Knickerbocker Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1195 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1195
maintenance men, paving block rammers, reenforcing steel placers,
sewer pipe laborers, sheeters, shorers, signalmen, structural concrete
surfacers, waterboys, watchmen, welders, wagon drill operators, tunnel
and shaft workmen, caisson and tunnelmen (under pressure 0.18
pounds), drill runners, miners and drillers (including lining support-
ing and form workmen), muckers, and other laborers ; and
Unit (d) : Operators of power-driven equipment, including (but not
limited to) crane operators, derrick operators, compressor operators,
bulldozer operator, and cement mixers and oilers, but excluding truck-
drivers and all other employees.
[Text of Amended Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Amended Decision and Direction of Elections.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO . Case No. 15-CA-143. Sep-
tember9,1954 -
Decision and Order
On July 28, 1953, Trial Examiner Robert L. Piper issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist thereform and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support of the exceptions.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the Respondent's and General Counsel's exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in this case,l and hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner so far
as they are not inconsistent with the following additions and
modifications.
We disagree with the Trial Examiner to the extent that he found
that Hodnett, Mitchell, Elliott, and O'Brian were refused employ-
ment because of their union activities. These employees were dis-
charged on July 31, 1951, and more than 6 months thereafter, on
February 8, 1952, the Union filed and served its original charge alleg-
1 There is an inadvertent error in the fourth paragraph of section III, A, of the Inter-
mediate Report . It reads that "On July 31, 1951" Estes announced to the production lines
the increase in production quotas. The correct date is July 30 , 1951. This inadvertence
has no effect on the Trial Examiner's conclusions.
100 NLRB No. 169.
1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing, inter alia,2 that they were discharged for protected activity and
thereafter discriminatorily refused reinstatement. After the lapse of
about 8 more months, the Union on October 21, 1952, served an
amended charge wherein it abandoned the original allegation and in
place thereof charged that the Respondent violated the Act by refus-
ing to employ these 4 persons on succeeding dates within the 6-month
period preceding the original charge because of their union activities.
Because Section 10 (b) of the Act bars unfair labor practice find-
ings based on events accruing more than 6 months prior to the filing of
the charge, it is now undisputed that the alleged original violation
concerning the discharge together with refusal to reinstate Hodnett,
Mitchell, Elliott, and O'Brian was barred by Section 10 (b) of the
Act .3 It appears that after the Union learned this, it amended its
charge to allege that these 4 persons asked for new employment rather
than reinstatement to old jobs, and that because of union activity in
which they engaged after the discharges of July 31 and within the
6-month period preceding the filing of the original charge, they were
refused new employment following their oral requests for employ-
ment. These oral requests ranged from about 10 days to 6 weeks after
the discharges. Because these requests for a "job" followed so soon
upon the heels of the discharges and were so closely related to the tur-
moil resulting from those discharges, we cannot view them as appli-
cations for new employment but more in the nature of requests for
reconsideration of the antecedent discharges 4 This conclusion is sup-
ported by the fact that the Union itself, in the original charge, desig-
nated these same requests as requests for reinstatement. We believe
that these requests can have but a single meaning which may not be
changed to conform to favorable law. Under these circumstances,
we find that the oral requests of Hodnett, Mitchell, Elliott, and
O'Brian were requests for reinstatement to the jobs they held immedi-
ately preceding their discharges of July 31; accordingly, any rights
based thereon are barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act.'
There remains for consideration the written requests by these four
persons in March 1952 "for any job available." Regardless of the lan-
guage here used, in light of the foregoing circumstances, we cannot
disassociate the March requests from the earlier oral requests. We
view them as a mere continuation of the oral requests and accordingly
similarly barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act.
Assuming, however, that the March requests were for employment
generally, we would find that they were barred by Section 10 (b) of
6 This charge contained other allegations of independent violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act and one Section 8 (a) (3) violation
6 N. L. R. B. v. Pennwoven, Inc., 194 F 2d 521 (C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Childs Com-
pany and Chain Service Restaurant Employees Union, Local 4 2, 195 F. 2d 617 (C. A. 2).
' Standard Brands, Incorporated , 97 NLRB 737.
5 N. L. R. B. v. Pennwoven, Inc.; N. L. R. B. v. Childs Company, footnote 3, supra.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1197
the Act. We think it is clear that the amended charge raised a new
and separate cause of action which must independently satisfy the
limitations of Section 10 (b). This view differs materially with the
prior holdings of this Board in its Cathey and subsequent decisions e
that the filing of an original charge tolls the running of the 10 (b)
limitations so as to permit adjudication of any and all subsequent
unfair labor practices. Such a broad interpretation of Section 10 (b)
has never, save for one possible exception,? been adopted by the courts
and is indeed contrary to the weight of judicial precedent. The Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which enforced the Cathey case in a per
curiam opinion," made it clear in the recent Newton Brothers Lumber
eases that it did not subscribe to the Board's broad Cathey doctrine.
In holding, contrary to the Board, that a discrimination allegation,
involving a charge chronology like the one in the instant case, was
barred by Section 10 (b), the court stated : "This event was subsequent
to the filing and serving of the first charge and more than six months
prior to the filing and serving of the amended charge whereas in the
Cathey Lumber case all discriminatory actions occurred prior to the
filing of the charge initiating the case."" In Indiana Metal Products
case,11 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals similarly held that unfair
labor practices occurring after the filing of the original charge and
more than 6 months before the filing of an amended charge were
barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act:
As the instant requests for employment in March occurred after the
filing of the original charge and more than 6 months before the
amended charge which first alleged them to be unfair labor practices,
-we hold that under Section 10 (b) no unfair labor practice can be
found. To the extent inconsistent herewith, the Board's prior inter-
pretation of Section 10 (b) as enunciated in Cathey and subsequent
cases is hereby expressly overruled.
In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss that part of the com-
plaint which alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3)
.of the Act by refusing to employ Hodnett, Mitchell, Elliott, and
O'Brian.
0 Cathey Lumber Company , 86 NLRB 157 ; Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93
NLRB 1459.
TN. L R. B. v. Harry Epstein, at at., d/b/a (Top Mode Mfg. Co., 203 F. 2d 482 (C. A. 3).
8185 F . 26 1021.
N. L. R. B. v. D. W. Newton, d/b/a Newton Brothers Lumber Co., 214 F. 2d 472.
10 See also N. L. R. B. v. I. B. S. Manufacturing Co., et al., 210 F. 2d 634 (C. A. 5), where
a similar holding was made.
11 Indiana Metal Products Corp. v. N. L. It. B., 202 F. 2d 613.
12 Compare , N. L. R. B. v. Talladega Cotton Factory Inc., 213 F. 2d 208 (C. A. 5) ;
Kansas Milling Co. v. N. L. It. B., 185 F. 2d 413 , 415 (C. A. 10) ; N. L. R. B. v. Ozark Data
Constructors and Flippen Materials Co. (Brown and Root), 203 F . 2d 139, 146 (C. A. 8) ;
N. L. R. B. v. Gaynor News Company , Inc., 197 F. 2d 719 (C. A. 2).
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c),
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent, Knickerbocker Manufacturing
Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by refusing to hire applicants for em-
ployment or in any other manner discriminating in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or
activities on behalf of, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
CIO, or any other labor organization in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities, re-
quiring new employees to agree not to join the Union, causing the cir-
culation of petitions among its employees designed to determine their
union sympathies, and directing nonunion employees to attend meet-
ings in its offices, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to join or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to^
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes 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 membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which we find will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to William Ayres immediate employment in the respec-
tive position he previously applied for, or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges; and if no such position is presently available, place him upon
a preferential hiring list and thereafter offer him employment as soon
as it becomes available, and make him whole as provided for in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make whole Maude Watson as provided for in the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request make available to the Board or its agents, for ex-
amination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1199
(d) Post at its plant in west Point, Mississippi, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted
by Respondent upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period
of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said
notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent has violated the Act
otherwise than herein found.
MEMBER PETERSON, concurring and dissenting in part :
I cannot agree with the majority in dismissing that part of the com-
plaint which concerns the Respondent's alleged discriminatory refusal
to employ Hodnett, Mitchell, Elliott, and O'Brian. I do agree, how-
ever, with the majority that the requests by these individuals for
"jobs" or "work" in the summer and fall of 1951 were requests for
reinstatement to the jobs from which they were discharged on July
31, 1951, rather than requests for new employment, and are, accord-
ingly, barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act. However, unlike the
majority, I would not extend the Standard Brands case to the written
requests of March 1952. I would take these requests, which came
approximately 7 months after the July 31 discharges, at their face
value, i. e., requests for "any job available."
I further disagree with the majority's application of Section 10
(b) of the Act to requests for employment in March. As indicated
in the majority opinion, there is a conflict between the circuit courts
of appeals as to whether the filing of the original charges tolls the
limitations of Section 10 (b) for the purpose of preserving amenda-
tory charges. Until the issue is finally resolved by the Supreme Court,
I would adhere to the interpretation fully rationalized in the Board's
opinion in the Cathey case. Accordingly, I would find that the refusal
to employ the complainants in March is not barred by Section 10 (b).
Finally, upon the basis of the record and especially in view of the
fact that following the discharges of July 31, the Respondent engaged
in an active campaign to ascertain knowledge of union activity among
Is In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the dischargees and other employees,14 I believe that the Respondent
in refusing employment to Hodnett, Mitchell, Elliott, and O'Brian was
primarily motivated by their more recent union activities,15 and not by
the circumstances surrounding their discharge some 7 months prior
thereto. Accordingly, I would find that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in refusing to employ the above-named
individuals.
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting in part :
I agree with Member Peterson in the result reached in his dissent-
ing opinion but I do not accept all of the reasoning to be found therein.
I would not accept the majority's ruling that the oral requests in the
summer and fall of 1951 were requests for reinstatement rather than
for employment generally. It is my opinion that where, as in the
present instance, the nature and purpose of the request is clearly
shown by the record, the principle announced in the Standard Brands
case is inapplicable. Accordingly, I would find in agreement with the
Trial Examiner that the individuals in question made sufficient and
valid requests for employment within the period covered by the 6-
month statutory limitation. Under the circumstances, I find it un-
necessary to consider the conflicting interpretations of Section 10 (b)
,and the problems arising out of the Cathey doctrine. I do, however,
find in agreement with Member Peterson that the union activity of
these individuals was the motivating cause of the Respondent's refusal
to grant their requests for employment. As a result, I would find that
the Respondent's conduct in this respect was a discriminatory refusal
to employ these individuals and that such refusal was a violation of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, CIO, or any other labor organization
of our employees, by refusing to employ applicants for employ-
ment or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
34 This consisted of interrogating individuals-Concerning, union activity and surveillance
of 2 union meetings in August 1951 and 1 in February 1952, which acts the Trial'Examiner
found and the Board unanimously agree violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
ss They, among others , were active at the union meetings , the surveillance of which was
engaged in by the Respondent.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1201
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem-
bership in , or activities on behalf of, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , CIO, or in any other labor organization
in a manner constituting interference , restraint , or coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, engage in surveillance
of our employees ' union activities , require new employees to agree
not to join the above-named Union, circulate or cause the circu-
lation of petitions designed to determine our employees ' attitude
toward the above -named Union or any other labor organization,
direct nonunion employees to attend meetings in our offices, or in
any other manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self -organization , to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America , CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such
activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL offer to William Ayres immediate employment in the
respective position he applied for, or in a substantially equiva-
lent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination . If no such position is presently
available , we will place him on a preferential hiring list and
thereafter offer him employment as soon as it becomes available
and before other persons are hired for such work.
WE WILL make Maude Watson whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered by her as a result of the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining members in good standing of the above-named
Union or any other labor organization , except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing
thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been duly filed by Knickerbocker
Manufacturing Company, Inc. (hereinafter called Respondent), a hearing involving
allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and
(4) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, was held in West Point,
Mississippi, from January 12 to January 15, and February 9 to February 14, 1953,
inclusive, before the Trial Examiner. In substance the complaint alleges and the
answer denied that on certain specified dates, and continuously thereafter, Re-
spondent refused to employ seven named individuals because of their union mem-
bership and activities, that on and after a certain date Respondent refused and
continued to refuse to employ such individuals because charges were filed in their
behalf with the Board, and that by such discrimination and other acts consisting
of questioning and interrogating employees about their union membership and
activities, surveillance of its employees' union activities, requiring new employees
to agree not to join the Union, causing the circulation of a petition against the Union
among the employees, threatening to close the plant if the employees joined the
Union, directing all nonunion employees to attend a meeting in the office of the
plant manager, and other acts of threats and coercion to cause the employees to
cease their union activities, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
At the hearing all parties were represented, were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent
to the issues, to argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Counsel waived argument. Briefs from
the General Counsel and from Respondent have been received and considered.
At the opening of the hearing Respondent's motion to sever the cases of the re-
spective discriminatees and its renewed motion for a bill of particulars, previously
granted in part and denied in part by another Trial Examiner, were denied. Ruling
was reserved upon Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint because the
charges were not filed within 6 months of the discrimination alleged in the com-
plaint. During the course of the hearing, the General Counsel's motion to amend
the complaint to include the allegation that Respondent discriminatorily refused to
employ the persons named therein because charges had been filed on their behalf,
in violation of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act, was granted, as well as Respondent's
motion to amend its answer correspondingly to deny such allegations. At the
conclusion of the hearing, Respondent's renewed motions to dismiss the complaint,
both for failure of proof and because the charges were not timely filed, were denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a wholly owned subsidiary of Varsity Pajamas, Inc., of New York
City, is a Mississippi corporation with a plant located at West Point, Mississippi,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of underwear and pajamas. The parties
stipulated that Respondent annually purchases approximately $100,000 worth of
material and supplies which are shipped to it from points outside the State of
Mississippi. Respondent also annually receives supplies shipped to it from Varsity,
Pajamas, Inc., of a value in excess of $700,000. Respondent annually causes to
be shipped from West Point, Mississippi, to points outside of the State for Varsity
Pajamas, Inc., products valued in excess of $2,500,000. Respondent admitted, and
I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Chronology of events
Although there was some contention by Respondent that the Union had begun
its attempts to organize Respondent's employees as early as 1950, it is clear from
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY , INC. 1203
the record that the Union's organizational campaign among Respondent 's employees
did not begin until August 1951 . There is evidence in the record that some of the
Union 's representatives made an organizational survey of Respondent 's plant in
West Point during 1950. However , it is undisputed in the record that they made
no attempt to secure membership :in the Union or to have employees sign cards
and that no organizational campaign was carried on at that time . The evidence
reveals that they made a survey with the objective of determining whether or not to
begin an organizational campaign. No further activity resulted and no organiza-
tional campaign took place until August 1951. There is evidence in the record that
in February or March 1951 there may have been some union activity on the part of
an AFL union . However, this does not support Respondent's contention that the
Union was conducting an organizational campaign among Respondent 's employees
at that time . Otis Doggett , the Union 's representative who conducted the cam-
paign in August 1951 , testified that he had never been in West Point before and that
was the first time to his knowledge that his Union had ever conducted an organiza-
tional campaign at Respondent 's plant. There is evidence that some literature was
handed out at one time in 1950, but it obviously did not constitute an organizational
campaign because no employees were asked to join the Union , none did join the
Union , and no attempt was made to follow it up . It was an isolated incident and
according to the witnesses who recalled it, it did not reoccur at any time in the
following months. Edward Blair , an international representative of the Union,
testified that he and another union representative made a short survey in 1950 but
that no organizational campaign took place at that time.
