Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 789 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. Co. and BOOT & SHOE
WORKERS UNION, AFL
Case No. 14-C-953.-Decided March 15, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 30, 1945, the trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
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 Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On November 27, 1945,
the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D. C. Only the
respondent participated in the argument.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, the contentions
advanced at the oral argument before the Board, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the exceptions, additions, and
modifications hereinafter set forth.
1. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act. In so finding, we rely upon all the circumstances revealed
in the record, including in particular the circumstances mentioned
below.
We find that the following conduct of the respondent's supervisory
employees during the Union's organizational campaign, more fully
described in the Intermediate Report, is violative of Section 8 (1) :
Foreman Gallagher's statement to employee Blanche Gilman at the
time she refused to sign an anti-union petition that "I always thought
you were my friend * * *. It don't look like it"; Foreman
Gallagher's interrogation of employee Anna Mae Wilfong concern-
ing her attendance at union meetings and her opinion of the Union,
66 N. L. R. B., No. 101.
789
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and his showing her anti -union literature which he displayed on his
desk; Foreman Gallagher 's inquiry of employee Grace Wilson as to
• her opinion of the Union and his warning that she would find "If
Unions get in , it will be worse than it is"; Foreman Gallagher's re-
quest of employee Virgie Mae LaPlant on several occasions that she
give him her union card, his statement to her that the Union was
no good, and his remark to her and another employee when the
power plant was shut off on one certain occasion; "That is the union
for you"; Foreman Reily's frequent questioning of employee Hayden
Sebastian as to how the union campaign was progressing and his
remark that he could not see where the Union would be of any benefit
to the employees; Forelady Saporiti's inquiry of employee Irene
Plunkett as to whether Plunkett was going to an anti-union meet
ing, her query as to whether Plunkett was for or against the Union,
and her statements to Plunkett that the Union could not get her
more money because the respondent manufactured a cheap shoe and
could not afford to pay employees more, but would " have to close
their doors," 1 that the employees would "just be paying out union
dues and fees * * * and not making any more money," and that
"if the Union gets in, maybe you will not have to work at all"; Fore-
man Gallagher's statement to employee Esther Helm that "nobody
but a lazy person would ever join a union," that she was too good a
worker to join a union , and that the employees could get a raise with-
out paying union dues ; Forelady Saporiti's inquiry of employee
Lottie Glore as to whether Glore knew anything about the Union and
her statement to Glore that if the Union "got in," the employees
"would all be walking the streets." 2
1 The Trial Examiner does not refer to Saporiti 's remark that the respondent would
have to close its doors. The statement was attributed to Saporiti by Plunkett whom
we, like the Trial Examiner , find to be a credible witness. Saporiti denied that she ever
had a conversation with Plunkett about the Union. The Trial Examiner did not credit
her denial , nor do we . We find that Saporiti made the remark substantially as testified
to by Plunkett.
2 The respondent admits that its supervisory employees , who had absolute authority
to hire and discharge , made certain statements in derogation of the Union , but disclaims
responsibility for, the statements on the ground that they were made contrary to its
instructions . Although the respondent did instruct its supervisory employees at a meet-
ing conducted about March 20, 1944 , to refrain from interfering with union activity, it
did not enforce its instructions. There is no showing that the respondent had an estab-
lished policy of non - interference with union activity or that it had informed the em-
ployees that supervisors had been instructed to remain neutral . We find that the anti-
union remarks of the supervisory employees are attributable to the respondent. See
H. J. Heinz Co . v. N. L. R. B ., 311 U. S . 514, affirming 110 F. ( 2d) 843 ( C. C. A. 6),
enforcing 10 N. L. R. D. 963.
The respondent further contends that the statements outlined above were mere expres-
sions of personal opinion by the foremen which did not exceed the right of free speech
and which were not coercive . We find no merit in the contention . The statements
outlined above are more than expressions of anti-union sentiment . They include interro-
gation concerning union membership and meetings , and warnings that economic dis-
advantages would result from union organization ; e.g., that conditions "would be worse,"
the employees might "not have to work at all," the employees "would all be walking
the streets ," and the respondent would "have to close their doors."
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG . CO. 791
In addition, as set forth in the Intermediate Report, on April 2,
or 28, 1944, anti-union petitions were circulated in the plant during
working hours. We agree with the Trial Examiner, and we find, that
the respondent's supervisory employees were aware that these anti-
union petitions were being circulated; and that by permitting the
circulation of anti-union petitions under circumstances indicating
its approval, the respondent interfered with the self-organization of
its employees .3
Further, on March 24, 1944, and on April 21, 1944,`' the respondent
enclosed in the pay envelope of each employee letters, which are
quoted in the Intermediate Report, setting forth its position with
respect to union organization. The letter of March 21 expressed the
respondent's antipathy toward "outside" representation of its em-
ployees. It stressed prior satisfactory dealings upon an individual
basis and indicated that union representation was unnecessary. It
asserted that unions required the payment of dues and caused strikes
and unrest. It stated that the respondent's wage policy was "to
pay wages as high as possible and keep the business sound financially
so that when a period of slack times comes * * * [the respondent]
will have a strong company." The letter also contained a statement
that union membership would not affect an employee's position with
the respondent. The letter distributed on April 21, 1944, merely
emphasized that there is no law requiring union membership. The
respondent contends that the statements contained in these letters
are protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.
Interpreted, however, in the light of the statements of supervisory
employees inquiring concerning union activity and predicting that
economic disadvantages would result from union organization, and
in the light of the discriminatory discharges discussed below, the
letter of March 24 is clearly coercive.5 Thus, Foreman Gallagher's
statement that "If the Union gets in, it will be worse than it is" and
Forelady Saporiti's statements that "If the Union gets in maybe you
will not have to work at all," that the employees "would all be walk-
ing the streets," and that the respondent would have to "close their
3 We find no merit in the respondent's contention that permitting the circulation of
the anti-union petitions (lid not constitute an unfair labor practice because neither the
language of the petitions nor the circumstances under which employees were approached
for signature was coercive The grant by the respondent of its time and property for
activity opposing the U nion, accomp 'nied by the coercive conduct of the respondent's
supervisory employees, clearly constituted an unlawful interference with the employees'
rights guaranteed by the Act See Matter of Pilot Radio Corporation , 14 N L. R B
1084. 1096.
4In the third from the last paragraph in the section of the Intermediate Report
entitled "Interference, restraint, and coercion," these dates are inadvertently set forth as
April 21 and 24, 1944
5In these circumstances , it is plain, and we find , that the respondent 's assertion in the
letter that union membership would not affect an employee 's position with the respond-
ent, which assertion is belied by the discriminatory discharges discussed below, did not
neutralize the effect of the respondent's coercive conduct.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
doors," lending a warning note to the respondent's opinion that "we
believe no outside organizer or representative can serve any employee
as well as he can himself," and its comment that individual bargain-
ing had been successful in the past and "in no case has the employee
suffered the loss of his job." Forelady Saporiti's statement that the
Union could not get the employees more money because the respondent
manufactured a cheap shoe and could not afford to pay employees
more, but would "have to close their doors," adds meaning to the re-
spondent's discussion of its wage policy. We find that the letter of
March 24, 1944, exceeds the bounds of the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of speech."
We further find that all the acts and statements outlined above
constituted integral parts of a course of conduct engaged in by the
respondent for the purpose of defeating its employees' attempts at
self-organization and that such conduct is violative of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that in discharging Esther
Helm, Lena Young, Verna Tucker, Henrietta Huey, Lydia McDaniel
Wood, Hazel Miller, and Bettye Walsh, the respondent violated
Section 8 (3) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, we rely on all
the findings of the Trial Examiner and especially on the following
circumstances : Each of these employees was summarily discharged
after a short period of absence. The respondent either contends that
they were discharged for absenteeism or for failure to report their
absence or for both reasons. As the Trial Examiner points out,
however, absenteeism was prevalent in the respondent's plant before
and after the Union began its organizational campaign, and em-
ployees were not required to report their absences. Each of these
employees had been absent on occasions prior to that immediately
preceding her discharge, and no disciplinary action had been taken.
Each had previously failed to report her absences, and nothing
had been said to her about the failure. We, like the Trial Examiner,
therefore, are not convinced by the respondent's explanation for the
discharges. Furthermore, each of the employees discharged was a
satisfactory worker. At the time of the discharges, the respondent
was in need of employees, and its experienced employees were ex-
ceptionally valuable, because they had been trained to perform sev-
eral different operations in the plant. The employees discharged
were known to be proponents of the Union. Each of them had signed
a union authorization card, and each, except Walsh, had attended.
9 See Matter of Peter J Schweitzer, Inc , 54 N L R. B. 813, enf'd as mod 144 F
(2d) 520 (App D. C.) ; Matter of Trojan Powder Co, 41 N. L. R. B. 1308, enf'd 135 F
(2d) 337 (C. C. A. 3), cert. den. 320 D. S. 768
We find nothing , however, in the letter of April 21, 1944, which is coercive in nature
or which, when considered with other incidents , constitutes coercion.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 793
union meetings . None of them had signed the anti-union petitions
which had been circulated in the plant 7 Helm, Young, Huey, Wood,
and Miller had solicited other employees to sign union authorization
cards. Helm and Young had been questioned concerning their atti-
tude toward the Union by their respective foremen, Gallagher and
Fenton. The respondent was openly hostile toward the Union.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent dis-
charged and refused to reinstate Helm, Young, Tucker, Huey, Wood,
Miller, and Walsh because of their membership and activitiy in the
Union.
3. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the
discharges of Mae Pinkston and Irene Plunkett were discriminatory.
Although the cases of these two employees fall into somewhat the
same pattern as do those of the seven employees discussed above,
there are certain additional facts in these cases which cast doubt upon
a finding of discrimination. In the case of Pinkston, we think it is
significant that she had been in the respondent's employ for only 1
month at the time of her absence, and was then absent without notifi-
cation for a period of 9 work days, a much longer period than that
of the employees discussed above." In the case of Plunkett, we think
it is significant that following a voluntary termination of her em-
ployment in June 1944, the respondent, with knowledge of her union
adherence, rehired her in September 1944. At the time of her re-
employment, nothing was said to Plunkett concerning the Union s
The circumstances surrounding the discharges of Pinkston and
Plunkett are suspicious, but we are of the opinion that the record
fails to establish that their discharges were violative of the Act.
4. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Nettie Roegner was
not laid off because of lack of work, but because of her union activity,
and that the lay-off was tantamount to a discharge. In its brief, the
respondent for the first time asserts that Roegner was discharged
because of failure to report an absence. Roegner, however, was not
absent immediately prior to her discharge, and the record contains
no evidence in support of the respondent's assertion. We find that
We note that according to the credible testimony of Helm, Tucker, Wood, and Miller,
their foremen were standing nearby it the time they refused to sign the anti-union
petitions . We note, too, that Foreman Smith saw the signed anti- union petitions on the
table in his home.
$ Although Wood and Walsh were absent for a considerable length of time, each
notified the respondent on the second day of her absence, explaining why she could not
report for work. Helm , Young, Huey, and Miller were absent for only 1 work day prior
to their discharge ; and Tucker was absent for only 3 work days
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner' s conclusions with respect to the reemploy-
ment of Plunkett . Since unfair labor practice charges had been filed against the respond-
ent on May 1, and August 30, 1944, we do not think the filing of another charge in
December 1944 , was of sufficient significance to have provoked a change in the respond-
ent's attitude toward Plunkett , as inferred by the Trial Examiner.
