Memphis Chair Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 713 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

MEMPHIS CHAIR CO., INC.
Memphis Chair Company, Inc. and Joyce Williams.
Case 26-CA-3694
June 29, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On December 15, 1970, Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-
exceptions and a brief in support of the cross-excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's recommended remedy.
Respondent then filed an answering brief to General
Counsel's cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following addi-
tions and modifications:
1. As set out in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
record shows that Respondent unlawfully sought to
preempt any future exercise of its employees' right to
engage in protected concerted activity not only by dis-
charging Joyce Williams in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
when it identified her as the leader of the group meeting
held May 27, 1970, but also by orally threatening that
other employees would be subject to discharge if they
were to engage in any further protected concerted ac-
tivity. The oral threats constitute, of course, independ-
ent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Trial
Examiner so found with respect to one such threat
' In order to describe the unfair labor practices found herein with greater
specificity we shall substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 2, and
shall also amend par. 1 of the recommended Order to accord By discharging
Joyce Williams and by threatening to discharge her and other employees for
engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection pertain-
ing to their wages, hours, or working conditions Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act and therefore has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
191 NLRB No. 99
713
addressed to Sandra Holden by Supervisor Billy
Cooper on May 28, 1970. That particular threat was
made the subject of paragraph 8 of the complaint.
However, as General Counsel's cross-exceptions prop-
erly point out, there is undisputed evidence that similar
threats of discharge, which were made the subject of
separately alleged independent 8(a)(1) violations in
paragraphs 6, 7, and 10 of the complaint, were also
made to other employees by Plant Superintendent
Caldwell and by Supervisor Cooper. Thus, employee
Ann Hood testified that at the May 27, 1970, meeting
Caldwell "let us know that [had we] gone over his head
... like we did Mr. Cooper's, we would all be dis-
missed." Employee Joyce Williams testified that on
May 29, 1970, just before she was summoned to Cald-
well's office and discharged, Supervisor Cooper also
talked to her about her impending discharge and said
to her, among other things: "You and I cannot see eye
to eye on things ... we just can't use you ... you are an
agitator and you are the spokesman of the group."
Employee Sue Anderson testified that on the next
workday following Joyce Williams' discharge, Cald-
well summoned her to his office and, referring to Joyce
Williams' discharge, told her that he did not approve
of "group discussions," that Williams had been "caus-
ing trouble there as long as she had been there," and
that if he had been there when Williams said she was
not going to talk to Cooper he (Caldwell) "would have
fired her on the spot." Both Caldwell and Cooper were
called by Respondent as witnesses and both categori-
cally denied the commission of unlawful conduct.
However, neither of them was questioned about the
statements specifically attributed to them by the em-
ployees in the testimony above noted. As the uncon-
tradicted testimony as above described supports the
additionally alleged independent 8(a)(1) violations as
set forth in paragraphs 6, 7, and 10 of the complaint,
we hereby find that Respondent engaged in these addi-
tional violations of Section 8(a)(1).
2. We note also that paragraph 9 of the complaint
charged Respondent with unlawful interrogation and
that General Counsel's exceptions additionally com-
plain of the Trial Examiner's failure to resolve and to
sustain this allegation of the complaint as well. In sup-
port of his position, General Counsel has referred us to
the testimony of employee Sandra Holden describing a
conversation between herself and Plant Superintendent
Caldwell a few days after the May 27, 1970, employee
meeting. In that conversation Caldwell asked Holden
"what our problems were that we couldn't talk to Bill
[Cooper]" about. In the General Counsel's view, Cald-
well's question was part of Respondent's effort to dis-
courage future group presentation of grievances and
was therefore unlawful. We are not persuaded, how-
ever, that the quoted testimony supports the inferences
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel seeks to draw. We shall, accordingly,
dismiss this allegation of the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent,
Memphis Chair Company, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the
following modifications:
1. Insert the words, "or threatening to discharge
them" in paragraph 1 after the words "Cease and desist
from discharging employees."