All of the alleged discriminatees except William Ayres were women employed by
Respondent in its sewing department . As previously found Respondent manu-
factured underwear and pajamas . For some years prior to 1951 , Respondent had
used what is known as a production line in its sewing department in making men's
shorts. Such a line is similar in operation to an assembly line. Each operator per-
forms a separate sewing operation on the garment and then passes it on to the next
operator . At the beginning of the line the operators receive the cloth material in
various pieces As the work flows through the line it ultimately becomes a com-
pleted pair of shorts by result of the various operations performed upon it. When
the garment reaches the end of the line, it is practically a completed pair of shorts.
It is then sent to another department for the attachment of either an elastic band
or gripper fasteners , a description of which operations is not essential to the under-
standing of this case . All of the operators who are alleged to have been discrim-
inated against by Respondent were employed in the sewing department in the pro-
duction lines . The operators are paid on a piece-rate or incentive basis, so that the
more they produce the more they earn . Because of the minimum wage laws, they
must in any event be paid a minimum of 75 cents per hour. In order to furnish
incentive to produce , Respondent established a 20-percent differential if the operators
in a line made what Respondent called "production." This meant that if the line
as a group made a certain production quota the girls received 20 percent more, or
90 cents an hour, for the number of garments produced . However , unless they made
the production quota they did not receive the incentive increase of 20 percent over
the minimum rate.
When Respondent originally installed its production lines in the sewing depart-
ment it established a production quota of 1,800 units or "ply" per day. Sometime
prior to 1951 it increased the production quota to 2 ,040 and at the same time in-
creased the piece rate which the operators received when they made production.
The production lines involved in this case were called "fly units" by Respondent,
and there were 3 or 4 of them made up in the same manner. They consist of seven
girls. The first girl performs the seating operation , which consists of joining to-
gether the seat and the leg of a pair of shorts . The next girl joined the right fly. The
next one stitched it down . These three operations took place one after the other
in that order . Or. the other side of the line another girl joined the left fly. Her work
and that from the first three flowed to a fifth operator who joined the right and left
fly together. Naturally the performance of her operation depended upon the re-
ceipt of the 2 parts from the 2 sections of the line preceding her. The next opera-
tor joined the crotch , and the next employee examined the finished work of the line
and approved it before it was passed on to the next department , where the elastic
tops or the gripper fasteners were attached to the shorts.
On July 31, 1951, James R. Estes, Respondent 's vice president and manager of its
West Point plant, called the various production lines to his office and to the first aid
room and informed them that Respondent was raising its production quota for the
fly lines to 2,304 units per day . Some of the girls asked whether the piece rate was
334811-55-vol. 109-77
1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also increased as it had been in the past when production was raised. Daniel Thomp-
son, Estes ' assistant and second in command at the West Point plant at that time,
obtained the new piece rate and the operators were informed that it had been de-
creased instead of raised. Substantially all of the witnesses testified that when Estes
informed the operators of the increase in production he asked them if they were
satisfied and if they were not to let him know. He also informed them that if the
increase in production was not agreeable to them Respondent's plant would only
operate 3 days a week. A number of witnesses stated that Estes told the girls to,
think it over and if they were not satisfied he would talk to them about it. With the
exception of Estes, substantially all of the witnesses, including those called by Re-
spondent, were in accord as to what was said on July 31. Marion Ramsey, Respond-
ent's head forelady, testified that Estes told the operators of the increase and asked
them if they were satisfied and that at the time they said nothing. Ramsey said that
after the announcement they started gathering in groups on the sewing room floor,
told her that they wanted to talk to Estes, that she conveyed this message to him,
and that he said that he would talk to them as soon as possible.
Floyce Moceri, one of Respondent's foreladies, testified that she heard Estes ask
the girls if they had any questions, that any girl was free to ask him if she had any,
and that at the time none of the employees said anything. Margaret Dingus, an
employee called by Respondent, testified that all of the employees naturally did not
like the increase and they were all discussing it after the announcement was made.
Thompson corroborated the fact that some of the employees wanted to know what
the piece rate was and that it was explained to them. He also said that later that
afternoon some of the employees in fly unit 1 asked him to arrange for their seeing
Estes, that he spoke to Estes who said that he could not see them until the next
morning, and that Thompson conveyed that message to the employees.
Estes, whose testimony in general proved to be most unreliable as will be more
fully explained later, testified that he told the employees about the production in-
crease and that the operators of line 1 said that they would accept it and that it was
a fair production quota. I find this completely incredible in view of the testimony
of all of the other witnesses including those called by Respondent. Estes further
testified that latei in the afternoon he received the message that some of the girls
were not satisfied and wanted to see him, and that he sent word back that he would
see them the next morning. That evening he saw Edna O'Brian, one of the opera-
tors in fly unit 1 and one of the alleged discriminatees, and advised her that he would
see her and the rest of the employees the next morning -about the production in-
crease. This was corroborated by O'Brian who testified that Estes came to her home
that evening and asked her what the trouble was. She told him that the girls wanted
to see him because he had said they should see him if they were not satisfied with
the increase in production and that they were not. Estes said that he would see them
the following moining.
On the morning of July 31, most of the operators from the first three fly units
from time to time gathered together in small groups and were discussing the in-
creased production quota and the decreased piece rate. At one point Ramsey told
them to return to work and they told her that they wanted to see Estes and Ramsey
told them that he was not in the plant. Sometime thereafter they asked Thompson
to tell Estes that they wanted to see him. Around 10 o'clock they had their regular
rest period. After that one of the girls said that she had seen Estes' car in front
of the plant. Some of them then said, "let's go down and see him," and nearly all
of the girls from the three fly units got up and, went downstairs to Estes' office.
After they arrived there they were subsequently told by Louise Alford, Estes' secre-
tary and office manager, to enter the office. When they entered the office Estes,
Thompson, and Ramsey were already there. In response to a question from Estes,
Ramsey told him that the girls were from the first three lines, not just line 1. Ac-
cording to most of the witnesses, including those called by Respondent, Estes then
said: "Girls, I have lost patience with you, you are all fired as of now." Then Estes
told Thompson to take the girls upstairs to check out their cards and told Alford to
have their checks made out. The employees waited in the office lobby until their
checks were ready. When they were ready Estes handed them to them one by one:
They thereupon left the plant in a group. There were 14 girls discharged by Estes
at that time. Of the 14, 5 are alleged as discriminatees in the complaint. These 5
all testified that what has been found above was substantially all that was said and
done on the day they were fired.
Estes' version of the conversation in his office is substantially different from that
of most of the other witnesses , including those called by Respondent. Estes said
that during the morning he had been advised by Floyce Moceri, one of the fore-
ladies, and Ramsey that the girls in line 1 were standing up, talking and not work-
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1205
ing and that he had told Thompson to ask Ramsey and Moceri to tell the girls to get
back to work and that he would see them sometime that morning. Estes said that
when he asked Alford to have the girls called to his office, she told him that they were
already waiting outside to see him and that he then told her to have them come
in., He said that after they came in he asked them, as well as Thompson and Ram-
sey, if they had permission to leave their floor, and they told him that they did not.
He then said to them that he had had lots of patience with them, had told them he
would see them that morning, and that he had lost patience and they were all fired.
He then told Thompson to see that they checked out their cards and told Alford to
,make out their checks. Estes also said that Ramsey was not present. This con-
tradicts what all of the other witnesses, including Thompson and Ramsey, said, and
also contradicts Estes' own testimony that he asked Ramsey if the girls had permis-
sion to leave their machines. Ramsey, the only other witness who claimed that
anything was said about having permission to see Estes, said that he asked the girls
if they had secured such permission , and after they had replied that they had not,
said to them that they knew there was a rule requiring them to get such permission.
No other witness, including Estes, testified that any mention was made of any such
rule.
Estes further testified that as the girls were walking out of his office he told them
that they could see him about their production and their jobs between then and
the next Monday morning, August 6, and that their machines would be held open
for them to return until that day. Subsequently on cross-examination he stated
that he had told them that twice, the second time when he paid each of them
individually. He said that he had then advised them that they could come in and
see him between then and the next Monday regarding their jobs. All of the five
alleged discriminatees and most of the witnesses called by Respondent denied that
Estes said anything to the girls on July 31 about returning to work or discussing
the matter with him either before August 6 or at any other time, and that nothing
,of that nature was said by him at all. The alleged discriminatees also denied that
he,had asked them or anyone else if they had permission to leave their machines
or that they replied that they did not have. It was undisputed that other than their
various requests to Thompson, Estes, and Ramsey to see Estes, the girls had not
received permission from any forelady to see Estes at the time they did. O'Brian
testified that they asked no forelady at the time because they could not find one, and
that that was why they had asked Thompson and Ramsey. Inez Stafford, Margaret
Dingus, and Ora McGibbon, all witnesses called by Respondent and among the
14 discharged on July 31, corroborated the testimony of the General Counsel's
witnesses that Estes said nothing about coming back and discussing production and
getting back their jobs before August 6 or any other time. None of them heard
any such statement by Estes. Ramsey, Respondent's head forelady, after testifying
concerning what was said by Estes on the day of the discharge and not mentioning
his alleged statement to the girls about returning to work before August 6, in response
to a leading question then testified that after Estes gave out the checks he said that
he would talk to the girls if they wanted to come back later, and that he gave them
until the following Monday to do so.
Estes and Ramsey, both because of their demeanor on the witness stand and
more conclusively as a result of a careful examination of the entire record, did not
impress me as reliable and credible witnesses. In numerous instances the testimony
of one or the other of them is in direct conflict with not only all of the witnesses
of the General Counsel but other witnesses called by Respondent. In certain in-
stances their testimony conflicts with known facts. In other instances it conflicts
with each other. When the testimony of all the witnesses to a certain incident is in
accord, including witnesses called by Respondent and presumably friendly to it, it
is extremely difficult to credit the testimony of one witness which conflicts entirely
with all of the others. A careful analysis of the record seems to indicate that Estes
and Ramsey were willing to testify to whatever was expedient at the moment, and
in so doing, were unable to prevent errors from creeping into their testimony. Several
occasions when this became apparent in the record will be reviewed hereinafter
as they arise It will be recalled that in connection with the announcement of the
increase in production, Estes testified that he asked the girls if they were satisfied
and that they advised him that they thought it was a fair production quota and
that they were satisfied with it. This is contrary not only to the testimony of all of
the General Counsel's witnesses but also to all of the other witnesses of Respondent
who were present at the time. It is also contrary to what would be the normal
reaction of employees confronted with an increase in production and decrease in
.,t4e, piece rate to be received for the work done. The events which followed the
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
announcement of the increase in production certainly belie Estes' statement that the
temployees said that they were satisfied with 'it and that it'was fair.
Thompson, Estes' assistant manager and his successor as manager of the plant
n October 1952, was present at the time of the discharges and did not corroborate
Estes ,statement about asking the girls, Ramsey, and Thompson if the gills had
permission to come to the office. Thompson impressed me as a reliable and sincere
witness. He also did not corroborate Estes' testimony about telling the girls that
they had until August 6 to return to their jobs. All Thompson said with respect to
the conclusion of the conversation at the time of the discharges was that as he was
leaving the office to take the girls to check out their timecards he heard Estes say
something to the effect that "I will discuss the problem with you." Thompson testi-
fied' that Ramsey was present in the office during the incident. Estes testified that
Ramsey was not present.
Floy Long, one of the 14 girls discharged and a witness called by Respondent,
corroborated the other witnesses with respect to what happened on the day of the
discharge except as to the absence of any statement by Estes concerning their re-
turning to work before August 6. She said that while they were waiting in the
lobby for their checks Estes said that they had until Monday to think it over and
come back and talk to him to get their machines back. No other witness including
Estes claimed Estes said this at that time. Subsequently Long said that Estes made
,the statement when she came out of the door of the office and again while they
were waiting in the lobby. Later, however, she testified that the next morning she
met Estes on the street and talked to him, that she knew that she had not done
anything wrong the day she was discharged, that Estes had then told her that if she
wanted to see him to come to his office and he would be glad to talk with her, and
that she then decided to return to work. She testified she returned to work because
she knew she had not done anything wrong. The same morning she went,to Estes'
office, talked to him, and he then told her that the machines were vacant and 'if
,the rest of the girls wanted to come back they could. It is obvious that this witness'
testimony conflicts with that of most of the others and that she was confused 'con-
-cerning the statement about returning to work. Her testimony concerning her course
of action the next morning and why she returned to work then directly conflicts
with her statement that she heard Estes say at the time they were discharged that
she and the rest of the girls could return to work before the following Monday.
A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me, and
I find, that on the occasion of the discharges Estes did not ask the girls, Ramsey,
or Thompson whether the girls had secured permission to see him. I also find that
the statements made in Estes' office at the time of the discharges were those testified
'to by all of the dischargees except Floy Long, and that no statement was made to
•the 14 girls on July 31 that they could return to the plant, discuss their production
and work with Estes, and get their jobs back, if they returned before the following
'Monday.
