harold
Coffey's place. What would you do with someone who came and tried to take
over your home ... , . I guess you would have to let them go." io
No basis appears to sustain the allegation of unlawful interrogation. The evi-
dence does, however, support a finding that Clontz' remarks contained a threat of
discharge, violative of Section 8(a)(1).
4. Sanding Room Foreman Don Crisp
On or about August 16, while Crisp was talking to Charles Lawrence at his work
station, it employee Dan Coffey came over, held out a union card, and remarked,
in jest, that he was going to sign Crisp's name to the card and send it in. Saying
nothing further, Crisp and then Coffey walked off. About 5 minutes later, Crisp
returned. As Lawrence testified, Crisp said, "the Union was no good and in
Kentucky they were trying to get the Union in at a plant . . and they let 700
men go up there . . . . If we voted for the Union we wouldn't have no job." 12
Based upon Lawrence's 'testimony, which is credited, I find that Crisp conveyed
to Lawrence threats of job loss to discourage employee union activity.
C. The discharges
1. Paul Spicer
From 1932 or 1933, Spicer had worked for Respondent a total of about 30
years.13 On several occasions during this period, for reasons of higher pay, he
left and then returned to Respondent's employ.14
From May 1961, until his discharge on October 20, 1965, here an issue, Spicer's
employment with Respondent was continuous. In this period, he worked as a
furniture repairman and for a time as an inspector, under the supervision of Grady
Barlow, cabinet department foreman of plant 1.
6 N.L.R .B. v. Exchange Parta Company, 375 U.S. 405.
10 Based on Nelson 's credible testimony.
n Lawrence operated a side-stroke sanding machine.
12 Crisp testified that, about 10 minutes after the Coffey incident, he went back to show
Lawrence how to side stroke certain stock. Lawrence, broaching the subject, wanted
Crisp to know that he was not going to have anything to do with the Union. Crisp simply
replied that it was his "privilege." He denied that he expressed any opinion concerning
the Union, or that he made any threats, as testified by Lawrence
13 In 1956, he received an award of a wrist watch for 20 years of service.
14 At one time Spicer was discharged by Respondent; the cause and period of this absence
were not shown.
KENT-COFFEY MFG. CO. 1689
As previously noted, Spicer extensively engaged in organizational activities during
the campaign, and the evidence fairly shows that he assumed a leadership role in
this endeavor. On August 25, he stationed himself in front of the clockhouse at
plant 1, where he handed out leaflets to employees as they left work for the day.
He observed the plant manager and three other supervisors 20 or 30 feet away
inside the main gate. The next morning, he spoke to Foreman Barlow. He said,
"Grady, you know now what I have done and where I stand concerning the Union."
Barlow replied affirmatively. Spicer stated that before the day was over Barlow
would probably get orders to fire him and, in such event, he would rather Barlow
not do it himself because "he liked" him. Barlow answered that he did not intend
to fire Spicer unless he broke company rules. Spicer said that in 30 years he had
not broken any company rules and did not intend to start now.15
Douglas Sigmon, superintendent of plant 2, testified concerning the incident lead-
ing to Spicer's discharge,16 substantially as follows: Due to the faulty parts and
faulty repair work, an excessive amount of rejects, or "culls," were accumulating
in the "rub room" (a final stage in the furniture production). The condition had
been building up over a period of time, and the Company was pushing to get
better quality. On October 12,17 he had a meeting of all inspectors and repairmen,
also attended by Foreman Barlow and Respondent's quality control supervisor,
Grady Keyes. The employees were shown various defects on a number of cabinets,
and instructed as to the source of the deficiencies. Thereafter, Sigmon conferred
with Barlow and they decided "to try to pin our repairs down as to who was
neglecting their repair work." Sigmon suggested that Barlow make some arrange-
ment to have the repairmen place their code marks on the cases (i.e., cabinets, etc.)
so that the mark would not be obliterated and could be identified when the cases
reached the rub room. In the past, the repairmen had been placing their marks
on the back of the cases. However, some of these cases were later "finished" on
the back and the mark was "blotted out." 18 He was thereafter advised by Barlow
that the three repairmen were instructed to mark their cases as follows: Hally-
burton and Norris would place their mark on the underside of the top drawer, and
Spicer on the "dust bottom" (a thin partition between the first and second
drawers).19 Hallyburton would mark #1 in yellow chalk; Norris #2 in red; Spicer
# 3 or the letter "P" in blue.20 (The previous markings on the back of the cases
would continue.) About October 14 (it takes 11/2-2 days for the cases to move
from the repair room to the rub room), Sigmon began to check in the rub room
to see if there was still "an excess amount of repair work that was not done prop-
erly." If he found a piece in bad repair, he would pull out the drawer to see
whose code mark was on it. He observed on these cases the markings of # 1 and
#2, from Hallyburton and Norris, but he never found Spicer's mark. He asked
Barlow if he "further instructed these people about what we were trying to do,"
and Barlow said that he had.21 He continued his checking, with the same results,
and it appeared to him that they were not getting the proper cooperation in setting
1; Spicer'- testimony was substantially corroborated by Barlow.