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the contention in the respondent 's brief, inconsistent with its position
at the hearing and the testimony presented, is without merit.
5. We agree with the Trial Examiner that in discharging Hayden
Sebastian , the respondent engaged in discriminatory conduct.
Sebestian, who was employed in the bottoming department under
Foreman Reily's supervision, was an active proponent of the Union,
attending its meetings and soliciting other employees in the plant
to join. He had secured 'union authorization cards from all except
3 of the 33 or 34 employees in his department. Sebastian had in-
formed Reily of his solicitation in behalf of the Union, and Reily
had often inquired of Sebastian cbncerning the Union's membership
and progress in its organizational campaign. Reily had stated to
Sebastian on one occasion that a "union would not do any good for
the shoe factory there." 10
On March 30, 1944, Sebastian's employment with the respondent
was terminated . The respondent contended at the hearing and in
its brief that Sebastian voluntarily left its employ. Ilowever, on
a statement prepared by the respondent's office, showing all hiring,
and terminations during the period from September 1, 1943, to May
15, 1944, the reason for Sebastian's separation appears as "Agitator-
Discharged."
According to Sebastian, on March 30, 1944, he and Reily became
involved in an argument when Reily objected to the way Sebastian
was heeling shoes. During the course of the argument, Sebastian
suggested that the reason Reily was arguing with him was that
Sebastian had solicited union authorizations. Reily stated that he
did not care what Sebastian had done in connection with the Union,
but that he, Reily, did not think the Union would do any good.
"One word led to another," and finally Reily asked Sebastian, "Do
you want to quit?" Sebastian replied, "It don't make me a bit of
difference what happens." Reily asked, "Do you want to be fired
or do you want to quit?" Sebastian answered, "It's all right with
me because I will quit or get fired." Then Reily stated, "If that is
the way it is, I will just fire you and you can get your pay check."
Thereafter, Sebastian talked to Superintendent Woracek who had
his check made out and told him, "Well, I am sorry to see you go,
but you are too hotheaded and so is )d r. Reily." Sebastian testified
further, on cross-examination, that he was dissatisfied with his pay
and was trying to obtain other employment, and that he knew if
he quit his job he would have difficulty obtaining a certificate of
availability and would not receive his pay check immediately as
in the case of a discharge, but would have to wait until pay day.
In response to questioning by the Trial Examiner, Sebastian gave
'° This quotation is from the testimony of Sebastian, which we credit, as did the Trial
Examiner.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 795
testimony indicating that he did not intend to quit the respondent's
employ at the time of his termination.
Reily gave a different version of the circumstances surrounding
the termination of Sebastian's employment. According to him, on
March 30, 1944, he sent for Sebastian who had been in the basement
for one-half hour, and Sebastian came up and said, "Well, fire me."
Roily testified that Sebastian said he wanted to quit because he was
not making enough money and stated that he was going to Ten-
nessee to work for a contractor. When asked whether he discharged
Sebastian, Reily replied, "It would be hard to be definite there. I told
him no, I would not discharge him. There was no hard feelings or
anything." In describing the incident a second time, Roily added
that Sebastian mentioned a release and that he told Sebastian that
he had nothing to do with releases. Sebastian then said, "Well, I
quit." Roily replied, "Okay." Reily could not recall whether he
reported Sebastian's termination as a discharge or a resignation.
Concerning Sebastian's separation from the respondent's employ,
Superintendent Woracek testified : "Mr. Reily refused to discharge
him, so he quit. The next step was to get a release. He had to
come to me for it, for no one in the plant is authorized to issue
releases except Mr. Kopman, or myself. lie came to me and asked
me to discharge him. I said, "What is the matter, Hayden?' He
said, `I want to leave you.' I said, `Okay, we will accommodate
you.' That is the reason for the notation of discharge on his pay-
roll record." Woracek further stated that he discharged Sebastian
and that the pay-roll record indicated that Sebastian was discharged.
Woracek said that he gave no reason for the discharge. He was
not asked how the description "Agitator" came to appear following
Sebastian's name on the statement of hirings and terminations de-
scribed above. Woracek admitted that it was possible he had told
Sebastian he was too hotheaded and so was Roily.
The Trial Examiner did not resolve the conflicting testimony con-
cerning Sebastian's termination. He did, however, credit Sebastian's
testimony with respect to certain other statements made by Reily
and did not credit Reily's denials. We were not impressed with
Reily's credibility and do not accept his version of the incident.
Superintendent Woracek was not present during the discussion be-
tween Reily and Sebastian and only carried out the administrative
details of separating Sebastian from the respondent's employ after
his termination had been effected by Reily, who had absolute authority
to discharge. We find that the circumstances surrounding the
termination occurred substantially as testified to by Sebastian.
Although it appears from the above facts that Sebastian felt he
could obtain more satisfactory employment elsewhere, we are not
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
convinced that he was willing on March 30, 1944, voluntarily to
terminate his employment. He did not wish to incur the obstacles
connected with securing a certificate of availability and the delay
in getting his pay check. Moreover, he had no other ready employ-
ment at that time.11 Further, it was Foreman Reily, and not Se-
bastian, who first suggested the termination by use of the words
"quit" and "discharge." Reily, who had absolute authority to hire
and discharge, made it clear that Sebastian's employment with the
respondent must come to an end when he asked, "Do you want to
be fired or do you want to quit?" The only choice left with Sebastian
was the form the termination would take. Sebastian then accepted
the form most favorable to his own interests, namely, discharge.
Upon these facts, we, like the Trial Examiner, reject the respondent's
contention that Sebastian was not discharged, but quit his job.
Sebastian was a satisfactory workman and had received no criticism
of his work prior to the incident on the day of his discharge. Reily
admitted that he had had no difficulty with Sebastian although
Sebastian was "hot tempered." 12 Superintendent Woracek testified
that Sebastian "did about as good as the average man we have today."
The respondent, which was openly hostile to the organization of its
employees, was aware of Sebastian's leadership in the Union. Reily,
his foreman, had questioned Sebastian concerning the success of his
organizational activities. On the list of terminations prepared by
the respondent, Sebastian is characterized as an "Agitator." We are
satisfied, and we find, that this characterization has reference to
Sebastian's union membership and activity. In view of the
foregoing, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent
discharged and refused to reinstate Hayden Sebastian because of his
union membership and activity.
6. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharge of Lottie
Glore was violative of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
Glore was first employed by the respondent in November 1938.
She quit its employ in May, 1942, but was rehired in October 1943.
Upon the advent of the Union, Glore signed a union authorization
card, attended several union meetings, and took authorization cards
to the plant to solicit other employees to sign. On one occasion
when she was entering a union meeting, she was seen by her fore-
lady, Julia Saporiti. When the anti-union petitions were circulated
"Although Reily testified that Sebastian stated he had a job in Tennessee, Sebastian
did not mention that employment in has testimony. He testified that when he left the
respondent, he did not work for 3 weeks He then drove a taxicab, made application at
the United States Employment Service, and went to Portland, Oregon, to work in a
machine shop.
22 It appears that Reily and Sebastian had frequently engaged in disputes and Reily
had on occasion stated that he would fire Sebastian some day if Sebastian did not stop
arguing with him. The disputes, however, had continued throughout the period of Se-
bastian's employment under Reily, and no action had been taken.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE D1FG . CO. 797
in the plant, Glore refused to sign them, and at the time of her re-
fusal Saporiti was standing nearby, looking at her. Several times
Saporiti engaged Glore in conversations, during the course of which
Saporiti inquired as to what Glore knew about the Union and
warned that if the Union were successful, the employees "would all
be walking the streets." Saporiti, who had previously been friendly
to Glore, changed her attitude upon learning of Glore's union activity,
cutting off Glore's conversations and sometimes refusing to talk to
Glore. This change in treatment continued until June 29, 1944, when
Clore was separated from the respondent's employ.13
At the time of her discharge, Glore was regularly engaged in
operating one of the two cementing machines in the fitting depart-
ment. She had been performing this work throughout the term of
her employment with the respondent.14 On occasion, but only when
she had no cementing work, Glore was given other work to do, in-
cluding taping.'' She had never been taken off the cementing
machine when cementing work remained to be done. On Tuesday,
June 27, 1944, Saporiti, without explanation, placed Glore at taping
and placed employee Violet LaRose on Glore's cementing machine.
The taping work ran out before the day was over, and Glore went
home while LaRose continued to work until closing time at Glore's
machine. On Wednesday, June 28, Glore returned to her machine
and performed cementing work all day. On Thursday, June 29,
Glore began work at her cementing machine, but again Saporiti sent
LaRose to work on Glore's machine and ordered Glore to tape.
Again Saporiti gave no reason for the transfer. Glore refused to
give up her machine until she ran out of cementing work,16 referring
to her experience on Tuesday when she had lost part of a day's
work by reason of her transfer to taping. She stated that she would
"gladly go over and tape" when she completed the work which was
stacked at her machine. Saporiti then sent her assistant to talk to
Glore about the taping assignment. Glore repeated her position
that she would perform taping only when she had completed her
cementing work. Saporiti spoke to Glore a second time, and when
Glore again refused to tape until the cementing work was finished,
Saporiti seized the remaining work, threw it on the other cementing
13 These facts are based upon Glore's testimony, winch we credit, as did the Trial
Examiner Saporiti either denied or failed to recall making anti -union statements to
Glore, seeing her attend the union meeting , or seeing her refuse to sign the anti-union
petition . The Trial Examiner was not impressed with Saporiti 's credibility as a witness ;
nor are we We reject Saporiti ' s denials.
It The employee operating the other cementing machine had been engaged in that work
for only 3 months at the time of Gloie's discharge
is The rate of pay for taping work was the same as that for cementing
19 Saporiti testified that Glore "did not have much work " We agree with the Trial
Examiner 's finding that there was sufficient work to keep both cementing machines in
operation at the time that Gloie was taken oft her machine
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machine, and ordered Glore to go and tape. When Glore stated,
"I still won't go," Saporiti said, "I will get your card then." Glore
replied , "You might as well if that is the way you are going to shove
me around , for I will not do it." 17
The respondent contends that Glore was discharged because of
insubordination in refusing to perform the taping work assigned
her by Saporiti. We are of the opinion, however, that Glore's refusal
to perform the assignment did not constitute insubordination. As
indicated above, it was customary to assign Glore to taping only
when she had no cementing work to do. On June 29, 1944, when
Saporiti instructed Glore to tape, cementing work remained to be
done, and another employee was placed at Glore's machine. No
reason for this departure from custom was advanced. A few days
prior to June 29, Glore had lost a half day's work by reason of a
similar assignment to taping while the operator placed on her cement-
ing machine had completed a full day's work. The operator who
was given Glore's machine on both occasions was Violet LaRose,
whose name appears first on the anti-union petition which was
circulated in the fitting department. Glore, on the other hand, not
only was a union protagonist, whose activities were known to the
respondent, but also had refused to sign the anti-union petition.
Forelady Saporiti was openly hostile to the Union and had changed
her attitude toward Glore to an unfriendly one upon learning of
Glore's union adherence. These circumstances convince us that
Saporiti assigned Glore to taping on June 29, 1944, because of Glore's
union membership and activity."' By discharging Glore for her
refusal to acquiesce in the discriminatory assignment, the respondent
violated Section 8 (3) of the Act.