'Estes also testified that after the girls had left the plant he notified different em-
ployees by word-of-mouth that he would take the girls back between then and Mon-
day if they could come to see him. The record indicates that he did notify some
of the girls but not the alleged discriminatees. Viola Langford, one of Respond-
ent's foreladies, in her sworn statement given to a Board agent stated that Estes told
:her the following day that he was going to give the girls until the next Monday to ask
for the return of their jobs. She said that she thought that he had not previously told
.the girls that. She testified that she contacted Ellen Stringfellow, one of the 14 girls
'fired, 3 or 4 days after the discharge and told her that if she would come back to
'work that she could probably go to work that afternoon. Langford said that String-
fellow was the only one of the dischargees to whom Langford talked. McGibbon,
a witness for Respondent who testified that she heard nothing about coming back
to work on the day of the discharge, said that she went down to the plant the next
,day, asked Estes for a card to go to work, that he gave it to her, and that she went
to 'work. She said that when he told her she could go back to work she asked him
,if the rest of the girls could return to work, that Estes said then that all of the girls
that came back that week could have their machines hack, but that he told her he
would not call the girls back. Stafford, another dischargee called by Respondent,
testified that she returned to work the day after the discharge because her husband,
,who also 'worked at the plant, spoke to her forelady who told him that the girls could
come back, talk to Estes, and get their jobs back, and that her husband conveyed that
imessage to her. Marie Clark, a witness called by Respondent, testified that after
,the discharges she talked to Estes that day about the girls who were fired, specifically
'McGibbon, and that Estes told her that all of them could have their jobs back if they
came in to see him before the following Monday. She claimed that a few days later,
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1207
during the same week, she saw Clara Elliott, one of the discriminatees, and told her
what Estes had said about the girls being able to come back to work. This was
denied by Elliott. McGibbon testified that the evening after she returned to work
she told Elliott, O'Brian, and Marie Mitchell that Estes had said that all of the girls
could come back that week and get their machines. This was denied.
For the purpose of clarity it may be well at this juncture to point out that the
discharges of July 31 are not alleged in the complaint as discriminatory and that
they occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the charge. Respondent
rehired 8 of the dischargees, 7 of them on or before August 6 during the week fol-
lowing the discharge. The eighth one, Lillian Jones, was not rehired until August
13. According to Respondent's witnesses, before the discharge she had secured per-
mission to take leave to have some teeth pulled and was unable to return to work be-
fore August 13. Apparently the discussion which Estes testified he wanted to have
with each of the dischargees before he reemployed them did not take place with most
of them. He testified that as far as Floy Long was concerned all that happened was
that he asked her if she wanted to go back to work, she said she did, and he put her
back to work. McGibbon and Dingus just came to the plant, asked if they could go
back to work, and Estes told them they could. The same was true with regard to
Stafford. There was no discussion with any of them about production or any other
matter in the plant. Dingus testified that she went back on Friday afternoon after
she had heard from some of the other girls that some of the girls had gone back to
work, that Estes was not in town but that she saw Thompson, who told her to come
back to work Monday morning. She returned to work on Monday morning. Mc-
Gibbon testified that she went to the plant and asked Estes for her card. She said
that he laughed at her when she told him that she didn't think that she had done
anything wrong, that they joked and laughed about it, that he said he was sorry about
it all but it was just business, and that he put her back to work. Of the remaining
6 girls discharged on July 31, 5 of them, Elliott, O'Brian, Hodnett, Mitchell, and
Rambo, are among the discriminatees alleged in the complaint and were not reem-
ployed at that time. The sixth one, Sarah Isaacs, was never reemployed nor applied,
for employment and is not involved in the case. As previously found, these five girls
were never notified by Respondent or anyone else at any time in 1951 that they could
return to work.
The discharges of July 31 brought about the beginning of union activities by Re-
spondent's employees. A day or two after the discharges, Elliott's son-in-law, who
was a member of another CIO union, contacted the Union on behalf of Respond-
ent's employees. On August 4, Otis Doggett, an organizer for the Union, arrived
in West Point for the first time and the employees' union activities began. The first
meeting, a group of about 10 or 12, was held at Elliott's home on August 4. At
that time it was agreed among those present that the first union meeting of all those
desiring to attend would be held on August 9 at Elliott's home. At the meeting of
August 9 approximately 30 employees and others were present and an organizational
meeting of the Union was held. The union activities of the employees increased in
tempo from August 9 on, and Respondent and its management were fully aware of
those activities, as will be developed more fully hereinafter. At the meeting of
August 9 it was suggested that the employees not rehired by Respondent apply for
jobs the following day. On August 10 some 5 or 6 of the dischargees went down
to the plant to see Estes and to ask for employment in any position. Of the dis-
criminatees only Hodnett and O'Brian saw Estes that day although Mitchell and
Rambo were there. After Estes talked to several of the girls, the others were told'
that he was busy and could not see them then and to return later. Of the four, only
Hodnett saw and talked to Estes on the morning of August 10. She testified that he
told her that she was supposed to have been notified to return by August 6 and that
she told him that she had never received any word like that. Estes refused to em-
ploy Hodnett. O'Brian returned in the afternoon of August 10 and at that time
talked to Estes and was refused employment by him. Mitchell did not return that
day but returned on September 4 and saw and talked to Estes. Rambo never re-
turned to the plant to see or talk to Estes:
The record reveals that Respondent, through Estes and other supervisory officials,
engaged in surveillance of the union meetings held at various employees' homes, in-
cluding the meeting of August 9 at Elliott's. After the meeting of August 9, at least
two other union meetings were held at employees' homes during August. On Labor
Day, September 3, O'Brian was advised by an employee that if she would go to the
plant on the following day, September 4, Estes would hire her. Langford, one of
Respondent's supervisors, admitted in her sworn statement that Estes asked her on
Labor Day to get word to O'Brian to come in the next day, that he would take her
back to work, and that she told Sheffield, another employee, to so notify O'Brian.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD''
Langford said that she had an empty machine at the time and'O'Brian was to be hired'
for Langford 's line . She said that O'Brian did see Estes the next day but that she was
not hired . O'Brian , Hodnett , and Mitchell testified that they went to the plant on Sep-
tember 4 and asked Estes for employment. They all saw Estes that day. O'Brian
said that she had received word that Estes had said that if she came in that day he
would give her a job. She talked to Estes and was refused employment. Mitchell
said she went to the plant on September 4 with O 'Brian and Hodnett , saw Estes, and
asked him for employment , which he refused . Hodnett said she too spoke to Estes,
told him that she had been to the unemployment office and her unemployment com-
pensation was disallowed , and that he told her to return there and get her unemploy-
ment . She did not say that she asked Estes for employment on that occasion, but it
will be recalled that she saw Estes on August 10 and then asked him for any job
that was available.
On September 3 Maude Watson , one of the alleged discriminatees but not one
of the employees discharged on July 31, talked to Estes in his office, asked him
for a leave of absence in order to care for her sister 's new baby, and requested
a job when she came back. According to her, Estes said that it was all right and
that when she was able to return a job would be waiting for her. On September 10
a general meeting was held at the West Point courthouse of Respondent's em-
ployees, business and professional men of the town , supervisory officials of the
Company, and others concerning the activities at the plant. No contention was
made that this meeting constituted an unfair labor practice , and it is referred to
herein only to identify the period of time and events which followed it. After
the meeting at the courthouse, the supervisory and management officials of Re-
spondent met at a local cafe and discussed the meeting at the courthouse and
the union activities of the employees at the plant and elsewhere. The day fol-
lowing the meeting at the courthouse and the meeting of the supervisory officials
thereafter, Respondent called a meeting at the Henry Clay Hotel of the various
supervisors from the sewing department and one employee from each line. At
this meeting the union activity was discussed and it was agreed that it would be a
good idea to determine how the employees felt about the Union. They decided to
have the girls from each line who were present at the meeting and who were not
supervisors circulate a petition through their lines in order to ascertain the feeling
of the employees about the Union. The following day a petition was circulated
through the various short lines with the knowledge of the supervisors and without
interference. It was circulated by the employee from each line who had attended
the meeting at the Henry Clay Hotel at the request of their supervisors. The
petition stated, "If you are satisfied with your job as it is now, under present work-
ing conditions , please sign below."
At the courthouse meeting on September 10, Herrin , a union organizer and
representative , made an announcement that the next union meeting would be held
at Watson's house. This was heard by all of Respondent's supervisory officials
present at the meeting and was related to Estes at the subsequent meeting of the
supervisors at the local cafe. On September 12 Watson returned to the plant from
her leave granted by Estes on September 3, and asked him for her job. Estes told
her that he was sorry, her machine was filled and she could not be hired, but that
if anything opened up later he would send her word. Later in September, Watson
called Ramsey, asked her about the job of a girl who had quit and whose machine
was open, and Ramsey stated that she did not know who Estes was going to put
on the job. Watson also asked Moceri about this vacant job and Moceri replied
that she did not know who would get it.
Sometime during the fall of 1951, Cox, one of Respondent's supervisors, an-
nounced to the various short lines at the plant that Estes wanted to see all of the
nonunion girls in his office. As a result of this announcement all of the girls got
up and went down to the office. Apparently different lines went at different times,
because one of the groups saw and talked to Estes and another group did not.
On November 22 Watson again saw Estes about employment. Estes refused to
employ her. Watson testified that she returned to the plant 6 or 7 times seeking
employment but was never hired. Sometime during the latter part of 1951, O'Brian,
with Mitchell present , called Estes on the telephone at the plant and asked him
to employ herself and Mitchell . Estes told them there was nothing available at
the time. Sometime during the winter of 1951 and 1952, Hodnett called F. A.
Pechter , Varsity Pajamas, Inc., general production manager in charge of all plants,
including Respondent 's West Point plant, and asked him for a job . Pechter told
her that he did not have charge of such matters and did not employ her. During
the latter part of March 1952, O'Brian , Elliott , Mitchell , Hodnett, and Watson
wrote formal letters of application for employment to Respondent , which were
KNICKERBOCKER-'MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1209
delivered by registered mail. On April 16, Respondent through Estes replied in
writing to these applications and advised the applicants that there was no employ-
ment available . On June 5, 1952, a representation election was conducted at the
plant by the Board and the Union lost.
William Ayres, one of the alleged discriminatees, served as a union observer
at this election and had met with management officials prior thereto in connec-
tion with the conduction of the election. On June 6 Ayres and his wife asked
Estes for 30 days' leave of absence in order to visit his father in New York who
was ill . Estes granted the leave of absence to the Ayres and told them that they
could have a job when they returned to the plant. In the latter part of June,
Respondent's plant was shut down for its annual vacation and remained closed until
July 14, 1952. On the day the plant reopened, Ayres and his wife reported for
work in the morning and waited to see Estes about their jobs. When they finally
saw Estes that morning, he told them that their jobs had been filled and that there
was nothing for them. Two days later Mrs. Ayres called Cox, her forelady, who
advised her that her machine was still open and told her to come down to the plant
the next morning . Mrs. Ayres did so and said that while she was waiting to see
Estes another girl was hired. Later Cox came downstairs and talked to Estes,
who then called in Mrs. Ayres. Estes and Cox then advised Mrs. Ayres that there
was nothing wrong with her work, and Estes told Cox to have Mrs. Ayres' card
filled out and she was hired. At the same time Estes told Mrs. Ayres that he
was not satisfied with her husband's work, and that the other men had complained
that he would not work. Ayres testified that he went back to the plant every
Monday for 6 to 8 weeks but that he was never hired, and although he waited in
the lobby until everyone else had left and on several occasions Estes saw him he
never got to talk to Estes.
Watson said that on September 7, 1952, she called Estes at his home and asked
if there were any employees to be hired on Monday, the day when Respondent
usually hired new operators, and Estes said that there would not be anyone hired
for 3 or 4 weeks. However the next day Watson went to the office and again
applied for employment. While she was waiting she saw four other women come
out of Estes' office with timecards and go upstairs to the sewing department, indi-
cating to her from her experience at the plant that they had been hired as oper-
ators that morning. She said Estes saw her but did not speak to her. On that
occasion Watson filled out an application form which Respondent's office employees
gave to her.
On October 3, 1952, Estes left Respondent's employ and Thompson succeeded
him as the manager of the West Point plant. About a week after October 6,
Rambo went to the plant and asked Thompson for employment. Thompson told
her that he had just taken over as manager, that he knew that there was a case
pending against Respondent, and that he wanted an opportunity to consult Re-
spondent's attorneys before he took any action. He suggested that she come back
in a week or 10 days at which time he would have had an opportunity to consult
with the attorneys. Rambo returned in about 10 days. Thompson told her that
he had discussed the matter with his attorneys and been advised to make whatever
decision he considered best. He then hired Rambo. The record indicates that
Rambo was hired on or about October 28. On November 6 Thompson offered
Watson a job at the plant which she refused because she was working elsewhere.
On or about January 26, 1953, Watson returned to Respondent's employ. On or
about November 10, 1952, Respondent employed Mitchell. On or about Novem-
ber 20, 1952, Respondent employed O'Brian, and on or about February 2, 1953,
Respondent employed Elliott. Hodnett and Ayres were never reemployed by
Respondent.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Questioning and interrogating employees about their union membership and
activities
On September 4, 1951, when O'Brian went back to the plant and talked to Estes
about employment, Estes, after stating that he had been told that O'Brian would lie,
asked her if she had worked with Sue Herrin the day before. O'Brien asked Estes
why he asked the question because he had seen her with Herrin the day before in
West Point. Estes replied that he wanted to see what O'Brian would say. Estes
then asked O'Brian where Herrin was and O'Brian told him that she did not know
then. Estes then asked her if she would take him to Herrin and O'Brian replied
that she would not and that Estes knew her better than that. Estes did not specifi-
cally deny this conversation, but he did testify that he never talked about employ-
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment or saw any of the persons discharged on July 31 at his office after August 6.^
Estes, while testifying about the meeting at the Henry,Clay Hotel with the super-
visors and one nonsupervisory employee from each line, stated that he had asked
the employees at that meeting what was causing the confusion and turmoil at the
plant, and that they had told him that it was caused by too much talking. When
asked directly if he had asked the employees what they were talking about at the
plant, Estes specifically denied that he had done so. He admitted that he was con-
cerned about the reason for the talking at the plant, but stated that he had had his
own reasons for not asking them what they were talking about. When he was asked
what his reasons were, he refused to answer the question. After he was directed
by me to answer the question, he then changed his testimony and said that he did
ask the employees what they were talking about and that they had told him the
employees at the plant were talking about the Union and nonunion. Estes had
previously denied that there had been any discussion of the Union at the Henry Clay
Hotel meeting. This is another instance of Estes' unreliability as a witness. He
contradicted himself twice in connection with his testimony concerning what hap-
pened at the Henry Clay Hotel meeting. Estes admitted that the reason for the
meeting with the supervisors the night before at the local cafe was to find out how
the sentiment was going , and that as head man at the plant he was concerned about
how the local businessmen felt about the plant and he was trying to find out what
the courthouse meeting was all about. It will be recalled that the day after the
meeting with his supervisors and an employee representative from each line, the
petition previously referred to was circulated through the lines at the plant.
