Reliance Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 946 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMAL-
GAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA (C. I. 0. )
In the Matter of RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMAL-
GAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA ( C. I. 0. )
Cases Nos . 18-C-1048 and 18-R-937 , respectively .Decided
February 08, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election of the National
Labor Relations Board,' herein called the Board, an election was con-
ducted on April 26, 1944, among the employees of Reliance Manufac-
turing Company, herein called the respondent, at its plant at Anamosa,
Iowa, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union, for the
purposes of collective bargaining. The Union lost the election. On
May 2, 1944, the Union filed objections to the election, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices prior to the elec-
tion, and requesting that the election therefore be set aside. There-
after, the Regional Director issued his Report on Objections, in which
he found that the objections raised substantial and material issues with
respect to the validity of the election, and recommended that a hearing
be held on such objections.
Upon charges filed by the Union alleging that the respondent had
engaged in unfair labor practices, a complaint was issued by the Board.
On May 27, 1944, the Board issued an order consolidating the above
proceedings, and directing that a hearing be held on the objections to
the election and on the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing was
held before a Trial Examiner on June 27 and 288, 1944, in Anamosa,
Iowa, in which the Board, the respondent, and the Union participated
by their representatives. The Board has reviewed the Trial Exam-
iner's rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
1 55 N L R B 981
60 N. L. R. B., No. 162.
946
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 947
On September 21, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found that
the respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in, certain unfair
labor practices, and recommended that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action. Thereafter, the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its
exceptions. Oral argument was held before the Board at Washing-
ton, D. C., on December 20, 1944.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions 2
and brief, and the entire record, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial, Examiner, except insofar
as they are inconsistent with our findings and order hereinafter set
forth.
1. On the basis of the circumstances mentioned below, we agree
With the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the respondent's action in
denying the request of employees Nichols, Moore, Norton, and Barker
for permission to leave the plant for the purpose of testifying at the
representation proceedings involving the respondent's, employees,":
was motivated by its desire to interfere with said proceeding and by
its anti-union animus, and constituted a discriminatory application
2 It is to be noted that counsel for the respondent stated at oral argument before the
Board that the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report are not addressed to
the Trial Examiner's findings of violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act in connection with
the respondent's conduct and statements other than those dealing with the respondent's
deprivation of certain employees of their seniority rights and the discharge of Forelady
Seelev, which matters are treated below.
3 We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent knew that the employees
in question desired to leave the plant in order to testify at the representation hearing
Nichols' credible testimony is that she advised Forelady Seeley that the reason for her
request to. leave was that she "was to be a witness in National Labor Relations [Board]
hearing," and liloore, according to the latter's credible testimony, advised Seeley that
she was "asked to attend the hearing of the Labor Board" and "was to go " Forelady
, Seeley's credible testimony is that she told Foreman Powers "what they [the employees]
wanted the [leave] slips for " We believe it highly improbable that Seeley, in sub-
mitting Nichols' and 'Moore's requests to Powers, failed to mention such a persuasive
reason in support of theiii requests as the circumstance that they were requested to
appear as witnesses at the hearing. But even if Seeley had failed to mention that to
I owers, it seems unlikely that Powers, who knew of the scheduled hearing and of the
respondent's decision not to particirate therein, would have failed to ask Seeley the reason
for their desire to go to the hearing Further, Powers must have known that, since the
respondent was not participating in the representation hearing, some of its employees
would probably have to be called upon to testify concerning matters which might other-
wise have been supplied by the respondent's officials at that hearing. The requirement
that the employees produce "subpoenas," which Powers imposed,'also suggests that Powers
knew of the employees' desire to attend the hearing for the purpose of giving testimony.
Upon the entire record, and despite Powers' denial, we find, as did the Tiial Examiner,
that Powers knew that the real purpose underlying the request of the four employees in
question for permission to leave the plant was to give testimony at the representation
proceedings. But even if Powers could not be•said to have had such knowledge, but be-
lieved that the employees wanted to attend the hearing as mere spectators, we are con-
vinced, and we find, upon the entire record, that the respondent's action in denying them
permission to leave the plant on the occasion in question was an integral part of its cam-
paign to discourage and destroy interest and activity in the employees' efforts at self-
organization, and constituted a discriminatory application of its policy with regard to the
granting of requests by employees for short leaves
948 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of its policy-with respect to the granting of requests by employees for
short leaves, all in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act.4
The record discloses that prior to the incident in question, permis-
sion was freely granted. to employees to leave the plant during working
hours. Employees were given permission to leave because they had
"some business to attend to," or wanted to take care of "certain things,"
or because they had "an appointment." Forelady Seeley 5 issued leave
slips "any time jemployees] asked for one." Except for the incident
in question, no employee had ever been denied permission to leave the
plant during working hours during Seeley's 15-year period of em-
ployment with the respondent.
The respondent contends that on the occasion in question, the re-
quest for leave was denied, and the requirement that a subpoena be
produced was imposed, because "to have permitted indiscriminate ab-
sence to attend the hearing would clearly disrupt production [and]
the requirement that the necessity of the attendance be evidenced by
some official request was not unreasonable" as evidence of the- "good
faith" of the request and "as safeguard against abuse of the privileg:i."
However, the respondent had no reason to anticipate an "indiscrimi-
nate absence" of employees on the occasion in question. It appears
that Foreman Powers took the position that no employee would be
permitted to leave for the hearing without first producing a subpoena
when only one request for leave (that of employee Barker) was pre-
sented to him, and that altogether only four employees, out of a total
of approximately 180, had applied for leave on the occasion in ques-
tion or had given any indication of a desire to attend the hearing.
The argument advanced by Foreman Powers that if lie had granted
permission to one employee, he would have been compelled to grant
permission to all other employees who requested it,-is not convincing,
for the respondent could reasonably have modified its position with
respect to the granting of the requests for leave had such requests
become so numerous that to grant any more would have resulted in a
material curtailment of production, just as the respondent could
reasonably deny requests of its employees to leave for other personal
reasons where such requests become too numerous. Instead, the re-
spondent issued a blanket prohibition against the employees' leaving
on the occasion in question, and that prohibition was even extended
4 In further support of his conclusion that the respondent ' s denial of the employees'
request to leave the plant on the occasion in question was violative of Section 8 (1) of the
Act, the Trial Examiner adopted the broad theory that, in the absence of a showing that
production as a whole at an employer ' s plant would thereby be disrupted, employees have
a right under the Act to leave the, plant during working hours for the purpose of giving,
testimony at a Board proceeding , without having to produce subpoenas. On the facts of
the instant case, and since we believe that a finding that the respondent ' s denial of the
(mployees ' request was violative of the Act is amply supported on other grounds, we find
it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the afore -mentioned theory.