TIIE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has violated Section 8 (1)
and (3) of the Act by the interrogation and coercive statements of
its supervisory employees , discussed above, by permitting the circu-
lation of anti -union petitions on company time and property, by
distributing the anti-union letter of March 24, 1944, and by discrimi-
17 This description of the termination is based upon Glore's credible testimony. Saporiti
testified that she requested Glore to do taping and that Glore refused, stating, "You can
give me the card first ." Saporiti replied, "0 K., if that is the way you feel."
38 The respondent stresses that Glore was not discharged until the end of June, at
which time union activity was negligible, and urges this fact as indication that the
discharge was not discriminatory . We find the fact unpersuasive in view of Saporiti's
continued hostility toward Glore after learning of her union adherence and In view of
the other discriminatory discharges which occurred before and after Glore's discharge.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG . CO. 799
natorily discharging 10 employees. Accordingly, we shall order the
respondent to cease and desist from such conduct and, for reasons
which follow, from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. The respondent's illegal activities, which in-
clude the discriminatory discharges of 10 employees, conduct which
"goes to the very heart of the Act," 19 disclose a purpose to defeat
self-organization and its objects and an attitude of opposition to
the purposes of the Act. Because of the respondent's unlawful con-
duct and its underlying purpose, we are convinced that the unfair
labor practices found are persuasively related to the unfair labor
practices proscribed and the danger of the commission in the future
is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the past.20
The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order
is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 to prevent a recurrence
of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize industrial strife
which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
We shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found
that the respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Hayden Sebastian, Esther Helm, Lena Young,
Verna Tucker, Henrietta Huey, Lydia McDaniel Wood, Nettie
Roegner, Hazel Miller, Lottie Glore, and Bettye Walsh, we shall
order that the respondent offer to them, except Hayden Sebastian
and Verna Tucker, immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges. We shall further order
that the respondent make them, except Hayden Sebastian, Verna
Tucker, and Hazel Miller, whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them 2'
by payment to each of them of a suns of money equal to the amount
which she normally would have earned as wages during the period
10 N L R B v Entwistle Manufacturing Co , 120 F (2d) 532, 536 (C. C A 4) See
also N L R. B v Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co, 116 F. ( 2d) 350, 353
(C C. A. 7), where the Court observed: "No more effective foam of intimidation nor
one more violative of the N. L R Act can be conceived than dischaige of an employee
because he joined a union L * *."
20 See N. L . R B v. Eapi ess Publishing Company, 312 U S 426; May Department
Stores Co v. N L It B, 326 U S 376
2i With respect to our award of back pay to Lottie Glore , see e g , Matter of Theodore
It Schmidt, 58 N. L . R 13 1342.
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of the
respondent's offer of reinstatement to her,22 less her net earnings 23
during that period.
Hayden Sebastian and Verna Tucker testified that they had ob-
tained employment elsewhere and did not desire reinstatement by
the respondent. Accordingly, we shall not order the respondent to
offer them reinstatement. We shall order that the respondent make
whole Hayden Sebastian for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against him, by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount which he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the
date of the discrimination against him to the date on which he
secured the job he held at the time of the hearing,24 less his net
earnings during that period.25 In the case of Tucker, however, it
appears that following her discharge she did not register with the
United States Employment Service and made no other effort to
obtain employment from the date of her discharge until September
1944, when she obtained the job which she held at the time of the
hearing. Accordingly, we shall not award back pay to Tucker.'('
The record reveals that because of bad health, Hazel Miller made
no effort to obtain employment between the date of her discharge,
April 28, 1944, and September 1944. We shall not award Miller
"We find without merit the respondent 's contention that back pay should be abated
because of delay between the commission of the acts complained of and the issuance of
the final charges and complaint Charges against the respondent were filed by the Union
within a reasonable time following the commission of the unfair labor practices found
herein See Matter of Cowell Portland Cement Co , 40 N. L. R B. 652, 703, enf'd as
mod. 148 F. ( 2d) 237 (C C. A. 9) ; Matter of Colorado Milling it Elevator Co, 11
N. L. R B 66, 75, 76.
Ts By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his
unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere.
See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company , 8 N. L It . B. 440. Monies received for work
performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal or other work -relief projects shall
be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corpoi ation v. N. L R. B, 311 U. S 7.
= The Trial Examiner recommended that Sebastian be awarded back pay from the
date of the discrimination against him to March 21, 1945, the date on which he testified
that lie did not desire reinstatement by the respondent We are of the opinion, however,
that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act to award him back pay for the period
from the date of the discrimination against him to the date on which he secured the job
which he held at the time of the hearing . See Matter of Fred F Knipschild, 45 N. L.
R. B. 1027; Matter of Kaplan Bros, 45 N. L R B 799, enf'd 138 F. (2d) 884 (C. C A
2).
25 We find no merit in the respondent's contention that employees who are not ordered
reinstated should be denied back pay. See Indianapolis Power and Light Company v.
N. L R R, 122 F . ( 2d) 757 (C C. A. 7) ; Mooresville Cotton Mills v N. L. R. B, 94
F. (2d) 61 (C. C. A. 4).
w See Matter of Ohio Public Se) vice Co , 52 N. L. R B 725 , enf'd 144 F . ( 2d) 252
(C. C. A. 6).
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 801
back pay for this period during which she was unable to work .27
We shall order that the respondent make whole Hazel Miller for
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money
equal to the amount which she normally would have earned as wages
from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of the
respondent's offer of reinstatement, excluding the period during
which she was unable to work because of illness, less her net earnings
during the period for which she is to receive back pay.
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 the respondent, Kopman-Woracek Shoe
Mfg. Co., Flat River, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Boot & Shoe Workers Union,
AFL, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or by discriminating
in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of their employment;
(b) Questioning employees concerning union membership or
activity; directly or indirectly warning or threatening employees to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of Boot & Shoe
Workers Union, AFL, or any other labor organization; threatening
its employees through letters or statements with loss of employment
or a plant shut-down because of union membership or activity; and
permitting the circulation of anti-union literature on company time
and property;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Boot & Shoe Workers Union,
AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
n See Matter of IV TV. Rosebraugh Company, 60 N L. It. B. 787.
The respondent contends that Miller should not be awarded reinstatement and back
pay on the ground that "those who are required to be reinstated must not have other
employment at the time of such order " We are unable to accept the respondent's
position See Phelps-Dodge Corp , v N L R B, 313 U S 177 ; Matter of Ford Motor
Company, 31 N. L. R B 994, 1099.
686572-46-52
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Esther Helm, Lena Young, Henrietta Huey, Lydia
McDaniel Wood, Nettie Roegner, Hazel Miller, Lottie Glore, and
Bettye Walsh immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Hayden Sebastian, Esther Helm, Lena Young,
Henrietta Huey, Lydia McDaniel Wood, Nettie Roegner, Hazel
Miller, Lottie Glore, and Bettye Walsh, in the manner set forth in that
Section of the Decision, entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination
against them;
(c) Post at its plant at Flat River, Missouri, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint insofar as it alleges that
the respondent has discriminated against Wilma Prior, Wanda Hen-
son, Wilma Mahurin, Harold Since, Mae Pinkston, and Irene Plun-
kett, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring in part, dissenting in part :
I concur with the findings and order in this case except that portion
of the remedy which requires the reinstatement of Lottie Glore with
back pay.
Glore's own version of the facts surrounding her discharge indi-
cates that she was guilty of insubordination in refusing to do the
work which had been assigned to her by her supervisor. The fact
that Glore's insubordination was induced by the discriminatory treat-
ment she felt she had received at the hands of the respondent places
the case closely within the pattern found in Matter of Waples-Platter
Company.28 Her proper course of action in the circumstances would
29 See my dissenting opinion in this case in 49 N. L. R. B 1156 at 1159-60 and the
subsequent reversal of the majority by the Fifth Circuit in 140 F (2d) 228,
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 803
have been to comply with the temporary transfer order and to then
file charges invoking her administrative remedies under the Act. I
am of the opinion, therefore, that Glore is entitled to no more than
reinstatement to her former position.
APPENDIX A
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 :
AVE WILL NOT question our employees concerning union member-
ship or activity; directly or indirectly warn or threaten our em-
ployees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of Boot
& Shoe Workers Union, AFL, or any other labor organization ;
threaten our employees through letters or statements with loss
of employment or a plant shut-down because of union member-
ship or activity; or permit the circulation of anti-union literature
on company time and property.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Boot
& Shoe Workers Union, AFL, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Esther Helm Nettie Roegner
Lena Young Hazel Miller
Henrietta Huey Lottie Glore
Lydia McDaniel Wood Bettye Walsh
and make whole Hayden Sebastion for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
KOPIYIAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO.,
Employer.
Dated .................. By ..........................
(Representative ) ( Title)
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NoTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in
the armed forces of the United States will be offered full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Harry G. Carlson, for the Board.
Mr. Sylvan Agatstein, of St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. W. E. Shannon, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge 1 duly filed on February 17, 1945, by Boot &
Shoe Workers Union, AFL, herein called the Union, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Four-
teenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint , dated February 19,
1945, against Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co., Flat River, Missouri , herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint , accom-
panied by notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance:
(1) that during the period from about March 15, 1944, to the date of the
issuance of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent had questioned its
employees concerning their union affiliations and activities ; urged, warned,
threatened, and persuaded its employees against joining , assisting , or remain-
ing members of the Union or any other labor organization and engaging in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection; aided and encouraged a demonstration against the Union's
representative; granted and announced a wage increase to its employees for
the purpose of discouraging membership in the Union; (2) that during the
period from March 30, 1944, to July 25, 1944, the respondent discharged 23
named employees' and thereafter refused to reinstate them or any of them,
1 The original charge was filed on May 1, 1944, the first amended charge on August
30, 1944, and the second amended charge on December 4, 1944.
2 The names of the employees and the dates of their alleged discharges are as follows
Hayden Sebastian, March 30, 1944 Marilyn Joiner , April 27, 1944
Minnie Haire, April 7, 1944
Arthur Green, April 7, 1944
Charles Dillard, April 7, 1944
Helen Crabtree, April 7, 1944
Mary Vance, April 21, 1944
Wilma Pryor, April 21, 1944
Wanda Henson, April 24, 1944
Mae Pmkston, April 24, 1944
Mabel Schrum, April 26, 1944
Lydia McDaniel, April 26, 1944
Lena Young, April 27, 1944
Edith Gruner, April 27, 1944
Esther Helm , April 27, 1944
Verna Tucker , April 27, 1944
Hazel Miller, April 27, 1944
Henrietta Huey, April 28, 1944
Wilma Mahurin, May 3, 1944
Harold Since , May 5, 1944
Irene Plunkett, June 27, 1944
Lottie Glore, June 28, 1944
Bettye Walsh, June 25, 1944
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 805
because they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection ; laid off Nettie Roegner on or about April 28, 1944, and
transferred and demoted Violet House to lower paid work on or about April 27,
1944, because they, and each of them, joined and assisted the Union and
engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection; and (3) that by the
aforesaid acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Flat River, Missouri, on March 21,
22, 23, and 24, 1945, before the undersigned, W P. Webb, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent
were represented by counsel and the Union by its representative and all partici-
pated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties
At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent filed its answer, in which it
admitted certain allegations of the complaint in respect to the character and
operations of its business, and that it laid off Nettie Roegner on or about April
28, 1944, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices as alleged
in the complaint. As an affirmative defense, the respondent's answer averred
that some of the employees referred to in the complaint, voluntarily quit their
employment with the respondent, and others were discharged for good and
sufficient reasons not connected with any union activities but in due course of
business.
