Newland Knitting Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 788 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Newland Knitting Mills and Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases
11-CA-3156 and 11-CA-3216.
June 22,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On April 24, 1967, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He further found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommended
dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Newland
Knitting Mills, Newland, North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
and the other subpenaed employees for permission to attend the
Board's representation hearing were made to Duckworth, and
when Hicks and Johnson were required to testify at that hearing,
he ordered them to leave work and appear there It is significant
that despite prior refusals to allow them to leave work to be
present at that hearing, there was no question raised concerning
the validity of Duckworth's instruction to them to go there.
Furthermore, it appears that Duckworth regularly transmitted
information concerning employee conduct to management,
pursuant to which he informed management that after the heanng
closed Johnson had returned to the plant and had left again
without working until the regular quitting time Under all the
circumstances, it seems clear that Duckworth was viewed by the
employees as a supervisor
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON , Trial Examiner : Upon charges filed
October 21, 1966 , and January 6, 1967, by Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, referred to herein as
the Union , the General Counsel issued and consolidated
complaints against Respondent New and Knitting Mills.
The complaints allege that Respondent discharged
McDonald Burleson , Jr., on September 20, 1966, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, discharged
Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson on December 16,
1966 , in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4 ) of the Act,
and committed several independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent denies the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Thi proceeding was heard before me in Newland,
North Carolina , on February 14 and 15, 1967. At the close
of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument and the
filing of briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent engages in the manufacture of knitted
products at its Newland, North Carolina, plant, where it
annually purchases goods and materials from outside the
State of North Carolina valued in excess of $50,000 and
sells and ships finished goods to points outside the State of
North Carolina valued in excess of $50,000. I find that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
i The Respondent's exceptions related almost solely to the
Trial Examiner's credibility findings upon which he predicated
his recommendations On the basis of our own careful review of
the record, we conclude that these credibility resolutions are not
contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evience
Accordingly, we find no reason for disturbing those findings
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc v N.L R B , 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3)
' On the record as a whole, we agree with the Trial Examiner
that Duckworth was a supervisor at all relevant times. In addition,
we note that Duckworth served as the conduit for communication
between employees and management. Thus, requests for time off
were made through Duckworth, and he transmitted the responses
to such requests and inquiries All the requests of Hicks, Johnson,
Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged Interrogation of Charles English
The complaint in Case 11-CA-3156 alleges that
Respondent ' s Plant Manager Bruce Buchanan and Plant
Superintendent R. L. Brooks interrogated employees
concerning their union membership , activities, and
sympathies on September 8 and 16 , 1966. In support of
this allegation employee Charles English testified for the
165 NLRB No. 104
NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS
General Counsel to three almost identical incidents during
September 1966. According to English, on one occasion
Buchanan and on two occasions Brooks approached him
and asked him if he had heard anything new. He testified
that twice he replied no and once yes. He also testified that
on each occasion he added immediately thereafter there
had been a union meeting the previous night. According to
him, he was then asked how many were at the meeting,
and twice replied that there was a good group there, and
once, on the last occasion, that he was not going to say.'
On his direct examination English gave two different
versions of the conclusion of his conversation with
Buchanan. On his cross-examination English displayed
considerable vagueness and confusion, particularly as to
the timing of these incidents in relation to one another and
in relation to union meetings. Buchanan and Brooks both
testified and denied the occurrence of these incidents.
On the record as it stands, I find it implausible that
three almost identical conversations would have ensued as
testified by English, particularly in the absence of any
background to explain why English would have responded
as he testified to what appeared to have been routine
greetings by Buchanan and Brooks. In the light of the
implausibility of his testimony, and the other weaknesses
noted above, which appear on the face of his testimony
and which were also reflected in his demeanor while he
testified, I do not credit English as to these incidents.
Accordingly, I conclude that the allegations of
interrogation should be dismissed.
B. The Alleged Violations Attributed to Duckworth
1. Duckworth's statements to Hicks
The complaint in Case 11-CA-3216 alleges that on
September 8, 1966, Wayne Duckworth, whose supervisory
status is in dispute , gave employees the impression that
their union meetings and activities were being kept under
surveillance and threatened employees with discharge
because of their union membership, activities, and
sympathies. In support of these allegations Geraldine
Hicks testified that around September 1 Duckworth came
to her and asked her where her car was parked the
previous night. According to Hicks, Duckworth said that
he knew something "on" her, and she asked him what.
She testified that Duckworth replied that he saw her car
parked the night before. She replied that her husband
parked it there, and Duckworth said "he knew something
on me that could get my job." Hicks' car had been parked
at the Hughes Building in Newland, where there was a
union meeting on the night in question.
Duckworth testified that he had a conversation with
Hicks about her car at the time the Union was having
meetings , but his version bore little similarity to Hicks'.
He testified that Hicks came in the mill one morning and
asked him if he saw her car parked the previous night.
' He testified that on this occasion before asking him how many
were there, Brooks said "You know that I'm not supposed to be
asking you this, but I can listen to you "
2 Wright who was not otherwise identified did not testify
I In resolving the credibility issue as to this incident I have
considered the fact that on cross- examination Hicks initially
stated that she had told Duckworth that she was at a union
meeting, and then, when reference was made to her affidavit
given to the General Counsel during the investigation of this case,
she indicated uncertainty as to whether she told Duckworth she
had been at a union meeting Subsequently, she conceded that
she had said in her affidavit that she had not mentioned the Union
789
When he replied that he did not, she said "Well, I was
parked alongside the road and I thought you might have
seen it," and added that she had gone courting or dating
and had parked on the side of the road where she thought
he might have seen it . Duckworth again said that he had
not, and Hicks then asked Ronald Wright the same
question.2 According to Duckworth, he went to Plant
Superintendent Brooks and Plant Manager Buchanan
after this conversation and told them what had been said.