16 Sigmon's authority in Plant 1, where Spicer and Barlow were employed, was not made
clear in the record.
17 Spicer fixed the date on October 11.
is On cross-examination, Sigmon testified that on some cases the repairman's mark was
"fogged over," and on others not. He admitted that they could probably wash off the
back of the case and find the repairman's mark, but such procedure would be "quite an
expense."
19 Spicer testified that Barlow wanted them to put a second mark on the cases, either
on the top drawer bottom or the dust bottom. Spicer asked, and was permitted, to use
the dust bottom, when he indicated that the drawers were often mixed up when taken out
and his drawer might be put back in the wrong case.
20 There is some conflict concerning the kind of mark each repairman was to use. Spicer
testified he always used a "P," in yellow ; he believed, but was not sure, that Norris used
a "B," In red, and that Hallyburton used #1, in yellow, but in the last week or two
Hallyburton used blue. Hallyburton and Norris did not testify. Barlow stated that the
color was of no importance to him, that he left the choice to the men. Before the change
on October 12, he did not know what colors they were using, but he did know after the
change.
21 According to Barlow, it was on October 18 when he reported back to Sigmon that the
repairmen told him, upon his inquiry, that they were putting the markings in both places.
1690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
up a system "to eliminate some of the culls:" 22 On October'19, he decided to
check 206 cases in the rub room which had "just come off the chain that day." 23
The examination was undertaken by Sigmon and Barlow, together with the rub
room foreman and his assistant, Ward Keyes and Marshall Teague. ' They found
61 cases marked #1 in yellow, for Hallyburton; 71 casesmarked #2 in red, for
Norris; and one case marked on the dust bottom with a "P." 24 Sigmon told Barlow
he "didn 't feel like" they were getting "the proper cooperation to eliminate our
problem," and "left it up to Barlow to do what he thought was proper." Barlow
reported back that he discharged Spicer.25 Thereafter, he found that the markings
were properly being put on the cases and that they were getting better quality.
Barlow's testimony, contains the following additions and variations: It was his
decision to have a second set of code markings because they needed to know who
repaired the cases . All cabinets need some little repair work, and the repairmen
place their- maik' on every one. An inspector, Albert Allen, immediately inspects
the work coming from the repair room.26 Allen was not instructed to inspect for
the second mark; he could see the first mark on the back of the case. In checking
the 206 cases on October'19, he (Barlow) did the tallying whether the mark was
#1, #2, or #3, while Sigmon, Keys, and Teague called out their findings. On
the one case attributed to Spicer, the mark found on the dust bottom was not a
"P" but a blue chalk mark that looked like a straight line.27 In checking for the
second mark, they found no neglected or defective work on Spicer's part; they
were not looking for flaws, but merely to identify the case in order "to get better
quality." 28 On October '20, he notified Spicer that he was discharged for not
carrying out instructions. Spicer requested Barlow to look through a number of
chests already repaired, which were there on the floor. Barlow declined because,
as he testified, "We had already made the decision from the number of cases we
had already checked through and we didn't feel it was necessary.-
Teague testified that, in checking the 206 cases, Sigmon told him to look for
numbers (and colors) on the top drawer and dust bottom. They did not look else-
where. Keyes testified that they found a mark, in blue chalk, on just one dust bot-
tom. It was an angular slash about 11/2-2 inches long; whereas on the drawer bot-
toms, the marks were 2-3 inches long. He said that after the drawer is taken out,
the dust bottom can be seen, if one "gets down and looks, for about 6 or 8 inches
inside."
Spicer testified that, after October 11, he began placing his mark (the letter "P"
in yellow) on the back of the case and on the dust bottom. On October 13, Bar-
low asked him if he was putting on the second mark, and he said he was. On
October 20, Barlow approached him with the same question, and he gave the same
answer. Barlow then told him they checked over 200 cases 29 and found the second
marks of the other repairmen, but found none of his. Spicer protested that there
was something "bad wrong," because he had certainly been marking both places 3u
Barlow stated, "That's the way it is," and discharged him. Spicer then requested
s'" On cross-examination , Sigmon indicated that these were "culled" pieces of furniture
he was checking, I e, cases which were set aside as defective or needing repair' He testi-
fied that at this time he felt that Spicer "either wasn't repairing the cases or either he
wasn't doing what we tried to get him to do."
23 Asked whether any of the 206 cases were defective, Sigmon replied that they were
not looking for defective pieces at that time.
24 Nothing was said concerning the markings on the back of the cases, as to which the
past experience had been that some were "fogged over" and some were not; and in any
event the mark could be determined by washing off the "finish."
15 Asked whether it was his responsibility to investigate before discharge to see what
explaining circumstances there were, Sigmon said he left that up to the foreman. He
could not remember whether Barlow discussed with him these circumstances or the con-
versation with Spicer relating to the discharge.
21 Enroute to and in the finishing room, there are several other inspectors. The furni-
ture, if rejected, comes back to the repair department. None of these inspectors was called
to testify.
27 This was the only case he personally looked at
28A latent question is why any defective cases after leaving the repair room would not,
presumably, have been "culled" by the inspectors, before reaching the rub room
ze Spicer indicated that the 200 cases consisted of a week's output, and that it took
1 y-2 days for the cases to move from the repair room to the rub room.