6 Forelady Seeley is a supervisory employee , and we so find.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 949
0
to non-working time, the respondent having enjoined the employees
from leaving the plant that day, even during their rest periods, for
any cause . Further, in view of the following admission by counsel for
the respondent at oral argument before the Board, it seems incon-
gruous that the respondent should have issued a blanket prohibition on
the occasion in question , without at least restricting it to those who
were not to appear as witnesses :
The CHAIRMAN . Is that the general position of the Company
that you must have subpoenas before you go to a hearing before
a representative public body?
Mr. DAVIS [counsel for respondent ]. If the Board please, in
numerous hearings in which I have represented this Company,
we have cooperated in getting the witnesses simply on call. There
is no general policy that people must have subpoenas.
Equally revealing is the fact that the respondent penalized the three
employees who left the plant for the purpose of giving testimony, by
depriving them of their seniority rights, albeit the respondent knew,
prior to the imposition of that penalty , that they had in fact testified
at the hearings and that therefore their original requests to leave had
been made in "good faith."
That the motive underlying the respondent 's action in denying the
requests in question was to impede the successful fulictioning-of the
representation proceedings , is further evident from the fact that the
respondent failed to participate in such proceedings, coupled with
other circumstances detailed below. Schultheis , organizer for the
Union which was the petitioner in those proceedings, telephoned the
plant, shortly before the hearing, for the purpose' of requesting the
presence at the hearing of the four employees in question . After iden-
tifying himself , he asked to speak to Superintendent Heinsen,8 or to
one of these employees ( Barker ). However , he was refused per-
mission to talk to either. The record further discloses that, after
employee Moore was denied permission to leave on the occasion in
question , she asked the respondent for permission to leave the plant
during her recess period for the purpose of making a telephone call, and
that her request was denied. By such conduct, and by its general pro-
hibition against leaving the plant, even during the rest period, for any
cause, the respondent prevented the employees from communicating
with the Union 's representative or Board counsel for the purpose of
8
Counsel for the respondent conceded at oral argument before the Board that the re-
spondent had such knowledge at the time the employees were deprived of their seniority
rights
7 The precise purpose of his telephone call was not expressly communicated by him to
the respondent
8 Foreman Powers ' testimony indicates that superintendent Heinsen was not at the plant
at the time
950 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
informing them of the respondent's requirement that a subpoena be
produced.
The respondent's course of conduct on the occasion in question must
also be appraised in the light of its obvious antipathy to the em-
ployees' efforts at self-organization and its campaign to defeat the
Union. Thus, on the eve of the election, the respondent, among other
things, promised the employees a wage increase and vacations with
pay, threatened to close the plant if the Union won the election, re-
moved a number of machines from the plant and advised the employees
that they were going to be shipped out of the State, and discharged or
compelled the resignation of Forelady Seeley because of her refusal
to participate in the respondent's anti-union activities.
Having found that the respondent's conduct in prohibiting the em-
ployees in question from leaving the plant was violative of Section 8
(1) of the Act, it follows, and we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
its subsequent action in depriving three of them, (Nichols, Moore, and
Norton) of their seniority rights because they left the plant without
the respondent's permission, was equally violative of Section 8 (1).
Further, we are convinced that such action was an integral part of the
respondent's campaign to discourage self-organization among its em-
ployees and to defeat the Union, and that such action discouraged
membership in the Union within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, and we so find, as did the Trial Examiner .9 Upon the entire
record, we further find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respond-
ent's action in depriving the employees in question of their seniority
rights was motivated, at least in part, by the fact that they had given
testimony in the representation proceedings, and that such action was
therefore violative of Section 8 (4) of the Act. Whether such action
be regarded as a violation of Section 8 (1), Section 8 (3), or Section
8 (4) of the Act, we find it necessary, in order to effectuate the pur-
poses and policies of the Act, to order the respondent to restore to
these employees their seniority rights.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that Forelady
Seeley was discharged by'the respondent on April 27, 1944, and that
such discharge was violative of Section 8 (3) of the Act. We think it
clear that Seeley, during the course of her conversation with Superin-
tendent Heinsen earlier that day, withdrew her declaration to resign
and offered to remain in the respondent's employ, and that Heinsen,
thereafter, discharged her for discriminatory reasons. We are con-
vinced that Seeley's remark to Heinsen, during the course of the afore-
mentioned conversation, that "if it would help matters" she would
"recall [her] resignation and stay" because she did not not "want the
9 CP. Matter of Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative , Inc., 59 N _ L. R. B. 486,
and cases cited therein
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 951
girls to walk out," constituted a withdrawal of her resignation. That
remark was made immediately after Heinsen called her to his office
and complained that he was in a "mess" because the employees were
threatening to "walk out" on account of her resignation. By her.
remark, Seeley plainly indicated that, in view of the employees' reac-
tion to her proposal to leave, she was willing to remain in the respond-
ent's employ. Heinsen then wished to consider the matter and,
believing that Seeley might in the future persist in her neutral attitude
toward the unionization of the plant, decided to dismissed her, and
in fact told three employees that "I just have to let [Seeley] go. This
is my own personal decision" and advised Seeley herself that "he was
releasing [her] from [her] job."
But even if Seeley could not be said to have been actually discharged,
but rather that she resigned, it is clear, and we find, that her resigna-
tion was compelled by the respondent's unlawful-treatment of her, and
that she was accordingly discriminated against; "in violation of Section
8 (3) of the Act 10 With the appointment of Heinsen as' superin-
tendent of the respondent's plant in January 1944, at which time the
Union was engaged in its organizational efforts, Seeley's position in
the. plant became precarious 11 Heinsen frequently called Seeley to his
office and questioned her as to why she "wouldn't talk against the
Union," and "why [she] wasn't for Reliance," observing that if she
were for "Reliance," she would "talk against the Union." On one
occasion, she was rebuked by Heinsen for suggesting employee Norton
for the position of "trainer," since "she [Norton] sponsored union
meetings in her own home." On April 25, the day before the election,
Heinsen invited Seeley to his office and talked to her about the election.
Heinsen said : "You know it cost me a lot of money to move the shaft
[referring to the machines which were removed from the plant in an
effort to defeat the Union] * * *: Today I threatened to sell the
trucks, and now * * * do you know I am playing_my trump card,
and it is you." Heinsen then urged Seeley to tell the employees that
at the election they would be "voting either for Kate Seeley or for
Mr. Schultheis [International Representative of the Union]." Seeley
declined to do this,"- and was then told by Heinsen to "go home and
think it over that night." The next morning, with the election sched-
uled in the afternoon, Seeley was again called to the office, where
e
10 Cf Matter of Chicago Apparatus Company, 12 N. L R. B 1002 , 1019, epf'd, 116 F.
(2d) 753 (C C A 7) ; Matter of Sterling Corset Co., Inc, 9 N L. R B. 858; Matter of
East Texas Motor Freight Lines, 47 N. L. R. B. 1023, enf'd 140 F (2d) 404 (C. C. A. 5),
13 L. R R. 727
11 Forelady Seeley had been in the respondent 's employ since 1928 , and no contention
was made by the respondent that her work was to any way unsatisfactory.