During the course of the hearing, the Board's counsel moved to dismiss the
complaint in respect to Minnie Haire, Arthur Green, Charles Dillard, Helen
Crabtree, Mary Vance, Mabel Schrum, Violet House, Marilyn Joiner, and Edith
Gruner. The motion was granted by the Trial Examiner without objection.
During the course of the hearing, the respondent's counsel moved to dismiss
the complaint in respect to 10 of the complainants e Ruling on this motion
was reserved. At this time it is denied by the undersigned, except as otherwise
indicated herein. The motion of the Board's counsel to conform the pleadings
to the proof in formal matters was granted by the Trial Examiner without
objection Opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner at the con-
clusion of the hearing was waived by the parties. A brief has been received
by the Trial Examiner from counsel for the respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co., is a Missouri corporation,
having its principal office and place of business in Flat River, Missouri. where
it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of women's and girls'
shoes The principal materials used at the plant are leather, rubber soles, and
other shoe accessories. During the calendar year 1944 the respondent pur-
a These complainants were Hayden Sebastian, Wanda Henson, Mae Pinkston, Hazel
Miller, Wilma Mahurin, Harold Since, Irene Plunkett, Lottie Glore, Violet House, and
Marilyn Joiner.
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chased raw materials in excess of $600,000 in value, of which approximately
80 percent was obtained and shipped to the plant from States other than the
State of Missouri. During the same period, the respondent manufactured at
the plant, finished products in excess of $1,000,000 in value, of which approxi-
mately 10 percent was sold and distributed to points outside of Missouri. The
respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Boot & Shoe Workers Union, AFL, is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The respondent's plant is located in a one-story building with a basement.
The latter is used for the office and for storage. The manufacturing depart-
ment occupies the ground floor and consists of one large room which houses
the several different departments without any partitions between them. Joe W.
Kopman is president, J. E. Woracek secretary and superintendent, Eli Kopman
treasurer, Cecil Smith foreman of the cutting department, Julia Saporiti fore-
lady of fitting, B. E. Fenton foreman of lasting, Frank Neckerman foreman of
sole fitting and welt, George Reily foreman of bottoming, and George Gallagher
foreman of packing.' These foremen and the forelady did all the hiring and
discharging of employees in their respective departments without prior
approval of management. For the past 2 years, the respondent has normally
employed approximately 300 employees in the plant, distributed approximately
as follows : cutting 50; fitting 90; lasting 25; sole fitting 20; welt 40; bottom-
ing 25; and packing 45.
Prior to 1944, there had been no union activity in the plant. About March 15,
1944, the Union, by Walter E. Shannon, its international representative, inaugu-
rated an organizational campaign among these employees. Weekly meetings
were held at the local hotel and handbills and authorization cards were dis-
tributed at the plant. A number of signed cards were secured. However, the
attendance at the meetings gradually decreased and interest in the Union
waned. According to Shannon, that was due to the lay-off of certain employees
who attended the union meetings. The campaign lasted about 5 or 6 months.
The Union has never had any contractural relations with the respondent.
According to the testimony of President Kopman, the respondent learned, in
March 1944, that the Union was endeavoring to organize its employees and he
immediately called a meeting of the foremen. His testimony, in this respect,
reads as follows :
The meeting was held directly after work hours, around 5:00 o'clock
or 5:15, for the express purpose of informing the foremen of the fact that
we had heard there was organizational activities going on, and we told
them that under no circumstances were they to discuss it with employees,
under no circumstances were they to do anything about it whatsoever in
A The foregoing facts were stipulated by the respondent and the Board.
5 The respondent conceded that Cecil Smith, Saporiti, Fenton, Neckerman, Reily, and
Gallagher were supervisory employees with authority to hire and fire employees, at all
times material herein.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 807
that respect, that regardless of whether or not they knew an employee
engaged in union activities as long as it did not interfere with our work
on the factory floor not to discuss union with employees, and not to dis-
criminate against any employee whatsoever.
B. Interference, restraint , and coercion
A few weeks after the Union began its campaign to organize the respondent's
employees, a movement was started in the plant by some of the employees, led
by Nellie Smith ,' wife of Foreman Cecil Smith , and Georgia Bayless, to dis-
courage the Union's efforts , as they were opposed to the Union . On April 25,
Mrs Smith and Bayless arranged an anti-union meeting at a local hotel and
invited the employees to attend . They wanted to find out who was opposed
to the Union . About 75 employees attended the meeting . The principal
speakers at the meeting were employees Willard Langley and Truman Sinuard,
neither of whom was a supervisory employee.' Their arguments were against
the Union . A paper was circulated among those present and they were re-
quested to sign it if they were against the Union . About 37 signatures were
secured . Eleven more signatures to this paper were secured in the plant,
during working hours . At the meeting , Bayless read a copy of a printed
anti-union article which she had previously seen on Foreman Gallagher's
desk tl During the meeting it was suggested that the union organizer , Shannon,
should be "run out of town." 9
The next day , April 20, 1944, Shannon went to the plant just before closing
time to invite the employees to a meeting . While standing across the street
from the plant , he was observed by some of the employees , and about 15
minutes before work stopped , Nellie Smith and 15 or more other employees,
mostly, women , came out of the plant and approached Shannon in a threat-
oning manner . Nellie Smith told Shannon that the employees did not want
a union . At 5 00 p in, when the plant ceased work, some 10 or 15 more
employees calve out and participated in the argument . Some were for and
some were against the Union After a short time, the crowd dispersed and
' The record discloses that Mrs Smith assisted Forelady Julia Saporiti to the extent
of relaying her orders to the employees and reporting to Saporiti whether or not new
employees were making satisfactory progress The testimony of Mrs. Smith in this
respect reads as follows .
I helped on the floor I helped give out the work and helped push the work. If
there was any stitching needed to be done, I stitched, and anything Miss Julia
wanted me to do * * * I had no certain thing to do other than to help get the
work out * * * I would divide the work on the racks for the girls to get. I
would put it up on the racks and match the work up ' * * It was put on the
rack from the Cutting Room and it was brought into the Fitting Room, I would
match the pieces together, for the girls to show.
While there is some doubt as to the employment status of Mrs. Smith, the undersigned
finds that she was not a supervisory employee, within the meaning of the Board's defini-
tion of that term.
7 Langley was a kind of handy man and assistant to Foreman Neckerman. He some-
times relayed Neckerman's instructions to the other employees in the welt department,
repaired machines and inspected work. He had no authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recom-
mend such action Sinuard worked in the lasting department under Foreman Fenton.
His job in that department was similar to that of Langley in the welt department, and
he had no more authority than Langley had.
8 The article related to union disturbances in a shoe manufacturing company at Chaffee,
Missouri.
9 These findings are based upon the testimony of Nellie Smith and Bayless.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shannon left. While the employees, who first came out of the plant, were
decidedly anti-union and appeared to resent the presence of Shannon at the
plant, they did not offer him any physical violence."
That evening Foreman Smith, at the request of his wife Nellie Smith,
took one of the respondent's typewriters to his home. That night Mrs. Smith
typed 5 or 6 copies of a petition, herein called the petition, which was cap-
tioned "We the undersigned are opposed to outside interference and do not
wish to join any outside union." The object of the petition, as indicated,
was to obtain the names of the employees who were anti-union. The next
morning Mrs. Smith took the petition to the plant and, with the assistance
of employees Bayless, Langley, and others, circulated them throughout the
plant for several days during working hours. Approximately 117 signatures
were secured. The petitions were freely circulated without objections by
any foreman, and after they had been submitted to all the employees, they
were returned to Mrs Smith, who retained them in her possession. On one
occasion when she took the petitions out of her purse and put them on a
table, they were picked up and read by her husband, Foreman Smith. Also
Foreman Smith overhead a conversation between Mrs. Smith and Bayless
in respect to circulating the petitions.'
Forelady Julia Saporiti and all of the foremen denied having seen the peti-
tions being circulated in the plant. They also denied having seen the peti-
tions prior to the instant hearing, except Foreman Smith who did not deny
having seen them, as testified to by his wife, Nellie Smith. The record shows
that the petition was circulated throughout each department and each em-
ployee was given an opportunity to read the caption and sign it. As stated
above, all of the approximately 300 employees worked in one large room and
there were no partitions separating the different departments. There were
5 foremen and 1 forelady on this floor at all times observing the work of
the employees in their respective departments. The petitions were circulated
during working hours and over a period of 2 or more days. It is incon-
ceivable that none of these foremen or the forelady knew that the petitions
were being circulated. Foreman Smith took the respondent's typewriter to
his home, at the request of Mrs. Smith, for the purpose of typing the captions
on the petitions and, as testified to by Mrs. Smith, he saw the petitions while
they were in Mrs. Smith's possession. The supervisory employees in no way
interfered with the circulation of the petitions and made no complaint about
the time lost by the employees in circulating and signing them, which was
tantamount to putting their stamp of approval on them. It is a reasonable
inference that the fact of Mrs. Smith being the wife of Foreman Smith facili-
tated the signing of the petitions. President Kopman testified that he knew
the petitions were being circulated in the plant, but that It was not done
with his consent. Manager Woracek also testified that he knew the petitions
had been circulated in the plant. The record contains no evidence that the
respondent took any steps to inform its employees that it disclaimed any re-
sponsibility in connection with these petitions.
The undersigned does not credit the denials of the foremen and the fore-
lady in respect to these petitions, and concludes and finds that they were
aware of the fact that the petitions were being circulated in the plant, and
the purpose of them.
According to the testimony of Blanch Gilman, a former employee of the
respondent in the packing department, which is credited by the undersigned,
iu These findings are based upon the testimony of Mrs . Smith and Shannon.
u These findings are based upon the testimony of Mrs. Smith and Bayless.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 809
Bayless and another employee brought the petition to her table while she
was at work, and asked her if she wanted to sign against the Union. She
replied that she did not want to sign it. Foreman Gallagher was standing
by her table when that occurred Gilman then went to the basement and,
when she returned , Gallagher was sitting in her chair , and he said to her,
"I always thought you were my friend." She replied, "I still am." Gallagher
then said, "It don 't look like it." u
Anna Mae Wilfong , an employee in the packing department , testified that
she attended some of the meetings of the Union in the local hotel , and that
on one occasion , Foreman Gallagher called her over to his desk and asked
her if she had been to the union meetings and what she thought about the
Union. He also asked her if she had ever worked in a union shop. Gallagher
then showed her a printed sheet that he kept under the glass top of his desk.
Wilfong could not recall just what the document said but she remembered
that it was something about a union strike in Chaffee, Missouri." While
testifying , Gallagher was asked if he had a printed paper under the glass
on his desk , and his reply reads as follows :
Yes, sir, I had a sheet about that big. I guess about ten by twelve,
something like that , a sheet with some printing on it . I think it was
put out by some priest . It was written about a union they had or some
trouble they had in either Chaffee or Frederickstown or something like
that. I don't remember it any more . The best I can remember , it told
about the people being on charity before they had the shoe factory14 in
there, and after the shoe factory got\there everybody had plenty, they
had a sufficient amount, and were all right until they formed a union,
and then they shut the factory down and they did not know what they
would do. It gave some little statement about-About what can happen
when people think they are going to make the thing for somebody. * * *
It [the statement ] was on my desk . Anybody could read it that wanted
to. * * * I thought it was good reading, personally.