30 Upon Spicer' s inqury, Barlow said there was nothing wrong with the cases on which
no marks were found.
KENT-COFFEY MFG. CO. . 1691
that " . . . before you do this , over there that 's 40 or 50 chests that 's not left my
sight . . Us three men was pushing these chests all in this group over there .. .
and 12 or 15 of these chests should be mine . . Let's go see if my marks is on
those chests .". Barlow just shook his head and replied , "No, Doug [Sigmon ] said to
get your check ." Spicer remarked , "You know and I know that it is not over this
code mark business , it is over my Union activities ." Thereafter , he. was given his
check and a discharge slip, which read "failing to work as directed."
Conclusions as to Spicer
Spicer was a union leader within Respondent 's awareness . Particularly after
Spicer discussed his union role with Barlow on August 26, both sides were undoubt-
edly conscious that a violation issue might arise in the event of a discharge . Momen-
tarily there is a question whether Spicer was courting discharge by failing to place
the second mark on any of the cases. On all the evidence , such a theory must be
rejected as utterly improbable . Nor, with any degree of plausibility , could it be
accepted that Respondent truly believed that none of the cases was being marked by
Spicer, as directed . I credit Spicer's testimony , particularly that he complied fully
with the marking instructions . Sigmon and Barlow must have known in advance
or had good reason to expect the results of the elaborate check of 206 cases which
was set up on October 19. Thus, for a period of more than a week after the Octo-
ber 11 meeting , Sigmon purportedly undertook a continuing examination of the
cases and saw none with the second mark of Spicer . If this were so, he could,
upon his first discovery , have confronted Spicer , for. an explanation , and not have
allowed the situation to recur . To assure accuracy of the findings, Spicer could
have been observed directly while he worked , or his cases could have been checked
promptly at Albert Allen's inspection station . During the entire period from Octo-
ber 11 to 19, Spicer was not shown a single case where his mark was missing. Only
in some instances was the first mark placed on the back of the cases "fogged over"
by later finishing , and those could have been "washed off" to reveal the mark. Still,
on the 73 to 74 cases for which no second mark was found on October 19, no one
took the trouble actually to identify the repairman from the mark on the back of
the case.
The problem was not that, prior to October 11, the repairmen were failing to
mark their cases. It is not conceivable that Spicer , in the particular circumstances,
would suddenly fall into the neglect of omitting any of his marks after the double
marking system was inaugurated. At the discharge interview , Spicer's attempt to
show Barlow the numerous cases on the repair room floor (which had not left his
sight ) was rejected summarily . That he was given no warning whatsoever is signifi-
cant, particularly in view of his 30 years of service 31 Assertedly, the concern of
Respondent was to eliminate an excess of defective work. But there is not an iota
of evidence in this regard , before and after October 11 , with which Respondent
could reproach Spicer.32 For days, Sigmon was personally engrossed in various
details of checking marks on cases. Then , upon obtaining the results of the Octo-
ber 19 investigation , he ostensibly became aloof in his interest regarding the dis-
position to be made thereof and left the matter entirely in Barlow's discretion.
Indeed , Sigmon's denial that he took any part in the discharge decision is contra-
dicted by Barlow himself as well as by Spicer in their testimony concerning the ter-
minal interview.33
It is abundantly plain that Sigmon and Barlow did not wish to inquire , investigate,
or consider any circumstances which would serve in Spicer's favor respecting this
question , which suddenly loomed in importance , of placing a second mark on the
cases. Clearly it was Sigmon who' was deliberate in planning the whole affair. It
may be reasonably inferred that his purpose was to erect a basis for Spicer's dis-
charge. It has already been found that Spicer did in fact place his second marks on
the dust bottoms as required. Teague and Keyes testified only as to what they knew
or were led to believe in checking the 206 cases on October 19. The reason that
31 The past repeated rehires of Spicer further attest his value to Respondent as an
experienced employee.
31 It is also curious that , in the period between October 11 and 19 , there is no indication
that any repaired cases were rejected by inspectors and returned to the repair room, in
which event the particular repairman ' s work would be sought to identify responsibility.
