Signal Knitting Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 4, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 876 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tazewell Division of Signal Knitting Mills , Inc. and
International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America . Cases 10-CA-7470 and
10-CA-7573
December 4, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also
found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended dismissal of these allegations.
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 made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, with the additions noted below.'
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASES
A. BRUCE HUNT, Trial Examiner - These two cases,
which were consolidated at the hearing, involve the same
parties In each case , the Respondent, Tazewell Division
of Signal Knitting Mills, Inc.,' is alleged to have violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , 29 U S C Sec. 151, et seq I On
November 21 and 22, 1968, I conducted a hearing in Case
10-CA-7470 at Knoxville, Tennessee . On January 6, 1969,
I granted a motion to consolidate the cases , and on that
and the next day evidence was taken in both cases in the
same city . All parties were represented throughout the
hearing Subsequently , briefs were received from the
General Counsel and the Respondent , and have been
considered . The Respondent ' s motions to dismiss are
disposed of in accordance with the determinations below.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE RESPONDENT
Tazewell Division of Signal Knitting Mills, Inc., a
Tennessee corporation, has its principal office and place of
business at New Tazewell, Tennessee, where it is engaged
in the manufacture of men's and boys' underwear. The
Respondent annually ships finished products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to points outside Tennessee
There is no dispute, and I find, that the Respondent is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION
International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, is a labor organization which admits
to membership employees of the Respondent
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
orders that the Respondent, Tazewell Division of
Signal Knitting Mills, Inc., New Tazewell,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified.
Add, as paragraph l(b) the following, and reletter
present paragraph 1(b) as l (c):
"(b) Inquiring of employees about their union
activities or asking them to learn for Respondent
the names of union adherents, or advising them to
stop associating with such adherents."
'We hereby amend the Trial Examiner ' s conclusions of law by adding
the following paragraph 3
"3 By inquiring of employees about their union activities or asking
them to learn for Respondent the names of union adherents, or advising
them to stop associating with such adherents, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act "
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
Our principal issues are whether, during the latter part
of 1968, the Respondent (1) interrogated and threatened
employees concerning their union activities, and created
the impression that such activities had been under
surveillance, and (2) invalidly discharged three employees,
Shirley Mae Bussell, Roy Keck and Frances Keck As will
appear, the basic problem in nearly all instances is
credibility
B. Chronology of Events
During times material, the number of the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees ranged from
approximately 360 to 380. On July 18, 1968, the Union
'By motions at the hearing, the style of the cases was amended to show
the new name of the Respondent Its earlier name had been Tazewell
Textiles, Incorporated
'The charge and amended charge in Case 10-CA-7470 were filed on
August 28 and September 24, 1968, and the complaint was issued on
October 8 , 1968 The charge in Case 10-CA-7573 was filed on November
25, 1968, after the hearing had begun, and the complaint was issued on
December 17, 1968 As recited in footnote 12, an earlier charge involving
one of the dischargees is not a part of the record in this proceeding
179 NLRB No. 154
TAZEWELL DIV. OF SIGNAL KNITTING MILLS 877
initiated an organizational campaign when William A.
Robinson, a representative, began to contact employees at
their homes and elsewhere in the town in which the plant
is located. On July 19, the first union cards were signed.
The first handbills were not distributed at the plant until
about August 27 and ,there were no meetings called by the
Union at any time material.