12 Two days later , Heinsen stated to the employees' committee which attempted to inter-
cede in behalf of Seeley , that Seeley resigned because "he asked her to go up and tell
them [the employees ], that when they were voting that afternoon that they were either
voting for the C. I. O. or her and she wouldn 't do it , so that's why."
9t,2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Heinsen, in the presence of other officials and supervisors, asked her if
she "had made up" her mind as to whether or not she would talk to
the employees. Seeley replied that she "hadn't slept all night," that
she had "thought it over," and that she "didn't intend to do it," observ-
ing that she "still had a conscience" and that her husband and son
worked- in a plant which was unionized. Pilot, an official of the
respondent, then intervened and stated that he had heard that Seeley
had taken a bribe from the Union. Seeley asked that the accusation be
proved. Pilot then requested Heinsen "to produce the evidence," but
Heinsen refused. Seeley then told Heinsen that she was resigning,
effective April 29. Immediately after the last-mentioned conference,
Pilot approached Seeley and told her that he had "seen that Mr.
Heinsen had made a nervous wreck out of [her] and had worked on
[her] the wrong way," and promised, in return for her attempt to
influence employeesao vote against the Union, to take her^Mn an inspec-
tion tour of-the respondent s•,southern mills and to insure "a good
future" for her with the respoident: This offer was declined by Seeley.
It is plai, fid we-find, =that- by continuously questioning Seeley'sL-a
loyalty to the respondent, by urging her to use her influence with the
employees to defeat the Union's efforts to organize the plant, by ac-
cusing her, in the presence of other officials and supervisors, of taking
a bribe from the Union, and, finally, by promising her "a good future"
with the respondent and an inspection tour of its southern mills in
return for her efforts to induce employees to vote against the Union,
the respondent created a situation so unbearable for Seeley and so
detrimental to harmonious working conditions in her part, that Seeley
had no alternative but to resign. In fact, counsel for the respondent
conceded at oral argument before the Board "that she [Seeley]
resigned because of difference, between her and the superintendent
about her * * * conduct with respect to this union, and it is
quite true that the record shows that the superintendent tried to get
Kate Seeley to do things to discourage this union that he had no right
to have her do and that she had no right to do, and it is also equally
true that that pressure put upon her so irritated and annoyed her that
she resigned." 13
3. We find that, since the respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices prior to the election held on April 26, 1944, the election was not
an expression of the uncoerced will of the respondent's employees, and
should therefore be set aside, and we shall so order. When we are
advised by the Regional Director that the time is appropriate, we
shall direct a new election.
13 Upon the entire record, we find that the involuntary resignation of Seeley because
of her refusal to pa ticipate in the respondent' s antiunion campaign, discouraged non-
supervisory employees' membership in the Union.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 953
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the 'respondent, Reliance Manufacturing
Company, Anamosa, Iowa, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, by depriving any of its em-
ployees of their seniority rights, or in any other manner discriminating
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of their employment;
(b) Depriving any of its employees of their seniority rights or
otherwise discriminating against them because they have given testi-
mony under the Act;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to joint or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Kate Seeley immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Kate Seeley for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her, by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimina-
tion against her to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less her net earnings during such period;
(c) Restore to Mary Nichols, Rosa Lee Moore, and Hattie Norton
the seniority rights of which they have been deprived by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against them;
(d) Post at its plant at Anamosa, Iowa, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Directox of the Eighteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all place where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material:
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on April 26, 1944, among
the employees of Reliance Manufacturing Company, at its Anamosa,
Iowa, plant, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
NLRB 577
(9-1-44)
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: -
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join, or assist Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
We will offer to the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges previously enjoyed, and make then' whole for any loss of
pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
Kate Seeley
We will restore to the employees named below the seniority
rights of which they have been deprived as a result of the discrim-
ination against them :
Mary Nichols
Rosa Lee Moore
Hattie Norton
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization, or because of
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 955
any employee's appearance as a witness in any proceeding of the
National Labor Relations Board.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING C0311PANY
-----------------------------------
Dated--------------------
(Employer)
By------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NOTE .Any of the above -named employees presently serving in the armed forces
of the United States will be offered full reinstatment upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the armed forces
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Stephen IR. Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr Pawl Y. Davis, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Mr. Danill D. Tucker, of Chicago,
111, for the respondent.
Mr E B. Schultheis, of Muscatine, Iowa, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America (C. I. 0 ), herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region
(Minneapolis, Minnesota), issued its amended complaint dated June 2, 1944,
against Reliance Manufacturing Company, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1). (3), and (4) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the amended complaint and the amended charge, accompanied
by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.'
With respect to the unfair labor practices the amended complaint alleged, in
substance, that: (1) the respondent from on or about April 1, 1944, to the date
of issuance of the amended complaint advised, urged and warned its employees
against engaging in union activities, warned its employees that in the event the
Union were designated their collective bargaining representative, their hours of
work would be reduced, the supervisory and clerical staff would leave the plant
and the plant would close down, interrogated the employees concerning their
union membership and activities ; advised its employees that the Union could
not obtain for them the benefits promised and that, in any event, the respondent
would voluntarily give the employees any benefits the Union could obtain for
them ; interfered with an election conducted by the Board's agents on April 26,
1941, by, in addition to the foregoing acts, promising its employees increases in
wages and vacations with pay, and attempting to bribe a supervisory employee
to influence other employees to vote against the Union; (2) the respondent, on
February 26, deprived Mary Nichols, Rosa Lee Moore and Hattie Norton of their
' Upon a protest to the election conducted on April 26, 1944 , in the Matter of Reliance
Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (C. 1. 0 ), 55
N L R B 981, Case No 18-R-937. the Board, on May 23, 1944, ordered that a hearing be
held on the said protest and, on May 27, the Board further ordered that that case and the
instant case be consolidated . Pursuant to these orders the notice of hearing hereinabove
referred to notified the parties that hearing upon the protest to the election In 18-R-937 and
hearing upon the unfair labor practices alleged in the instant case were to be consolidated.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seniority rights because they gave testimony in a hearing before a Trial Examiner
of the National Labor Relations Board in Case No. 18-R-937 on February 23,
and (3) the respondent discharged Kate Seeley on or about April 27 because she
refused to influence employees working under her supervision to vote against the
Union in the aforesaid Board election.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Anamosa, Iowa, before William J.