On cross-examination Duckworth testified that he did
not know that the employees were holding union meetings
at the time and did not know that there had been a union
meeting the night before. He did not think anything about
the fact that Hicks was married and explained that she
might have been with her husband and he did not ask her
whom she was with. Later Duckworth testified that this
conversation occurred around 7:30 in the morning and he
did not think anything about it until later in the day when
he heard that there had been a union meeting and figured
that possibly Hicks was trying to trick him into something.
He did not talk to Hicks again about it but sometime
during the day went to Buchanan and Brooks and told
them what she had said. He then stated that he could not
remember whether he spoke to them before or after
learning that there was a union meeting, but that he went
to Buchanan and Brooks "just a little bit after Geraldine
talked and I told them" because "I was just curious about
what she had said and I didn't know why she was asking
me so I just-they told me to forget about it."
I find that Hicks' version of her conversation with
Duckworth about her car is to be credited rather than
Duckworth's. Concededly, there was a conversation about
the parking of Hicks' car. Duckworth's version, that
Hicks, a married woman, came in and made a point of
asking if Duckworth had seen her car the previous night
and then, even after Duckworth replied negatively,
volunteered that she had been courting or dating, is
lacking in plausibility. His testimony as to when and why
he reported the incident to his superiors and when he
gained knowledge of the union meetings is shifting and
unconvincing as was his manner in testifying.3
2. Respondent's responsibility for Duckworth's conduct
a. The facts
It remains to be decided whether Duckworth is a
supervisor or agent of Respondent for whose acts
Respondent is responsible. Duckworth works as a fixer in
the preboarding department at the mill. The preboarding
department is located on the first floor or basement of the
plant . About 40 percent of the employees at the plant are
located on that floor and the remainder on the floor above.
Brooks, the plant superintendent , is in charge of the
preboarding department and the greige department. There
are approximately 24 employees in the preboarding
to Duckworth and that the Union and the union meeting were not
mentioned in the conversation However, Hicks had not testified
otherwise on her direct examination and she was not otherwise
cross-examined as to this conversation with Duckworth. In the
light of the independent reasons for discrediting Duckworth's
version of the conversation about her car, which concededly took
place, I do not regard this aspect of her cross- examination as
sufficient to cast doubt on the credibility of her direct testimony
Nor do I find cause to discredit her as to this incident in the fact
that I reject below her testimony with respect to the time of her
departure from the hearing room on the day before her discharge.
299-352 0-70-51
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department and 95 in the greige department. Duckworth
spends all his time in the preboarding department and
Brooks spends most of his time in the greige department
on the upper floor.4
Duckworth engaged in manual work approximately 95
percent of the time, repairing , maintaining , and setting up
the preboarding machines and carrying materials to the
preboarding machine operators for them to work on. If a
machine breaks down, Duckworth reassigns the operators
to a vacant machine if available without consulting with
Brooks. If a machine becomes vacant permanently, he
asks the operators if they wish to transfer to it, but he does
not order an operator to transfer over her objection. If a
machine breakdown causes operators to be idle, they are
paid at the rate of their average incentive earnings.
Duckworth records the time that the machine is down for
purposes of determining down-time pay. If it appears
likely that a machine will be down for repairs for a
substantial period of time and there is no vacant machine
available for its operators to run, Duckworth may instruct
them to clock out for the remainder of the shift. Normally,
Duckworth determines how long a machine is likely to be
down and whether its operators should be sent home.
Duckworth and one other knitting fixer attend quality
meetings which are otherwise attended by supervisors. At
these meetings , quality standards are discussed and asp
result of the discussions Duckworth may be required to
talk to preboarding machine operators to correct the
quality of their work.5 Duckworth also attempts to correct
work of employees if he observes that it is not according to
specifications.6 Duckworth does not attend meetings
which are attended by department heads at which
company policy is discussed.
Duckworth is hourly paid and punches a timeclock. He
is paid time and a half for any overtime worked by him. He
receives the same fringe benefits as rank-and-file
employees which differ from those of acknowledged
supervisors. Machine fixers who are not supervisors and
some other nonsupervisory employees in the plant are paid
substantially more than Duckworth. Some of the
employees in the preboarding department who are paid on
a piecework basis have higher earnings than Duckworth
receives on his straight hourly rate. Duckworth carries a
key to the pk„nt gate as do several other employees. He
distributes paychecks to the employees in the preboarding
department.
Hicks testified without contradiction that she asked
Duckworth once for permission to leave the plant to tell
her mother about a death in her family. Duckworth
granted the permission without checking with anyone else.
Later that week she asked Duckworth for time off to go to
the funeral. Duckworth replied that he would have to ask
Brooks. While he was gone, Brooks passed by where
Hicks was working, and Hicks asked him if she could be
' According to Hicks, whose testimony in this regard was not
contradicted, Brooks comes to the preboarding department only
in the mornings and stays for approximately 10 minutes
According to the testimony of Carolyn Reed, a preboarding
department employee, elicited on cross-examination by the
General Counsel with respect to another matter, she is supervised
by Charles Pittman who works both upstairs and downstairs and
reports to Brooks Although Buchanan, Brooks, and Duckworth
testified, no other witness mentioned Pittman and there is no
other indication in the record that Pittman has any responsibility
in the preboarding department In these circumstances, I do not
find Reed's testimony of sufficient substance to establish that
there is a level of supervision between Brooks and Duckworth,
particularly in the light of the other evidence which indicates that
excused for the funeral. Brooks asked her why she did not
ask Duckworth, who was her supervisor, but he then
granted the permission she requested. On other occasions,
Duckworth gave her permission to go to the dentist or
other places during working hours without seeking prior
approval from anyone else. Johnson also testified that
when she wanted to take time off to visit her dentist, she
asked Duckworth, who granted her permission without
consulting anyone else. I credit Hicks and Johnson in this
regard. 7
Duckworth has no authority to discharge, hire, transfer,
discipline, or reprimand employees or to raise or lower
wages. He is not consulted about such matters and he has
no access to personnel records. He has no role in the
setting of employee or piecework rates in the plant.