During the latter part of July, Robinson spoke with
James Eastridge concerning the efforts to organize the
plant. Eastridge, who was- a cutter and who became a
supervisor of cutters, testified that the conversation
occurred before he became a supervisor and, by reference
to the date of Roy Keck's discharge (discussed
hereinafter), Eastridge fixed the date of the conversation
as about July 28.' The record does not disclose the details
of the conversation., Subsequently, Eastridge and Roy
Keck, a cutter, spoke several times of the Union, and the
General Counsel contends that Eastridge made remarks
violative of Section 8(a)(1). The first of their conversations
took place on or,about August 1, and their versions differ
substantially. According to Keck, whose version I credit,
he had been . unaware of the Union until Eastridge
inquired whether he would favor a union and would sign a
union card, to which he responded affirmatively, and
Eastridge then said that Eastridge had been talking to a
man, whom Eastridge did not then identify, and that
Eastridge would "let [Keck] know at a later date." On the
other hand, Eastridge testified that the conversation was
limited to Keck's inquiry of him "how [he] felt about the
Union" and whether he would sign a union card, to which
he responded affirmatively. About 7 to 10 days later,
Keck and Eastridge talked again . I credit Keck's
testimony that Eastridge inquired whether Keck had heard
of union cards having been circulated and signed, to which
Keck responded in the negative, and Eastridge then said
that he, Eastridge, had "heard of some being signed."4 At
this point, I depart from the chronology of overall events
and continue with the conversations between Keck and
Eastridge. These two individuals testified that Keck called
at Eastridge's home more than once during August, and
Keck testified additionally that his purpose in calling there
was to talk about the Union. On or about August 15,
Keck signed a union card and became active in the
organizational campaign. On August 19, at Keck's
request, Eastridge signed a card that he obtained from
Keck. On August 27, in the plant, Eastridge inquired
whether Keck had any cards, to which Keck replied in the
negative, but added that he could obtain some, and
Eastridge said that he, Eastridge, knew some employees
who would sign cards if Keck would obtain them for
Eastridge. The next morning, Keck was discharged. As
recited hereinafter, Eastridge took a limited part in the
discharge which was directed by Eastridge's superiors. On
September 5, when counsel for the Respondent was
investigating the merit of the charge that had been filed
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(3) in Keck's discharge,
counsel interviewed - Eastridge in the presence of
Eastridge's superiors. Eastridge concealed from counsel
the fact that he had signed a card and he misrepresented
his conversations with Keck. Eastridge's written statement
to counsel reads, in pertinent part:
'Counsel for the Respondent , in questioning witnesses , fixed the date
upon which Eastridge became a supervisor as July 16. That date is earlier
than the commencement of union activities.
'Eastridge was asked on direct examination by counsel for the
Respondent whether Keck had talked with him more than once about the
Union, and Eastridge replied . " He [Keck ] talked to me down there and
then he come to my house and talked to me more than once" Eastridge
I have never talked to any employee about the Union
and haven't heard anything about the Union until two
or so weeks ago. Roy Keck asked me about two weeks
before he was fired what I thought about the Union
and I told him that I knew nothing about it I had no
other conversation with Keck at that time or since
about that subject. I never mentioned this to any
Company official or anyone else until giving this
statement."
The conversations between Keck and Eastridge present
two issues. The first is whether the Respondent, by reason
of Eastridge's inquiries of Keck, violated Section 8(a)(l). I
conclude that there was no violation. I do not know
whether Eastridge was a cutter or a supervisor of cutters
when he first spoke with Keck about the Union, but he
became a supervisor before their last conversation. The
important points, I find, are that Eastridge was originally
interested in the Union as a means of improving his
working conditions, and that, on and before August 27,
Keck regarded Eastridge as a fellow employee with such
interest. Under these circumstances, I do not find that
Eastridge's inquiries tended to be of a coercive nature
The second issue is whether, before Keck's discharge,
Eastridge informed his superiors of Keck's union
activities. I answer that in the negative. I have credited
Keck's testimony in preference to that of Eastridge
concerning their conversations, and I shall have occasion
hereinafter to discredit portions of Eastridge's testimony
concerning Keck's discharge. Eastridge impressed me as a
reluctant witness who was willing to shape his testimony
to the Respondent's advantage, perhaps out of fear. He
surely had come to regret the day that he signed a union
card, and that regret may have been initiated by Keck's
discharge. But until sometime later, in my opinion,
Eastridge did not speak with his superiors concerning his
and Keck's union activities.
As recited above, the Union's representative, Robinson,
visited the homes of employees in his organizational
efforts. About August 7, he called upon the supervisor of
the Respondent's warehouse, Dewey Lawson. Robinson
said to Lawson that "someone" had suggested that he
seek Lawson's aid in the organizational efforts. Lawson's
response was that he was a supervisor and that he "would
be crazy to try to organize the place."5 The testimony of
witnesses for the Respondent, including Lawson, is that
Lawson did not tell any other supervisor of his
conversation with Robinson until August 14, upon which
day a local business man notified Frank Sisco, the plant's
general manager, that union activity was underway. In the
meantime, on August 12, Bussell was discharged, as
described hereinafter.
Willa Mae Collins worked for the Respondent during a
period of about 15 months, ending in September 1968
when she quit. On or about August 14, she was sent to the
office of Howard Maxwell, the assistant superintendent at
the plant. Maxwell, using a vulgar expression,, accused her
of conduct adverse to him. She replied that she did not
know what he was talking about, and he said that he had
the Union in mind She expressed ignorance of the Union,
and he said that "some girls" had given him a list of
names on which Collins' name appeared During the
conversation, Maxwell said that Frances Keck (wife of
Roy Keck) was working for the Union, and Collins
expressed disbelief, adding that she would know if Mrs
was not asked to elaborate
'The findings concerning this conversation are based upon Lawson's
uncontradicted testimony
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Keck were doing so. Maxwell asked that Collins "find out
for him who was for the union .116 At the time of this
conversation, Maxwell and his wife, also an employee at
the plant , were on friendly terms with Collins and her
husband , and upon occasion Mr. Collins had cut the grass
at Maxwell ' s home . There were frequent telephone
conversations between Mrs . Collins and Mrs . Maxwell.