About 2 weeks after this, Hazelwood, one of the employees, had a conversation
with Estes about the Union and told him that she had signed a union card. She
testified that he asked her if she had been pulled into it, she said that she had not,
and that he then asked her if she had been persuaded to join, and she said that she
had not. This testimony was not denied by Estes. Lanham, an operator who was
granted a leave of absence by Ramsey in September of 1951 on account of illness,
had a discussion with Estes about the Union after she returned from her leave of
absence. Lanham said that Estes told her that if the Union got in she would have
to work with Negroes, and asked her why she had signed the union card. Lanham
said that she told Estes that she had not signed a union card. Estes denied ever hav-
ing a meeting with Lanham in his office, and denied that he ever asked any employee
whether or not they signed a union card. Ramsey admitted that during the course
of the Union's campaign at one time when she was talking to a group of the operators
on the sewing department floor she had asked them about the "Communist meetings."
She said that she later apologized to one of the girls in the presence of Estes for
making that remark. When Mr. and Mrs. Ayres returned to the plant on July 14,
1952, after their leave of absence and saw Estes in his office about returning to work,
according to them, the first thing that he said was that he had heard that they went
to New York to go to a union school. They told him that that was the first they had
heard of it and asked him who had started that rumor Ayres testified that Estes
then said that he heard that Ayres said that. Estes admitted talking to Mr. and Mrs.
Ayres about their jobs after they returned on July 14, and did not deny any of the
foregoing conversation. A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire
record convinces me and I find that Respondent questioned and interrogated its
employees about their union membership and activity.
2. Surveillance of the employees' union activities
Elliott testified that on the night of the union meeting at her house on August 9,
1951, Estes drove slowly by in his car going north, turned around and came back
slowly, and stopped in front of the house for a short time looking in at the meeting.
There were about 30 people present at this meeting and Elliott said that she was
standing in her living room at the bedroom door, her house was about 12 feet from
the street, and she could see Estes plainly. Harmon, Elliott's son-in-law, testified
that he was on the porch of the Elliott home the night of the meeting and that he
saw Estes drive by slowly in his car, turn around, come back, and stop in front of
the house, looking in at it. Harmon said that he knew Estes well and that they
always spoke to each other, but that they did not speak at that time. Estes denied
going past the union meeting or stopping in front of Elliott's house on August 9.
He contended that at that time he was in New York City at the home office of the
parent company. He claims he left West Point on August 9 and was gone for about
5 days. If this were true, of course he could not have been at the office in West
Point on August 10. However, 4 of the dischargees testified that they went to the
office on August 10 and saw Estes at that time, and 2 of them, Hodnett and O'Brian,
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1211
talked to Estes about being employed. I find them to be credible witnesses and,
as previously indicated, I do not find Estes to be a credible witness. Obviously, if
Estes was in West Point on August 10 he could not have been in New York City
at the time he said. In addition, two witnesses saw him in front of Elliott's house
on the night of August 9. After a union meeting at Bernice Wright's home in
August 1951, Ramsey followed the car driven by Wayne Griffin who was accom-
panied by several other employees. Hodnett testified that she saw Ramsey following
the car in which Hodnett was a passenger, and that Ramsey's car stayed behind them
as they progressed through town, stopping when they did to discharge people and
continuing to follow them as they went on. Ramsey's car continued to follow them
until Hodnett got out, at which time she was able to see Ramsey clearly and identify
her. Ramsey denied that she ever followed Griffin's car. However, she admitted
that she knew there were union meetings held at the homes of the employees and that
she knew some of the employees who attended the meetings.
Langford, another supervisor of Respondent, admitted that Ramsey had told her
about going to the houses and watching the meetings and identifying the girls she
had seen at the meetings. Langford testified that Ramsey said that she and Cox
had gone to Bernice Wright's home the night of the union meeting to see who at-
tended the meeting, that Ramsey had followed Griffin's car thinking it was he, and
then later saw him get out and was certain that it was he. Langford said that
Ramsey admitted watching several union meetings and had named the girls she
had seen at the meetings. Langford also admitted going past Elliott's house herself
one night when the employees were having a meeting and being told that they were
having a meeting. She also admitted that she told Ramsey, as Ramsey told her,
who had been present at various union meetings Betty O'Brian, Edna's sister,
testified that upon one occasion Langford had told her that Edna could return to
work if she did not go to a union meeting, that Estes had asked Langford to convey
that message to Edna, and that Langford had told Betty O'Brian that Estes would
know whether or not Edna went to the meeting. Langford denied this conversation
with Betty O'Brian. It is apparent that the admissions by Langford, a supervisor
of Respondent, completely contradict Ramsey's statements. Tressi Black testified
that in February 1952 she went to a union meeting at Elliott's home with Mildred
Haley and that they parked their car on Main Street near Elliott's house, saw Ramsey
drive by in a car, circle the block, come back again, and pass Elliott's house a
second time Haley corroborated this statement. Ramsey admitted the incident
testified to by Black and Haley, but denied that she was watching any meeting. She
claimed she went to a friend's house, stayed there for a few minutes, came back
again, and saw Black and Haley a second time. A preponderance of the credible
evidence in the entire record convinces me, and I find, that Respodent through its
supervisory officials engaged in surveillance of the union meetings and activities of
its employees.
3. Requiring new employees to agree not to loin the union
On the day that Cox directed the nonunion girls to go down to Estes' office,
Myrtle O'Brian, employed by Respondent as a service girl, went down to the office
with the employees from the coat line. She said that they had a conversation in
the office with Estes, that during it one of the employees asked him how they were
going to keep the Union out of the plant, and that Estes replied, "Don't sign any
union cards." Myrtle O'Brian is Edna O'Brian's sister- in-law. Opal Hill testified
that she was hired by Respondent in January 1952, that Ramsey hired her, and that
while taking her upstairs Ramsey told her that "they" were trying to bring a union
in, not to have anything to do with "them," and not to sign a card. Ramsey
admitted that prior to the union election in June 1952 when a new employee was
hired she' would talk to her, tell her that there was going to be a union election,
ask her to work long enough to see both sides of the question and then make her
own decision, and tell her that it made no difference which side she chose. Ramsey
said that other than that she made no statements to new employees concerning the
Union. If it made no difference to Respondent what decision the employees made
about joining the Union, it is difficult to see why they wished to discuss the matter
with new employees. In any event, I credit Hill's testimony and do not credit
Ramsey's, for reasons heretofore mentioned. A preponderance of the credible
evidence in the record convinces me and I find that Respondent, through its super-
visory employees, directed new employees to have nothing to do with the Union
and not to sign a union card.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Causing the circulation of a petition against the Union among the employees
As previously found, on September 11 Respondent held a meeting of its super-
visory employees and one girl from each line at the Henry Clay Hotel. Charlene
Pruett, an employee from Langford's line, attended the meeting at Langford's re-
quest. Pruett said that at the meeting they discussed sending a petition through
each line in order to determine how the employees felt about the Union. She said
that Estes suggested this idea, and that Pechter said that it was a good idea to find
out how the girls felt about the Union. Pruett testified that at the meeting it was
decided that each girl who was there from a line should send the petition through
her line and the foreladies would not stop it and were to pretend that they did not
see it. The contents of the petition have been previously found. Pruett said that
she sent the petition through her line the next day and then gave it to Virginia
Friday, one of the other nonsupervisory employees who was present at the Henry
Clay Hotel meeting. Pruett said that at the Henry Clay Hotel meeting they were
trying to see how they could keep the Union out. Langford, in her sworn statement
to the Board agent, said that Ramsey had told her that Estes wanted a representative
at the meeting from each line who could be depended upon, and that she had told
Pruett to go to the meeting at the Henry Clay Hotel at Ramsey's request. Langford
did not attend the meeting. In her written statement she also said that Ramsey
had old her that a number of girls were going to pass a petition through the line
and that she should not interfere with it. The following day Kennedy, an em-
ployee, gave Langford a copy of the petition and asked her to give it to Pruett.
Langford did and Pruett passed it among Langford's girls during working hours.
Langford, in testifying. said that Ramsey told her about the meeting at the Henry
Clay. Langford said she asked Pruett to attend the meeting and that Ramsey had
told her Respondent wanted a girl from each line to represent it. Langford denied
that she had actually looked at the petition or knew its contents although she knew
that it was being passed around.
Cox, in her sworn statement, admitted that a petition was passed around in Sep-
tember and that she saw it. She said that it was gotten up by the girls who were
satisfied with their jobs, with Estes, with production, and with prices and that she
did not know who started it. Hazelwood, another employee and not a supervisor,
testified that a petition was circulated through the line and her description of its
contents was similar to Pruett's description. She said that she did not sign it, but
that she and another employee called their forelady, Mary Lanham, asked her if it
was compulsory for them to sign it, and were told that it was not. Hazelwood said
that she told Lanham that if she wanted to know Hazelwood had not signed 'a union
card but that her daughter had, and that the forelady replied. "Yes, and I under-
stand a lot of my girls have stood up for this kind of Communism." Estes ad-
mitted the meeting at the Henry Clay Hotel with the supervisors, a girl from each
line, and Pechter, and that they discussed the confusion and turmoil on the sewing
floor and attempted to try to find out what was slowing down production. He also
admitted that the turmoil and confusion was the talking and the girls getting together,
that that time was the height of the Union's organizational campaign, and that he
was aware of the campaign at the time. He did not deny suggesting a petition
to determine employee sentiment, nor did he deny its subsequent circulation
through the lines on the following day. Ramsey admitted seeing the petition
handed around in the lines in the sewing department in September, and that she did
not take any action when she saw it. She said that she did not read it, and explained
that she had seen other pieces of paper passed around by the girls when they were
taking up donations for a present for a girl who was leaving.
Pechter admitted being present at the Henry Clay meeting with Estes and the
other supervisors, said that he had suggested calling the meeting to find out what
was causing the low production at the plant. and that the supervisors had requested
that Respondent get representation from the employees in order to talk about
the reasons for low production. He also admitted that the reason for the low
production seemed to be a great amount of talking, agitation, and commotion on
the sewing room floor and that naturally, because of the meeting held at the court-
house the day before concerning the problem at the plant, those problems were
discussed at this meeting and the Union was discussed. A preponderance of the
credible evidence in the entire record convinces me and I find that Respondent
caused to be circulated among its employees a petition designed to determine which
employees were satisfied with conditions and were not in favor of the Union.
Respondent's own witnesses, in substance, admitted that it was designed to deter-
mine how the employees felt about the Union.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1213
5. Directing all nonunion employees to attend a meeting in the office of the plant
manager
Sometime in the fall of 1951, probably in September or October, Forelady Cox
announced to all of the employees in the short lines that Estes wanted to see all
of the nonunion girls in his office. It is undisputed in the record that she made
such an announcement to the employees. Tressi Black said that when Cox made
the announcement, she, Black, had not intended to go down but when all of the
rest of the employees in her line started to do so she went too . She said that they
did not get to see Estes. When about 30 of them came down the stairs she heard
him call out, "Who sent for you?" and he hollered at them to go back to work,
which they all did. Black said that Cox's line had already been downstairs to see
Estes that day. Sheffield's version of the incident was substantially the same as
Black's. Myrtle O'Brian said that she heard Cox tell the girls that Estes wanted
to see the nonunion girls in his office, that she went down with the rest of Cox's
coat line, and that they saw Estes in his office. O'Brian said that when they got
there Estes said, "You mean to tell me this is all the nonunion girls that I have
upstairs?" Someone replied, "Why don't you have all the nonunion girls in the
short line down here?" Estes then said, "O.K., I will, send them down." After
they returned upstairs, O'Brian told Cox that Estes wanted to see the nonunion girls
from the short lines. O'Brian said that Estes had not asked her to convey that
message to Cox. Langford and Betty O'Brian substantially corroborated Black's
and Sheffield's version of the incident. Betty O'Brian was also in the group that
was told to return to work and did not get to see Estes. Langford admitted that
Cox told the girls in Langford's line that Estes wanted to see all the nonunion girls
in his office, and that everybody in the line went downstairs.
Estes denied sending any message in September or October 1951 to the sewing
department that he wanted to see the nonunion girls in his office, but testified that
during that period a number of girls in groups did come to his office with the
permission of their immediate supervisors, that they wanted to discuss with him
what they could do to stop the turmoil and confusion on the sewing floor and get
back to work, and that that was the only thing discussed. No other witness, includ-
ing all of the witnesses called by Respondent, so testified. Cox admitted that she
made the statement on the sewing department floor that Estes wanted to see the
nonunion girls in his office. She said that Myrtle O'Brian had told her that Estes
wanted to see all of the nonunion girls in his office, and that she had then walked
over to the short department and made the announcement twice.. Cox testified that
her immediate supervisor, Ramsey, was absent, that she had no conversation with
either Estes or Thompson about making this announcement, and that she discussed
it with no one other than Myrtle O'Brian before making it. Cox said that there
were two lines that went down to the office and she was not sure whether they went
down at the same time or one after another. Her statement that she made this
announcement during the height of the union campaign which was known to her and
the rest of Respondent's officials, without directions to do so from anyone other
than an employee not in any supervisory capacity, is extremely difficult to credit.