b. Concludingfindings
Although it is clear that Duckworth is at most a minor
supervisor, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to
establish that Duckworth is a supervisor. Thus, there is no
higher representative of management present in the
preboarding department for most of the day. Hicks'
testimony was uncontradicted that Brooks told Hicks that
Duckworth was her supervisor whom she should ask for
time off. Duckworth has in fact granted employees time off
for personal reasons. Duckworth attends quality meetings
and corrects the work of the preboarding operators as a
result of the discussions at the quality meetings and his
own observations in the department. When a machine
breaks down, Duckworth reassigns the operators to
another machine. If none is available, Duckworth
determines whether the operators should remain in the
plant and wait for the completion of repairs or should go
home for the balance of the shift. Although Buchanan
testified in conclusionary fashion that Duckworth cannot
make discretionary decisions as to how to handle a
particular situation in Brooks' absence, I conclude from
these facts which are basically uncontested that
Duckworth responsibly directs the work of the employees
in the preboarding department and that at the very least,
from the point of view of the employees in the preboarding
department who receive instructions from him, he
represents management in that department.
Accordingly, I find that Duckworth's statements to
Hicks about her car are attributable to the Respondent. I
find further, in view of the circumstances surrounding the
incident, that Duckworth's remarks created the
impression that Hicks' union activities were under
surveillance and that her job was placed in jeopardy by
virtue of Duckworth's having observed her car parked
outside where the union meeting was taking place.
Accordingly, I find that the allegations of violation of the
Act based upon this incident have been sustained.
Duckworth reports directly to Brooks
According to Plant Manager Buchanan, Duckworth does so
under the direction of Brooks
', According to Buchanan, in an abnormal case Duckworth
would report such work to Brooks.
' Duckworth testified that his instructions were to grant
employees time off in case of illness, death in the family, or an
emergency and then to inform Brooks, but according to
Duckworth. if an employee sought time off to go to the dentist, lie
was required to consult Brooks before granting it Duckworth did
not deny, however, that he had granted Hicks and Johnson
permission to leave the plant, as they testified , without consulting
Brooks, and their testimony in this regard is essentially
uncontradicted
C. The Discharge of Burleson
1. The facts
NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS 791
McDonald Burleson , Jr., was employed by Respondent
for approximately 12 years. At the time of his discharge on
September 21, 1966, he was employed as a line fixer on the
second shift from 3 to 11 p. m. He worked on job 7, a line
containing 52 knitting machines to which he was
transferred in April 1966, at his request. He was
supervised by Ben Wise, the second - shift supervisor.
In a prior organizational campaign at the plant , Burleson
was chairman of the organizing committee . He continued
to serve in that capacity after an election was conducted at
the culmination of that campaign and as a new
organizational campaign got under way around September
1966. Burleson 's union activities were conducted openly
and were well known to Respondent.
From the time that Burleson went on job 7 until the time
of his discharge , there was considerable difficulty with the
machines on that job. The record is inconclusive as to
whether the problems were inherent in the machines or
were caused by Burleson ' s work performance or resulted
from a combination of both . During that period Wise and
Buchanan talked to Burleson about his work a number of
times and criticized his work.8
On Saturday, September 17, Burleson worked his
regular shift . At the conclusion of that shift , the plant shut
down for 24 hours, reopening at the start of the third shift
on Sunday , September 18, at 11 p.m.
On Saturday night between 10 and 10 : 30, the two
checkers assigned to Burleson 's line checked the line and
found no machines operating improperly .9 At around 10:30
on Saturday evening, Burleson began to prepare the
machines on his line for the shutdown . According to
Burleson , when he prepared each machine for the
shutdown , all but two were operating properly, and he set
them to complete one additional cycle and then to shut
themselves off. The two exceptions were machines which
Burleson was unable to repair . Burleson called the two
machines to Wise's attention . One had been tagged by the
day shift, and Wise tagged the other , as all machines left
inoperative at the end of the shift were required to be
tagged as such to put the fixer on the next shift on notice of
their inoperative state and the nature of the defect.
Burleson testified that he left at the end of his shift in the
belief that all but the two tagged machines were in good
operating condition.
" After Burleson was discharged , the efficiency of the machines
on job 7 increased Efficiency is computed on a three - shift basis
However , the fixers on the first and third shifts remained
unchanged after Burleson 's discharge
" It is the responsibility of the checkers to make a periodic
check of the stockings produced by the machines If a machine is
producing imperfect stockings or otherwise operating improperly,
the checkers flag the machine by placing a stocking on top of the
machine and turn the machine off The fixer then must fix the
machine and restart it
is When operating , the heads are bolted down They are usually
raised by fixers and not by checkers , and they are never left up
when a machine is in operating condition
ii Clark so testified and I credit him in this regard Phillips
testified that Clark discovered that they were inoperative by
checking them before attempting to turn them on Phillips was not
present at the time and clearly had no direct knowledge
12 Clark testified that the machines with dull knives had not
produced any bad work However , it is not clear whether his
testimony referred to both machines or only one of them which lie
On Sunday night at 11 the third shift reported and
reactivated the plant under the supervision of Billy
Phillips. Paul Clark, the fixer assigned to job 7 on this
shift, went down his line and started to turn on the vacuum
motors on the machines , preparatory to starting
production . As he went down the line, he noted three
machines with their heads raised indicating that they were
inoperative . 10 Two of these machines were those that had
been left tagged by Burleson on Saturday night . The third
was untagged . Phillips passed by the line while Clark was
preparing to start the machines in production , and Clark
reported to him that there were three machines with their
heads up. Phillips told Clark to start the rest of the
machines and that he would help him or get him help to get
the three inoperative machines started . Phillips went back
to his office and then returned to the line to make notes of
the condition of the three machines . Clark continued to
start the remaining machines . In the process he
discovered two additional machines that would not
operate. When he turned their switches on, indicator lights
revealed that the machines had stopped automatically.['
On investigating the cause, Clark discovered that both
machines had dull knives which had caused yarn to
accumulate in their dials and caused the machines to turn
themselves off. 12 After starting the remaining operative
machines , Clark began to make repairs and was later
joined by Ray Carswell, Charles Blaylock, and Phillips
who also worked on the inoperative machines. 13
On the following morning, Phillips gave a written report
of the state of the machines on job 7 to Plant Manager
Buchanan , and Buchanan asked Supervisor Wise to check
the matter out that night . Buchanan left town sometime
during the day on company business and did not return
until sometime after Burleson was discharged.