Isaacson, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The Board and the respondent, represented by counsel, and the
Union, by a representative, participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues, was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's presenta-
tion of its case, the Board's counsel moved to conform the amended complaint
with respect to formal matters to the evidence adduced. The motion was granted
without objection. At the close of the hearing all parties were afforded an op-
portunity to argue orally on the record before the undersigned and counsel for
the Board and the respondent participated in, such argument. None of the parties
filed briefs, although afforded an opportunity to do so.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes-the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, an Illinois corporation, with its principal office and place of
business at Chicago, Illinois, and 19 plants throughout the country, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of clothing At its plant at Anamosa,
Iowa, the plant herein involved, the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of
shirts, of which it ships daily more than 2,000 to points outside the State of
Iowa. Similarly, it purchases for use in its operations at Ananiosa large quan-
tities of cotton piece goods which are shipped to the plant from points outside
the State of Iowa 2
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events'
On February 23, 1944, the Board, pursuant to a petition filed by the Union alleg-
ing, among other things, that a question concerning the representation of the
respondent's employees had arisen, conducted a hearing in An,pmosa in Case No
18-R-937. Although the respondent was notified of the aforesaid hearing it did
not appear or participate therein Accordingly, on the night before the hearing,
E D. Schultheis, the Union's representative, met with 5 of the respondent's
employees, Mary Nichols, Ethel Barker, Hattie Norton, Rosa Lee Moore, and
'These findings are based upon admissions contained in the pleadings
s Unless otherwise indicated, the findings of fact hereinafter set forth are based upon
uncontradicted evidence.
I
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 957
Bart Kelton,' and advised them that, since the respondent did not intend to par-
ticipate in the aforesaid hearing, it would be necessary for them to testify with
respect to the character of the respondent's business and the physical propor-
tions of the plant. He instructed them to request peiniission of their respective
supervisors the next morning "to come to the hearing and give testimony." Pur-
suant to Schultheis's request 4 of the aforesaid employees attempted to secure
such permission ° According to Nichols, she asked her forelady, Katherine Seeley,
before work began that morning whether she could have a "leave slip" ° since
she "had to appear at a hearing of the National Labor Relations (sic) over [at
the courthouse] at ten o'clock," that she was to be a witness ° Forelady Seeley,
while not giving Nichols a leave slip at the time, advised her that she would
grant the request. Similarly, at about 8 o'clock that morning Moore asked Fore-
lady Seeley for a leave slip, explaining "I have been asked to attend a hearing
of the Labor Board at the Court House at 10 o'clock," and, as with respect to
Nichols' request, Seeley replied th,it she would grant such permission, At about
the same time Norton made the same request of her forelady, Labreda Gearhart,
who replied that she would consider it Shortly thereafter Forelady Isabel]
Rogers, of whom the same request had been made by employee Ethel Barker,'
inquired of Robert Powers, the stitching room foreman, whether or not to grant
the request. After her conversation with Powers, Rogers, according to Seeley,
reported that Powers had announced, "Positively no girl goes " Seeley at once
sought confirmation of this statement from Powers,' who repeated, "Nobody
leaves this buildipg today There will be no yellow slips given out. Anyone leav-
ing will be automatically fired." Seeley thereupon explained the reason that the
girls desired permission to leave the plant '0 Powers remained adamant, declar-
ing, "If they have a subpoena, we can't stop them, but if they don't nobody leaves
4 Nichols, Norton and Moore became Union members in November or December 1943.
"There is no evidence in the record that Kelton asked permission to testify at the
hearing
6 Several months prior to the hearing the respondent promulgated a rule requiring its
employees to secure a "leave slip " from their supervisors when they desired to leave the
plant during working hours. The rule further provided "Any employee leaving the plant
during working hours without permission will be considered as having severed his
employment "
° Seeley testified that the above conversation took place the preceding (lay. Since, how-
ever , it was impossible under the facts hereinabove related for the request to have been
made prior to the day of the hearing the undersigned finds that the request was made,
as testified by Nichols , on that day Seeley, in her unspecific testimony concerning the
above conversations, omitted any reference to Nichols' advising her -that she, Nichols,
i'as to be a witness In view of Nichols' explicit account of the aforesaid conversation,
coupled with the undisputed fact that that was the purpose for which she sought permis-
sion to leave the plant , the undersigned finds that the conversation took place as related
ty Nichols
8Ethel Barker testified that she made her request the end of the previous day For
the reasons already enumerated, the undersigned finds that the request was made on the
day of the hearing
9 According to Powers, Seeley inquired with respect to Norton, as well as Nichols
and Moore
10 Powers. while testifying that lie knew "why they wanted to leave," claimed that
Foreladies Seeley and Rogers merely informed him that the employees in question desired
to attend the hearing, making no reference to the giving of testimony Powers admittedly
nude no inquiry concerning the purpose for which the employees desired to attend the
hearing If Powers had been ignorant of that purpose it is unlikely that lie would have
failed to make such inquiry . Moreover , it is clear from Powers ' immediate reference to
subpoenas that he was aware of the purpose for which leave was requested These facts,
coupled with the fact that Seeley had been previously advised that the aforesaid employees
'desired to attend the hearing in order to testify, convinces the undersigned that Seeley,
in turn , so informed Powers.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this building today." Seeley relayed this information to Nichols and Moore,"
Gearhart likewise advised Norton that no "leave slips" would be issued that
day. -
This prohibition against "leave slips" was not limited to working hours but was
applied as well to the employees' recess periods . Thus, that same morning, Moore
asked Edith Sunday, the respondent' s personnel director, for permission to go to
her home during the 10-minute recess period beginning at 9: 30. Since Moore's
house was near the plant, she was customarily granted such permission. On this
occasion, however, such request was for the first time denied. According to
Moore, Sunday, after discussing the matter with Powers, informed Moore that
"Bob [Powers] said [she] couldn't leave the building."'z
Thereafter, shortly before 10 o'clock, Nichols, Moore and Norton left the plant
and testified at the aforesaid hearing." As they were leaving, Janice Crow, the
respondent's office manager, asked whether they had leave slips. They replied
in the negative. Powers upon discovering their absence, instructed Personnel
Director Sunday to remove their time cards from the time clock rack. Shortly
before 1 o'clock upon returning to the plant and reporting for work, Nichols,
Moore and Norton noted that their time cards had been removed. They thereupon
inquired of Office Manager Crow concerning the *hereabout of their time cards.
She replied, "Well, you really didn't expect to find them there up in the rack."
Upon leaving the office they were intercepted by Powers and Bruce Wright,
foreman of the finishing department, who in the absence of Superintendent J. J.
Heinsen, was in charge of the plant that day. Wright advised them to return to
work and, pursuant to his instructions, Powers gave each of them her respective
time card. Powers explained at the hearing that later that morning, after he
had removed the aforesaid 3 employees' time cards, Wright telephoned Superin-
tendent Heinsen at the respondent's main office in Chicago and Heinsen instructed
that they be permitted to return to work. In accordance with these instructions
Wright advised Powers that upon their return to the plant "Let them go back to
work " Powers further revealed that upon their return he inquired whether they
had been subpoened and that, although replying in the negative, they declared
that if they had been restrained from leaving the plant Schultheis would have
secured subpoenas for them.