Two or 3 days after the conversation in Maxwell 's office,
he and Mrs. Collins spoke by telephone when she was at
her home . He-said to her that , "as a good friend," he
would advise her to cease riding to and from work with
Roy and Frances Keck because the Kecks were for the
Union.'
The conversation that is the subject of this paragraph
relates to the question whether the Respondent had
knowledge of the union adherence of Frances Keck; no
portion of the conversation is alleged to have been an
independent violation of Section 8(a)(l). The employees
who operate sewing machines , of whom Keck was one, are
paid a minimum wage of $1 .60 hourly. They also work at
piece rates , and an employee ' s failure to earn at piece
rates during any week as much as the hourly rate
multiplied by the weekly hours is called a failure to
"make production." On August 20, a Tuesday, Frances
Keck was sent to the office to talk with Superintendent
Shipley and Maxwell.' Shipley gave to her a written
warning that recited , in part , that Keck ' s "last week's
earning[s] were $1.55 per hour" and that, if she did not
make production within 1 week , she would be laid off. On
the same day , other employees also received written
warnings. Shipley testified that for several weeks prior to
August 20 Keck had not made production Maxwell
testified that Keck had not made production during the
workweek immediately preceding August 20 and that she
had not made production for about 2 months,
"somewhere along there." The fact, however, is that Keck
had averaged $- 1.62 during the workweek beginning
Monday, August 12, as Maxwell acknowledged on
cross-examination , at which point he testified that the
written warning had been intended to cover the workweek
beginning August 5. On August 20, Keck reacted with
vigor to Shipley's statement that she had not made
production and that she would be laid off if she did not
'The findings concerning the conversation are based upon Collins'
testimony . She impressed me as a witness who sought to tell the truth
Maxwell denied that the conversation occurred , but that denial was
unconvincing Moreover, as will appear, I must discredit Maxwell in
certain other instances . Additional comments must be made about Collins'
testimony . First, she is an excitable person, as the testimony reflects and as
I commented when she was on the witness stand She testified that during
the conversation with Maxwell she began to cry, that, at one point, Luther
Shipley, the plant 's superintendent , came into the office , and that Maxwell
told her not to tell Shipley the nature of the conversation Secondly, on
Collins' cross -examination , it developed that on September 5, a few days
before she quit; she was given a warning that the quality of her work was
unsatisfactory, at which time she became so excited that Maxwell and
Shipley suggested that an ambulance be called to take her to a hospital
She refused to go to a hospital While Collins ' testimony is confusing at
times, the record is clear that Maxwell's remarks to her about the Union
were made a few weeks before the conversation about the quality of her
work.
'The findings concerning this conversation are based upon Collins'
testimony She expressed uncertainty concerning who initiated the call
Maxwell answered in the negative a question whether he ever telephoned
Collins "to warn her against working for the Union " I consider Maxwell's
testimony concerning conversations by telephone with Collins as a denial
that the particular conversation with her occurred , and I cannot credit the
denial Additionally , Maxwell testified that on November I, when Mrs
Keck was discharged , he had had no knowledge that she had engaged in
union activity As will appear, Maxwell did have such knowledge
make production within I week. She told him that she had
made production during the workweek beginning August
12 and that she could make production regularly except
when she had to sew a type of material that had recently
been put in use in the plant. Keck also said that her
production was not the reason that she had been called to
the office and that the reason related instead to the
discharges of some other employees Keck said further,
explicitly or in substance, that she had been called to the
office because of the Union. Keck's reaction to Shipley's
statement that she would be laid off if she did not make
production within a week was to invite him to lay her off
then and there. She was not laid off, and she returned to
work
On August 23, Sisco, the plant's general manager,
made an address to the employees. He used a text which
had been prepared with the assistance of counsel and
which is an exhibit. He testified that the address consisted
entirely of his having read the text plus his comments that
(1) the employees would be paid for the time spent in
listening to him and (2 ) the Respondent 's insurance plan
for employees was better than that maintained by any
other employer in the area Several employees testified
concerning the address and it is clear from their testimony
that Sisco used notes or a complete text. Their testimony
does not warrant a rejection of Sisco's testimony that he
did not depart from the text except in the two instances
mentioned . The complaint in Case 10-CA-7470 alleges
that Sisco (I) "threatened . . employees with loss of
benefits if the Union were successful in its organizational
campaign;" (2) "threatened . . . employees with discharge