After the start of the second shift on Monday Wise
asked Burleson how many machines he had left down the
previous Saturday. Burleson replied that he had only left
the two tagged machines inoperative . Wise told Burleson
of Phillips' report and said that he would check further
with Phillips at the beginning of the third shift.
At the start of the third shift after Phillips arrived at the
plant , Burleson approached Phillips at the supervisors'
office door and asked him , "What is this s-about all these
damn machines being left off last night ?" Phillips replied
that all the machines were off because it was Sunday
night . Burleson said he was not talking about that but was
talking about those that were down. Phillips replied that
there were five or six of them. Burleson asked which ones
testified that lie repaired Phillips testified that one of the
machines with dull knives had a stocking in it that was one-third
to one -half knit when the machine had turned itself off because of
the dull knives
13 Although Clark and Phillips in their testimony disagreed as
to the cause of the breakdown of the untagged Fidelity machine, I
do not find cause in this disagreement to discredit their testimony
that Clark found an untagged Fidelity machine in inoperative
condition at the start of the shift Phillips testified t at s ort y
after the shift started a sixth machine became inoperative for the
cause assigned by Clark to the machine he found untagged at the
start of the shift As Clark's testimony was at variance with a
statement he gave the General Counsel during the investigation of
the case with respect to the repairs he made, as Clark's testimony
describing the repairs made that night accounts for the repair of
six machines , and as Phillips made notes of the condition of the
machines at the time , I conclude that Clark was mistaken in his
recollection and that Phillips is to be credited as to the cause of
the breakdown of the untagged , inoperative Fidelity machine
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had their heads up. Phillips replied that there were three
of them. Burleson stated that there were not any and
added there was one which he had tagged and one which
the day shift had tagged. Phillips told Burleson that he had
it on the record and there was no point in arguing about it.
He then asked Burleson to go with him to job 7 and see
Paul Clark who started the machines. Phillips and
Burleson went to job 7 and met Clark. Burleson asked
Clark how the machines started the previous night. Clark
replied that they started rough. Phillips then asked Clark
to explain the condition he found the line in, and Burleson
said he wanted to know how many machines had their
heads up. Clark said that three had their heads up. Clark
then walked away. Burleson said that they would see
about this and also walked away.
Phillips started to return to his office with Wise who had
arrived at the scene while Phillips and Burleson were
talking to Clark. As they were walking away , Burleson
called Phillips by name. Phillips turned and asked
Burleson what he wanted. Burleson said, "I'll see you
outside the gate in the morning. I'll be waiting when you
get off and we'll continue this." Phillips replied that if
Burleson had anything to talk to him about concerning the
knitting mill they would talk about it then and there.
Burleson responded, "No, I'll settle with you in the
morning." Burleson then turned and went off . Burleson's
face was red, and his voice was raised and trembled as he
spoke.14 Wise and Phillips went back to their office, and
Phillips made a note of the final exchange between him
and Burleson.
On Tuesday morning Douglas Clark arrived at the plant
at or about 6:45 a.m. Clark was in charge of quality control
at the plant and was acting manager in the absence of
Buchanan . Clark observed Burleson sitting in his car
parked outside the plant gate close to the plant with his car
facing the plant. Clark observed that Burleson sat there
until about 7 a.m. Then, as the third-shift employees began
to leave the plant , Burleson turned his car around and
drove away from the mill. When Burleson reached a
driveway to a gymnasium about 300 yards from the plant,
14 Phillips so testified as to his encounter with Burleson and
was corroborated by Wise as to that portion of the incident which
Wise observed Burleson 's version of this incident varied in
several respects He testified that he did not go to Phillips' office
to inquire about the machines and did not initiate the
conversation in the manner that Phillips testified . He conceded
that as Phillips was walking away he called to Phillips and said
that he had something he wished to discuss with Phillips outside
the gate the following morning However , he testified further that
when Phillips replied that anything pertaining to the knitting
department they would discuss in the plant , Burleson responded
that what he wanted to discuss with Phillips did not pertain to the
knitting department According to Burleson , he then left
Burleson did not speak to Phillips again after that night and he
was not asked what it was that he wished to discuss with Phillips
outside the plant He also testified that the discussion with
Phillips was friendly and not angry , although he was possibly hurt
by Phillips ' report In the absence of any evidence that Burleson
had anything else to discuss with Phillips that night and in view of
my findings below with respect to the events of the next morning,
I have concluded that Phillips and Wise rather than Burleson are
to be credited as to this incident
15 Douglas Clark testified that he remained outside the plant
and observed Burleson during the entire period Employee
Kathryn Cornett testified that she saw Burleson sitting in his
parked car outside the plant that morning when she arrived at
work at or about 2 minutes before 7 Paul Clark testified that as he
left the plant that morning he saw Burleson sitting in his car near
the gymnasium According to Burleson , he lost a hubcap from his
he stopped and backed into the driveway. Burleson then
waited there until about two-thirds of the third-shift
employees had passed by in their cars. At or about 7:10 he
pulled out behind them and drove off. Clark did not see
Burleson leave his car during the entire period.15 Clark
entered the plant after Burleson drove off. Shortly
thereafter, Phillips came to his office and gave him the
written memorandum setting forth Burleson 's parting
statements to Phillips the night before which Phillips had
prepared at the time.16 Phillips asked Clark to give the
reports to Buchanan. Phillips then returned to the knitting
room to put his tools away and he left the plant at or about
7:35 a.m.17 Clark telephoned Wise who verified Phillips'
version of the incident the night before. At or about 7:45
Clark telephoned Buchanan, who was in Reading,
Pennsylvania, and told Buchanan what Phillips had
reported to him and what he had observed outside the
plant that morning. Buchanan instructed Clark to direct
Wise to discharge Burleson.