I credit Myrtle O'Brian's testimony concerning what happened. A preponderance
of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me and I find that Respondent
through its supervisory employees directed its nonunion employees to attend a meet-
ing in the office of the plant manager.
6. Threatening, to close the plant if the employees joined the Union
There is no evidence in the record to support this allegation of the complaint
and accordingly I make no such finding.
A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me, and
I find, that Respondent, by interrogating and questioning its employees about their
union membership and activities, by engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activities, by requiring new employees to agree not to join the Union, by causing
the circulation of a petition designed to elicit from its employees how they felt about
the Union, and by directing its nonunion employees to attend a meeting in the office
of the plant manager, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
violation of the Act. I further find that Respondent did not , as alleged in the
complaint, threaten to close its plant if the employees joined the Union.
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The discriminatory refusal to employ Hodnett, O'Brian, Elliott, Mitchell, and
Rambo
At the outset of this section, it may be well to consider Respondent' s contention
that none of the employees discharged on July 31, 1951, can be found to have been
discriminatorily refused employment thereafter, because the original charge was not
filed within 6 months of the discharge. The original charge was filed and served on
February 8, 1952, more than 6 months after the discharge of July 31. The amended
charge was filed on October 20, 1952, and served on October 21, 1952. As previously
set forth herein, the complaint alleges that Respondent discriminatorily refused to
employ certain named persons from August 10, 1951, to the issuance of the com-
plaint, which date is within 6 months of the filing of the original charge. None of
the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint occurred more than 6 months
before the filing of the first charge. However, in reliance upon the decisions of the
courts of appeal in the Pennwoven and Childs cases,' Respondent contends that
because the discharges of these employees occurred more than 6 months before the
filing of any charge, any refusal by Respondent to employ these persons, although
occurring within 6 months of the filing of the charge and being discriminatory within
the meaning of the Act, is barred by Section 10 (b) of the Act because no unfair
labor practice can be found concerning the discharges. Respondent misconstrues the
holding of the courts in the Pennwoven and Childs cases. In both of those cases dis-
charges occurred more than 6 months before the filing of a charge with the Board,
and subsequently the discharged employees requested their employers to reinstate
them to their former positions with all of their former rights. The courts held that
inasmuch as the discharges were barred by the 6-month period in Section 10 (b) of
the Act, the employers should not be required to reinstate the employees to their
former positions, and the refusal to do so could not be found to be an unfair labor
practice, inasmuch as their discharges, even though they might have been violative
of the Act, could not be so found because the 6-month period had expired. Such an
attempt to secure reinstatement to a position with all former rights is, of course, an
attempt to compel the employer to rectify a wrong barred by the statute of limita-
tions. The courts in both cases clearly pointed out that if the employees had been
refused new employment, or had been applying for new positions, and the Board
had found that they had been discriminatorily refused such employment, as distin-
guished from reinstatement, within the 6 months preceding the filing of the charge,
such refusal would be an unfair labor practice properly found within the limitation
period.
The situation here is exactly that discussed by the courts in the Pennwoven and
Childs cases. Here no contention is made by any employee that he is seeking rein-
statement to his former position, and the record clearly indicates that no such attempt
was made In all of the applications the employees applied for new employment,
and all of the applications occurred within the 6-month period preceding the filing
of the original charge. Obviously, if Respondent discriminatorily refused to employ
these applicants because of their union activities within the 6 months preceding the
filing of the charge, an unfair labor practice has occurred which may be found.
Actually, Respondent's contentions have been very recently considered by the Board
in a substantially similar case,2 where the respondent advanced the identical conten-
tions which Respondent here advances. The Board found that a refusal to employ
applicants who had formerly been discharged, and whose discharge could not be held
to be an unfair labor practice, because it occurred more than 6 months before the
filing of the charge, nevertheless was discriminatory when.motivated by the em-
ployees' union activities. That case is substantially identical to the instant situation
and is clearly a precedent Respondent also contends that because the first charge
filed by the Union did not specifically refer to the refusal to employ, although the
amended charge subsequently filed set forth specifically such refusal, the complaint
may not contain such allegations. It may now be considered well settled that a com-
plaint may allege any unfair labor practice occurring within the 6-month period pre-
ceding the filing of the charge. The charge does not serve the purpose of a pleading
and merely sets the machinery of the Board in motion.' I find no merit in either of
Respondent's contentions.
IN. L. R B. v Pennwoven, Inc., 194 F. 2d 521 (C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Childs Com-
pany, 195 F. 2d 617 (C A 2)
2 Textile Machine Works, Inc, 105 NLRB 618.
2 Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157 ; Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93
NLRB 1459.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1215
As pointed out in Respondent's well-prepared brief, in order to determine that
Respondent discriminatorily refused to employ any of the applicants for employ-
ment, it is necessary to find that there was a bona fide application for employment,
that the applicants had engaged in union activity, that Respondent was aware of
such union activity, and that such activity was the motivating factor or reason why
Respondent refused to employ the applicants. Before considering the applications
of the various individuals alleged to have been discriminatorily refused employment,
which' applications began on August 10, 1951, I consider it appropriate to consider
the union activity which took place and the proof in the record of Respondent's
knowledge of that activity.
As previously found the first union meeting was held at Elliott's house on August
4, a few days after the discharge of the 14 employees. In fact, the discharge is ap-
parently what motivated the employees to seek out the Union and ask its assistance
in organizing the employees of Respondent. The record clearly reveals that almost
from the outset of the union campaign on August 4 Respondent was fully aware of
the activities and knew which employees were engaging in them. West Point is a
small community and Respondent's plant is one of the largest plants there. The
arrival of union representatives and organizers in West Point and the commence-
ment of the Union's organizational campaign among Respondent's employees could
hardly have failed to escape general attention throughout West Point. The meeting
of August 4 was attended by only some 10 or 12 persons, and was the beginning of
the organizational activities. At this meeting it was determined to hold the first gen-
eral organizational meeting on August 9 at Elliott's house. As has been found,
that meeting was held and about 30 employees attended.
Estes engaged in surveillance of that meeting by driving back and forth in front
of the house and stopping to look in and watch the meeting. The record reveals
that 3 other union meetings were held in August, 2 at Wright's home and 1 at Wat-
son's. In addition to the evidence received from witnesses called by the General
Counsel that Respondent knew about the union activities and who was participating
in them, most of Respondent's supervisory officials admitted that they were aware
of the union activities from their inception and knew who took part in them. Cox,
in her sworn statement to the Board's agent, said that the Union's organizers came to
town just about the time the 14 girls were discharged. She said the campaign was
secret at first, but after awhile it was not secret and that almost everybody knew who
was and who was not signing cards and where the meetings were being held. She
said that the employees would always let it be known on the floor of the plant when
they were having meetings. In testifying, Cox said that the campaign was not a
secret after it started, that the girls talked about it in the plant and gave out pamphlets
there. She admitted that the union activity, the signing up of employees, and the
meetings began after the 14 girls were discharged and during the time that some of
them returned to work, in other words, the week prior to August 6. Langford, an-
other of Respondent's supervisors, in her sworn statement to the Board, said that
shortly after the discharges the union meetings began. She said that the first meet-
ings were held at Elliott's houuse and that she drove by one night and saw Ramsey's
car parked on the street near the house. Langford also said that Ramsey admitted
that Ramsey and Cox went to Wright's house the night of the union meeting to see
who was there. Langford said that at the meeting of the supervisors at the local
cafe after the courthouse meeting, they told Estes about the announcement that the
next union meeting would be held at Watson's house. That was the night of Sep-
tember 10, 1951. She also said that at that time Estes said he would not mind see-
ing his employees join the AFL. She testified that she and Ramsey discussed the
Union from the time the activities started after the employees were discharged, un-
til they ended at the time of the election. She admitted that Ramsey had been
watching the union meetings and would name girls whom she had seen at these meet-
ings. The record reveals that Langford told Betty O'Brian during August 1951 that
Estes would take Edna O'Brian back to work if she did not go to the union meeting
that night, but if she went, she could not come back to work.
Estes, when asked why he couldn't talk to the girls (who did not come back to work
before August 6) on August 10, testified that he did not believe it would have done him
any good to talk to the girls after August 6 because of their previous experience.
Estes admitted that the time of the Henry Clay Hotel meeting, September 11, 1951,
was the height of the Union's organizational campaign, that he knew Blair and Dog-
gett, that they were in West Point, and that he was naturally aware of the Union's
campaign. He admitted that the meeting at the local cafe on the night of the court-
house meeting, September 10, 1951, was to find out how the sentiment was going. He
also stated that the turmoil at the plant lasted for 6 or 7 months, starting around
September and continuing until the union campaign, and that those dates were coinci-
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dental with the union campaign . In substance he admitted that he knew when the
union campaign began . Ramsey admitted that the union activities began right after
the discharges and that she knew about them and knew that there were meetings being
held in the employees ' homes. She testified that the employees passed out circulars to
that effect and that she knew some of the employees who attended the meetings.
Moceri admitted that she knew the union campaign began around the time the girls
were fired , that the first thing she had heard about it was that they had called
a union organizer into town , and that Elliott's son-in-law was mixed up in it, which
actually was the first thing that happened . Pechter, the general production manager
of Varsity Pajamas, Inc., and Estes ' immediate superior , admitted that at the meeting
at the Henry Clay Hotel with the foreladies and one girl from each line on Septem-
ber 11 , the Union was discussed and that it was the root of all the confusion and
trouble at the plant . Ramsey admitted that at the meeting at the local cafe of
the supervisors after the courthouse meeting, she told Estes about the announcement
that the next union meeting would be held at Watson 's home. In addition to the
foregoing , I have already found what the record reveals with respect to Respondent's
surveillance of union meetings at employees ' homes, its interrogation of employees
concerning union activities , its causing the circulation of a petition designed to
elicit its employees' feelings about the Union , its requiring nonunion girls to attend
a, meeting in the manager's office, and its requiring new employees not to join the
Union . The entire record clearly reveals , and I find , that Respondent was aware
from the inception of the union campaign of its employees ' union activities and
which employees participated therein , particularly those who took the most active
part.
1. Jessie K . Hodnett
As previously found , on August 10 some S or 6 of the girls discharged July 31
returned to the plant to see Estes and seek employment . Hodnett was one of the
girls who talked to Estes that day. The girls told Alford , Estes' secretary , that they
wanted to see him . Estes called Hodnett in later , and Hodnett said that she told
him that she wanted employment . Estes said that he had put someone else on her
machine and could not hold it vacant , and that she was supposed to have been notified
to return to work by August 6 . Hodnett told Estes that she did not get any such
word . Estes told her that she was supposed to, he then called Ramsey in and asked
her if there were any vacant machines and she said no. Estes then told Hodnett
that he would let her know if he had anything later . Hodnett said that she returned
to the plant on September 4 with O'Brian and Mitchell , that she saw Estes and talked
to him , and that she told him that she had been to the unemployment office and
her unemployment had been disallowed . She said that he told her to return there and
get her unemployment . Estes denied ever talking to any of the above five applicants
for employment at any time after August 6.
Hodnett also testified that on one occasion after September 4 and before March
25, 1952, she called Pechter on the telephone and asked him if she could go back
to work , and he replied that it was not for him to say. He told her that Respond-
ent had received a letter from Gladys Dickason , one of the Union 's officials, con-
cerning the six girls who had not been called back , and that Hodnett knew that this
was not a union show now. Hodnett replied , "yes," and then Pechter said , "I don't
think there is anything concerning them." Hodnett replied , "I understand , that is
why we haven 't been employed back, is on account of union activities ." This testi-
mony was not denied by Pechter , who admitted receiving a call from Hodnett. On
March 25, 1952 , Hodnett sent a written application for employment to Respondent
by registered mail in which she stated that she would accept any job which Respond-
ent might have available at any time , and asked Respondent to construe her letter
as a continuous application for employment . On April 16 Respondent through Estes
replied to Hodnett's letter and advised her that it had no jobs available at the time
and that another employee had been secured to replace her. Respondent 's letter
further advised Hodnett that it could not accept her recent letter as a continuous ap-
plication for employment , but that if it was able to use her services in the future it
would be glad to consider employing her at that time. Hodnett was never recalled
by Respondent , and is not one of those employed by Respondent after Thompson
succeeded Estes as manager.
Hodnett was an active member of the Union and active in the organizational
campaign which began on August 4. She joined the Union in August and attended
all of the meetings except 1 or 2. She attended the meeting at Wright's home in the
latter part of August 1951 when Ramsey followed Griffin 's car which Hodnett went
home in , and which Ramsey followed for a considerable time as it stopped and dis-
charged passengers . Ramsey was behind the car when Hodnett got out, which was
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1217
when Hodnett was able to identify her. Hodnett also handed out leaflets for the
Union in front of the plant at various times.
The record reveals that from the time of Hodnett's first application on August
10, 1951, to the end of 1952, Respondent at various times hired a large number of
operators in positions for which Hodnett was qualified. The parties stipulated its
accuracy and there was received in evidence as an exhibit an excerpt from Respond-
ent's employment records which reveals that from August 10 through November 1952,
Respondent hired some 159 operators in its sewing department. Of these people hired,
some 91 were classified as learners, which means they were employees without pre-
vious experience or insufficient experience, were hired under a learner's classification,
and paid a minimum wage less than that of a regular operator. The record also
reveals that most of the operations in Respondent's sewing department were classified
either as a single-needle or a double-needle operation, depending on the type of
machine used by the operator. It is substantially established in the record that a
single-needle operator is able to perform almost any single-needle operation in the
department, and a double-needle operator is able to perform almost any other double-
needle operation in the department. The record also reveals that Respondent pre-
ferred to employ experienced operators rather than learners for obvious reasons.
The training period of a learner is costly to Respondent, and production quotas can
much more readily be met by the employment of experienced operators. Respond-
ent admitted that it always preferred to employ experienced operators rather than
learners. At the time of her discharge Hodnett was performing a single-needle op-
eration in the sewing department. She had approximately 6 years of experience
with Respondent and was experienced in both the single-needle and double-needle
operations. Although Hodnett was an experienced and well-qualified operator and
made a number of applications for employment to Respondent beginning with Au-
gust 10, and Respondent over the period of time from August 10 to November 1952
employed a large number of learners without experience as well as other operators,
Hodnett was never recalled by Respondent for employment. It will be recalled that
Estes stated to her on August 10, 1951, when she first applied, that he would call her
when something became available. Respondent's letter of April 16, 1952, to Hodnett
also advised her that it would be glad to consider reemploying her whenever it was
able to use her services.