33 It is my distinct view and impression that Sigmon was engaging in dissemblance and,
apart from admissions , I do not credit his testimony generally
1692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
no marks' of Spicer were found on this occasion 'lies within Respondent's peculiar
knowledge, and was not revealed. However,'the same conclusion herein would fol-
low, whether Sigmon and Barlow engineered 'or "planted" the 206 cases to .obtain
these results, or exploited some misunderstanding or-coincidence to utilize such evi-
dence against Spicer.34 Considering Respondent's demonstrated hostility' toward the
Union; Spicer's union leadership; Respondent's knowledge thereof; his 30 years'
service; the timing of his discharge (shortly after the Union filed its. election peti-
tion ); the studied failure to confront or warn Spicer, or to conduct a reasonable
investigation; the conflicts and implausibilities in^ Respondent's testimony; and the
total record herein; I am convinced that Respondent's sole motive in discharging
Spicer was discriminatory and plainly in violation of Section' 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Ella Mae Bradley
She credibly testified: From about 1952, she was employed with Respondent for
11/2 years, left to go to Cleveland, returned in 1954 to work for 10 years, and again
left in May '1964 to work for more money with another' company in Lenoir In
May 1965, Respondent sent for her brother-in-law, Paul Spicer, and asked if she
could come' back to work. At her ' subsequent interview, Foreman Grady Keyes
offered her the same pay she was earning at the other company and promised her
a raise later on. She was ' assigned, under Keyes, as a quality control inspector in
the cabinet room at plant 1. After 3 weeks she was transferred downstairs to the
stockroom, where she worked as an inspector' until her discharge on October 22 35
At the end of July, she commenced activity on behalf of the Union. She signed
a union card and solicited card authorizations from other employees. On Octo-
ber 11, after the workday, she stood with Union Agent Truman Reed and helped to
distribute handbills at the plant exit.36 ' As she was coming out, she observed Plant
Manager James Clark and two other supervisors 37 standing inside the plant gate.
Although they were "in 'fair view of us," she did not actually know that they saw
her while she was handing out the leaflets. After her discharge, she (with Spicer
and others) continued to handbill every week, and "most every time" there was at
least one of the foremen in sight. While the evidence is not 'direct that any agent of
Respondent witnessed the handbilling by Bradley on October 11, the circumstances
are such that Respondent's' knowledge of this activity is fairly to be inferred.
Respondent could not have been unaware of the Union's handbilling from the
beginning. From early July, its intense concern regarding 'the organizational cam-
paign has already been shown. Since August 25, it knew that Spicer was distribut-
ing these bills. It rehired Bradley by first summoning Spicer, and her relation'and
association with him were well known. In this instance on October 11, the hand-
billing was conducted in close proximity to the plant, with supervisors seen in the
vicinity. In my view of all'the factors, Bradley's participation could not reasonably
have escaped Respondent's attention.
The record does not reflect the particular kind of experience Bradley' had in
furniture production during her prior years of , employment with Respondent 38
34 Spicer's code mark was always the letter "P" applied in yellow chalk. On this point,
he could have been decisively refuted by Respondent, if he was wrong Barlow was less
than clear and convincing in his testimony regarding the marks to be used by the three re-
pairmen. He and Sigmon attributed the blue to Spicer and the yellow to Hallyburton.
Norris and Hallyburton were not called to testify. On its face, however, this conflict as
to colors would not appear to be significant. For, presumably, a careful inspection of the
dust bottoms would reveal a yellow mark as well
85 When sent to the stockroom, she was told she would help another inspector, Richard
McGinnis. McGinnis stayed with her a week or two and was moved to plant 3 Keyes
said he would bring McGinnis back after July 4, but he never did.
39 Bradley, Spicer, Reed, and Bessie Mae Anders all testified that they participated on
this occasion in passing handbills Reed stated he believed that McManama , another
union official , was present . Anders mentioned that McManama or Campbell was there,
and believed that employee Lester Miller also assisted.
37 Gene Bolick and Charles E. Clontz. In effect, Bolick denied that he ever saw any
handbilling. (See footnote 55, infra.) Clontz saw "some" in October for the first time,
during which he noticed Spicer and two other men At first he said lie never saw Anders
in this activity, and later stated he saw her once after her discharge of October 22
33 Bradley merely stated generally that she had once worked for Clontz in the finishing
room.
KENT-COFFEY MFG.,CO. 1693
Upon her rehire in May, 1965, Respondent chose to place her in the inspecting job,
where she was permitted to continue for 5 'months, for the most part, alone. , On
several occasions, she asked Keyes how her work was looking and he said, "fine."
He also told her he did not have to worry about her work when, he was gone.39
In July, she received a 5-cent raise, as promised, and later was given another 5-cent
general increase.
On October 11, she attended the meeting of inspectors and repairmen to improve-
work quality, as earlier described in the discussion of the Spicer discharge. In the
stockroom she inspected posts, end panels, and end rails. The parts which she
"culled," or removed from production as defective, she separated into two groups
on individual trucks, i.e., and "dead culls," which were not repairable; and the
repairable culls, which were brought by a "jack boy" to the repair room, or were
picked up by the repairmen. On October 19, Jerry Hinsley, from the assembly
department, came to her and said that 7 chest posts and 5 desk posts were needed'
as a "fill in" to complete an order. She told Hinsley he could not have them:
because they were. "culled." These were on the "dead cull pile." Hinsley left .and
then returned in a few minutes with Donald Freeman, a repairman, who proceeded
to take the culls for repair. Freeman did not send them back to her for reinspec-
tion, as he was supposed to do.40
On October 21, about 10:30 a.m., Keyes asked=Freeman to tell Bradley to come
to the assembly department "inspecting line." There he showed her rejects of posts
on about six desks and five chests which were in assembled furniture and said-
"that kind of inspecting had to be cut out." She recognized that these were the
chest and desk posts which Freeman had taken, from her 2 days before. She told
Keyes she had inspected, those posts, Freeman had taken them, he had not repaired
them right, and they had not come back to her for reinspection. Keyes made no
reply, and she returned to her job. On October 22 (Friday), at the end of the day,
Keyes brought her check, said that her ,work was unsatisfactory, and that he had
a man to take her place Monday morning. She charged that he was letting her
go on account of the Union. He replied, "Let's don't talk about the Union." She
asked why he could not send her back upstairs on the job for which she was hired.