According to the testimony of Grace Wisdom , a former employee of the
respondent, which is credited by the undersigned, during the union campaign
while she was working in the packing department, her foreman , Gallagher,
spoke to her about the Union. Her testimony in this respect reads as follows :
He [Gallagher ] come to me and said "Grace, I understand you are one
of the main Union men." I said, "Well , I don't know much about a
Union. I never worked in a factory before." He said, "What do you
think about it?" I said , "All I know is my man belongs to a Union and
says it is all right ." He said, "Oh , this company Union is all right,
but the Boot & Shoe Workers Union is no good. I have worked where
there are Unions and where there ain't, and you will find if Unions
get in it will be worse than it is. I feel like it is my place to tell you
before you get in too deep." '6
'2 Gallagher testified that he did not "remember any such occurrence."
'a These findings are based upon the testimony of Wilfong. She is still working in the
plant and was a very reluctant witness. While testifying, Gallagher was asked if he had
ever talked to Wilfong about a union, and he replied "I can't recall that I did." Gal-
lagher denied that he showed anyone the printed paper. The undersigned credits the
testimony of Wilfong and finds that Gallagher made the statements substantially as
testified to by Wilfong, and that he showed her the printed paper.
14 The record shows that the Sport Specialty Shoemakers, Inc., a shoe factory, was
located in Chaffee, Missouri.
16 Gallagher denied that he told Wisdom that the Union was no good. His denial is
not credited by the undersigned.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When the Union began to organize the plant, employee Virgie Mae LaPlant
attended the meetings and signed a union authorization card Soon there-
after, Gallagher, her foreman, asked her several times to give him the card,
which she refused to do. Gallagher told her that the Union was "no good,"
and that they did not want it in the plant. On one occasion during the
union campaign, when the plant power was shut off for about 15 minutes,
Gallagher said to LaPlant and another employee, "That is the union for
you," and that the unions were doing that all the time la
According to the testimony of employee Haydon Sebastian, which is credited
by the undersigned, prior to the advent of the Union in the plant, the em-
ployees made frequent requests for an increase in wages, but were informed
by the respondent that no increases could be obtained except for the piece-
rate workers. Soon after the Union began its organizational campaign, in-
creases were put into effect. Sebastian's testimony in this respect reads as
follows
After the Union officers came down here and tried to get them to or-
ganize, I think it was the first week after we had our first [Union]
meeting in the hotel they had a meeting there in the factory and told
us at that time they was going to try to get us a wage increase I im-
agine it was the following week when they told them they had gotten
us a wage increase of 421/.2 cents on the hour for the ones who had been
there a year, and the ones there longer than a year would get 45 cents
an hour.
While this action of the respondent casts some suspicion on its motive in
granting this increase at that time, the undersigned finds that the evidence
does not support a finding that it was done for the purpose of discouraging
membership in the Union as alleged in the complaint.
Sebastian further testified that he had frequent conversations with Fore-
man Reily concerning the Union; that he told Reily he had a supply of
union authorization cards and was getting them signed by the employees in
his department; that Reily frequently asked him how the union campaign
was progressing and how many employees had joined the Union; that he
told Reily he hoped the Union would be successful and organize the plant ;
that Reily told him the Union would not do the respondent any good, and
that he could not see where the Union would be of any benefit to the em-
ployees."
On March 24, 1944, the respondent enclosed in the pay envelope of each
employee, a copy of the following letter :
To our employees
It has just cone to the attention of the Company that certain persons
are attempting to unionize our employees.
The Company has always been willing and anxious to treat its em-
ployees with fairness, and every employee has been free, individually
or as groups, to present any of their problems at any time to the man-
agement. Of the many problems that have been presented, by far the
18 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of LaPlant. Foreman Gallagher
denied that he ever told her that the Union ssas no good, or ever asked her for her
union card. The undersigned does not credit his denial, and finds that Gallagher made
the statements substantially as testified to by LaPlant
17 Reily testified that he did not know that Sebastian was engaged in union activity,
but lie had heard him talking about the Union and he did not know whether Sebastian
was for or against the Union. The undersigned does not credit Reily's denial, and finds
that he made the statements substantially as testified to by Sebastian,
KOPMAN-WOKACEK SHOE MFG CO. 811
greatest majority have been adjusted to the complete satisfaction of the
employees, and in no case has the employee suffered the loss of his job
We believe that no outside organizer or representative can serve any
employee as well as he can himself. The Company recognizes the right
of every employee to join any union that he may wish to join, and such
membership will not affect his position with the Company. On the other
hand, we find that it should be made equally clear to each employee
that it is not at all necessary for him to join any labor organization
despite anything he may be told to the contrary. Certainly there is no
law which requires or is intended to compel you to pay dues & assess-
ments to, or to join any organization.
You have a right to know, we believe, just what is the Company's wage
policy. It is to pay wages as high as possible and still continue able
to sell our products, get repeat orders, and keep as many people em-
ployed as we possibly can-finally it is to pay wages as high as possible
and keep the business sound financially so that when a period of slack
times comes we will have a strong company and be able to go out and
fight for the business regardless of price in order to keep the Company
operating during these slack times.
Any union you may join requires payment of substantial dues, out of
which your union representative must be paid to represent you. Unions
also cause strikes and unrest, if in the opinion of this paid representative
and others, such a course should be followed. Such a step is advisable
if your management is unwilling to deal with you.
The management of this Company, however, has always been and will
always be willing to listen to your grievances and act thereon without
the intervention of a union agent.
It is reasonable to believe that our interests are mutual and can best
be promoted through confidence and cooperation
Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co 18
On April 21, 1944, the respondent enclosed in the pay envelope of each em-
ployee a copy of the following letter:
To our employees :
Our employees have asked the question as to whether it is compulsory
to join a union because of the statement made by the union representative
that he expects a majority. To make this clear we wish to state upon
good authority that there is no Federal, State or any other kind of lain
which makes it compulsory for any employee to join a union-regardless
of the fact that they may or may not have a majority.
Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co's
According to President Kopman, these two letters were issued by the re-
spondent, under advice of counsel, because a number of employees had in-
quired of the respondent as to what would happen if a union came into the
plant and whether they had to belong to a union. Kopman further testified
that a copy of the first letter was given)to the local newspaper , probably by
Woracek.
On Apirl 25, 1944, the day of the anti-union meeting at the local hotel,
Forelady Saporiti asked employee Irene Plunkett if she was going to the
meeting, and if she was for or against the Union. Plunkett replied that
is This finding is based upon the admission of the respondent 's counsel , and upon the
credible and undenied testimony of witnesses , who received the letter
19 The respondent admitted having sent this letter to its employees.
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was for anything that would get her more money. Saporiti said, "There
will not be any more money in it. No use for anyone to tell you any such
thing, for they can't get you more money." On another occasion Saporiti
said to the employees in her department, "Well, girls, if the Union gets in
maybe you will not have to work at all. You will have to sit on your chair
and look pleasant * * * Look at the girls at Chaffee, Missouri. They
do not have to work any more." Also Saporiti told these employees that
the respondent was making a cheap shoe and could not afford to pay the
employees higher wages ; that she did not know what should be done to a
man who would tell a "bunch" of women that he could get them more money ;
and that the employees would "just be paying out union dues and fees" and
not making any more money.20
A few days prior to the discharge of employee Esther Helm, Foreman
Gallagher said to her, "Esther, I heard you were a Union booster * * *
A certain party in here told me you was * * * I hope you are not join-
ing any Union. That is a lazy person's job. Nobody but a lazy person would
ever join a Union." Helm replied, "I do not consider myself lazy," Gallagher
said, "No, you are not a lazy woman, you are too good a worker to join a
Union." Helm replied, "My husband belongs to the same Union, not. the
shoe workers but the AFL, and he thought it was good and I did too." Soon
after the Union began to organize the respondent's employees, Gallagher told
Helm and some other employees in his department that they could get a
raise in pay without joining a union or paying union dues 2r
According to the testimony of employee Lottie Glore, she had several con-
versations with Forelady Saporiti about the Union. On one occasion during
working hours, Saporiti asked Glore if she knew anything about the Union
Also she told Glore that if the Union got into the plant, the employees would
be "walking the streets." 22
The undersigned finds that by the anti-union statements of Foreman Cecil
Smith, George Gallagher, George Reily, and Forelady Julia Saporiti, as set
forth above, by sending to its employees the two anti-union letters dated
April 21 and 24, 1944, and by permitting the circulation of the anti-union
petition among its employees during working hours, the respondent inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Although it was not alleged in the complaint, there was some testimony
introduced at the hearing to the effect that the respondent, by Forelady
Saporiti and Foreman Gallagher, had engaged in surveillance of union meet-
ings at the local hotel. The undersigned was not impressed with this testi-
mony, and finds that the respondent has not violated the Act in this respect
The instant hearing was held in the same room in the hotel where the Union
held its meetings no record shows, and the undersigned finds, that the ful-
These findings aie based upon the credible testimony of Plunkett Saporiti denied
having made these statements to Plunkett However, the undersigned does not credit
her denial, and finds that she made the statements substantially as testified to by
Plunkett
2These findings are based upon the credible testimony of llelni Gallagliei did not
specifically deny that lie told IIem, he had heard that she was a union booster, or that
only a lazy person would tom a union Ile did deny that lie told her she could get a
ruse in pay without pa}ing union dues The undersigned finds that lie made the state-
ments substantially as testified to by helm
Forelady Sapoiiti testified that she did not renienibei having had any conversation
with Gloie about the Union The undersigned was not impiessed with the testimony of
Saporiti, and finds that she made the statements substantially as testified to by Glare
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 813
]owing is a fair description of the premises: The meeting room, which has
glass doors with thin curtains, opens directly into the hotel lobby, and the
door is opposite the front door of the hotel There are no elevators and
the first step of the stairv ay leading to the upper floors is within a few
feet of the meeting room door In going from the lobby to the upper floors,
it is necessary to face the meeting room door before taking the stairs at
the right The coffee shop is just off the lobby and to the right of the front
door Persons in the meeting room can easily see people walking around
in the lobby and going to and from the coffee shop, also those going up or
down the stairway. It would be quite natural for persons going up or down
the stairs, to look into the meeting room, especially if the door were open
and there were people in the room Motor cars are usually parked just in
front of the hotel entrance.
The record shows and the undersigned finds that Forelady Saporiti has
{made her home at this hotel for a number of years, and, of course, uses
the lobby and stairway every day. She owns a motor car which she uses
to and from the plant. Usually she parks it in the rear or side of the hotel
She admitted that she knew the Union was holding meetings in the hotel
and that she saw and recognized some of her employees when they attended
the meetings. This, however, was practically unavoidable. The evidence
will not sustain a conclusion that the respondent engaged in surveillance of
the union meetings, and the undersigned so finds
C. The discriminatory discharges
11agden Sebastian was last employed by the respondent on February 10,
19-14,21 and assigned to the bottoming department under Foreman Reily. Sebas-
tian joined the Union and was very active in the union campaign. He at-
tended union meetings and solicited memberships among the employees in his
department. Ile secured signed authorization cards from all the employees
in his department except three. As related above, he informed Foreman
Reily that he was soliciting membership in the Union. Also he had frequent
conversations with Reily about the Union and how many employees had joined.
Reily was opposed to the Union." On Thursday, March 30, 1944, Sebastian
was discharged by Reily. In connection with his discharge, Sebastian's testi-
mony reads as follows :
Well, the foreman and I, Mr Reily, we was talking about the shoes.