Unlike some of the other alleged discriminatees, Respondent advanced prac-
tically no reasons why it did not employ Hodnett. Ramsey admitted that Hodnett
was good in production and good in the quality of her work. Estes on cross-examina-
tion stated that if the other five girls who were fired on July 31 had come in before
August 6, he would have employed them and put them to work. Whatever Re-
spondent's reasons were for discharging the girls on July 31, they can hardly be
said to militate against the reemployment of the 5 girls who were not reemployed,
because Respondent within a few days after the discharge reemployed 8 of the
girls who were discharged for the same reason. If the reason for the discharge
of July 31 did not prevent the Respondent from almost immediately reemploying
a majority of those who were then discharged, it can hardly be considered con-
vincing as the motivating factor in refusing to employ the others discharged at
the same time for the same reason. Estes said that he did not remploy the five
girls who were discharged on July 31 because of the confusion and turmoil that
they had caused in the sewing department by standing around and talking. The
other nine girls who were discharged at the same time had engaged in the same
conduct. Estes said that if he reemployed the employees who had engaged in
such conduct there would have been no discipline on the sewing floor. However,
when asked what difference it would make if he had employed them before
August 6, he stated that he did not think their reemployment would have caused con-
fusion on the floor if he had hired them before August 6. He said that he would
have had them come into his office, talk the matter over with him, and that they
could have arrived at some conclusion. However, it is undisputed in the record
that most of the employees rehired before August 6 were returned to work without
any discussion with Estes. Most of them testified that they just went down to
the plant, asked for their jobs, and were hired without any discussion of what
had happened before. Estes, when asked why he could not talk with the em-
ployees after August 6 as well as before August 6, said that he did not think they
would have listened to him then, although he did think they would have listened
to him before August 6. He explained that he did not think they would listen to him
after August 6 because of their "previous experience." When asked what that was,
he replied that he had already told what their previous experience was. It is
apparent from the record that Estes could advance no plausible reason for failing
to reemploy the girls on August 10 or any other date after August 6. It will be
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recalled that the union activities began before August 10 and after August 6 and
that Estes was aware of them on August 10.
The only other reason advanced by Respondent for refusing to employ Hodnett
was one applicable to the other five. Respondent in effect appeared to contend
that the five girls were not reemployed because they violated a company rule by
going down to see Estes on July 31 without the permission of their supervisor. The
record reveals quite clearly that no such rule existed as far as the employees knew.
One of the Respondent's supervisors admitted that she had never heard of any
such rule. It was undisputed that such a rule had never been published. In any
event, as previously discussed, whether or not the girls were discharged on July 31
either for violating a company rule or for going down to the office to see Estes
without permission of their supervisor, it is apparent that this was not the reason
why the five girls were not reemployed, because a majority of those fired on July 31
were very shortly thereafter rehired by Respondent. A reason which does not
militate against the employment of 8 girls can hardly be convincing as a motivat-
ing factor for refusing to employ 5 other girls active in the Union. It will be
recalled that Estes had asked the girls to see him if they were not satisfied with
the increase in production, that they had asked both Thompson and Ramsey to see
Estes, that they had been told both the day before and the morning of July 31
that Estes would see them, and that their forelady was not present when they got
up and went downstairs to see Estes. All of the employees testified that they
had never heard of a rule that they had to secure permission to see Estes. In
any event, I am not convinced that the reason for refusing to employ the girls was
a violation of the alleged rule. On none of the occasions when the girls applied
for employment did Respondent ever state that it refused to employ them for
that reason or for any other reason. Although Estes denied that he had ever
talked to any of the girls discharged on July 31 after August 6, Ramsey said that
she was present in Estes' office on one of the occasions when Hodnett talked to
him about being employed after August 6. This is another example of the many
conflicts existing in the testimony of Estes and Ramsey. It is obvious that both
of them cannot be telling the truth about this.
A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me
and I find that Respondent discriminatorily refused to employ Hodnett on and
after August 10, 1951, to the date of the issuance of the complaint, because of
her union activities, thereby discriminating against her in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in violation of the Act.
2. Edna O'Brian
O'Brian was active in the Union from its inception. She joined the Union,
attended most of the meetings, went around signing up employees at their homes,
handed out leaflets at the plant, and was certainly known to Respondent as an
active member of the Union. During August 1951, 'Langford told Betty O'Brian
that if Edna went to the union meeting that night she could not come back to
work, but that Estes had said that if she did not go to the meeting he would put
her back to work. On August 31, 1951, Sheffield talked to Estes about reemploy-
ing O'Brian and Estes said that he didn't know about it, that O'Brian had been
running around here with "those people." O'Brian went to the plant on August
10 to apply for employment with the other 5 or 6 girls discharged on July 31.
She did not see him on the morning when Hodnett did, but was told to return
later because Estes was too busy then to see the rest of them. She returned on
the afternoon of August 10 and talked to Estes. She asked him for a job but he
told her that he had already given her machine away, which she testified she knew.
Estes told her that he had nothing for her but that if he had an opening he would
let her know.
O'Brian went back on the day after Labor Day, September 4, with Mitchell and
Hodnett. O'Brian testified that she had received word that Estes had said that
if she came in that morning he would give her a job. Langford, in her sworn
statement to the Board, said that on Labor Day Estes had asked her to get word
to O'Brian to come in the next day and that he would take her back to work.
Langford said she told Sheffield to tell Edna to come in the next day, and that
Edna did come in but that she was not hired. Langford said that she had an
empty machine in her line and Edna was supposed to be hired for it. As pre-
viously found, Sheffield had spoken to Estes about rehiring O'Brian and Estes had
accused her of running around with "those people." Estes then told Sheffield to
tell O'Brian to come in , that he would not promise anything, but that he believed
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1219'
he could work it out. O'Brian said that when she saw Estes on September 4 he
told her that he wanted to ask her a personal question but that he had been told
that if he did O'Brian would lie. Estes then asked her if she had worked with
Herrin, the union organizer, the day before. O'Brian replied that she had, and
asked Estes why he asked because he had seen her on the street with Herrin the
day before. According to O'Brian, Estes said that he wanted to see what she
would say. O'Brian said that Estes told her that he had a side-seam job, which
he knew she could not do, but since he would have another employee quitting in a
few days he would call her. O'Brian told Estes that she could and had done side-
seaming, and would take anything. O'Brian was not employed. Estes later asked
her where Herrin was and if O'Brian would take him to Herrin, as has previously
been found. He never called her as he promised. Sometime later in the year
O'Brian called Estes on the phone while Mitchell was present and asked him for
jobs for both of them. Estes told O'Brian that he had nothing right then. O'Brian
said that early in the spring of 1952 she called Estes again, that he told her that
it wouldn't be long, and that if what he had working turned out O. K. he would
call her in a few days to come in to work. Estes never called.
On March 27, O'Brian sent a written application to Respondent substantially
identical to that sent by Hodnett, and on April 16 received the identical reply
from Estes which Hodnett received. As previously found, the record reveals that
Respondent was hiring operators for the sewing department, including learners
without experience, all during the period when Respondent advised the various
applicants that it would call them whenever a job became available. After Thomp-
son succeeded Estes as manager of the West Point plant, O'Brian was employed by
Respondent during the week of November 20, 1952.
Respondent was well aware of O'Brian's union activity. The various statements
made to O'Brian when she asked for employment and the various questions asked
her concerning her union activity, plus the fact that she was an experienced operator
and Respondent was hiring operators all during the time involved, including em-
ployees without any experience, clearly establish the motivation for Respondent's
refusal to employ O'Brian. O'Brian had worked for the Respondent for over 10,
years and had been employed in many different operations in the plant. At the time
of her discharge on July 31, O'Brian was performing the seating operation in the pro-
duction line, which was a double-needle operation.
O'Brian and Elliott were the only two alleged discriminatees employed in what
has been called fly unit 1. A very substantial part of the record was devoted to estab-
lishing that there was a great deal of confusion in fly unit 1 prior to the discharges
of July 31. Hundreds of pages of the record consist of testimony concerning the
confusion in line 1. Respondent apparently contended that the first three operators
in line 1 caused the confusion, and that was one of the reasons why Respondent re-
fused to employ O'Brian and Elliott. They were 2 of the first 3 operators. Actually,
although the record does establish that there was some confusion about the work in
line 1, it does not establish that it was the fault of O'Brian or Elliott. The record
shows that the work flowed in line 1 through the first three operators one after the
other, who were in order O'Brian, Isaacs, and Elliott. On the other side of the line
another operation was performed by Long. The work done by the first three girls
was joined with the work done by Long by a fifth operator. The joiner was Wright.
The record reveals that on many occasions the joiner was unable to keep up with
the flow of the work which she received from the first three girls on one side and
Long on the other side. Respondent contended that the first three girls, including
O'Brian and Elliott, worked too fast and caused a pileup at the operation performed
by Wright. Wright took the garments received from Elliott and the garments re-
ceived from Long and joined them together. It is undisputed in the record that the
first three operators on O'Brian's side of the line worked at the same speed. O'Brian
performed the first operation, passed it on to Isaacs who performed the second, and
passed it on to Elliott who performed the third. There is no evidence of any pileup
between them and accordingly it is clear that they worked at approximately the same
speed. Apparently Respondent's contention is that the first three operators worked
much faster than Long, causing their work to pile up at the point where it flowed
into Wright, and that when Wright was ready to join the parts received from the
first three and Long, the pile created by the high rate of production of the first three
made it that much more difficult for her to find the corresponding part sewed by
Long.
Most of Respondent's entire defense was devoted to showing that there was a
great deal of confusion in line 1 and that it was caused by the first three operators.
However, a careful analysis of all the testimony reveals that while there was con-
334811-55-vol 109-78
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD_
fusion in line 1 at times, it was not necessarily or probably the fault of the first three
operators . In fact, the evidence adduced by a number of witnesses called by Re-
spondent clearly establishes that it was not the fault of the first three operators. If
anything , the trouble appeared to be that Wright was unable to keep up with the
flow of work which she received . Since Respondent was concerned with .production
and increasing it, it would appear to be that the correction needed in line 1 was either
a faster operator at the joining operation , or a change in the method of doing the
work. It may not have been the joiner's fault but may have been caused by the fact
that her operation was more difficult to perform, and consequently could not be done
at the same speed as the rest of the work , and the work flowing into her was bound
to pile up. There is no evidence in the record , that Respondent ever threatened to
discharge or in any way discipline the first three operators in line 1 for piling up the
work and causing confusion at the joining operation . It is undisputed in the record
that from time to time various supervisors praised the work of both O 'Brian and
Elliott. Fly unit 1 was the first production line set up by Respondent , and was ap-
parently made up of good operators specifically chosen for it . There is a certain
amount of confusion in Respondent 's proof concerning the operation of the joiner.
Pechter , who had originally established the line on the basis of time studies of the
individual operations , stated that the operators were chosen for the line because the
records showed that they all could work at approximately the same speed , and the
line was set up so that each operation could be performed in approximately the same
period of time. However , at another point he did admit that the fifth operation was
more difficult than the preceding operations and consequently took more time. Ob-
viously, if production were flowing through the preceding operations at maximum
speed, and the fifth operation took longer , the work was bound to pile up at the
fifth operation . There is considerable evidence in the record that the speed of the
first three operators was not the cause of the trouble in line 1, and that Respondent's
contention that it was the reason for not employing O'Brian and Elliott is a pretext.
The fact that fly unit 1 was made up of experienced and good operators is also borne
out by the undisputed fact in the record that learners never replaced absentees or
vacancies in line 1, that such vacancies were filled by taking operators from the other
lines, while learners were placed in the other lines. If O'Brian 's and Elliott's work
was as bad as some of the witnesses contend , it is difficult to understand why they
were placed and retained in fly unit 1. There is some evidence in the record that
the slowup at the fifth operation was caused by the fact that Long , the operator whose
work flowed in from the other side, was not able to keep up with the first three opera-
tors. Elliott and O 'Brian were picked for fly unit 1 by Pechter . Both Elliott and
O'Brian said that the trouble with the joining operation was that Wright had to wait
for the work from Long, who could not keep up with the others. O'Brian testified
that when she was reemployed by Thompson in November 1952, they talked about
the work piling up and Thompson told her then that when there was a slow girl in the
line, they replaced her with a faster one , and that O'Brian told him that that had been
the trouble in line 1. Thompson did not deny this. There is considerable evidence
in the record received from Respondent 's witnesses that Respondent knew that the
confusion in the line was not caused by the first three girls, and that Respondent did
not refuse to employ them for that reason.
On the night of July 30 after the production increase had been announced, Estes
stopped at O'Brian 's home to talk to her about it. Estes admitted stopping and talk-
ing to O 'Brian that evening. O'Brian said that Estes asked her what the trouble was
and why the girls wanted to see him. O 'Brian told Estes that they wanted to see him
because when he announced the increase he had asked them to see him if they were
not satisfied , and they were not. Estes said to O'Brian that she had always made pro-
duction . O'Brian said , "Yes, I have , but you always raised the piece rate a little
before when you raise production ." O'Brian said that Estes told her then that he
wanted her to go in there and show the others that she could do it . O'Brian replied
that she could do it but, "You know how the work has been piling up in our line,
and if the line cannot do 2040 ply , how can it do 2304?" Estes replied that he knew
O'Brian could do it, that she always had, and that if she could the others could too.