A separation slip was prepared for Burleson stating that
he was discharged because he left the machines
inoperative and because he had threatened and was
insubordinate to a supervisor. When Burleson reported for
work that afternoon, Wise called him to his office where he
handed Burleson the, separation slip. Burleson asked Wise
why he was being discharged and Wise replied that it was
because of the machines that Phillips said he left down
and because he threatened a supervisor . Burleson told
Wise that he had never threatened any one in his life. Wise
replied that they thought it was best for the Company to
terminate him Wise told him that he could come in and
talk further to the plant personnel manager about it if he
wished. Wise then checked out Burleson's toolbox, and
Burleson left the plant shortly thereafter. Burleson did not
come back to talk to the personnel manager thereafter.
2. Concluding findings
The General Counsel contends that Burleson was
discharged because of his union activities and not for the
car about 200 yards from the plant near a shrubbery packingshed
the previous night as he was driving home He testified that he
stopped and looked for it for a few minutes at the time but then
drove on without it because he did not want to make his rider late
getting home He testified that he returned again at night to look
for it but still failed to find it According to Burleson, the next
morning between 6.50 and 7 10 he drove up to the main gate of the
plant , made a U-turn , and drove back to the packingshed where
he stopped, found the hubcap, and immediately left to return
home Burleson's rider did not testify to corroborate his testimony
concerning the loss of the hubcap on Monday night If Burleson's
version of the events of the night before were to be believed, there
was no reason why he should not have been at the plant to carry
out his conceded statement of intention to see Phillips outside the
gate in the morning In these circumstances , in the light of the
timing of his return to coincide with the end of the third shift and
his admitted statement of his intention to return to see Phillips at
that time, I credit Douglas Clark, Paul Clark, and Elizabeth
Cornett and do not credit Burleson
1" According to Clark, Phillips handed him a second report at
this time setting forth the state of the machines on job 7 at the
beginning of the third shift on Sunday night Phillips testified that
he handed this report in to Buchanan on Monday morning, and
Buchanan 's testimony indicates that he received this report on
Monday morning before he left town I credit Phillips and
Buchanan in this regard , but I do not find this discrepancy
sufficient to cast doubt on Clark's testimony otherwise
1' Phillips testified that he usually left the plant between 7-15
and 7-20
NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS 793
reasons assigned by Respondent. Respondent contends
that Burleson was discharged because he threatened
Phillips and followed up his threat by coming back to the
plant on the next morning.
There is, to be sure, some ambiguity and uncertainty as
to the import to be given to Burleson 's remarks to Phillips
as they sound on repetition and appear in cold print on the
record. Whether or not they were fairly taken as a threat
by Phillips and Wise depends much on the manner in
which they were made. From the testimony of both
Phillips and Wise, whom I have credited, I infer that they
were made in anger . Although Burleson testified that he
made no threat, he did not reveal at the hearing or at any
other time for what innocent purpose he wanted to see
Phillips outside the gate in the morning which did not
relate to the knitting department, and I am convinced that
in his testimony he deliberately sought to conceal the fact
that he returned to the plant and waited at the gate in the
morning, suggesting that there was cause in the events of
the previous night for Burleson to conceal his activities the
next morning In these circumstances, I must conclude
that Respondent's construction of Burleson's statements
and conduct was not unreasonable, and that the asserted
cause for Burleson's discharge finds support in the
record.
The question to be decided, of course, is not whether
Respondent had cause to discharge Burleson, but whether
the General Counsel has established that Burleson was
discharged because of his union activities and not for
cause. I find that evidence in support of the complaint too
slight to sustain that burden. Although Burleson was
concededly a known leading supporter of the Union, there
is only slight evidence of union animus on the part of
Respondent.is Although Burleson was an employee with
12 years' service before his discharge and his performance
on job 7 was tolerated for several months, from this one
can at most infer that his job performance was not the
cause of his discharge, and Respondent concedes as
much. It is true that this ground was stated as a cause of
his discharge along with the threat to Phillips at the time of
the discharge, although Respondent now argues and
Buchanan ultimately testified that Burleson would not
have been discharged on account of the machines alone
and that the threat was the triggering cause of the
discharge. However, unlike a case in which an employer
relies on totally different grounds than those stated at the
time of discharge or later adds new grounds to bolster an
insubstantial ground, the abandoned ground in this case
was stated along with one on which Respondent continues
to rely and which was factually related to it. In these
circumstances, I do not infer from the statement of both
grounds at the time of the discharge that the reasons
stated for the discharge were pretextuous or contrived.