Nichols, Moore, and Norton thereupon returned to their machines and continued
.to work without incident until February 26 when they were deprived of their
seniority rights under the following circumstances. On that day Moore, upon
e hearing it rumored among her fellow employees that Nichols, Norton and she were
to lose their seniority rights, confronted Powers with said rumor. Denying that
the rumor had any basis in fact, lie assured Moore that their leaving the plant
3 days before was "a forgotten matter." Contrary to +this assurance Superin-
tendent Heinsen met with Powers, Wright and Foreladies N'eledine Bunce, Rogers,
Gearhart and Seeley and proposed withdrawing the seniority rights of the afore-
said employees. In support of his position, Heinsen, although acknowledging
. 11 Nichols and Moore denied that Seeley informed them that they would be granted
leave if they had subpoenas. In view of the fact that Powers so advised Seeley it is
unlikely that Seeley failed to relay this information to Nichols and Moore. Accordingly,
the undersigned rejects their denials. -
12 Powers denied that the above request was called to his attention . He admitted, how-
ever , that his general prohibition against leaving the plant that day applied to the recess
periods Sunday , although testifying , did not testify with respect to the above incident.
The undersigned rejeets Poweis ' denial and finds that , as Moore testified , Sunday, upon
specific instructions from Powers, denied Moore ' s request to leave the plant during the
morning recess.
13 Barker , whose request had also been denied, remained in the plant and did not testify
in the afore§aid representation bearing.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 959
that a group of girls who had left the plant previously had been permitted to
return to work without disciplinary action," pointed out that he had to begin to
mete out punishment sometime "and it might just as well be [now ] as any other."
Heinsen thereupon called the aforesaid 3 employees into the office and announced
that he had thought the matter over and concluded that since their leaving without
permission was in violation of the respondent 's rules they should be punished.
Therefore , as an example to the other employees , he was depriving them of their
seniority rights. They protested that they were ignorant of the existence of
such a rule. Moore further advised Heinsen that they could have secured sub-
poenas. Heinsen replied that. the rule book had been distributed among the
employees after the incident involving the "button sew" girls, but that, in any
event, ignorance of the rule provided no defense." He predicted that they would
never have their seniority rights restored. Thus stripped of their seniority, the
aforesaid 3 employees, returned to their respective operations.15
On March 31, 1944, about a month after the above hearing, the Board, pursuant
to the Union's petition, directed the holding of an election among the respond-
ent's employees to determine whether or not the employees within the unit
found to be appropriate desired to be represented by the Union. In accordance
with the aforesaid direction the Board's Regional Office in Minneapolis made
arrangements to conduct an election among the respondent's employees on
April 26.
The announcement of the election and the fixing of the date upon which it
was to be held signalized the inauguration of a campaign by the respondent to
undermine the Union and insure its defeat 17 Thus, about April 15, Superintend-
ent Heinsen, who played the leading role in the respondent's anti-union drive,
summoned Nichols to his office and abstrusely remarked that he wished to talk
to her and the other employees about ' You know what." He promptly revealed,
however, that the Union was to be the subject of his talk. He warned that "it
was only fair to tell the girls that if the Union won the election that the'manage-
ment, office force and supervisors were going to take a long vacation." In
answer to Nichols' comment that in that event the respondent's main office in
Chicago would provide the plant with replacements he pointedly inquired, "What
makes you think that"? He suggested that Schultheis, the union organizer, and
Norton could take over the operation of the plant in the absence of the respond-
ent's present management Heinsen thereupon asked Nichols what benefits she
expected to derive from the Union, to which she replied, increases in wages and
vacations with pay. Heinsen assured her that "if the girls would just give him a
chance that he would do all he could." Similarly, he threatened Moore when she
came to his office to request permission to post election notices in the plant that
rather than spend time arguing with a union grievance committee the super-
visors and office force would "walk out." In reply to Moore's question concerning
14 Heinsen's reference was to the unauthorized withdrawal from the plant of some 7
"button sewers" about February 10, 1944 The girls in question left the plant around
the noon hour of one day and did not return to the plant until the following day Insofar
as the record discloses there was no legitimate reason advanced for their absence.
15 It is unnecessary to it resolution of the issues in the instance case to determine
whether the employees in fact had knowledge of the rule
11 Norton , a collar press and band press operator at the time of the above described
incident , had been in the respondent s employ continuously for 8 years . Moore's and
Nichols' seniority dated from February and November, 1942, respectively
17 The following recital of facts concerning the respondent 's efforts to bring about the
Union 's defeat in the foithconiing election is in every instance supported by uncontra-
dicted evidence The iespondent 's officials and supervisory employees to whom the anti-
union statements and conduct are attributed were not called upon by the respondent to
testify at the hearing.
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent's attitude towards vacations with pay, he bluntly declared that
"lie would give the non-union factories anything that he could before the union
factories got it. That the Union had been asking for vacation with pay for
so long , and hadn't gotten it at the rest of the Reliance factories . . . and he
would give it to [the Anamosa plant] if the Union didn't go in " In the same
fashion, about 3 or 4 days before the election, Heinsen summoned to his office
employee Zella Duncan and declared that since she had heard the Union's "side"
he had a right "to present" the respondent's side He reiterated that if the
Union won the election, the management, office, and supervisory force "would
leave" the plant, that "the factory would close down because of union activities",
adding that while he knew that it was illegal to shut clown the plant ostensibly'
because of organizational activities "there were fifty legal ways of closing down
a factory, and he knew them all."
Heinsen graphically illustrated to the employees that the foregoing were not
empty threats. During working hours one day shortly before the Board, elec-
tion, Heinsen had it number of machines removed from the plant and placed upon
a moving van. That Heinsen removed and transported the said machinery in
order to create anxiety among the employees was admitted by him in a con--
versation with Forelady Seeley.'
Office Manager Crow, supplementing 'and underscoring Heinsen's above de-
scribed activities, utilized the removal of the machinery to substantiate her
threats and predictions made in an address which she delivered to the employees
on April 18, a week before the election. Oil that (late the employees were urged
and instructed by the office force and their respective foreladies, among others,
to attend a "non-union" meeting of "loyal" employees to hear the respondent's
"side of the story." Although the sole supervisory employee to address the
meeting was Office Manager Crow; in attendance at the meeting, were Foreladies-
Gearhart, Neledine Bunce, Seeley and Foremen Wright and Powers. She bluntly
informed the assembled employees that if they "thought the 11. & W. Truck
[nioving van] was backed up to the back door of the factory to haul the machines
across the street, [they] were crazy, that [the machines] were going to be shipped
out of the state, to a different factory to be put in use" She warned that if
"anything were changed," the supervisors, office force, and foreladies would
-'walk out," and the employees' husbands in the armed services would return to
a deserted town She claimed that Schultheis' promise of a "50¢ minimum"
could not be fulfilled, that the only method by which they could secure wage in-
creases was by government directive. But, she continued, the minimum requested
by the Union was applicable to overtime as well as straight time, and`would re-
sult in a wage decrease since certain of the employees were getting overtime
rates for overtime work. She further promised that by the beginning of that
summer they would receive vacations with pay. In conclusion, she urged them
to "vote right" in order that they continue to have a plant in Anamosa. So that
they not misinterpret what she meant by "vote right" she exhorted the employees
to do everything Superintendent Heinsen desired "because he would lay down
his life" for them.