Then we got into an argument over them. * * * There was another
boy heeling the shoes, and I was helping. I started running the machine
myself. He told me I wasn't putting the heels on right. I told him,
"I run this heeler quite a while for you and suited you then, and I
think I will now " We got into an argument about that. I started talking
to him about the Union then I told him, "Maybe the reason you are
arguing with me like you are is because you know I have been getting
these people to sign the cards." He told me then he did not care what
I had done at anytime about the Union, but he would tell me he did
not think the Union could do any good for the shoe factory. One word
led to another over it and he asked me then, "Do you want to quit?"
I told him, "It don't make me a bit of difference what happens." He
said, "Do you want to be fired or do you want to quit?" I said, "It
2A Sebastian bad previously been employed by the respondent in 1942 and 1943
24 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Sebastian.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is all right with me because I will quit or get fired ." He said, "If that
is the way it is I will just fire you and you can get your pay check."
* * * Well, the way he explained to me, he was firing me for my own
benefit that I could get my check and would not have to wait until
pay day to get it. * * * I got my pay check before I left the factory.
* * * I talked to Mr. Woracek . I had to talk to him to get my check.
He had my check made out for me and told me then, "Well , I am sorry
to see you go, but you are too hot headed and so is 1\Ir. Reily, and."
On cross-examination , Sebastian testified that during the entire time he
worked under Foreman Reily , they had had arguments , two or three times
a week about various things ; that they could not get along together , either
before or after the advent of the Union in the plant ; that Reily had told him
both before and after the union campaign , that if he did not stop arguing.
he would discharge him some day ; that he told Reily he did not care ; that
he was dissatisfied with his pay and was trying to get a job elsewhere ; that
he knew if he quit the job, he would have trouble in securing a certificate
of availability , and if he were discharged , he would be available for another
job at once , also that if he quit , he would have to wait until pay day to
get him money , but if he was discharged , he would be paid immediately, and
that was what he wanted.u
Reily testified that Sebastian told him he was dissatisfied with his wages
and that he was going to Tennessee to work for a contractor and wanted to
get his money immediately ; and that he refused to discharge Sebastian at
first, but, at the latter 's request, he did discharge him. Reily's testimony in this
respect, reads as follows :
I told him no, I would not discharge him There was no hard feelings
or anything. We were both in good humor about it. He said, "Well, I
want to get out of town , and I have a job in Tennessee ." * * * You
see he had worked there previously . I had taught him several jobs. Then
he quit, he and his wife had a little trouble, he told me , and he quit.
When he came back his wife interceded to get him a job, and I told
him if he wanted to take the job. * * * I did reemploy him at the
insistence of his wife, and explained to both of them if he wanted to
come " in and do the right thing and take the job which is practically
an assistant to the operator , if he proved himself later on I would ad-
vance him on the machine when there was an opening , which I figured
there would be, practically A young fellow was going to the Army.
* * * When he lined up with this contractor, I knew there was one
in town looking for men , but I did not pay any attention I told him
* * * he told me lie had already lined up to go and get the work,
and would like to get away as quick as he could. That is the reason
he wanted me to fire him , to get his money and get out as soon as he
could, he said
Superintendent Woracek testified that he and President Kopman were the
only ones in the plant authorized to issue releases to employees , and that
Sebastian came to him and asked for a release and said he wanted to leave,
25Sebastian 's testimony reads, in part, as follows
Q. Did you intend to quit, and accepted the discharge so that you could get your
money sooner?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what you did?
A. Sure. You want the truth, don't you? That is just what I did.
KOPMAN-WORACEI{ SHOE MFG. CO. 81S
and that he gave him a release and made a notation on the pay roll that he
had been discharged.
The record is clear that Sebastian and Reily did not work together amicably,
but this condition had obtained during the entire time that he worked under
Reily and no action had been taken by the respondent. In fact, Sebastian
had been reemployed by the respondent on February 10, 1944, after he had
quit in 1943. He was a satisfactory employee and, prior to his union activity,
no complaints had been made of his work Reily was opposed to the Union
and he was aware of Sebastian's union activity. It is significant that soon
after Sebastian joined the Union, Reily complained of his work. It is true
that Sebastian was not satisfied with his wages; neither were many other
employees of the respondent, however, he testified that it was not his in-
tention to quit, at the time of his dicharge. The record is clear and the
undersigned finds that Sebastian was faced with the alternative of either sub-
mitting his resignation or being discharged. Reily said to him, "Do you want
to be fired or do you want to quit." Sebastian accepted the discharge as it
facilitated the payment of his wages and the securing of another job. On
a written statement, prepared by the respondent from its records, showing
all terminations of employment in the plant during the period from September
1, 1943 to May 15, 1944, there appears a notation opposite the name of Hayden
Sebastian as follows : "Agitator-discharged." Sebastian testified on March
21, 1945, that he would not then accept reinstatement by the respondent be-
cause he had a better paying job.
The undersigned concludes and finds from the entire record that Sebastian's
employment with the respondent was terminated because he joined and as-
sisted the Union.
Esther Helm was employed by the respondent about July 1, 1943, and as-
signed to the packing department under Foreman Gallagher. She was active
in the union campaign, attended the union meetings, and signed a union
authorization card. She refused to sign the anti-union petition Prior to
the advent of the Union in the plant, Helm was complimented on her work
by Gallagher. The last day that Helm worked in the plant was on Thursday,
April 27, 1944. She did not work the next day because her children were
ill The plant did not work on Saturdays. The following Monday, May 1,
1946, Helm reported at the plant for work, but found that her work card
had been "pulled." She asked Gallagher why it had been pulled. Gallagher
gave her no explanation whatsoever, but told her that her money was wait-
inc, for her in the office=" Gallagher testified that he discharged Helm be-
cause she did not report her absence According to Helm, the respondent
had no rule or regulation requiring employees to report absences. She had
heen absent a number of times, prior to the advent of the Union in the plant,
uud had not reported such absences and nothing had been said to her about
it As stated above, just a few days prior to her discharge, Gallagher had
expressed to her his hostility toward the Union, and had accused her of being
a "Union booster." Also he had told her that she was too good a worker to
join a union, and that she could get a raise in pay without joining a union.
It is significant that Helm was summarily discharged after she had been absent
from work only 1 day.
The undersigned finds that Helm was discharged by the respondent because
she joined and assisted the Union and because she refused to sign the anti-
union petition.
w These findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Helm.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lena Young was last employed by the respondent in February 194421 and
worked in the lasting department under Foreman Fenton . She was active
in the union campaign. She attended union meetings , signed an authoriza-
tion card and solicited other employees to sign union cards. She did not
sign the anti -union petition . On one occasion , during the early part of the
union campaign , Fenton asked Young if she had attended the union meet-
ings. She told him that she had?8 The last day that Young worked in the
plant was Thursday , April 27, 1944 . She was not feeling very well that day
and, after working hours , she told Foreman Fenton that if she did not feel
better the next day she would not come to work. Fenton told her that it
was all right . Young was ill the next day, Friday , and did not go to work.
The plant did not work on Saturdays . Young reported for work on Monday,
May 1, 1944, and found that her card had been pulled. She asked Fenton
about it, and he told her *that when she learned to stay on the job , she could
have her card back . He then said to her , "Your check will be ready In a
few minutes ." Young had never been informed of any rule or regulation of
the respondent requiring the employees to report absences , and she had previ-
ously been absent without reporting and nothing had been said about it. There
were no complaints about her work?9
Foreman Fenton testified that he discharged Young on Monday, May 1,
1944, because of absenteeism . In this respect, his testimony reads as follows :
Every week she would be out one or two days. I just felt it I had
to do without her one or two days every week I could do without her
all of the time . * * * I asked her why she was out , and she said
she was sick . I said, "You were sick about one or two days?" She said
she could not help it . I said, "If you are going to be sick one or two
days out of every week we will have to part company."
Fenton testified that it was his practice not to pull employees' cards
unless they had been absent 3 or 4 days a week. He would then pull their
cards and hold them until the employees came In and explained their ab-
sences. This testimony is inconsistent with Fenton 's action in discharging
Young. As related above, just prior to her discharge , Young was absent only
1 day, Friday, April 27. She worked the previous day and informed Fenton
that day that she might not be back the next day as she was ill. The plant
did not work on Saturdays , and she reported for work on the following
Monday and was summarily discharged . Fenton further testified that Young
had been absent 1 or 2 days in every week she had worked in the plant.,*
It is significant that Fenton took no action on this account until after Young
had become active in the Union and had not signed the anti-union petition.
Fenton's further testimony reads as follows :
Q. Practically all of them [employees ] have been out from time to time,
have they?
A. Well, yes.
Q. I mean your female operators. They do not work 5 days a week each
week, do they?
m Young had worked in the plant for a short time during September 1943.
xe Fenton denied that he had talked to Young about the Union . The undersigned was
not impressed with the testimony of Fenton, and does not credit his denial and finds that
he questioned Young about her attendance at union meetings substantially as testified to
by Young.
20 These findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Young.
80 Fenton's testimony reads as follows : "I don't think she got over one or two full
pays in the whole time she worked for me."
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE 1%IFG. CO. 817
A. Not all of them, no.
Q. Some of them are married and have families , and have reasons for
staying at home on account of sick children and things , is that right?
A I have one female employee I do not think has ever missed a day ex-
cept one week 's vacation annually.
Q And she is the only one?
A The only one I recall.
The undersigned concludes and finds from the entire record that Lena
Young was discharged by the respondent because she joined and assisted the
Union and because she did not sign the anti-union petition.
Vcina Tucker was employed by the respondent on February 5, 1943, and
assigned to the packing department under Foreman Gallagher . She attended
union meetings and signed a union authorization card during the first part
of April 1944. The anti-union petition was brought to her by Bayless, but
she refused to sign it . Gallagher was in the department at the time . Tucker
was summarily discharged by Gallagher on May 2, 1944. About a week before
her discharge , Tucker took a trip to St . Louis, Missouri , with Gallagher's
consent. She returned to work on Tuesday, April 25. The next day she
told Gallagher that she was not feeling well, but worked that day. She
became ill and did not return to work until Tuesday, May 2 . When she
started to work Gallagher informed her that her work card had been "pulled"
and that she was discharged . 33 Tucker 's testimony in this respect , which is
credited by the undersigned , reads as follows:
The girls had all went to work, and Mr . Gallagher had come upstairs
* * * no, he had not come upstairs yet. When he did, he called me
to one side and said, "You see what you got yourself into laying out,
don't you?" I said, "Yes ." I told him I sent word by Leona Roux.dz
I told her Wednesday evening when I rode home with her that if I
wasn't at work Thursday to tell Mr . Gallagher , and she said she would.
When I mentioned the fact I told her to report for me, he said , "Is that
so?" I said, "Yes ." He said, "I pulled some other cards the day I pulled
yours, and could not pull one without all of them. Your check is waiting
downstairs ." * * * That is the trouble with you girls working for
me, you forget I am the one running this department."
Gallagher testified that often , when Tucker was absent from work, Leona
Roux would inform him of that fact or bring him a note from Tucker. Ac-
cording to Tucker, there was no rule or regulation posted in the plant to the
effect that employees had to report to their superiors when they were going
to be absent from work , and that she had never been informed that such a
rule existed . Prior to joining the Union , she had been absent on many oc-
casions without reporting and nothing had been said to her for not reporting.
She had never been warned that a failure to report would subject her to
discipline or discharge . Tucker testified on March 21 , 1945, that she had
secured a job in St. Louis , Missouri, and that she did not desire reinstatement
in the respondent 's plant. The record contains no evidence that her work
had been other than satisfactory.