He told her the Company just allowed him so many hands and he had a man to
take her place. Her discharge slip stated that she did not come up to "quality con-
trol requirements."
Repairmen Freeman, testifying for Respondent, corroborated Bradley that, on
October 19, he took culled posts from her to use as a fill-in on an order.41 He
did not know whether she separated them as dead culls or repairable culls, but he got
them any way. He repaired them, directly released them to assembly, and they
were processed into the furniture. On October 21, after he got Bradley for Keyes,
he went back to his,job and was not present when Keyes pointed out the defects
to Bradley on the assembly line 42 Keyes had, told him he had some "culls" to
show Bradley. At lunchtime, Freeman went on his own initiative to the assembly
department and looked at the culls. They were seven dresser and night stand
posts, which were of shorter length and different from the chest posts which he had
taken from Bradley for the fill-in on October 19. He did not know that these
were the culls which Keyes wanted to show Bradley, but he assumed this fact
because they could only have come through Bradley's station . The posts he saw
on the assembly line were defective, and had not been repaired at all, or not by
him.43 He did not talk to anyone about it.
39 As he testified, Keyes was supervisor of quality control in 4 plants of Respondent.
(Apparently, 1 plant had been added more recently )
40 At times, when Freeman would take culls from her, he would fail to return them for
inspection. She recalled four different occasions when this happened. When she told
Foreman Keyes, he said he would see about it, but the problem continued to occur. On the
day before her discharge , she had to cull again over half the posts which Freeman had
taken from her and brought back after repair. She showed these culls to Keyes that day.
41 He made no mention of Hinsley, who was not called to testify.
42 It was not made clear why Freeman was involved in summoning Bradley.
43 Freeman indicated that there was no reason for him to return the fill-in posts to
Bradley for reinspection . He and the other repairmen , between times when they were not
repairing , also did inspecting of posts, end panels, and rails for beds, which were different
from the parts that, Bradley usually inspected. According to Keyes, Bradley inspected any
exposed part that would go into a dresser, chest, night table, desk, or book cabinet.
1694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Keyes, who testified after Bradley, did not refute her testimony that he had shown
her defective chest and desk posts on October 19. Tending to corroborate Brad-
ley rather than Freeman, who referred 7 pieces, Keyes stated there were 10
or 11 pieces which he pointed out to Bradley that day. Freeman is not credited
on this question. Among other things, I do not believe, as he implied, that he was
merely a disinterested bystander who happened to be asked by Keyes to call Brad-
ley on October 19, and that he went to the assembly line to find the defective culls
out of simple curiosity.
On direct and cross-examination, Foreman Keyes made statements to the follow-
ing effect:44 Bradley was the only woman who ever worked in the stockroom.
She was a good worker in that she was regularly at work, but due to the fact that
she had been a production worker all her life,45 she worked too fast and looked
over a lot of defects which had to be culled later. He must have spoken to her
five or six times on the subject during the 5 months of her (recent) employment.
Some of this discussion was right at the beginning (when he was instructing her).
He talked quality to all his people and treated her no differently. What he was
actually doing was pointing out what they should be looking for. It was not really
a warning. He does not recall whether he told Bradley she was doing good work
when he gave her a raise.
Continuing Keyes' testimony: The repairman has authority to take culls, if he
sees fit. He fixes them and sends them back again to be inspected. It is possible
that they do not always go back for reinspection, but orders issued by Keyes so
require.46 The inspector has authority to hold rejected parts, or culls,47 until he
(Keyes) comes by to approve their release.48 The repairman cannot take dead
culls, unless he breaks a rule. If he insists on taking them, the inspector has the
right to stop him, and can call Keyes. It would be the repairman's fault if he fixed
a culled piece, did not return it for inspection, and it was still defective. He would
not hold Bradley responsible for culls which were taken from her and not sent
back to be reinspected.49 If at final assembly, it is discovered that a number of
posts are short to finish the order, the problem is turned over to the shortage man,
who has new posts cut from lumber and processed through the various operations.
It is not possible, in his department, that culls might be used to fill a shortage.50
Keyes averred that, on October 19, the final inspectors in the cabinet room 51
called his attention to assembled units in which there were obvious defects in the
posts and end panels. They had to be torn out and replaced. He pointed these
out to Bradley. To a considerable extent, Keyes' testimony was conflicting and
confusing as to what Bradley told him on this occasion, as for example: He did
not remember what her statement was. He denied that she told him she had
inspected and culled these pieces; later he said he did not remember. Her story
was that she had culled them out and somebody had taken them, without her
knowledge, while she was away. He denied she told him on October 19 that the
repairman (Freeman) had taken the culls, and did not know if she mentioned this
when she was discharged, on October 22. He was only aware of "hearsay," i.e.,
44 Keyes impressed me as an unreliable witness. His testimony was shifting, self-
contradictory , and evasive in several areas, e g , whether Bradley was a "good worker";
whether she told him of the October 19 Incident when Freeman picked up "dead culls" for
repair and failed to return them for reinspection ; what authority Freeman had to take
culls from Bradley ; and whether it was permissible to take culls from Bradley to fill in
a shortage.