Before the election, pursuant to Heinsen 's and Crow 's promises hereinabove
referred to, Foreman Wright and Forelady Thelma Bramer informed several
employees under their respective supervision that in the event the present man-
agement continued the employees would receive vacations with pay. Finally,
the respondent announced over the plant public address system that the employees
were to receive vacations with pay
18 The respondent adduced no evidence showing that such removal of machinery was
dictated by legitimate economic considerations
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 961
Nor did the respondent rely entirely upon the actin ities of the local manage-
ment but, on April 26, a few hours before the election polls opened, the respond-
ent's employees were assembled in the plant during working houi s to hear an
address by A. T. Bard, the respondent's president. Accompanying President
Bai 11 from Chicago to Anamosa and in attendance at the meeting, were the
respondent's officials Guthunz, an assistant to President Bard, and Pilot
Bard opened his address by reminding the employees that the respondent
had done a,lot for them and would continue to do more, and that he hoped
they would "do their best by him." He thereupon urged them to vote in the elec-
tion to be held that day, pointing out that a failure to vote was tantamount to
voting for that which they opposed He then announced that the respondent
would apply for a "20 raise" for them just as it had for 4 of the respondent's
southern plants,'but that nothing could be done with respect to the wage increase
until the current "labor controversy" was terminated In reply to an inquiry
from the audience as to whether' these southern plants were unionized he pointed
out "they were not." Bard failed to reply, however, to an inquiry from employee
Rita Remington as to why he was opposed to the Union's joining in such applica-
tion. With respect to vacations with pay he announced that if Heinsen had
made such a promise he would grant the same.
Later that same day, and while the election was in progress, Pilot accosted
employees Duncan and Remington upon the main thoroughfare of Anamosa and
inquired concerning the progress of the election Remington replied, "In our
favor, we hope." He thereupon' asked what benefits they expected to derive
from the Union Remington, expressing her dissatisfaction with the manner in
which Bard had avoided answering her question, responded, "Well, I don't think
there is anything to lose" Pilot rejoined, "It only makes a difference of $25 00
to $30 00 in dues."
The Union was defeated in the election, 66 to 63.
Throughout the respondent's foregoing campaign Superintendent Heinsen
attempted, without success, to enlist the aid of Forelady Seeley Thus, he
repeatedly inquired of Seeley why she refused to talk against the Union, why
she "wasn't for Reliance " On each of these occasions Seeley protested that she
was not opposed to the respondent. He countered that if she were "for Reliance"
she would be against the Union."
Heinsen's attempts to induce Seeley to take part in the respondent's anti-union
drive were climaxed on April 25, the day before the election On that day Heinsen
called Seeley into his office and announced,-You know it cost me a lot of money
to move the shaft. It also cost me money to give the dinner. Today I threatened
to sell the trucks, and now, do you know I am playing my trump card, and it is
you " He thereupon instructed her to inform the employees that they were
"voting either for Kate Seeley or for Mr. Schultheis " Seeley refused to carry
out his instructions Early the next morning Heinsen again summoned Seeley
to his office and sought to persuade her. In addition to Heinsen, Guthunz, Pilot,
and Jimmy Goody, foreman of the cutting room were present Seeley informed
Heinsen that she adhered to her position of the previous day. She explained that
she still had a conscience, and that both her husband and son worked in a unionized
plant Thereupon, Pilot accused her of accepting a bribe from the Union Pilot,
'D During one of these conversations Heinsen suggested that since Seeley had too much
to do he would withdraw some of her duties and functions . Seeley instead recommended
that lie assign Norton as a "trainer" to instruct new employees . Whereupon , Heinsen
retorted, "What [ate you] thinking of to suggest Hattie Norton, when she sponsored
union meetings in her own home" ? It was only after the Union was defeated in the
election that Norton was promoted to a "trainer."
625563-45-vol 60-62
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who was asked by Seeley to produce such evidence, turned to Heinsen and made
the same request of him. Heinsen ignored these requests . Seeley, justifiably
incensed at the serious, although unsupported, charge which had been levelled
against her asked for her-release. Heinsen refused, declaring "I won't give you
any release." Seeley nevertheless replied,, "I am leaving Saturday " She was
thereupon asked to go into another office while the others had a discussion
among themselves. Upon her return to the office Pilot spoke with her alone.
Pilot, after declaring that it was plain that Heinsen had "worked on [her]
the wrong way," suggested that she go upstairs and advise the girls to vote
against the Union. As an inducement, he promised her a trip through the
respondent's southern mills and assured her that she had a "good future" with
Reliance . Seeley, still refusing to participate in the respondent ' s anti-union
drive, returned to her work 20
On Thursday, the day after the election, Seeley advised several of the employees
that she was resigning that Saturday. The female employees, who were desir-
ous of retaining Seeley in the respondent's employ, attempted to intercede with
Heinsen in her behalf. He agreed to discuss the' matter with 3 of their repre-
sentatives. Accordingly, Maxine Harms,-Crystal Aldrich, and Mary Nichols were.
chosen by the employees to see Heinsen. Upon their arrival in his office Heinsen
volunteered that he could do nothing concerning the retention of Seeley since she
had resigned and he had merely accepted her resignation. They pointed out that
Seeley must have had good cause for her action Heinsen replied that-Seeley
violated the prime obligation of a supervisory employee, loyalty to the employer,
that Seeley, "the key to the factory," had refused the respondent's request "to
go up and tell them that when they were voting [yesterday] afternoon, that
they were either voting for the C I 0 or her." In reply to their suggestion that
he put the question of Seeley's retention to a vote of the employees, he agreed
with the reservation that 75 percent of the employees must vote affirmatively
before he would be obligated to retain her. During this conversation he dis-
closed that he had had two main objectives upon coming to -the Anamosa plant ;
"one was to keep the C I O. out, and the other one was to get-the factory 110
percent by the first of July " He boasted, "I have already accomplished the first,
and now I am working on the second " He consented to speak with Seeley and
suggested that they return to their work in the meantime
Heinsen thereupon called Seeley into his office and bemoaned, "Yesterday I was
in a mess. Today I am in a worse one. I am threatened with a walkout today."
Seeley thereupon offered, "Well, if it would help matters I would recall my resig-
nation and stay. I don't want the girls to walk out I want them to stay."