As the General Counsel has not shown that Respondent
lacked reasonable grounds to construe Burleson's
statements to Phillips and his subsequent conduct as a
threat, one may only speculate whether Burleson's
statements and conduct were in fact the true cause of his
discharge. I conclude that the evidence is not sufficient to
establish that Burleson' s union activities were the
i There is evidence that a disciplinary suspension of Burleson
was set aside in settlement of a prior unfair labor practice charge
However, Respondent did not admit commission of any unfair
labor practices thereby, and no inference of animus may be drawn
from the settlement of that charge
14 The record does not make clear the circumstances under
which Hicks and Johnson separately received permission to go,
but there is no dispute that they had received it
motivating force behind the discharge. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that the allegations of the complaint in Case
11-CA-3156 relating to Burleson's discharge be
dismissed.
D. The Alleged Threat of Reprisal for Participating in
Board Proceedings
1. The facts
Sometime before December 13, 1966, the Union filed a
representation petition in Case 11-RC-2467 seeking to
represent Respondent's employees. A hearing was
scheduled for December 13, and the Union subpenaed a
number of employees to attend, including Geraldine Hicks
and Willa Jean Johnson, both of whom worked in the
preboarding department. On December 13, Hicks and
Johnson asked Wayne Duckworth if they could leave work
to attend the hearing because they had been subpenaed.
Duckworth said he would check with Brooks about it.
Shortly thereafter, Hicks and Johnson were told that they
were wanted in the plant conference room.
Hicks and Johnson went to the conference room where
12 to 15 employees were gathered, all of whom had been
subpenaed to appear at the representation hearing. Also
present were Buchanan, Brooks, and Garland, a
supervisor. Buchanan told them that he was sorry that he
could not let all of them go to the hearing because he
needed them at the mill to get production out. He stated,
however, that he could let five of them go and told them to
choose among themselves the five that wanted to go and to
write their names on a paper that was on the table. He said
that if anyone left other than the five whose names were on
the paper, he would be discharged. Buchanan then stated
that he, Brooks, and Garland would leave the room and the
employees could decide among themselves who should go.
The company representatives left the room, and the
employees decided that no one would sign the paper, as it
was not up to them to decide who should go. As they left
the conference room, they decided that Hicks and Johnson
should go tell Rainey, the union representative, what had
happened because they had gotten permission to go to the
hearing on the previous day from Brooks.19 Hicks and
Johnson went to the courthouse where the hearing was
scheduled to take place. Soon after arriving they
discovered that the hearing was postponed because of bad
weather and illness. They were informed that the hearing
was rescheduled for December 15. They left and returned
to work after an absence of approximately one-half hour.
They were not disciplined for having left the plant to go to
the hearing that day. 20
2. Concluding findings
Employees have the right to participate in proceedings
before the Board, and the Board has the power to compel
their attendance when the issuance of subpenas has been
requested. While the right to participate absent a subpena
may be balanced against production needs or other
considerations, when subpenas have been issued an
employer may not interfere with fulfillment of the
obligation to attend by threatening reprisal for honoring a
subpena.21 -
21 The findings as to this incident are based on the composite
testimony of Hicks and Johnson, which is not contradicted
21 Winn-Dixze Stores, Inc., and Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc , 128
NLRB 574, Duralite Co , Inc , 128 NLRB 648, East Tennessee
Undergarment Company, 139 NLRB 1129, enfd 53 LRRM 2461
(C A 6), Cf Standard Packaging Corporation, Royal Lace Paper
Division , 140 NLRB 628
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Here there is no evidence that Respondent sought to
contact the Union or the Board to explain the production
problem caused by the subpenas and to seek to determine
whether the Union would be willing to release some of the
employees from their subpenas or to arrange for some
employees to be called from the plant as they were needed
at the hearing. Insofar as the record shows the employer
dealt directly with the employees and required all but five
of them to choose between their jobs and honoring their
obligation to appear at the hearing. In these
circumstances, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by its threat to discharge any employees
who attended the hearing other than the five to be selected
by the subpenaed employees from among themselves.
E. The Discharges of Hicks and Johnson
1. The facts
On December 15, Hicks and Johnson again asked
Duckworth if they could leave to go to the hearing.
Duckworth said that he would ask Brooks and a few
minutes later he told them that Brooks would be around
shortly to talk to them. Brooks did not come, and after a
while Johnson went to talk to him. She asked Brooks if she
and Hicks would be allowed to go to the hearing. Brooks
told her that if their names were on the list they could go
but that otherwise they could not. She went back down to
the preboarding department, told Hicks what Brooks had
said, and decided with Hicks not to go to the hearing.
At or about 12:30 Duckworth came to Hicks and
Johnson and told them that they were wanted at the
hearing in a hurry. Duckworth said nothing to them about
returning to work. They filled out timecards, cleaned up
their machines, and left. They arrived at the hearing room
which was located in the courthouse a few hundred yards
from the plant at or about 12:40. Hicks was called to testify
shortly after their arrival. Hicks testified briefly and the
hearing closed at approximately 1 p.m.22
After the hearing closed, Hicks and Johnson were asked
by Rainey, the union representative, to wait in the hearing
room and talk to him. Rainey took their names, addresses,
and social security numbers so that they could be
reimbursed for their time lost from work. He advised them
that he did not believe it necessary for them to return to
work that day. They left the courtroom. Hicks did not
return to the plant, but Johnson went to the plant to advise
22
The transcript of the hearing indicates that it closed at 1 p m
However, Harry Willis, director of personnel for Respondent,
testified that he was present at the hearing and left after it closed
with Arthur Rogers, who stopped at a nearby bank before the
bank closed The bank's statutory closing time is 1 p m In my
view of the case, it is not critical to determine to the minute when
the hearing closed, but it would appear that it closed a few
minutes before 1
21
Hicks and Johnson testified that it was approximately
2 o'clock when they finished talking to Rainey and left the
courthouse According to them, before talking to them, Rainey
talked to a Board agent and to J R Buchanan and Burleson for a
substantial time Burleson testified that he remained in the
courtroom to talk to Rainey for about 20 minSites after the hearing
and saw Hicks and Johnson there between 1 and 1 30 The cross-
examination of Hicks and Johnson left substantial doubt as to the
accuracy of their time estimates, and Johnson conceded that
when she arrived at the plant , the employees in the preboarding
department were sitting around the break table and were not at
work. Two employees testified that they saw Johnson come into
the preboarding department during the break period that
afternoon, and there was no circumstance established which
would explain why the employees were sitting at the break table
another employee who normally rode home with her that
she would have to make other transportation
arrangements for that afternoon. Johnson arrived at the
plant during the break period in the preboarding
department, which usually begins at 1 and ends at 1:10.