45 Elsewhere he testified that he did not know her work before he hired her, which was
solely on the recommendation of another person , Spicer
4e Keyes admitted that Bradley complained to him several times that culled parts had
been taken from her and not returned . He checked and found that sometimes such calls,
after repair , were sent back to her, and sometimes they were not.
410n further recross, Keyes affirmatively answered that he was referring only to the
"dead culls "
48 He stated , however, that he is not there all the time . As noted, he supervises quality
control-in four plants.
4e At this point, Keyes said he would hold the assembly line at fault for allowing the
defective pieces to go through At another point , he stated the contrary.
w Elsewhere , Keyes said it was possible that the "assembly people" could come down
to Bradley 's station , while she was away, and "pick up a few parts " As noted, Freeman
and Bradley testified that culls were in fact taken from her on October 19 to fill a
shortage.
e4 They did not testify.
KENT-COFFEY MFG. CO. 1695
"her word for it," which she brought up to him at that time 52 (Keyes then
described what she told him, accurately reflecting the substance of Bradley's testi-
monial version.) He admitted that he did not "check sufficiently to ascertain
whether such was the fact, the truth," and did not check to determine who was
responsible. Bradley's error was in failing to exercise the authority as an inspector
to hold the culls until he (Keyes) came by to approve or deny the release. He
did not know "for sure" whether the "system" was carried out on this last occasion
of having her reinspect culls which had been taken from. her. -
Keyes testified that the reason for Bradley's discharge was not this one specific
incident, but because she was letting too many defective parts go into the finished
units. He noticed defective parts going through the same day he discharged her.53
At the discharge interview, he told her that company officials were putting pressure
on him "for better quality, and it was just a case of having to replace her with a
better qualified person which was a man able to move the stock in and out from
the station and get better work."
Conclusions as to Bradley
Similar to Spicer's case, a significant factor here was Keyes' complete avoidance
and failure to investigate or consider Bradley's version of the October 19 culls.
Her account, I find, was accurate and would have served substantially to relieve her
from responsibility for any defective parts getting into the finished units.
As testified, the fact was that Freeman came down and simply took the culls.
That Bradley failed to stop him was not given her as a reason for discharge. She
did regularly inform Keyes (when he was available) of Freeman's practice of
taking culls and not returning them for reinspection. Keyes admitted he knew this
was being done. There was not the slightest indication of any interest by Keyes
in disciplining others • who were remiss in the October 19 incident. It is quite
evident from the testimony that the "system" described by Keyes concerning the
authority of the repairmen, inspectors, and others, relating to the handling of
culls, was loose and not effectively enforced. Keyes gave inconsistent and unbe-
lievable reasons for discharging Bradley. As shown, his testimony in general was
much less than persuasive. Because of Bradley's known record as a good produc-
tion worker, she had been sought out and rehired by Keyes at higher pay than she
had previously earned with Respondent. She was put on a difficult inspecting job,
which had always been handled by one or more men. She was given two raises.
When notified of discharge, her request for assignment elsewhere was turned down
summarily. On the whole, the record is convincing that pretextuous grounds were
developed and offered as cause for her termination. Her own known union activ-
ities; her-known relation to Spicer,54 who was unlawfully discharged 2 days before;
the circumstances of her recent rehire; and Respondent's clear union animus, inter
alias furnish, in my opinion, the true reasons for her discharge. Accordingly, I find
and conclude that Section 8(a)(3) was violated, as alleged.
3. Bessie Mae Anders
From April 30, 1956, her employment with Respondent was continuous until her
discharge on October 22, 1965. Her supervision consisted of Foreman Charles E.
Clontz and under him, Gene Bolick. Until 1962, she worked as a hand sander in
the finishing room. The"process required that she put her hand in a pan of glue
and then adhere the sandpaper to her hand. To remove the glue, she had to wash
her hands in gasoline . ' Over a period of time, her hands became blistered and
very sore. In 1962, following a surgical operation (apparently unrelated), her
continuation on the same job caused bleeding and considerable pain to her hands.
In July 1962, after she showed her hands to Clontz, he moved her to a different
job, in the cabinet room, blowing out drawers with an air gun. In January 1963,
Clontz transferred her back to hand sanding. After a week, because of the same
difficulty with her hands, she was reassigned to blowing out drawers,, where she
worked until October 19, 1965. _
53 This was Keyes' original statement on direct examination
sa Stated while being questioned by me. On direct examination, he described the events
on October 19 as the "last occasion." -
54 See, e.g., Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp., 106 NLRB 1171, 1179, enfd. 223 F 2d 338
(C.A.D.C.) ; Marydale Products Company, Inc., 133 NLRB 1232, 1245
1696, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anders'joined' the''Unioii at the end of August, and thereafter helped to solicit
union 'cards' during' her' free' time in the shop. Beginning ' on October 11, she
engaged, in'-handbilling, activity,, which she continued about once a week after her
discharge. - A's previously described, she was= with the group,passing out, union
leaflets, and, stood'beside her brother, Paul Spicer. On this occasion, she saw
Supervisor Bolick about '10=12 'feet' away in the driveway.55' For the reasons
indicated in•'the' discussion of "the Bradley discharge, I` find that Respondent had
knowledge of Anders' handbillirig on October '11.