This was not denied by Estes. It is apparent that if the confusion in line 1 was pre-
venting it from making production before July 31 , it would be even more improbable
for it to make the increased rate of production after that date. Nevertheless, Re-
spondent 's proof indicates that the increase in production was based upon time studies,
and that the fly lines could and were able to make that much production . This proof
refutes Respondent's contention that the confusion in line 1 was preventing it from
making production . Respondent , although contending that the high speed of pro-
duction of the first three operators was causing the confusion in line 1 , on July 31
raised the rate of production and wanted the operators to increase the number of gar-
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1221
invents they produced daily . On none of the several occasions when Estes talked to
-O'Brian and others concerning employing her did he ever advance her alleged ineffi-
ciency as an operator as a reason for not employing her. Estes said that all of the
four girls including Long piled up the work on Wright, the joiner. Nevertheless,
Estes reemployed Long the day after the discharges. Estes also testified that before
July 31 the production of the girls was very good. Significantly, Estes described
Sarah Isaacs, 1 of the first 3 operators in fly unit 1, as a splendid operator who always
made production. This conflicts completely with Respondent's contention that the
confusion and trouble in line 1 was caused by the first three operators. They all
worked at the same rate of speed and the record is clear that there was no piling up
between them. Coincidentally, Isaacs never applied for reemployment and is not
one of the alleged discriminatees, although she was discharged with the others on
July 31. Estes said that learners were always put in the slowest line and they never
put any learners in line 1 because that was a fast line. Dingus, a witness called by
Respondent, admitted that occasionally there were pileups in her line, that it usually
happened when they had an inexperienced operator, such as a learner, who would be
slower, and that at different times they had learners in her line. She was employed in
fly unit 3. She said that when the work piled up it was caused by a slow operator and
Respondent got rid of the slow operator.
Although it was contended by Respondent that the first three operators worked too
fast and piled up their work on Wright, so that she could not join the work from
Long in the order received, Long and other witnesses called by Respondent testified
that upon numerous occasions Long deliberately worked faster and piled up her
work in order to be able to leave the plant early for personal reasons. This would
obviously have the same effect as piling up the work on the other side of the line,
and yet it apparently was approved by Respondent, not criticized, and not considered
a fault on the part of Long. Long was reemployed the day after the discharges.
Whenever Long was planning to leave the plant early for personal reasons, she would
start work earlier or work faster in order to pile up work so that there would be
something to join with the work received from the first part of the line. This is the
same type of conduct which Respondent contends is the reason for not employing
Elliott and O'Brian. Long was described by all the officials of the Respondent as a
good operator and they had no criticism of her work. The confusion which the
pileup at the joining operation was supposed to cause was the difficulty it would
create on the part of the joiner finding the two pieces to join, matching both as to
color and size. Yet if Long stacked up her work in advance of the other side of
the line, in order to leave the plant early for personal reasons, it is obvious that this
would create the same problem for the joiner in finding matching colors and sizes
to join . Long, who was called by Respondent, also said that the confusion in
line 1 was caused by the first three operators turning out too much work. However,
she admitted that when the day was done she had turned out as much as they had.
She said that Wright did not have to stop and wait for her work, and that she kept
plenty of work out. This of course contradicts Respondent's contention that the
confusion was caused by the fact that the work from the first three operations piled
up and the joiner could not match the pieces flowing in from two sources. If Long
kept up with the first operators as she claims she did, then the piles would increase
proportionately and the joiner would have no problem in finding the matching pieces.
According to Long's testimony, it seems apparent that the delay was caused by the
inability of the joiner to keep up with the two sources of work flowing to her. Long
admitted that line 1 could always make production if it had plenty of work and
everybody was there. She also admitted occasionally working half a day and then
leaving, and that on those occasions she would go to work early and pile up her
work so there would be enough for the rest of them to work on for the balance of
the day. Stafford admitted that when they needed a replacement in line 1 they took
the fastest girl from one of the other lines and replaced her with a less experienced
operator.
Most of the witnesses testified that the most work they had seen piled up in line 1
at the joiner was 1 or 2 bundles. There were a maximum of about 180 ply in a
bundle. Pechter, who originated line 1 and worked with it frequently when he was
at the plant, said that the largest pileup he had ever seen was about one-half of a
bundle . Ramsey , who was apparently willing to say anything to discredit the
alleged discriminatees, testified that she had seen as high as five bundles piled up
between the first three girls and the joiner. This would be about 900 ply and would
mean that they had performed approximately one-half a day's work without Wright
having done a single garment, based upon the production rate before July 31, 1951.
Her testimony in this regard is completely incredible. Ramsey said that they never
had any difficulty with Long , that she did good work , always kept up with the rest
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the girls, and always had some work ahead of her. The conflict in Respondent's-
evidence is self-evident. Moceri, another supervisor, said that the work of line 1
was terrible from the time it was set up until the girls were fired. Yet later she
testified that line 1 would normally do between 300 and 400 ply an hour. That
would mean that they would do between 2,400 and 3,200 ply per day, far in excess
of the production rate then in existence at the plant. Yet the testimony of the other
witnesses is that the confusion in line I was preventing them from making produc-
tion. It will be recalled that Estes testified that before July 31 their production was
very good. There is a great deal more evidence in the record concerning the con-
fusion in line 1, but it would serve no useful purpose and would unduly lengthen
this decision to discuss all of it here. I am convinced that the confusion in line 1
was not the reason for Respondent refusing to employ Elliott and O'Brian. Lang-
ford, in her sworn statement to the Board, said that she did not know why Respondent
would not reemploy the discriminatees, that all of the girls whom they would not
take back were as good if not better operators than any down at the plant.
I have previously considered Respondent's contention that the discriminatees were-
not employed because they went down to see Estes without permission of a super-
visor, and have found it to be without merit. Although Respondent went to con-
siderable effort to attempt to establish that O'Brian was an inefficient and unreliable
operator, after Estes left Respondent's employment in October 1952 Thompson
employed O'Brian at the plant. A preponderance of the credible evidence in the
entire record convinces me and I find that Respondent refused to employ O'Brian
because of her union activities and membership, thereby discriminating against her
in regard to her hire and tenure of employment, discouraging membership in the-
Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in violation-
of the Act.
3. Clara Elliott
Elliott had worked for Respondent for approximately 14 years during which time-
she had performed as many as 8 different operations in the plant. She was a very
experienced operator. She was outstandingly active in the Union and the first or-
ganizational meetings were held at her home. As has been found, the meeting of
August 9 at her home was observed by Estes from the street. She was among the
14 discharged on July 31. Although the complaint alleges that she applied for
employment on September 12, 1951, there is no evidence in the record to support
such allegation. She was not among the groups who applied for employment at
the plant on August 10 or September 4. On October 29, 1951, she called Estes at
the plant and he returned her call in the evening. At that time, of course, Estes was
fully aware of the union activity and according to his own testimony it was already
past the height of the campaign Elliott asked Estes if she was ever going to come
back to work. He told her that he would not say yes or no, but if they ever had
an opening he would be glad to call her. Elliott made no other oral application for
employment to Respondent. On March 24, 1952, she sent a letter by registered mail,
substantially identical to that sent by Hodnett, applying for any position. On
April 16 she received the identical reply received by Hodnett and O'Brian, in which
Respondent stated that it had no jobs available, would not consider her application
as a continuous one, but would be glad to let her know when a job opened up. She
was never called by Respondent as a result of her applications. In December 1952'
Elliott called Thompson for a job and Thompson suggested that she come in after
Christmas. Elliott applied to Thompson for employment during January, and was
hired by Respondent on or about February 2, 1953. Elliott was one of the leaders
of the union activity and her house was considered headquarters for the Union. In
October 1951 when Elliott made her first application for employment to Estes, he
told her then that he knew all of the union people at that time.
Respondent's contended reasons for not employing Elliott are substantially the
same as those concerning O'Brian, and have already been considered and found
without merit. Elliott was the other discriminatee employed in fly unit 1. It will
be recalled that Langford said that all of the girls not recalled by the Respondent
were as good as any of the operators they had at the plant. Moceri, who was
Elliott's forelady, testified that her production was very high and her quality was
average. A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces
me and I find that Respondent refused to employ Elliott because of her union mem-
bership and activities, thereby discriminating against her in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with,
restraining , and coercing its employees in violation of the Act.
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1223
4. Marie Mitchell
Mitchell, 1 of the 14 girls discharged on July 31, had been employed by Respond-
ent since 1945 and had approximately 4 years' experience as a double-needle oper-
ator. She was one of the girls who went down to the plant on August 10 to see
Estes and apply for employment. After Estes saw several of the girls, Alford, his
secretary, advised the others that he was too busy to see the rest of them then and
that they should return later. Mitchell did not speak to Estes on that day. Mitchell
returned to the plant on September 4, with Hodnett and O'Brian, at which time she
talked to Estes. Mitchell said that she asked Estes for employment and that he
replied, "Not today." Estes then told her that he had seen her, O'Brian, and Herrin
the day before and that he knew what Mitchell was doing. Mitchell admitted that
she had been with Herrin, the union representative, and O'Brian the day before.
Estes then told her to be careful what she did and to make sure that she knew what
she was doing. He then said that she would be hearing from him and that he did
not think it would be long. Mitchell testified that the day before Estes had met her,
O'Brian, and Herrin on the street. Mitchell was with O'Brian in the latter part of
1951 when O'Brian called Estes on the phone and asked him for employment for
herself and Mitchell. She heard O'Brian ask him that, and she also heard Estes re-
ply that he had nothing for them right then. Mitchell filed a written application
,via registered mail with Respondent on March 25, 1952, substantially the same as
that written by Hodnett and the others. She received a written reply from Re-
spondent dated April 16, identical to those received by the others.
Mitchell was active in the Union from its inception, having joined it during
August. She attended substantially all of the meetings, solicited membership among
the other employees, and handed out leaflets in front of Respondent's plant, includ-
ing the day before the courthouse meeting on September 10, 1951. Estes' com-
ments to her on September 4 when she applied for employment clearly indicate his
knowledge of her union activity and his motivation for not employing her. The
record is silent concerning Mitchell's working abilities, and apparently Respond-
ent had no complaint about them. Other than Respondent's general defense con-
,cerning the alleged violation of company rule when the operators went downstairs
to see Estes on July 31, which defense has been considered and found to be without
.merit, Respondent appears to offer no particular reason why it refused to employ
Mitchell. It will be recalled that Estes testified that if the other five girls who had
been fired on July 31 had returned to work before August 6, he would have rehired
them.
A preponderance of the substantial evidence in the entire record convinces me
and I find that Respondent refused to employ Mitchell because of her union member-
ship and activities, thereby discriminating against her in regard to her hire and tenure
of employment, discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in violation of the Act.
5. Florence Rambo
Rambo, one of the 14 discharged on July 31, never applied to Respondent for
employment until the fall of 1952 after Thompson had succeeded Estes as manager
of the plant. Thompson, after consulting with Respondent's attorneys concerning
the pendency of the litigation because he had just taken over as manager of the
plant, then employed Rambo. Rambo went down to the plant on August 10 to see
Estes and apply for employment with the other 5 or 6 employees discharged on July
31. However, she did not see or talk to Estes on that occasion, and was one of the
girls told to return later. She never returned nor ever applied for employment. On
August 10 she was there seeking employment , but spoke to no one and made no
application for employment. She did not file a written application in the latter part
of March 1952, as many of the others did. There is no evidence in the record that
she ever applied for employment before she spoke to Thompson in the fall of 1952.
In the absence of any application for employment, it can hardly be contended that
Respondent discriminatorily refused to employ her. I am convinced and find that
.the General Counsel has failed to sustain that allegation of the complaint, and that
Respondent did not discriminatorily refuse to employ Rambo at any time.
6. Maude Watson
Watson was not 1 of the 14 discharged on July 31. She was an active member
of the Union, having joined it in August , had a number of meetings at her home,
signed up a number of employees as members of the Union , and attended substan-
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tially all of the meetings . The record shows that among the union meetings at her
home, one was held in the middle of August and one on September 3, 1951. It has-
been found that at the courthouse meeting on September 10, 1951, it was announced
by Herrin, a union organizer, that the next union meeting would be held at Watson's
house, and that Estes and substantially all of Respondent' s supervisors were aware-
of this announcement.
On September 3, 1951, Watson asked Estes for a leave of absence in order to care-
for her sister's new baby and told him that she wanted to have a job when she came
back. Watson said that Estes told her that it was all right and that when she could
come back she should do so and that a job would be waiting. Watson had been
employed by Respondent as a utility operator, and as such was one of its most ex-
perienced employees. She had over 15 years' experience, which included practically
all single-needle and double-needle operations. A utility operator takes the place of'
other operators who are absent, and as such must be able to perform all the different
single-needle and double-needle sewing operations in Respondent's department. It
is undisputed in the record that a utility operator is able to do practically all of the
single-needle and double-needle operations in Respondent's plant.
On September 12, 1951, Watson called Estes, asked for the return of her machine,
and told him that she needed a job badly and was able to return. Estes told her
that he was sorry, her machine had been filled, and if anything opened up he would
send her word. This was 2 days after the courthouse meeting at which the an-
nouncement was made that the next union meeting would be held at Watson's home.
Later in September, Watson called Ramsey and asked her about the machine of a'
girl who had quit. Ramsey told Watson that she did not know who Estes was go-
ing to put on that machine. This was not denied by Ramsey. Still later in Sep-
tember, Watson saw Moceri and asked her about that machine, and Moceri told her-
that she did not know. On November 22, 1951, Watson's home burned down and'
she went to see Estes about a job. She told him how much she needed a job, and
he told her to return to the plant on Monday, which she did. She waited in the
lobby with other job applicants, Monday being Respondent's usual hiring day, and
said that Estes came out and saw her but said nothing. Watson returned to the plant
seeking employment 6 or 7 times after that but was never hired. She said that she
never spoke to Estes but that the office help took applications in to him, that he would
send out Ramsey or other foreladies who needed an operator to call in the ap-
plicants, but that they never called her in. She said that on the Monday after
November 22 she knew other girls were hired because she saw them come out of the
office with timecards and go upstairs to the sewing department. It is. of course,
established by Respondent's employment history that numerous employees were
hired by Respondent during that period. On September 7, 1952, Watson called
Estes at his home and asked if any employees were to be hired on Monday. Estes
told her that there would not be any hiring for several weeks. The next day, Sep-
tember 8, Watson went down to the office and applied again . She said that Estes
came out of his office, hired four other applicants, and they came out with time-
cards and went upstairs. She said Estes looked at her but did not speak to her.