2. Substitute the following paragraph 2(c) for that
now contained in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order:'
(c) Post at its plant in Hernando, Mississippi,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A."24 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 26, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
3. Eliminate the notice marked "Appendix B."
4. In footnote 25 of the Trial Examiner's Decision
change "10" to "20" days.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 9 of the
complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 We are not persuaded that a departure from the Board's customary
notice and posting requirements is warranted in the circumstances of this
case
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was
heard at Memphis, Tennessee, on August 20 and 21, 1970.
The complaint dated July 15, 1970, based on charges filed
June 2, 1970, by Joyce Williams, an individual, was issued by
the Regional Director for Region 26 (Memphis, Tennessee)
on behalf of the General Counsel and the National Labor
Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the
Board). The complaint alleged that Respondent Memphis
Chair Company, Inc., had interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees by certain specified conduct including
the discharge of Joyce Williams for engaging in protected,
concerted activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission
of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
At all times material Respondent has been a corporation
with an office and place of business located in Hernando,
Mississippi, where it is engaged in furniture production. Dur-
ing the 12 months preceding issuance of the complaint, Re-
spondent in the course and conduct of its business operations
produced and shipped from its Hernando, Mississippi, loca-
tion directly to points located outside the State of Mississippi
goods and products valued in excess of $50,000. During this
same period of time, Respondent purchased and received at
its Hernando, Mississippi, location directly from points out-
side the State of Mississippi goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000. At all times material Respondent has been
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Frequently Respondent's cutting department was called
upon by the sewing department to recut or make other cor-
rections in material being worked on by the seamstresses.
There is no doubt that the approved procedure regarding any
sewing problems that required correction by the cutters was
to have the seamstresses set aside the work in question until
the supervisor, Billy Cooper, could pick it up and take it to
the cutters for correction. Nor is there any question that prior
to May 27, 1970, the approved procedure in this connection
was more honored in its breach than its observance. Thus the
seamstresses frequently called the cutters over or went over
to the cutters to dispose of their problems directly with the
cutters. This presented the opportunity for extra curricular
conversation between them not hampered by the fact that
they were of opposite sexes.
On or shortly prior to May 27 the women in the sewing
department learned from Charles Thompson, one of the two
men in the cutting department (the other being Alvin Vines),
that the cutters had been ordered not to talk to the seam-
stresses and to have absolutely nothing to do with them.'
Thompson gave seamstress Mary Ann Hood, a family friend,
this information to explain any seeming rudeness in the event
that he or the cutters ignored inquiries or attempts at conver-
sation from her or the other seamstresses.
Upset by this information a substantial group of the seam-
stresses, including Joyce Williams (the Charging Party
herein), met during both the morning and afternoon breaks
on May 27 and decided that they would try to get a meeting
with the two top officials of the plant, Alvin Franklin, its
secretary treasurer, and his second in command, Plant Super-
intendent Manley Caldwell. Their purpose was to discuss the
order as well as other work matters that came up during their
meetings. Pursuant to this decision a secretary in the business
office agreed to arrange a meeting for the employees with
' Cooper, the immediate supervisor of the sewing department as well as
the cutting department, gave the order He testified that when the order was
given he told the cutters that there was "too much horseplay" and talking
going on between the seamstresses and the cutters In his testimony Cooper
speculated that the cutters may have "exaggerated some" in informing the
seamstresses that they no longer could talk to them In any event it was from
the cutters that the seamstresses got information about the order-not from
Cooper.
MEMPHIS CHAIR CO., INC.
Franklin and Caldwell.' As a result, that afternoon (accord-
ing to Cooper's testimony) on instruction from Caldwell,
Cooper went to each seamstress individually indicating that
those who wanted to meet with Franklin and Caldwell would
report to his (Cooper's) office.'
At least five seamstresses accepted the invitation, including
Williams. Presumably all of these employees except Williams
had worked for Respondent less than a year. Williams, how-
ever, had been employed for about 5 years and was acknowl-
edged by Respondent's supervisors to be one of the fastest and
best seamstresses in their experience. As senior employee in
the group both by tenure and experience Williams acted as
spokesman.