- On October 12 or 13, Asiel'Barlow, an alleged assistant foreman,58 told her on
two occasions that she was not 'blowing the' drawers out 'properly. 'Then Bolick;
sent for bee and showed her two 'night' stands. He' said there was dirt in the
drawers, and she was not blowing them out at all.' She saw a,"tiny bit"'in one
drawer, "a few small grains." She replied that the dirt was not there when, she
blew it out, that it could have fallen from a crack from the time it left her.
Bolick told her she was not doing her lob right and if she did not do better, he
would have to get someone who could. When she protested that she could not
do it any better, he remarked,- "Oh, hell,'yoii are just not blowing them out at all."
She replied, "Well, if I'm cursed when I try, toy do a good job, when the Union
comes in for avote, I'll vote for it " 57
On October` `19, Bolick, brought another woman to do the blowing-out job, and
assigned Anders to the "fillei:line." In this work, she had to dip a rag in gasoline
and wash out 'the drawers after they were sprayed with filler. Her hands imme-
diately became blistered and swollen. On October 21, Bolick transferred her to
another job, washing out drawers with lacquer thinner, which was worse on her
hands than the gasoline.58 On October 22, in the morning, Bolick moved her back,
to washing 'out filler-with gasoline, together with another employee, Mrs. Higgins.
On, this job, some of the dressers contained 7 and 9 drawers, and she had difficulty
reaching the top dr'awers,59 although she used a platform.60 In the afternoon,
Bolick showed Anders certain runs on the inside of the front paneling and said
she was not washing the drawers out. These were in dressers which had gone
through several additional processes and had come back to her area. In one such
process, the edges of the drawers were sprayed with paint. The runs which Bolick
showed her were from the paint, and not the filler which she had washed out.ei
At 3:30 p.m.,,Anders was called to Bolick's office. He said that she had been
put on the three different jobs, that she could not do any of them, and that he had
no,choice but to let her go. She replied that she had been working there for 91/2
years and always tried to do her best. She asked why he could not have left her
on the blowing-outs job, which she had done well for more than 3 years with no
complaints He answered that they had to have someone they could move around
w Bolick testified that he never watched handbilling, and never saw anybody, as he,
always stayed in the plant until 5 p in. to see that his department was cleaned up. when
he discharged Anders on October 22, he had no knowledge that she was connected with
the Union. (See footnote 37, supra.)
se He directed employees in their work and criticized their errors.
w Specifically denied by Bolick.
5 Anders testified that she did not at any time use gloves on the job. Bolick testified
when it Caine to his attention that Anders'• hands were affected on the washing out job, he
got her rubber gloves, and he had no further complaints about her hands. Clontz testified
at first that'he was not familial with her hand trouble and did not believe he saw her hands
at all. At a later point, he stated that it seemed to him she did complain about her hands
when she was working with varnish, that gloves were supplied; but that some people could
not wear the gloves because the varnish gets between their fingers and burns Clontz did
not specify when this occurred Anders made no mention of ever having worked' with
varnish (unless Clontz was referring to her work as a band sander). ,
Anders is 5 feet tall. ,
Clontz, testifying generally. on the subject , stated that the problem is handled by,-hav.
ing a tall woman clean the top drawers and a short woman the bottom drawers. However,
he did not know how Anders and Higgins were instructed , or how they actually won -ed
that operation.
61 Clontz described the operation of spraying paint on the drawer edges Even thoiigli
a board is used as a shield, sometimes an excess of paint runs over the board and enters
the interior of-the drawer 'Bolick 'testified that another woman is assigned to removing
the excess paint This woman is also supposed to clean out the excess filler, but that
"would be' putting 'two jobs on one;"' and "she can't keep up."
KENT'COFFEY MFG. CO. 1697
to different places in the finishing room'.' She stated that, in giving her the washing-
out jobs, he knew she could not have her hands m gasoline or lacquer thinner, and
showed him that her, hands were raw and bleeding. He remarked that maybe she
"will be better off" if she got a job some place else. She said that he knew he was
dismissing her, because her brother was working with the Union. He replied that
he knew nothing about, it, and was not aware of what Spicer did! Her discharge
slip indicated that she failed to work as her foreman directed. Higgins was termi-
nated on the same date.
Conclusions as .to Anders
The foregoing is based substantially on Anders' testimony, which I credit, in con-
sideration of the entire record.
- Clontz initially stated that he was not familiar with the circumstances leading to
her termination. Later he testified that his subordinate, Bolick, reported the cir-
cumstances to him following her discharge. It is evident that during earlier peri-
ods of Anders' employment Clontz had made_ her assignments and was directly
involved in her. supervision. I do not accept his version that he (as department
head) , was a stranger to the events affecting Anders as they occurred on and after
October 11. Nor do I find it plausible in the circumstances that Bolick, a minor
supervisor, had authority to discharge an employee of 91/2 years' tenure without
any prior instructions' or clearance from higher management.