He replied, "Well, you have opposition, the girls [are] going to take a vote, a
seventy-five percent vote, and I will have to think it over." He then betrayed
the basis of his hesitation, declaring, "How do I know if this issue ever came
20 About 20 minutes after Seeley left Pilot she received a telephone call from Clifford
Niles, a local business man, asking her to come to his office Upon her arrival he said
")'oil have a lot of influence with the gills at the factory We business men don't want
that union in this town I have a lot of money invested in property, and we want
Reliance to stay here, and you are the only one that can keep the Union out I will
make it worth your while, and I will see even that you have a home to live in and I
will give you $250 00 cash right now if you go clown and tell the girls to vote against the
Union Seeley, declaring that she would consider the proposal, ieturned to the plant.
The Board's counsel contends that Niles was acting at the request and in behalf of the
respondent .- Upon all the circumstances suriounding this conversation , with special em-
phasis upon the similarity betiueen it and the conversation which immediately preceded
between the respondent ' s officials and Seeley , and the proximity in time between the two
conveisations , the undersigned finds some basis for the Board ' s contention . The under-
signed, however , finds it unnecessary to decide this question and bases no finding of an
unfair labor piactice upon the foregoing conversation.
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 963
up again, would [you] still be the same as [you were] or would [you] be for
Reliance"? Seeley made no reply.
Later that afternoon, however, he advised Harris, Aldrich, and Nichols, "I just
have to let Kate go. This is my own personal decision ; I have had no outside help
whatsoever." After work that evening Heinsen also advised Seeley that "he
-didn 't want [her] to blame anyone else but him, but he was releasing [her]
from [her] job," that her pay check and release would be in the office the next
morning.' -'
B. Concluding findings
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The foregoing review of the evidence leaves the undersigned no alternative but
to find that the respondent flagrantly interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the
Act. The respondent's threats to close the plant and remove its machinery, and
the actual removal of some of its machinery, its promise of a wage increase and
vacation with pay, and subsequent grant of the latter, in order to induce the
employees to vote against the Union, its grilling of employees concerning their
union affiliation, its efforts to induce a supervisory employee to campaign against
the Union, are all recognized forms of interference, restraint, and coercion."
2 The discharge of Seeley
Counsel for the respondent contends that: (1) Seeley was not discharged but
resigned; and (2) she "was not exercising any right granted by the National
Labor Relations Act "
The respondent's first contention merits but brief discussion. It is plain from
the foregoing facts, all of which are based on uncontradicted evidence, that, on
April 27, Seeley, in her first conversation with Heinsen that day, withdrew her
declaration to resign, which declaration the respondent had provoked, and offered
to remain in the respondent's employ. It is'further established that Superin-
tendent Heinsen understood Seeley's action to constitute a withdrawal of her
resignation Nevertheless, he decided to discharge her as punishment for her
past refusals to take part in the respondent's anti-union campaign, and because
he was fearful that she would pursue the same course of action in the future. In
fact, Heinsen so advised Seeley as well as the three employee representatives who
interceded in her behalf.
Nor does the respondent's contention that Seeley was not exercising rights
granted her under the Act preclude a finding that her discharge was violative of
the Act. A discharge to discourage union membership is no less a violation of
21 He offered to pay her for an additional period of 3 or 4 weeks until she secured other
work, but Seeley declined this offer
22 The statements of the respondent'ff officials and supervisory employees hereinabove
set forth , including President Bard ' s address to the employees , are clearly not expres-
sions of opinion or "argument temperate in form" as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
held the statements involved in N L R B v American Tube Bending Co , 134 F. (2d)
993-995, to be On the contrary, these statements containing threats of economic reprisals,
viewed against a background of employer hostility to the Union and-its adherents, including
the discriminatory withdrawal of 3 employees' seniority rights and the discriminatory
discharge of the 4th emplo'ee, as found below , were not merely an expression of a point
of view, but obviously cons`ituted "pressure exerted vocally" N L R B. v. Virginia
Electric & Power Co , 319 U S. 533 See also Matter of Van Raalte Company, Inc, 55
N. L R B. 146 Matter of Trojan Powder Co., 41 N. L R B 1308, enf'd 135 F (2d)
337 (C. C. A. 3 ) ; Matter of Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc., 54 N. L. R . B. 813 , 144 F. ( 2d) 520
(App D. C ) ; Reliance Mfg Co v. N. L. R. B, 125 F. (2d) 311 (C. C. A 7), adjudicated in
contempt , 143 F. (2d) 761 ( C. C. A. 5).
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 8 ( 3) of the Act when it is directed against a non-union employee or one
who is ineligible to membership in the Union involved. The discriminatory dis-
charge of a supervisory employee because he refuses to aid his employer in
restraining employees from voting for a union itself discourages union membership
among the employees, especially where, as here, the respondent advances such
reason for the discharge and communicates it to the 'other employees. Under
these circumstances the discharge of Seeley is clearly discriminatory within the
meaning of the Act. The undersigned finds that the respondent by discharging
Seeley, a forelady, on April 27, 1944, discriminated in regard to her hire and
tenure of employment, and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of
the. Act 23 '
3. The withdrawal of Nichols', Moore's and Norton's seniority rights
The respondent contends that its withdrawal of Nichols', Moore' s, and Norton's
seniority rights was motivated solely by legitimate economic considerations, the
maintenance of production and plant discipline. In support of this contention the
respondent urges that their leaving the plant was in violation of Foreman Powers'
orders that no employee leave the plant to testify without a subpoena and, con-
sequently, comes within the purview of the respondent's established rule that any
employee unauthorizedly leaving the plant "will be considered as having severed
his employment." The respondent therefore contends that it was warranted in
penalizing these three employees in the above manner. Upon the facts hereinabove
set forth, the undersigned finds the respondent's contention to be without merit.
In the first place, the respondent's restraint upon its employees' right to give
testimony in a Board proceeding, per .se, constitutes an infringement upon their
rights guaranteed under the Act. It is the public policy of the United States,
as expressed by`Congress in Section 1 of the Act, to encourage the "practice and
procedure of collective bargaining" and, as Congress specifically recognized, to
achieve that goal, it was essential to create administrative machinery to pro-
vide for the selection of the employees' collective bargaining representatives (Sec-
tion 9)- Moreover, Congress, in entrusting this function, to the Board sought
to secure for the Board free and unimpeded access to the evidence required to
make the requisite determinations. Thus, Section 8 (4) makes it illegal for an
employer "to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because
he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act " In the interest of secur-
ing a full and adequate hearing, an employee is protected against subsequent
employer reprisal It is equally necessary to prevent an employer from.,in the
first instance, imposing restraints upon an employee's right to testify. To permit
ail employer to forbid an employee to leave the plant to testify would-place the
employer in a peculiarly strategic position to interfere with the administrative
process. Thus, at the threshold, he could interfere with the Board's processes
and impair the employees' rights guaranteed them under the Act This invasion
of and interference with the employees' right of self-organization and impair-
ment of the administrative process is no less violative of the Act by reason of its
limitation, to employees who are without subpoenas. Employees are not de-
prived of their right to give testimony under the Act by virtue of the fact that
they testify willingly; whether or not a subpoena is required to issue is a mat-
zi N L R B v . Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company , 113 F ( 2d) 667 ( C C A 8),
enf'g 13 N L R B 1186. N L R B v Richter's Bakery, 140 F .(2d) 870 (C C A 5),
enf'g , 40 N L R B . 450: Matter of Ronrico Corporation and Puerto Rico Distilling Com-
pany, 53 N L R . B. 1137, 1169, of Matter of Soss Manufacturing Co, et at, 56 N L.