As to what happened in the office Cooper testified as fol-
lows:
I have followed them on in and I said, "Undoubtedly
you folks have a problem and I would like to know what
it is so that I might be able to help you." And this is
when ... Williams spoke up and said "We didn't ask to
talk to you. We asked to speak to Mr. Caldwell and to
Mr. Franklin." And I said, "Well, if you can't discuss
your problems with me, unless it is a personal problem,
I don't think they are going to give you the time to
discuss it with them." No one said anything, so I got up
and went and got Mr. Caldwell. We both came back in.
Then is when Mrs. Williams said she wanted Mr. Frank-
lin in, too, and we told them he was out of the office and
wouldn't be back today and so on.
When it was pointed out that Franklin was not available
the meeting proceeded without him. Cooper participated in
the meeting and testified further about it as follows: Williams
was "spokesman primarily"Afor the group but "they all spoke
a little bit." Caldwell did most of the talking for the Com-
pany. Apart from Williams' first comment to him which
Cooper characterized as "sarcastic" her conduct "was
okay."' Among the things that were brought up by the em-
ployees and discussed according to Cooper's further tes-
timony were:
1. The relationship between the seamstresses and the cut-
ters.'
2. Vacation pay.'
3. Premium pay for Saturday work.'
About this Caldwell testified as follows-
At break time that afternoon at 2 30, Pat Prestage , our secretary in the
office, after break, called to me when I come through the door She said,
"Mr Caldwell, I have got something I want to tell you." She said, "The
girls want to have a meeting with you and Mr Franklin this afternoon
I said, Didn't she say anything about Mr Cooper?" She said, "No. They
didn't " [Emphasis supplied.]
According to Caldwell's testimony and the testimony of Sandra
Holden, which I credit, the employees were asked to meet in Franklin's
office which was the only one "available at the time."
Despite several leading questions here which might have adduced some
derogatory testimony regarding Williams' attitude in the meeting, Cooper
failed to so respond.
At the start of the meeting Williams pointed out that there had been a
recut problem that morning and that the seamstresses could not get the
cutting department to talk about it-they would not listen. The women
wanted to know as a result, "who are we suppose to be responsible to, Bill
(Cooper) or the cutters in the way of recuts and repairs."
The vacation policy was 1 week of vacation after 1 year of employment.
Williams who had been with Respondent 5 years made a plea for an increase
in vacation after 5 years' employment. Anderson who had been with Re-
spondent 9 or 10 months wanted to know, "How she would be paid vaca-
tion "
In the past one or two of the seamstresses had been sent home during
the week before completing the day shift or 40 hours and recalled on
Saturday with no receipt of premium overtime for the Saturday work Wil-
715
4. Overtime pay.'
The undenied and credited evidence further shows that the
meeting lasted for about 45 minutes. Except for the matter of
the relationship between the cutters and the seamstresses
(wherein for the first time the grieving employees if I may call
them that were given any information or explanation regard-
ing the order the cutters)' Caldwell, much less Cooper, was
not in position to give them any definitive answers and in-
dicated that he would have to go to higher authority for
them."
Two days later, on May 29, Williams was discharged. Ac-
cording to Franklin, going back 2Y, years prior to Caldwell's
employment (i.e.-for over 4Y, years) Williams had been a
problem. Although Williams' attitude toward her work was
very good, her attitude toward the Company was very poor.
She resented Caldwell's policy and procedure innovations."
During her entire tenure she was involved in "confrontations,
run ins, arguments, disagreements, things which created
problems ... that had no bearing upon ... work at all."