She delivered her message and left23
After the break period, two of the girls in the
preboarding department told Duckworth that Johnson had
come in to the department during the break, talked to one
of the girls, and then left. Duckworth relayed this report to
Brooks, and Brooks in turn reported it to Buchanan who
determined that Hicks and Johnson should be discharged
because they failed to return to work after the hearing was
over.
On December 16, Hicks and Johnson reported to work
at the regular starting time. Brooks came to them and told
them that Buchanan wanted to talk to them in his office at
10:30. Brooks asked them why they had not returned to
work the previous afternoon. They replied that they did
not think that there was any use in returning24 and that the
union representative had agreed and was paying them for
the time they were off. Later at around 11 o'clock as they
were waiting to talk to Buchanan, Brooks told them that he
would talk to them in place of Buchanan and they went
into Brooks' office Brooks told them that he was
discharging them because they did not return to work the
previous day and they were needed. They asked whether
they would be coming back to work, and Brooks replied
that they would not 25 After some discussion about their
pay, Hicks and Johnson left.
Buchanan testified that it is company practice to
discharge any employee who leaves work without
permission and that he could see no difference between
the failure of Hicks and Johnson to return after the hearing
and leaving work without permission. He testified also that
it is a frequent occurrence for employees to take time off
during a shift for various personal reasons and that the
employees are supposed to return to work when their
business is completed. He also testified that he knew of no
other instance when an employee had failed to return to
work after completing his business before the end of his
shift.
2. Concluding findings
"Clearly inherent in the employees' statutory rights is
the right to seek their vindication in Board proceedings."26
other than that Johnson arrived at the plant during the regular
breaktime As breaks are governed by the clock on the wall, it is
possible that it may have been a few minutes later than 1 10 when
Johnson arrived at the plant, but not later than that I do not credit
the testimony of Hicks, Johnson, or Burleson that it was
substantially later than 1 10 when Hicks and Johnson left the
hearing room
24 Although Hicks testified that it would have taken until
almost 3 o'clock for them to get their machine back in production
based on her estimate of the time they left the courthouse, her
testimony otherwise makes it clear that little more was required
than is normally required to start production in the morning and
that they could have resumed production within 10 minutes after
returning to work
2s Hicks testified that she then told Brooks that another
employee had done the same thing and was coming back to work
and that Brooks replied that he did not know anything about that
There is no evidence otherwise to establish that any other
employees were treated differently from Hicks and Johnson under
similar circumstances
26 Better Monkey Grip Company, 115 NLRB 1170, enfd 243
F 2d 836 (C A 5), cert denied 353 U S 864
NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS
Conduct which conveys to employees the idea that they
may be penalized for honoring Board subpenas interferes
"with the right of employees to participate in proceedings
before the Board" and further tends "to impede the Board
in the exercise of its power to compel the attendance of
witnesses at its proceedings and to obstruct the Board in
its investigation," in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.27
As the Board stated in Local 138, International Union of
Operating Engineers (Charles S. Skura), 148 NLRB 679,
681, "Not only does the Board have the authority to
protect employees who participate in the Board's
processes, but it has been held that the Board has an
affirmative duty to exercise that authority to its outermost
limits to protect such employees," citing Eugen Pedersen
v. N.L.R.B. [Modern Linen & Laundry Service], 234 F.2d
417 (C.A. 2). Moreover, "[A]ny conduct on the part of a
party to a Board proceeding which interferes with, or
prevents the Board from carrying out, [its] responsibility,
including threats to discharge employees for honoring
subpenas issued by the Board, constitutes an abuse of
Board processes, and, as such, is independently violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.' 28
The interests expressed in these quotations from Board
decisions in protecting employee rights to participate in
Board proceedings to secure fulfillment of statutory rights
and the Board's processes require that whenever
disciplinary action arises out of the appearance of
employees at a Board hearing, particularly where under
subpena, that discipline must be carefully scrutinized.
Here it is true that Respondent asserts that Hicks and
Johnson were disciplined not because of their attendance
at the hearing but because of their failure to return to work
and complete their shift after the hearing ended. And I
have found that Hicks and Johnson could have been back
at work approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes before the
end of their regular shift. However, there are a number of
factors present in this case that persuade me that
whatever Respondent's motivation, protection of
employee rights and the Board's processes requires that
the discharges of Hicks and Johnson must be found to
have violated Section 8(a)(1).
As I have found above, on December 13 when the
hearing was originally scheduled, Respondent denied the
subpenaed employees permission to leave work to attend
the hearing and required that if any of them were to
attend, they must choose among themselves no more than
five to go. Respondent warned that anyone else who left to
go to the hearing would be discharged. As a result, all but
Hicks and Johnson chose not to honor their subpenas.
Again on December 15, when Johnson sought permission
to leave the plant to attend the hearing with Hicks, she was
told by Brooks that they could go if their names were on
the list but that they could not leave the plant otherwise.