It B 348
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 965
ter solely for the witnesses' determination This statutory right takes on added
importance in the instant case where the employer failed to participate in the
representation hearing, thereby depriving the Board of its primary source of in-
formation and compelling the Board to rely upon the testimony of the respond-
ent's employees.
Nor has the respondent advanced any cogent reason or special circumstance
in justification of its interference with the administrative process. and the rights
guaranteed its employees under the Act, the prohibition bears "no reasonable
relation, to the efficient operation of the plant or business." N. L. B B. v. The
Donver Tent and Aivving Company, 138 F. (2d) 410 (C. C. A 10). The respond-
ent's claim that the subpoena requirement was imposed in order to prevent a
mass withdrawal of its employees to attend the hearing is implausible upon the
facts of this case. Only 4 of the respondent's 180 employees asked for such per-
mission, and, as the respondent was fully aware, all 4 of these employees made
such request in order to testify.24 That the absence of but 4 employees out of a
total of 180 employees is not disruptive of production is plain from the figures
themselves Moreover, Forelady Seeley, of whom request to leave had been made
by 2 employees, obviously did not consider their absence disruptive of produc-
tion since, prior to her conversation with Powers, she advised both employees
that she would grant their requests. That the prohibition had no reasonable
connection to production is conclusively demonstrated by the fact that it applied
to -the recess periods as well as working hours. Thus, Moore, who was custom-
arily permitted to go home for the 10-minute morning recess, was this day denied
such permission. Nor did the respondent exhibit similar concern regarding
the effect upon production of its anti-union campaign. Superintendent Hein-
sen had no compunctions about removing machinery from the plant in order to
coerce the employees into voting against the Union. Similarly, the entire plant
was closed down during working hours the day of the election in order to enable
President Bard to deliver an anti-union address to the employees 25
In any event, the respondent's motive in denying the employees' requests for
leave and, 3 days later, depriving Nichols, Moore, and Norton of their seniority
rights, was to deny to its employees the right to give testimony. As hereinabove
found, the prohibition bore no plausible relation to the operation of the plant.
In addition, while it was broad enough to prevent any empliiyee from leaving
the plant either dui ing working hours or recess periods the day of the hearing,
there is no evidence in the record that any employee either before or since the
hearing has been denied such permission. On the contrary, all of the witnesses
who testified respecting suclri'requests, including Forelady Seeley, declared that
such permission was freely granted in every case The period of proscription
was thus carefully chosen for the sole purpose of preventing the employees from
testifying. Moreover, in marked contrast to the drastic punishment meted out
to Nichols, Moore, and Norton is Heinsen's action of 2 weeks before in allowing
7 employees, who unauthorizedly left the plant for a half day, to return to work
without any disciplinary action whatsoever.
Upon all of the foregoing facts, and the entire record, the undersigned finds
that the respondent's application of its rule-" constituted a direct interference
ai Pov, ers announced the-above prohibition when he knew of but one request
25 It should be noted that if the respondent had been sincerely concerned regarding the
hearing's effect upon production it would have attempted to arrange with the administra-
tive officer in charge of the heiiring to set the hearing's sessions so as not to mteifere with
production The respondent chose, instead, to iguoie the hearing
26 The respondent does not strengthen its position by reference to the rule prohibiting
leave without supervisory pei mission, in the absence of which an employee is considered
to have severed his employment This rule must be read in the light of the statute , insofar
as its application impinges upon the statutory rights of the employees it is invalid
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the employees' rights under the Act, and an illegal restraint upon the Board's
processes The undersigned further finds that the respondent, whose basic anti-
unionism is uncontrovertibly established, announced and implemented said pro-
hibition for the purpose of interfering with its employees' rights to give testimony,
and that Nichols, Moore, and Norton were deprived of their seniority rights
because, disregarding the respondent's desires, they gave testimony under the
Act ; the respondent thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations described in Section I above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the respondent discriminated in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment of Kate Seeley, it will be recommended that the
respondent offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by
reason of such discrimination by payment to her of a sum of money equal to
the amount she normally would have earned as wages during the period from
the date of the discrimination against, her to the date of the respondent's, offer
of reinstatement to her, less her net earnings27 during such period. Since it has
been found that the respondent discriminatorily deprived Mary Nichols, Rosa
Lee Moore and Hattie Norton of their seniority rights previously earned and
enjoyed, it will be ieconimended that the respondent restore to each of them the
seniority rights •tq which she normally would have been entitled, absent the
respondent's discrimination.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the
undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (C. I. 0.), is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure, of employment of Mary
Nichols, Rosa Lee Moore,_ Hattie Norton, and Kate Seeley, and thereby dis-
couraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (C. I. 0.),
the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
n By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See
Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590 , 8 N L R B . 440 Monies
received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work -relief
projects shall be considered as earnings See Republic Steel Corporation v N. L: R. B.
311 U. S-7.
C
RELIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 967
3 By discriminating against Mary Nichols, Rosa Lee Moore and Hattie Nor-
ton because they gave testimony under the Act, the respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of
the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting coin-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respond-
ent, Reliance Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
(C. I. 0 ), or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging any
of its employees, by depriving any of its employees of their seniority rights, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of their employment ;
(b) Discriminating against any employee because he or she has given testi-
mony under the Act ;
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (C. I. 0.), or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Kate Seeley immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole Kate Seeley for any loss of pay she may have suffered by
reason of the respondent's discrimination in regard to her hire and tenure of
employment, by payment to her of a suns of money equal to that which she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination against
her to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings
during such period ;
(c) Restore to Mary Nichols, Rosa Lee Moore, and Hattie Norton the seniority
rights of which they have been deprived by reason of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against them ;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its plant in Anamosa, Iowa,
and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not
engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in
paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of these recommendations; (2) that the respond-
ent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a), (b) and (c) of
these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to
21 See footnote 27, supra.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
become or remain members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
(C. I 0 ), and that the respondent will not discriminate against any employee
because of membership in or activity on behalf of that organization ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of the Intermediate Report what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith-
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26,
1943, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transterring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a state-
ment in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to
any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or
objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a
brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the
Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made
in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board. i
WnUAM J. ISAACSON,
Trial Examiner.
Dated September 21, 1944.