About her discharge Williams testified credibly and with-
out denial as follows:
... at 4:30 I went into the office, went into Mr. Alvin
Franklin's office, and he (Cooper) sat down, said I did
too, and he said, "Joyce" he said, "It is a hard situation
for me." He said, "I don't know hardly how to start,"
but, he says, "You and I cannot see eye to eye on things,"
and said, "In other words," said, "We just can't use
you." I said, "You mean to tell me you are dismissing
me." He says, "Yes." And I said, "Well, why." He said,
"Because you are an agitator, and you are the leader of
the group." And I said, "Well, I was no leader of the
group that came in on Wednesday." And he said,
"Well," said, "You are the spokesman." And I said,
"Well, maybe I did talk more than any of the rest, but"
I said, "We all can't all talk at one time." I said those
other girls are scared to death. They are afraid they are
going to lose their jobs, and I said, "When I think some-
thing is right, I am going to talk to the bosses about it,
if they will listen." And I asked him if he would recon-
sider, and he said "the only thing that I can do for you
Joyce is give you a good recommendation." Said, "I may
be sorry in the future, but I have to let you go, because
you are a good seamstress," but he said, "As of right now
this is my decision. I will have to let you go." I asked if
hams (who did not have it happen to her) brought the subject up and they
"all discussed it . in general."
° The rule was that if an employee was 5 minutes late she would be
docked 15 minutes Sandra Holden asked Caldwell if they worked 5 minutes
overtime would they be paid for 15 minutes Caldwell said "he would have
to check "
' In this connection the long-established (but frequently disregarded)
policy regarding recuts and repairs was again brought to the attention of the
employees They were also informed that the reason for the order was to cut
down on the talking and "horseplay" between them and the cutters and to
forestall any "crowing" around about which more later
19 This is a pretty good indication in itself why the employees did not
want to talk to Cooper on the first instance and why they wanted Franklin
in on the meeting In this connection the evidence shows that the employees
simply felt they could not get any cooperative action out of Cooper Addi-
tional support for the validity of this feeling on their part would seem to
follow from the following excerpt from Cooper's testimony. When asked if
he had talked to the employees about vacation problems before the meeting
he answered that he had He was then asked if he took any action as a result
of those discussions and he answered that he had. When asked what action
he took he answered "I always discussed the problem."
11 According to Caldwell when he put a stop to personal sewing by
employees during their breaktime about a year and a half prior to Williams'
discharge, she together with some of the other employees "had a little
meeting in the office about that and wanted to know why it was cut out "
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I could speak with Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Franklin and
he said yes, and he asked if I wanted to speak with them
alone, and I said no, I didn't care for him being in there.
So, he went and got them and they came in, and Mr.
Caldwell said-Mr. Franklin said he had two capable
men, Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Cooper, and he felt like they
could handle the situation, and whatever the decision
was, he would have to go along with it, and he had other
things that had to be done, and he left. And Mr. Cald-
well, asked Mr. Caldwell if he would reconsider, that I
wasn't aware that I was an agitator, and if they had
warned me, well, later it might have made some differ-
ence, which I don't know how, but he said he would have
to go along with Bill Cooper, that he was in charge out
there, fully in charge, and he would have to go along
with him and he gave me my check and he said he would
give me a good recommendation, and he gave me my
check and my vacation pay, and I left.
Conclusions
The General Counsel contends, as alleged in the complaint,
that Williams was discharged because she participated in the
meeting with Respondent which activity the General Counsel
maintains was protected, concerted activity. Respondent con-
tends that the activity which led to Williams' discharge was
not protected, concerted activity but only individual griping
and that in any event Williams was discharged for being the
leader in "undermining" Cooper's authority by going over his
head which Respondent describes as "insubordination" and
because of her past record.
How Respondent can maintain that the meeting between
the seamstresses and Respondent's officials including- Cooper
(where the employees' problems regarding overtime, vacation
pay, and work procedures were brought up and discussed)
was not concerted activity on the part of the employees en-
gaged in for their mutual aid and protection12 regarding their
wages, hours, and working conditions and thus protected by
the Act is difficult to understand. Clearly such a contention
is without merit. See Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v.
N.L.R.B., 414 F.2d 1345, enfg. 171 NLRB No. 145.
Admittedly Williams was discharged substantially for the
part she played in the meeting" with management. Since that
meeting or "confrontation"" clearly involved protected, con-
certed activity, as I find, it would seem that the matter ought
to rest at this point." However, a brief analysis of Williams'
record relied on as additional grounds for her discharge will
reveal the complete spuriousness of Respondent's defenses.