The undersigned is of the opinion and finds that Tucker was summarily dis-
charged on May 2, 1944 , by Foreman Gallagher because she joined and as-
sisted the Union and because she refused to sign the anti -union petition.
Henrietta Huey was first employed by the respondent in January 1943.
31 These findings are based upon the credible and undenled testimony of Tucker.
= Leona Roux did not testify at the hearing.
686572-46-53
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After about 8 months, she was off about 1 month and then returned to work
in November 1943. She worked in the cutting department under Foreman
Cecil Smith. She attended the union meetings and signed a union authori-
zation card. She was active in the union campaign and solicited members
in the plant. She refused to sign the anti-union petition. She was summarily
discharged on Tuesday, May 2, 1944, by Foreman Smith. Huey was ill on
Monday, May 1, 1944, and did not report for work." Her testimony, which
is credited by the undersigned, reads as follows :
I went in and my card was gone. It was about ten minutes to eight.
I went down to where Mr. Smith was working on the Perforator. I asked
where was my card. He said he decided to keep it a while, that I had
been off Monday and could stay off the rest of the week. I said it did
not make me any difference, I could stay off then." He told me to go
and get my check * * * I have three little girls and they all had
the mumps, all three of them. When one would get over It the other
would take it. My husband drives a bus, and was home until 2 o'clock
in the evening. I went in [the plant] at 8 o'clock in the morning and
worked straight through the noon hour until 2 o 'clock, and quit at 2
o'clock, and would be home at 2:30, and would stay with the girls and
he could go to work. I did that until they got over the mumps. They
had been over them a month, and I worked the next four weeks. I was
sick Monday myself and off one day.
According to Huey, prior to joining the Union she had been absent from
work on several occasions due to illness and sometimes she had reported
it, but more often she had not. She had no telephone . Nothing had been
said to her about not reporting. She had not been informed of any rule
that she had to report such absences. Her work card had never been pulled
before. The record shows that when employees' cards were pulled , It signi-
fied that they were discharged.
The testimony of Foreman Smith, in reference to Huey' s discharge, reads as
follows :
She always worked at first one thing and then another . When I first
took charge of the work I had her clamping. She did not like that. I
gave her something else and she did not like that. She would ask for
a job for a little while and then want something else . I tried to give
her something she would like to do and get along . She would just lay
out and lay out. She had a habit of laying out every Monday. * *
That morning she laid off and I had to have somebody on the job, and
I could not put dependence in her. I had her card in my pocket. She
came to me and asked about it, and I had it in my pocket, and I said
she could take the rest of the week off and rest up and come in the next
week. She said, "That is a hell of a way to do." I said , "If that is
not satisfactory, you can take full time off." She told me, "I sure as
hell won't work if I don't feel like it."
Foreman Smith further testified that Huey had never been insubordinate
or refused to obey his instructions, and that she had never used that kind
of language before.
It Is significant that, according to Smith' s own testimony , he had condoned
her previous absences and had taken no action . However, very soon after
"These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Huey.
84 Huey testified that the reason she told Foreman Smith that it did not make any
difference was because other employees had been absent without reporting and nothing
had happened to them, and she resented being discriminated against.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 819
she joined the Union and refused to sign the anti-union petition, he decided
to discharge her because of only 1 day's absence. When Huey reported for
work, Smith did not inquire of her why she had been absent the day before.
He promptly pulled her work card, which ivas tantamount to a discharge
Smith had seen the anti-union petition and it is a fair inference that he knew
that Huey's name was not on it.
The undersigned does not accept Foreman Smith's explanation of Huey's
discharge, and finds from the entire record, that Huey was discharged by
the respondent because she joined and assisted the Union and refused to sign
the anti-union petition.
Lydia McDaniel TV'ood 9" was first employed by the respondent in June 1942.
lifter a 2 months' lay-off during October and November, she returned to work
in December 1943, and continued to work in the plant until her discharge on
May 2, 1944. She worked in the fitting department under Forelady Julia
Saporiti. Wood attended the union meetings, signed an authorization card,
solicited the employees to join the Union, and was otherwise active in the
union campaign She refused to sign the anti-union petition." According to
Wood, on one occasion Saporiti told the machine operators in her department
that there was no law for or against the Union, and that it was "up to" the
employees, but the money would come out of their pockets. The respondent's
records show that Wood did not work during the pay week from Wednesday,
April 12 to Tuesday, April 18. She then worked the entire pay week from
Wednesday, April 19 to Tuesday, April 25. She worked the next day Wednes-
day, April 26, which was the last day that she worked in the plant.
The reason that she did not work from April 12 to 18 was that her child
was ill with the mumps. She notified Estelle Leonard, an office clerk, to
that effect. The reason that she did not return to work on Thursday, April
27 was because her child had become ill with the measles. The next day,
Friday, April 28, Wood telephoned to Leonard and informed her of the
situation. After about a week, Forelady Saporiti sent Miss Brewster, an in-
spector, to Wood's home to get her work record'? On that occasion, Brewster
informed Wood that her card had been pulled. Brewster secured the work
record and turned it over to the plant office. Wood's child was ill about 2
weeks. On Friday, May 5, which was pay day, Wood went to the plant for
her check and, when she secured it, she noticed that her income tax with-
drawals for the year had been deducted, which indicated that she had been
discharged The check was dated May 2, 1944. Upon arriving at home, Wood
called up Leonard and asked her if she, Wood, had been discharged. Leonard
told her that when she came for her War Bond she would let her talk to
Forelady Saporiti. On Monday, May 8, Wood went to the plant and received
her War Bond. Leonard instructed employee Mildred Allen to give her the
Bond and then left the office without arranging for Wood to see Forelady
Saporiti. Being convinced that she had been discharged, Wood left the plant
and did not see Saporiti "" According to Wood, prior to the union campaign,
she had been absent from work a number of times on acount of family sick-
Referred to in the complaint as Lydia McDaniel, which was her married name. She
has since been divorced and has resumed her maiden name of Wood.
"" These findings are based upon the credible and undenied testimony of Wood.
87 The employees were permitted to take their work records home until the end of the
work week It was necessary for the office to have these work records in order to make
up the pay checks. Brewster did not testify at the hearing.
'" These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Wood. Estelle Leonard did
not testify at the hearing.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness, and whenever she could, she had reported such absences, but sometimes
she had not, and nothing had ever been said to her about it. There had
never been any complaint made of her work. Forelady Saporiti had com-
plimented her on her work on many occasions prior to her union activity
Wood testified that Forelady Saporiti was standing very near to her when
she refused to sign the anti-union petition. Also that after she attended the
first union meeting, Saporiti's previous friendly attitude toward her changed,
and that Saporiti would not speak to her after that unless she was compelled
to do so.
Forelady Saporiti testified that Wood's work was satisfactory ; that she
discharged her because "she stayed out too much * * * took off too
much time." While testifying, Saporiti was asked if Wood ever explained
her absences. She replied, "That I don't remember." Saporiti also testified
that at the time of the discharge she did not remember what she said to
Wood or what Wood had said to her. According to the undenied testimony
of Wood, Saporiti said nothing to her, but "pulled" her work card and had
her check made out on May 2, 1944. Saporiti. testified , "Anybody that reports
out, we are mighty lenient with them." Saporiti did not deny Wood's testi-
mony that she had reported her last absence on the day after she was com-
pelled to remain at home on account of her child's illness. Therefore, the
discharge of Wood was not in accordance with the respondent's usual practice
in respect to absenteeism
The record is clear, and the undersigned finds that Wood was discharged
by Forelady Saporiti on May 2, 1944, because she joined and assisted the
Union and because she refused to sign the anti-union petition
Mae Pinkston was employed by the respondent on March 20, 1944, and was
assigned to the fitting department under Forelady Saporiti. Pinkston was
active in the union campaign. She attended union meetings and signed a
union authorization card. She refused to sign the anti-union petition. The
last day that Pinkston worked in the plant was on Monday, April 24, 1944.
On Tuesday, April 25 or Wednesday, the 26th, she had seven teeth extracted
which resulted in a form of intermittent lockjaw that rendered her unable to
work. She did not notify her forelady of her condition. On Friday, May
5, 1944, which was a pay day, she went to the plant for her wages" When
she arrived at the plant, she was given her check in full, which included her
wages and bond money, also a statement of the amount withheld for her indi-
vidual income tax. She was then informed by another employee that her
work card had been "pulled." Being satisfied that she had been discharged,
Pinkston then left the plant without saying anything to Forelady Saporiti.90
Pinkston testified that she had been previously absent from work on a number
of occasions without reporting such absences, and nothing had been said to
her about it, and that the reason she did not report her condition to Forelady
Saporiti when she had her teeth extracted was because she did not think
Saporiti would accept that as a reason for not working. Pinkston further
testified that when she went to the plant on Friday to get her wages it was her
96 Pinkston testified that she had her teeth extracted on Tuesday, April 25, or Wednes-
day, April 26, and that she did not work for 3 days thereafter and that she then went
back to the plant on Friday to get her wages. The respondent's records show that she
was paid on Friday, May 5, 1944, which was the first time that she had been to the plant
since her teeth were extracted. The undersigned finds that the respondent's records are
correct.
40 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Pinkston.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 821
Intention to return to work on the following Monday, May 8, 1944.
Forelady Saporiti testified that she did not remember Pinkston . Saporiti's
testimony in this respect reads as follows :
Q. Do you remember Mae Pinkston?
A. Who?
Q. Mae Pinkston
A. What was she doing, please?
Q. She was in your department. She started working for the shoe
company March 20, 1944 and left the 24th of April 1944, doing table work.
Remember her?
A. You got me there, now.
Q I beg pardon.
A. You have me on that, I don't remember.
Q. You do not know anything about her? Remember any occasion when
her teeth were pulled and she was out 10 days? Would that refresh your
recollection? You do not remember anyone by that name at all?
A. No, I don't
Q If I show you this payroll record with her signature on it, would that
help you any?
A. I am not going to tell no story. I just don't remember, that is all.
As stated above, all hiring and firing of employees were done by the various
foremen and Forelady Saporiti, for their respective departments; therefore, it
is a reasonable presumption that Pinkston's card was pulled and that she
was discharged by Forelady Saporiti as Pinkston was employed In Saporiti's
department, and the undersigned so finds.
Since the respondent offered no testimony in respect to the discharge of
Pinkston,91 the undersigned concludes and finds that if the true reasons for
her discharge had been disclosed, such evidence would have been unfavorable
to the respondent.'
The undersigned finds from the entire record in the case that Mae Pinkston
was discharged by the respondent because she joined and assisted the Union
and because she refused to sign the anti-union petition.
Nettie Roegner was employed by the respondent in the latter part of January
1944 and assigned to the fitting department under Forelady Saporiti. Roegner
signed a union authorization card, and refused to sign the anti-union petition
On Wednesday night, April 26, 1944, she attended a union meeting at the local
hotel and, when she and several other employees left the meeting, they saw
Forelady Saporiti and Mrs. Langley, the wife of Willard Langley, sitting in
a parked car just in front of the hotel entrance. The next day about 5:00
p in when Roegner was preparing to leave the plant, Saporiti said to her, "You
are not worth half you are getting, and we can always replace you." The next
day, Friday, April 28, 1944, Saporitl sent word to Roegner that she could go
home. Roegner then left the plant. She returned to work on Monday, May 1
and, as she started to work, Saporiti said to her, "Say, you can go home, I will
call you when I need you." Roegner then left the plant . She went back to
the plant on the following Friday, May 5, to get her pay. She was given her
41 On a list of employees terminated during the period from September 1, 1943 to May
15, 1944, which was prepared by the respondent and given to a Field Examiner of the
Board, there appears the name of Mae Pinkston with it notation that the reason for her
termination was "Lack of Cooperation."