The critical credibility conflicts exist between Anders and Bolick. He testified
that he took her off the blowing job because she was not cleaning the pieces well
enough, and that he had warned her 10 or 12 times during the month or two before
he discharged her. However, he was vague in this respect; the only warnings he
specified were those which took place after her handbilling on October 11. There-
tofore, she had worked satisfactorily on - the blowing job for approximately 3
years.62 He knew Anders and had seen 'her work for about 10 years, of which the
last 11/2 years he was a supervisor. He did not know about her hand trouble until
she told him a day or two after he moved her to the washing out job in October.63
Both Clontz and Bolick, I find, were fully aware from past experience of the con-
dition of Anders' hands when she was transferred in October from the blowing-out
job 64 to washing out drawers with gasoline and lacquer thinner. In my opinion,
their purpose in making this final transfer was to impose upon her intolerable con-
ditions of work looking toward her termination by resignation or discharge. And
1- conclude that the motive, for so doing is reasonably established by the evidence,
e g. • Respondent's union antipathy, and its other 'unfair, labor practices; Anders'
known-union activity; her relation to Spicer; her long tenure as -an employee; and
the timing and summary nature of her discharge, with those of Spicer and Bradley,
during the union organizational and election campaign.65 The Section 8(a)(3)
allegation is sustained.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The `activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I,1 above, have -a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and, obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce., . ,
8' David L. Grigg, a finishing room employee , testified that some of the cabinet work lie
received was "rough" in that all the dirt was not blown out. There were quite a few
operations between Anders ', job and his, but the rough work , he said, could only have come
from Anders .- Although he complained to his foreman about it for "a good three years
or better ," the situation has been the same.
s3 Anders testified that she did not complain about her hands at this time
54As earlier noted , Bolick told Anders at the time of her discharge that he could not
have left her ( or put her back ) on the blowing work because the job 'required someone who
could be moved around to different places, meaning , presumably , someone who could,do
washing-out work as well . The refutation of this statement lies in the fact that Anders
had no such other duties while she held the blowing -out job for the past 3 years.
ec The discharge of Higgins on the same date was not in Itself litigated as an issue
under the complaint . Whether she was dismissed for cause , or for discriminatory reasons,
cannot materially affect Anders ' case on the evidence presented
243-084-67-vol. 159-108
1698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In my opinion, a cease-and-desist
order in its broad form is warranted by reason of the 8(a)(1) violations, and the
discriminatory discharges which "go to the heart of the Act." 86
I will recommend that Respondent offer Paul Spicer, Ella Mae Bradley, sand Bes-
sie Mae Anders immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that
which they normally would have earned, absent the discrimination, from the date
of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings
during such period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Backpay
shall carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Further, I will recommend that Respondent
preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary and useful to determine the amounts of backpay due and the
rights of reinstatement under the terms of this Recommended Order.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the cases, 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 discriminatorily discharging Paul Spicer, Ella Mae Bradley, and Bessie
Mae Anders, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
4. By the foregoing, and by other acts and conduct interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the cases, it is recommended that Respondent, Kent-Coffey
Manufacturing Company, Inc., Lenoir, North Carolina, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Woodworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, CLC, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union sentiments; threat-
ening them with job loss, discharge, or other reprisal to discourage their union
membership or activity; or promising or granting them benefits to influence them
with regard to their selection of a bargaining representative.
(c) In any other 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 designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer Paul Spicer, Ella Mae Bradley, and Bessie Mae Anders immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
ee N.L.R B v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg.
Co, 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4)
KENT-COFFEY MFG. CO. 1699
udice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any loss of earnings, as set forth in section of the Trial Examiner's Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Serv-
ice Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all
payroll and other records, as set forth in section of Trial Examiner's Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(d) Post at its Lenoir, North Carolina, plants, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 67 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 11, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecu-
tive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.68
67 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 the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the 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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Woodworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or in any other labor organization , by discharging
employees , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union
sentiments ; threaten them with job loss, discharge , or other reprisal , to discour-
age their union membership or activity; or promise or grant them benefits to
influence them with regard to their selection of a bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor orga-
nizations , to join or assist the above -named , or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in any other activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Paul Spicer , Ella Mae Bradley , and Bessie Mae Anders
immediate and full reinstatement of their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges pre-
viously enjoyed.
WE WILL make the above-named employees whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
1700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become, or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization.
KENT-COFFEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their rights to full reinstatement upon appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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, 1831
Nissen Building, 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101,
Telephone 723-2911, Extension 302.
T. C. Worthy Wholesale, Inc.; T. C. Worthy Retail , Inc., d/b/a
Carl's Market, City Market, and T. C. Worthy Retail Market ;
and T. C. Worthy Cash and Carry, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union
Local No. 1167, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO. Case 21-CA-6892. Jenne 28, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 19, 1966, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examin-
er's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that Respondent
had not engaged in certain, other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 herby affirmed. 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 recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Union represented a
majority of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit and that,
159 NLRB No. 137.