Thus one of the specific items in Williams' record relied on
by Respondent as grounds for her discharge was "her affairs
with male workers" and shop gossip in this connection. The
11 In this vein Mary Ann Hood testified, " . we wanted all of the
women to go into the office. We felt . if we all went in .. that we might
be able to get something done, but we knew . . that if just half the group
went, if everybody didn't stick together, nothing was going to turn out."
11 Caldwell testified that Williams was discharged in part for "the way the
meeting was called . " Cooper testified that he told Williams that he was
not discharging her because of the meeting " but . it did help [him] to
make [his] decision "
11 Apparently this meeting (as well as another one in which Williams
"had a little meeting in the office" earlier regarding an order by Caldwell
to discontinue personal sewing during breaktime ) was what Franklin had in
mind when he testified that Williams' entire tenure was characterized by
"confrontations" among other faults
11 "Where the discharge of an employee is motivated in any part whatso-
ever by the purpose to discourage legitimate union or concerted activity, the
existence of contemporaneous , legitimate grounds for such discharge affords
no defense to a finding of an unfair labor practice on the part of an em-
ployer" Hugh H. Wilson Corporation v. N.L.R.B., supra
evidence shows that some 3% years prior to her discharge she
had been involved in a situation where one of the male em-
ployees, David Looney , apparently became infatuated with
her16 which caused some difficulty" particularly when she
apparently rebuffed his advances ." As noted , that was some
3% years back.
The current connection in this respect, according to Re-
spondent's witnesses, stemmed from the Christmas party of
1969. At that party, according to the testimony of Caldwell,
Williams and Alvin Pines appeared to be "staying a little too
close together ." This caused Franklin , according to his tes-
timony, to remark at the time that it "looked like we may be
getting involved in another type situation such as we had
previously with Mrs. Williams and Mr. Looney." The diffi-
culty with Franklin 's observation was that he did not specify
who the Looney situation was developing with-Williams or
Sandra Holden who Franklin testified he also observed being
involved with Vines at the party. That it might have been
Holden would appear from Cooper's testimony that he could
not say that "there were ... rumors concerning Mrs. Wil-
liams and other employees.""
In any event Williams was not discharged until about 5
months after the Christmas party. Moreover, liasons`betw ern
various employees and gossip about them was not confined to
Williams. Thus Foreman Cooper himself had his life threat-
ened by the husband of one of the seamstresses to whom
Cooper had given his telephone number ;" and there was quite
a bit of teasing of Mary Ann Hood about her and one of the
cutters who , with his wife, was friendly with Hood and her
husband . As already shown in the meeting that the employees
had with Caldwell and Cooper it was pointed out that there
was to be no more "crowing around" (i.e.-romantic liasons)
going on between the seamstresses and the male employees.
Although Respondent 's witnesses would, have it that this
remark had been directed specifically at Williams, it was
Hood who took offense at it and angrily denied any such
conduct. All in all it seems that Williams was certainly no
worse than many others in the plant regarding this particular
charge.
Another item relied on by Respondent as a reason for
Williams' discharge pertained to her disruptive conduct in
the plant as particularly demonstrated and accentuated by
her talking while working." Narrowed down , this talking was
16 Williams denied convincingly that she ever had an "affair" with the
man or had ever dated him, but she did admit that at first she paid some
attention to him
11 The man's mother had come to the plant complaining that Williams
was breaking up her son 's marriage and threatening Williams as a result.
11 On one occasion he poured beer all over the inside of her car and
blocked her from pulling out of her parking place She complained to Re-
spondent's officials who called the police. At the time she failed to file a
formal complaint in the matter on the commitment of her husband to take
care of it himself
" Elsewhere Cooper testified in effect that Williams had no more per-
sonal relationships with the male employees than the other seamstresses.