Brooks must have known that at that time there were no
names on the list and that his response effectively denied
them permission to leave. They chose not to leave. Thus,
at the time that Hicks and Johnson were called to the
hearing, there had been substantial interference with
employee rights and Board processes.`'
When Hicks and Johnson ultimately left the mill to
attend the hearing, they did not go at their own request.
L7 Wtnn-Dixie Stores , Inc , 128 NLRB 574, 579
= Duralite Co , Inc , 128 NLRB 648, 652.
t" Insofar as the record shows , apart from Hicks , Johnson, and
company representatives , the only other persons who attended
795
Rather after they had abandoned their efforts to attend the
hearing, they were told by Duckworth to leave work in a
hurry and go immediately to the courthouse. Before
leaving the plant, they cleaned their machines and left it in
readiness for the next shift. Nothing was said at the time
by Duckworth about returning, and nothing was said to
them after the hearing was over by any other management
official about going back to work.
In these circumstances, it is necessary to balance the
rights of the employees to respond to subpenas and the
public interest in the protection of Board processes
against the interests of the Respondent advanced in
support of the discharges. In this case, the nature of the
employee and public rights to be protected, as well as the
prior interference with the rights not only of Hicks and
Johnson but of a number of other subpenaed employees,
require that a particularly strong case be made before they
may be deemed to be outweighed. For the prior
interference leaves it likely that the discharges of Hicks
and Johnson will appear to the other subpenaed employees
as an extension of the interference with their rights to
attend the hearing and will further inhibit them in future
exercise of their statutory rights.
On the facts as they appear from the record, I do not
find that Respondent's interests were such as to outweigh
the rights to be protected Buchanan testified that he
considered Hicks' and Johnson's failure to return to work
as equivalent to walking off the job, for which Respondent
discharged employees. Whether or not Buchanan so
viewed their conduct, contrary to Buchanan's stated view,
there is a difference between a failure to return after an
excused departure and walking out of the plant without
permission. In the latter case, management has no notice
of the departure and is given no opportunity to make
necessary arrangements to compensate for the absence of
the missing employee at his unattended work station. Such
an absence may result in leaving equipment operating but
unattended. In the case of failure to return from an
excused absence, however, management has had notice of
an employee's departure and may plan accordingly. In a
case such as this where the duration of the temporary
business cannot be anticipated, there is notice at the time
the absence starts that it may be for the remainder of the
shift. The indefiniteness of the anticipated length of
absence was accentuated in this case by the
circumstances under which Hicks and Johnson left.
Indeed, the circumstances of this case leave in
substantial doubt whether Hicks' and Johnson's conduct
may be validly compared with failure to return from
temporary leave granted at an employee's request. For
here Hicks and Johnson did not leave at their own request
but upon instruction from Duckworth which contained no
stated limitations as to duration. The failure of Hicks and
Johnson to return to the plant, if at all improper, is at worst
more akin to common absenteeism than to any other
breach of discipline. It is not analogous to any serious
disciplinary breach which in ordinary industrial practice
would be readily accepted as cause for the maximum
disciplinary penalty on the basis of a single offense 30
Moreover, even assuming that Respondent had good
economic cause to seek to prevent more than five
employees from leaving to attend the hearing on
the hearing were Rainey , the international representative of the
Union, Burleson, who had previously been discharged, and Joe
Ray Buchanan , who was not otherwise identified on the record
311 Cf Marshall Maintenance Corp , 145 NLRB 538, 545-546.
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
December 13, there is no evidence to show that any
serious consequences ensued from the loss of less than 2
hours' production on the machines operated by Hicks and
Johnson.
Accordingly, under all the circumstances of this case,
including particularly Respondent's prior interference
with Board processes and the rights of employees to
attend the hearing pursuant to subpena, as well as the
absence of any explicit instruction to Hicks and Johnson to
return to work after the hearing, I conclude that the rights
to be protected by the Act outweigh any interests of
Respondent served by the discharges of Hicks and
Johnson and that the discharges therefore violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, I find it
unnecessary to decide whether, as the complaint in Case
11-CA-3216 also alleges, their discharges additionally
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent violated the Act by
discharging Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson on
December 16, 1966, I shall recommend that Respondent
be ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges and to make them whole for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of their discharges by
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount which she normally would have earned as wages
from December 16, 1966, to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less their net earnings, to which is to be
added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in
accordance with the formula set forth inF. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Newland Knitting Mills, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
3. By creating the impression that the union activities
of employees were under surveillance by Respondent, by
threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals
for participating in Board proceedings or engaging in
union activities, and by interfering with employee rights by
discharging employees Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean
Johnson, as found above, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I hereby recommend that Respondent, Newland
Knitting Mills, Newland, North Carolina, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Conveying to employees the impression that their
union activities are under surveillance.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or other
reprisals for participating in Board proceedings or
engaging in union activities.
(c) Discharging employees under circumstances which
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to participate in Board
proceedings.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean Johnson-
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed and make them whole for any loss they may have
suffered by reason of their discharges in the manner set
forth in the section of the above Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Newland, North Carolina, place of
business, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix. -31 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS
the Regional Director for Region 11, 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
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.32
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaints otherwise
be dismissed insofar as they allege violations of the Act not
heretofore remedied by the Recommended Order.
'2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT convey to employees the impression
that their union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other reprisals for participating in Board proceedings
or eng Bing in union activities.
WE WILL offer to Geraldine Hicks and Willa Jean
Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without
797
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges and WE WILL make them whole for any loss
they may have suffered as a result of their discharges.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees under
circumstances which interfere with , restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to
participate in Board proceedings.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
Dated By
NEWLAND KNITTING MILLS
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1624 Wachovia
Building, 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina 27101, Telephone 723-2911, Extension 392.