42 Interstate Circuit, Inc. v United States, 306 U. S 208, 225-6. See also N. L. R B
V. Remington Rand, Inc, 94 F. (2d) 862 (C. C A. 2), cert den. 304 U. S 576, aff'd as
mod. Matter of Remanoton Rand . Inc and Remington Rand Joint Protection Board,
etc, 2N L R B 112.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
check and also her withholding tax receipt . She was told to return in 2 weeks
for her bond. She has never been recalled to work by the respondent.43
According to Roegner, about 10 days after she had been employed, which
was several weeks prior to the advent of the Union in the plant , she asked
Forelady Saporiti how she was "doing," and Saporiti replied , "Just fine. I am
pleased with your work. You have learned the work fast and better than
I expected." " Saporiti testified that she laid off Roegner because of lack of
work and because she had less seniority than the other employees doing similar
work. Saporiti admitted that she had never offered Roegner reemployment in
the plant because "she talked too much * * * she just blabbed all day." The
record shows and the undersigned finds that normally only 2 girls worked
on the cementing table in Saporiti's department, but sometimes there were 3 or
4, depending upon the amount of work. Roegner worked at this table and, at
the time of her discharge, there were 4 girls working on the table and there
was plenty of work for all of them. When Saporitj testified , she was asked
how many girls were working at the table when Roegner was laid off, and
she replied, "I don't remember." The record also shows that during the period
from January 1, 1944 to May 15, 1944, the respondent hired approximately
168 employees and, of this number, the services of approximately 81 were
terminated during that period for various reasons.
The undersigned was not impressed with the testimony of Saporiti in respect
to the discharge of, and the refusal to offer reinstatement to, Roegner, and
finds that the lay-off of Roegner by the respondent on May 1, 1944 , was tanta-
mount to a discharge, and that she was discharged by the respondent because
she joined and assisted the Union and because she refused to sign the anti-
union petition.
Hazel Miller was first employed by the respondent on August 16, 1942, and
worked until August 27, 1942. She was reemployed by the respondent on
November 1, 1943. She worked in the fitting department under Forelady
Saporiti. She attended meetings of the Union and signed a union authorization
card and solicited other employees to sign cards. When the anti -union petition
was brought to her, Forelady Saporiti was standing within about 2 feet of her
and was looking at her, but she refused to sign it . The last day that Miller
worked in the plant was Thursday, April 27, 1944 . She had a very bad cold
that day and discussed it with Mrs. Nellie Smith who was also employed in
the fitting department. In this connection , Miller 's testimony reads as follows :
Yes, I talked to Nellie Smith, the floorlady, and told her I had such
a cold She asked me if I wanted her to handle my cold and give me
medicine, and I said, no, I would go to the doctor. She said , "You better
take care of it, for if you do not, you will be down sick."
Miller did not report for work the next day, Friday, April 28. That evening,
employee Peggy Smith; 6 who also worked under Forelady Saporiti, went to
see Miller and told her that she had been instructed by Forelady Saporiti to
tell her "not to come in anymore," and "to take a long vacation ." About 10
days later'46 Miller went to the plant and received her pay. When she asked
48 These findings are based upon the credible testimony of Roegner.
44 Saportti denied that site complimented Roegner on her work ; however, she admitted
that she had never received any complaints about Roegner's work . The undersigned does
not credit her denial.
45 Peggy Smith did not testify at the hearing She is not related to Mis. Nellie
Smith.
46 This must have been on Fiiday, May 12, 1944, as pay days were on Fridays.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 823
for her check, Miss Leonard, the office clerk, told her that she was just going
to mail it to her.
Forelady Saporiti testified that her reason for discharging Miller was because
"she would not work steady. Out too much." Saporiti was asked if she said
anything to Miller about taking a long vacation, and her reply was, "That I
don't remember." Miller testified that her health had not been very good and
that she had stayed away from work a number of days on that account, usually
1 or 2 days a week, but not every week ; that she had not always reported such
absences and, prior to her discharge, nothing had been said to her about it;
that on one occasion, she had left the plant at noon without obtaining permis-
sion, and was laid off for 1 week for doing so ; and that she had never been
Informed of any rule requiring employees to report absences. The record
shows that during the 6-months period from the date of her reemployment in
November 1943 to the date of her discharge, she had worked the full 40 hours
a week for only 6 weeks. However, she had never been discharged or threat-
ened with discharge for such absences, prior to her discharge. It is significant
that approximately 5 of these 6 months were prior to the time that she joined
the Union. The undersigned is not impressed with the respondent' s reasons for
discharging Miller. On the last day that she worked, she told Nellie Smith
that she was ill with a cold. While the undersigned has found that Nellie
Smith was not a supervisory employee, the record shows that she was con-
sidered by the employees to be Forelady Saporiti's assistant for the purpose
of conveying Saporiti's instructions to the employees in her department. The
summary discharge of Miller by Saporiti without giving her an opportunity to
explain her absence convinces the undersigned that Miller was discharged
because she joined and assisted the Union and because she refused to sign the
anti-union petition, and the undersigned so finds.
Lottie Glore was last employed by the respondent in October, 1943.' She
worked In the fitting department under Forelady Saporiti. Glore attended the
union meetings, signed a union authorization card and solicited other
employees of the respondent to sign them. She refused to sign the anti-union
petition. The petition was brought to her during working hours and Saporiti
was about 15 feet from her and was looking at her when she stopped work
and told the employee who handed her the petition that she would not sign it
Approximately all of Glore's work had been on a cementing machine. On
Tuesday, June 27, 1944, Glore worked on a taping machine, and employee
Violet LaRose did cementing on Glore's machine. The next day Wednesday,
June 28, Glore went back to work on her cementing machine. The next day,
Thursday, June 29, Glore began working on her machine, but was stopped by
Saporiti and told to go on the taping machine, and LaRose was assigned to
Glore's machine. Glore protested and told Saporiti that she would go to taping
as soon as she ran out of cementing work. Glore's testimony in this respect,
reads as follows :
I told Violet to go back at her work, she could not have my machine.
She went back and told Julia, [Saporiti] and Julia came down and talked
to me and told me to go over and tape, and let Violet have my machine.
I told her "No, Julia, you did this on Tuesday and I went home." I said,
"That is not going on any more. I will not give her my machine. When
I run out of work I will gladly go over and tape, but until I do run out
of work, I will not give her my machine. Let her tape."
47 Glore first began working for the respondent in November 1938. She quit in May
1942 and was rehired in October 1943.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Saporiti then left Clore and sent employee Nellie Smith to talk to her.
Glore had a considerable quantity of work stacked up at her machine and
she told Smith that when she had finished it, she would go to taping. Saporiti
then returned to Glore's machine and "grabbed" up the work and threw it
on another machine and said to Glore, "You say you will go and tape when you
get through cementing. By God, you will go then, for you are out of work."
Glore replied, "I still won't go." Saporiti then said, "I will get your card,
then." Glore replied, "You might as well get it if that is the way you are
going to shove me around, for I will not do it." Saporiti then got Glore's work
card and they met Manager Woracek. Clore informed him as to what had
taken place and, after listening to her, he said, "Okay, Julia." 48
According to Clore, prior to the union campaign in the plant, she and Fore-
lady Saporiti had been good friends, but after Saporiti had seen Glore at a
union meeting at the local hotel, her attitude toward Glove underwent a change
and she was no longer friendly with her.49
Forelady Saporiti testified that Clore did cementing and top taping while
working for her; that on the occasion of her discharge she had asked her to
do taping work, and she had refused to do it; and that Glore had said to her,
"No, you can give me the card first"; and that she had replied, "O.K. if that
is the way you feel " Saporiti also testified that taping was not a more desir-
able job than cementing, but it was cleaner work
The record discloses, and the undersigned finds, that there were two cementing
machines located near each other and work for both of them was placed in
between them ; that Clore had operated one of the machines much longer than
employee Mary Ames, who was operating the other machine at the time of
Glore's discharge ; and that there was sufficient work to keep both machines
in operation at the time that Glore was taken off her machine. Saporiti knew
that Glore was active in the Union, as she had seen her at union meetings
Saporiti 's hostility toward the Union is fully revealed in the record.
The undersigned concludes and finds that Glore was not discharged because
of insubordination or any refusal to obey the instructions of Forelady Saporiti,
but that she was discharged by the respondent because she joined and assisted
the Union and because she refused to sign the anti-union petition.
Bettye Walsh was employed by the respondent on December 30, 1943, and
was assigned to the packing department under Foreman Gallagher. She
worked in that department continuously, with the exception of a short time in
the bottoming department under Foreman Reily, until she was discharged on
Tuesday, July 25, 1944. She did not attend any of the union meetings, but
she signed a union authorization card. She refused to sign the anti-union
petition. The last day that she worked in the plant was on Tuesday, July 11,
1944. On that day she told an employee60 who worked with her, that she had
had the toothache for 2 days and that if it continued she would not report
for work the next day and, if she did not, to inform Foreman Gallagher. The
employee promised to do so. Walsh did not work on Wednesday, July 12,
which was the first time she had stayed away while working for Gallagher "
On Thursday, July 13, she started to work, but on account of a pain in her
back, she could not work. She sent a note to Foreman Gallagher explaining
49 The foregoing findings are based upon the credible testimony of Glore.
49 As found above, Forelady Saporiti lived at the local hotel where the union meetings
were held and she saw many of the employees going to and from the meetings.
60 The record does not disclose the name of the employee
m Walsh testified that while working for Reily, she had missed some time from work
because of a pain in her back which prevented her from working.
KOPMAN-WORACEK SHOE MFG. CO. 825
her absence. On Friday, July 14, she was still ill. She sent a note to Miss
Leonard, the office supervisor, to that effect and requested that her pay be
sent to her, as that was pay day.
On Saturday, July 22, 1944, Walsh received a post card by mail from the
respondent, dated Thursday, July 20, 1944, which reads as follows :
Mrs. Betty Walsh
Flat River, Missouri
Dear Mrs. Walsh :
At the beginning of the absence of employment you advised your fore-
man that you were ill. Kindly advise your foreman immediately when he
may expect your return to work Unless we received word promptly, it
will be necessary to take you off the pay roll.
Kopman-Woracek Shoe Mfg. Co.
Per J. E. W.
On the following Monday, July 24, Walsh sent word to Foreman Gallagher
by employees Dolly Hale and Frankie Logan, that she would return to work
on Tuesday, July 25, if she were able. When Walsh reported for work on
Tuesday, July 25, she found that her work card had been "pulled." She con-
tacted Foreman Gallagher and he told her that he had put someone else in
her place. He also told her that he could probably use her after he had gotten
iid of some school girls who were then employed in the plant and, when he
needed her, lie would call her. The respondent has never called her back to
work. Walsh returned to the plant several times after her discharge and asked
for reinstatement, but without success. On one occasion, while she was at the
plant after her discharge, she saw the respondent hire at least two new
employees. While working for Foreman Reily, prior to her union activity,
Walsh had been absent from work without reporting and nothing had been
said about it. Walsh did not communicate with the plant on Saturday when