Thus when asked on direct if Williams had more such relationships than the
others Cooper answered, "They all. . would congregate with the boys in
the break areas... "
2° On direct examination Cooper testified that he was asked by one of the
married female employees for his phone number. According to Cooper he
asked why she wanted the number saying that if she had something to talk
about they could "go into the office and talk about it." She did not want to
discuss it in the plant so Cooper gave her his number. A few days later she
called Cooper who "went out and had coffee with her, still thinking she had
a factory problem "
21 Apart from Williams' talking as being disruptive there was one other
specific matter alluded to in Respondent's testimony. This pertained to some
sort of incident which occurred between an elderly employee named Mrs
Johnson and Williams and Letha Elliott wherein the latter two were accused
(Cont.)
MEMPHIS CHAIR CO., INC.
confined largely to remarks by Williams to her sewing neigh-
bor, Sue Anderson. Williams' talking did not interfere with
her own production but apparently Anderson's did with her
own. About 2 weeks before Williams' discharge Anderson
was called into the office and warned that her (Anderson's)
talking had to stop and that if it did not stop it would result
in her transfer to other work or in discharge. At no time was
any such warning given to Williams. Clearly Williams was
not the worst offender in the plant as regards talking.
Another thing that Respondent claimed influenced the
decision to terminate Williams was her changing the length
of the stitches on certain of her sewing assignments. But this
too appeared to be a fault shared by the other employees and
thus hardly grounds for singling Williams out for discharge.
Taken altogether the charges against Williams, reaching into
the past and having been endured for the entire period of her
employment (even if not shown to have been nothing more
than examples of the average frailties and foibles of Respond-
ent's employees as a whole) would seem now to bespeak of
an attempt by Respondent to use these things as a pretext to
hide the real reason for the discharge-her involvement and
leadership in the concerted activity engaged in by the em-
ployees.
As for the question of Williams' claimed insubordination
certain points stand out: (1) The employees sought to meet
with those officials that their experience indicated to them
might be able to decide and act on their problems. Cooper
was not such a person. Nevertheless they did not voice any
objection to his being in the meeting or make any attempt to
exclude him. Moreover it appears that he did participate in
the meeting.
(2) In any event, when Cooper informed the employees that
those who wanted to see Franklin and Caldwell could go to
Franklin's office, Respondent in effect acceded to the em-
ployees' request for a meeting with Franklin and Caldwell
and thus waived any requirement that their problems first
would have to be cleared through Cooper.
(3) Even if it were to be determined that the employees'
action did in fact undermine Cooper's authority the question
then arises as to why only Williams was discharged and no
discipline meted out to any of the others who participated in
the meeting and were equally guilty with Williams.
(4) In the last analysis even though Cooper claimed that
Williams' "insubordination, undermining (his) authority"
was his reason for agreeing in the "joint decision" made with
his superiors to discharge Williams, it appears from Cooper's
further testimony that Franklin and Caldwell "had other
reasons." The reasons relied on by Respondent in this respect
have been shown to be without merit. This leaves the reasons
not relied on by Respondent for the discharge but which are
clearly reflected in the record to be considered. Thus the
evidence shows that whatever reasons or rationalizations Re-
spondent would claim played a part in the agonizing joint
decision regarding Williams, one of the reasons she was dis-
charged was because she was (in the words of Cooper as
shown in the undenied and credited testimony of Williams)
an "agitator ... the leader of the group that came in on
Wednesday"; another reason was because (in the words of
Caldwell himself as related to Sue Anderson) Caldwell "very
definitely ... did not like group discussions" with the em-
ployees. I find that Williams' discharge was in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
in Caldwell's testimony of having "ridiculed this old lady until they had her
crying." All three were called into the office according to Caldwell and
Williams and Elliott were warned with discharge if anything "of this type
happened again." This occurred some 6 months before Williams' discharge
717
I also find that, when Cooper told Sandra Holden (as she
testified he did and as Cooper admitted that he did) on the
day after the meeting with the employees that he was upset
about the meeting and their going over his head and that he
would run his department as he saw fit even if he "had to fire
the whole damn bunch," he was making a not too subtle
threat to discharge employees who dared to engage in further
protected, concerted activity and thus independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discharged Joyce Williams
for engaging in activity protected by the Act, I will recom-
mend that Respondent be ordered to offer Williams immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position," without prejudice to her seniority and
other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss
of earnings she may have suffered by payment to her of a sum
of money equal to the amount she normally would have
earned as wages from the date of her discharge to the date of
an offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during said period,
with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, 291-294, including interest as provided in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As part of the remedy here and I shall also recommend, as
requested by the General Counsel, the posting of two notices
as more fully discussed below: At the conclusion of the hear-
ing Respondent's counsel chose not to address himself to the
merits but asked leave to go into the circumstances regarding
his failure to get the Regional Office to enter into a settlement.