The exhibit, stipulated as correct by the parties, shows that on September 8, 1952,
Respondent hired 6 new employees, 3 of whom were learners, and that during the
following week Respondent hired 7 learners. On November 6, 1952, Thompson
sent for Watson and offered her a job. Watson was then working at another place
and told Thompson that she could not accept the job. On January 26, 1953, Re-
spondent employed Watson.
Estes admitted talking to Watson on Labor Day 1951 about her taking care of
her sister's baby. However, Estes contended that Watson quit in order to take care
of her sister's baby. He said that he told her that he hated to see her go, but that
she just quit, did not say how long she would be gone, and there was no discussion
of reemployment at that time. He said that she never made application directly to
him for reemployment. On cross-examination, Estes admitted that he knew Watson
had made out an application for employment, and that Alford and some of the other
girls had told him that she had done so. Estes' testimony that he hated to see Watson
leave makes it plain that there was nothing about her work which would militate
against Respondent's reemploying her. Moceri admitted that Watson had asked
her about coming back to work at the plant . Moceri testified that she told Watson
that she would have to take it up with Estes. Actually, Respondent offered no par-
ticular reason why it failed to employ Watson, other than its contention that she was
not granted a leave of absence. Irrespective of whether or not she was granted a
leave of absence, the record clearly establishes that she applied for employment upon
numerous occasions thereafter and was never employed, although others of far less
experience and ability than she were employed during the period in question. There
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1225
is some evidence in the record by witnesses called by Respondent that Watson was
not an efficient operator , but it is certainly unconvincing in the face of Estes' admis-
sion that he hated to see her leave , and Thompson 's employing her shortly after he
succeeded Estes as manager of the plant . A preponderance of the credible evidence
in the entire record convinces me, and I find, that Respondent discriminatorily re-
fused to employ Watson until November 6, 1952, because of her union membership
and activities, thereby discriminating against her in regard to her hire and tenure
of employment, discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing its employees in violation of the Act.
7. William Ayres
Ayres was employed by Respondent as a spreader of material in its cutting room,
and his wife was employed as an operator in the sewing department. Ayres was
active in the Union and this was known by Respondent. At the representation elec-
tion on June 5, 1952, Ayres acted as an observer for the Union, and he also par-
ticipated in a preelection conference with Respondent's officials, including Estes.
Two or three days before the election, Ayres asked Farr, his foreman, for a 30-
day leave of absence to visit Ayres' sick father in New York. Farr told Ayres that he
would have to see Estes about it. On the morning of June 6, Ayres saw Estes and
asked him for the leave of absence. Ayres told Estes that he had a ride to Phila-
delphia with Snyder, a union organizer. Estes told Ayres that he thought it could
be arranged. Ayres said that he did not speak to Estes again but that his wife did.
On June 6, Mrs. Ayres spoke to Estes about a leave of absence to see her husband's
father in New York City. Mrs. Ayres told Estes that she and her husband could not
go unless they were sure they would have jobs when they got back. Mrs. Ayres
said that Estes grant _d the leave of absence. At the time of the conversation, all
of the participants knew that Respondent' s annual shutdown for a vacation would
occur within several weeks.
The record shows that Respondent closed its plant for the annual vacation from
June 20 to July 14, 1952. Actually, Mr. and Mrs. Ayres were only gone from their
jobs 2 weeks. The plant reopened on July 14, 1952 and Mr. and Mrs. Ayres re-
turned to West Point on July 11 in order to be present when the plant reopened.
On the morning of July 14, after the vacation shutdown, they went to the office at
7:45 a. m. and waited in the hall to see Estes. Mrs. Ayres admitted that Estes had
not promised them their old jobs back, but that he had promised to give them some-
thing when they got back even if not their old jobs. She said that they did not re-
port immediately to their work on the morning of July 14 because they did not know
exactly what jobs they had. Ayres said that he went to look for his card on the
morning of July 14, and when it wasn't in the rack, he then waited in the lobby with
his wife to see Estes. They waited until about 11 a. m. when Estes sent Thompson
out to tell the applicants waiting that there would be no more hiring that day. They
then asked Thompson if they could see Estes, and they subsequently saw him. The
first thing Estes said when they entered his office was that he had heard that they
had gone to New York to go to a union school. They told him that they had not
heard of that, and asked him who started that rumor. They then asked Estes if
they could have their jobs back, and he told them that their jobs had been filled.
They then left the plant. Estes said that on June 6 when Mrs. Ayres asked him for
leave of absence Mr. Ayres was also present. Estes in substance admitted the con-
versation of June 6. He said that he told them that he would grant the leave of
absence, that he could not be responsible for their old positions, and that he might
not be able to hold them open for them, because it was close to June 20 when the
plant would close for the annual vacation. Estes said that he told Ayres that he
would grant them a couple of extra weeks off. Estes also admitted that when the
plant reopened on July 14, he talked to Mr. and Mrs. Ayres in his office, and told
them that their positions had been filled, and if and when he needed them he would
recall them. The exhibit received in evidence and stipulated by the parties as a
correct excerpt of Respondent's records reveals that no spreaders were hired from
June 6, to July 14, 1952, when Ayres sought to return from his leave of absence.
Mrs. Ayres testified that on Wednesday, 2 days later, she called Cox, her forelady,
and asked her about a job. Cox asked Mrs. Ayres what Estes had told her, and
after Mrs. Ayres told Cox what Estes had said, Cox told Mrs. Ayres that her ma-
chine was still open and that she should come down there that morning. Mrs. Ayres
went in that same morning and waited in the lobby. After another girl was em-
ployed, Cox came down and spoke to Estes, who then called Mrs. Ayres in. Mrs.
Ayres said that Estes told her that there was nothing wrong with her work, that Cox
agreed to that statement, that Estes then told Cox to have her card filled out, and that
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was then hired. Mrs. Ayres said that Estes said then that he was not satisfied
with Mr. Ayres' work and that the men in the cutting department said he wouldn't
work. According to Estes, about a week after Mr. and Mrs. Ayres came back on
July 14, the girl who had taken Mrs. Ayres' lob became sick and he then called Mrs.
Ayres back to her former position . Cox did not deny the statements attributed to
her by Mrs. Ayres.
Ayres testified that he returned to the plant seeking employment every Monday
for from 6 to 8 weeks. He waited in the lobby each day and was usually the last
of the applicants left. He said that he never spoke to Estes on any of those occa-
sions, but that Estes and the office girls knew that he was there looking for employ-
ment. He said that Estes on those occasions saw him while he was waiting. Re-
spondent attempted to establish that its reason for not employing Ayres after his
leave of absence was his poor work as a spreader, but the conflicts in the testimony
of Respondent's witnesses are self-evident and establish that that was not Respond-
ent's real reason for refusing to employ Ayres. Estes admitted that he had granted
Ayres a leave of absence and had told him that he would'give him a job as soon as
one became available. The record reveals that Respondent hired a spreader on each
of 4 successive months after Ayres returned to the plant and sought employment on
July 14. Stanton, another spreader employed by Respondent and called by it as a
witness, testified that he and Ayres had worked together as a team spreading cloth,
that he did not get along well with Ayres, and that they did not produce as much as
they should because Ayres didn't pay enough attention to his work. Stanton in-
dicated that he was not happy working with Ayres as a partner, and that he had re-
quested a transfer to another partner. The record reveals that Respondent trans-
ferred spreaders from one partner to another constantly in order to produce better
work., The record also reveals that Stanton was the only spreader in the department
who did not like to work with Ayres, and on cross-examination Stanton admitted
that his complaint was that he liked to spread with Hodnett, another partner in
spreading, better than he liked to spread with Ayres. Farr, Ayres' foreman, testified
that Ayres' work was not satisfactory and that he loafed too much on the job. Farr
testified that Ayres' production record was considerably lower than that of all the
other spreaders in the department. No production records were offered in evidence
by Respondent. Farr's testimony with respect to Ayres' shortcomings is conflict-
ing. He testified that he often had spreaders in his department who only worked
a couple of weeks He also said that he always gave a man a chance to see whether
he could do the work, but that if he could not he was laid off. He said that an aver-
age employee should learn to spread in 3 weeks time and that if he did not do so then,
Farr let him go. It was undisputed that Ayres worked at least 6 months spread-
ing in Farr's department. Farr said that at no time did Ayres ever get to be an
efficient spreader. The conflict between this and his testimony that he laid men off
after 2 or 3 weeks if they did not turn out to be efficient spreaders is apparent.
Obviously, this testimony concerning Ayres' shortcomings as a spreader was an
afterthought by Respondent, because at the time Ayres requested his leave of absence,
Estes told him that he could have it, and that Respondent would reemploy him when
he returned. Estes also told him when he did return that although there was not a
job available at the time, he would call him as soon as one became available. Lyman,
another spreader and a witness called by the General Counsel, testified that after he
heard that Estes had refused to reemploy Ayres because the men in the cutting room
did not like to work with him, he spoke to Estes about that and advised him that the
men in the cutting room were not opposed to working with Ayres. Several other
employees from the department accompanied Lyman when he spoke to Estes about
that. According to Lyman, Estes said that he had not claimed that all the men in
the cutting room didn't want to work with Ayres, but that only one of them had so
claimed. Estes denied ever having a conversation with Lyman about Ayres at any
time. A preponderance of the credible evidence in the entire record convinces me
and I find that Respondent refused to employ Ayres because of his union member-
ship and activities, thereby discriminating against him in regard to his hire and tenure
of employment , discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with, re-
straining, and coercing its employees in violation of the Act.
D. The alleged discriminatory refusal to employ all of the applicants because charges
had been filed on their behalf
The only evidence in the record in support of this allegation of the complaint is
the conversation Rambo had with Thompson when she applied for employment
after he succeeded Estes as manager of the plant. It has been found that this was
the only time that Rambo applied for employment . As previously found , Thompson
KNICKERBOCKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1227
told her on that occasion that he had just taken over as manager of the plant, that
he knew there was a case pending against Respondent, that he wanted an opportunity
to consult Respondent's attorneys before he took any action, and that he suggested
that she come back in a week or 10 days after he had had an opportunity to consult
the attorneys. Rambo returned in about 10 days. Thompson told her that he had
discussed the matter with his attorneys and had been advised to use his own judgment.
He thereupon hired Rambo. Although there are some slight differences in Rambo'&
and Thompson's versions of their conversation at that time, in substance Rambo
corroborated what Thompson said about the conversation. She admitted that he
told her to return in 10 days, that when she did he had talked to his attorneys about
the case and had been advised to do whatever he thought best, and that he then gave
her a job.
It is undisputed that Thompson had succeeded Estes as manager of the plant just
shortly before his conversation with Rambo, and that Estes and Ramsey, who had
done a great deal of the hiring, were no longer employed by the Respondent. Ap-
parently it is the General Counsel's contention that because Thompson, when he
first spoke to Rambo, indicated that a case was pending, charges had been filed, and
he wanted an opportunity to discuss the matter with Respondent's attorneys before
he took any action, meant that Respondent and Thompson were refusing to em-
ploy Rambo, and presumably the other applicants, because charges had been filed on
their behalf. There is no other evidence in the record to substantiate the conten-
tion that Respondent was motivated in refusing to employ any of the applicants be-
cause charges had been filed on their behalf. I do not think it at all unreasonable
for a new manager who has just succeeded to control of the plant to want to discuss
with Respondent's attorneys pending litigation, before he took action with respect
to a party to that litigation. It would seem to be the appropriate and proper thing
for any reasonably prudent and intelligent person to do. Knowing that Respond-
ent was involved in a Board case and that Rambo was one of the parties, a new
manager would naturally wish to consult Respondent's attorneys before taking any
action which might possibly prejudice Respondent's position. Although not incum-
bent upon Respondent, actually the incident affirmatively establishes that Respond-
ent did not refuse to employ any of the applicants because charges had been filed
in their behalf. The fact that Thompson hired Rambo as soon as he had consulted
Respondent's attorneys, and within the time he suggested at their first conversation,
establishes that his motivation in asking for time to consult the attorneys was actually
a sincere desire to do so rather than a desire to refuse to employ Rambo because
charges had been filed in her behalf.
It is of course undisputed in the record that the charges were filed on February
8, 1952, and that Respondent was aware of this fact. Standing alone, this cannot
be sufficient to sustain an allegation that Respondent refused to employ the applicants
because the charges were filed. If it were, then after every charge alleging a dis-
criminatory refusal to hire or a discriminatory discharge, a respondent would auto-
matically be guilty of having refused to employ the alleged discriminatees because
charges were filed in their behalf, if they were not employed within a short time after
the charges were filed. I am convinced and find that Respondent did not refuse to
employ any of the applicants involved in this case because charges were filed on
their behalf, and that Respondent did not discriminatorily ref'ise to employ any of
the applicants in violation of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, f
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily refused to employ Hodnett,
O'Brian, Elliott , Mitchell, Watson, and Ayres. It has also been found that O'Brian,
Elliott , Mitchell , and Watson were subsequently employed by Respondent. I shall
therefore recommend that Respondent immediately offer Hodnett and Ayres em-
ployment in the respective positions applied for or substantially equivalent positions.
It has also been found that Watson was offered employment by Respondent on
November 6, 1952, and rejected it . I shall therefore recommend that Respondent
make whole Hodnett, O'Brian, Elliott , Mitchell , Watson , and Ayres for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he or she normally
would have earned as wages from the date when each would normally have been
employed by Respondent , absent the discrimination , to the date when each of them
was employed , except in the cases of Watson , Hodnett and Ayres , and with respect
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to them, to the date when Watson was offered employment on November 6, 1952,
and to the dates when Hodnett and Ayres are offered employment by Respondent,
less their net earnings 4 during such period. The back pay shall be computed in the
manner established by the Board and Respondent upon request shall make available
to the Board payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the amount due.'
The character and scope of the unfair labor practices engaged in indicate an
intent to defeat self-organization of the employees. I shall, therefore, recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations described in section I, 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.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the em-
ployees listed above in "The Remedy" section, Respondent has engaged and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
4 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440.
5 P. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
6 May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376.
THE DALTON COMPANY, INC. and RETAIL CLERKS' UNION, LOCAL No.
1691 OF THE RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL.
Case No. 15-CA-611. September 10, 1954
Decision and Order
On March 2, 1954, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
109 NLRB No. 175.