This failure was the result of the Region's insistence on hav-
ing the amount of the backpay specified in the notice and
Respondent's refusal to accede to this. Over objection I per-
mitted Respondent to put into the record correspondence
with the Regional Office concerning,this matter and to make
a statement regarding it. I also allowed the General Counsel
opportunity to make a reply.
In his brief the General Counsel directed his remarks to a
plea for a remedy which would require Respondent to post
two notices, the first presumably the type customarily utilized
in these matters, the second to state the amount of backpay
awarded to the wronged employee. In the alternative the
General Counsel requested that a blank space be left in the
original notice for the amount of the backpay to be filled in
as soon as determined. In this connection the General Coun-
sel contends in substance that a notice stating the amount of
backpay awarded would be a more "meaningful" remedy to
employees, reassuring them "that their rights under the Act
can be freely exercised without loss of earnings" and "that the
11 There was some intimation that Williams did not desire reinstatement
But since no formal position in this respect has been taken I make the usual
recommendation.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
payment which was required by the Trial Examiner 's Deci-
sion or Board order, has in fact been made."
In this day and age of skepticism and cynicism as regards
credibility vis-a-vis public affairs in general, I am of the opin-
ion that the simple device of specifying exactly the amount
of money a respondent has paid to remedy its unfair labor
practices can be much more significant in demonstrating to
employees the efficacy of the law in protecting their rights
than an assertion that a respondent intends to make whole a
wronged employee . I can see no procedural impediment in
providing for such a remedy nor any impingement on the
Respondent's rights. Thus , convinced that the posting of such
a second notice will aid in effectuating the policies of the Act,
I shall recommend that Respondent post two notices-the
first the customary notice as reflected in Appendix A and the
second as reflected in Appendix B (omitted from publication),
the latter to be posted as soon as payment of the backpay has
been made to Joyce Williams.
I shall also recommend that Respondent preserve and
make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and all
other records necessary to facilitate the determination of the
amount due under this Recommended Order. In view of the
nature of the unfair labor practices committed , I am of the
opinion that the commission of similar unfair labor practices
may reasonably be anticipated . I shall therefore recommend
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infring-
ing in any other manner upon rights guaranteed to their
employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Memphis Chair Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. Said unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER23
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and upon the entire record in this case , I recom-
mend that Memphis Chair Company, Inc., its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from discharging employees for engag-
ing in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection in connection with
their wages, hours , or working conditions, and in any other
manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees
in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activities
for such purposes.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Reinstate Joyce Williams to her former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges , and make her whole in the man-
ner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the
Board and become its findings , conclusions, and order , and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll
and other records relevant to a determination of the amount
of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its plant in Hernando,
Mississippi , including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, copies of the attached notices marked
"Appendix A" and "Appendix B. [Omitted from publica-
tion.]"24 Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 26, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent 's representative , be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20
days from receipt of this Decision , what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith."
" In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 26, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.""
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, pertaining to their
wages, hours, or working conditions , by discharging em-
ployees or threatening to discharge them for engaging in
such activities or in any other manner interfere with
their rights under the Act.
WE WILL offer to Joyce Williams immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make her
whole for any loss of pay she suffered as a result of our
interference with her rights under the Act.
MEMPHIS CHAIR
COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,'or
covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , may be directed to the Board 's Office, 746
Federal Office Building , 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.