if they `pressured' fellow employees to join or engage in
activities on behalf of the Union;" and (3) "created the
impression of surveillance by informing . . . employees
that Respondent knew who had signed union cards." The
General Counsel's brief is not helpful on these issues
because it does not mention the speech. On the other
hand, counsel for the Respondent treat in their brief the
portions of the speech which, they have inferred, are the
bases of the quoted allegations. I agree with their
inferences. Before treating those portions, it is appropriate
to note that Sisco expressed strong opposition to the
Union and praised certain working conditions that the
employees enjoyed. Additionally, the speech closed with
Sisco's remarks that the question of union representation
was "something on which each of you will have to make
up his own mind," that the Union did not represent
progress for either the employees or the Respondent, and
that he "respectfully urge[d]" each of the employees not
to sign a union card. Turning to the first allegation quoted
above, Sisco said that he believed "that if this Union were
'Gonyou Hurst , the plant's personnel manager, was present during a
portion of the conversation
'These findings are based largely upon Keck 's testimony There is no
dispute that Keck said that her production was not the reason that she had
been called to the office and that she also invited an immediate layoff The
question is whether Keck expressed her opinion as to the real reason she
had been called there Although I discredit portions of Keck's testimony
concerning events on the day of her discharge , discussed hereinafter, I find
that on August 20 she told Shipley and Maxwell the reason that she
believed she had been called to the office When talking to those men on
that day, Keck was indignant, and as a witness she impressed me as the
sort of person who would express her views under the circumstances that
surrounded the interview of August 20. Turning to another conversation,
one between Maxwell and Roy Keck on August 21 , the General Counsel's
evidence was offered for the sole purpose of showing that the Respondent
was aware of Roy Keck's union adherence I believe that it is unnecessary
to recite and resolve the conflicts in testimony This is so because the
findings above demonstrate that Maxwell knew of such adherence
TAZEWELL DIV. OF SIGNAL KNITTING MILLS 879
to get in here , it would not work to [the employees']
benefit " Elsewhere in the speech, which should be
considered as a whole, he said that, contrary to the belief
that some of the employees may have held, the Union had
been expelled from International Union, United Mine
Workers of America, which did not "have any use for"
the Union, and "neither should" the employees. I do not
see a threat of loss of benefits in the remarks. Turning to
the allegation that Sisco threatened to discharge
employees who pressured other employees to join the
Union or to engage in union activities , Sisco's speech
contained two consecutive numbered paragraphs which
together read as follows:
If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts
you under any sort of pressure to join the union, you
should let the company know, and we will undertake to
see that this is stopped. As in all other matters not
related to your work, union organizing activities will
not be allowed on the job. Anybody who carries on such
activities and thereby neglects his own work, or
interferes with the work of others, will be subject to
discharge.
I do not believe that the introductory clause in the above
quotation should be read as though it were confined to the
words "If anyone puts you under any sort of pressure to
join the Union." I believe instead that Sisco was saying,
in substance, that working time is for work and that union
activity during working hours would not be permitted I
find that this allegation also is unsupported. Turning
finally to the allegation that Sisco created the impression
of surveillance, this allegation may be founded in that
portion of Sisco's address which reads: "If the truth of the
matter were known, I think you would find that only a
small minority of employees here have signed union cards
and that many of these are sorry they did so " The
quotation was in the context of assertions that some labor
organizations are known to have made in campaigns,
particularly exaggerated or false claims that most or
nearly all other employees have signed cards To quote
Sisco further, "They [organizers] want you to think that,
by signing , you are only going along with the will of the
majority. Almost invariably they tell you this even though
they have only a handful of people signed up out of a
large plant." In context, I find that Sisco was giving his
version of misleading organizational tactics, and that he
was not creating, nor attempting to create, an impression
of surveillance. In summary, I add that, whatever might
be said about Sisco 's address if the Respondent had
engaged in numerous independent violations of Section
8(a)(1), the address must be considered in the light of the
few such violations found herein.
Dewey Lawson has been identified as a supervisor
whose aid in organizing was sought by a representative of
the Union. There is testimony for the General Counsel,
sharply contradicted by Lawson, that during August and
September he made statements violative of Section
8(a)(1). One incident relates to remarks allegedly made by
Lawson on August 27 to Othella Wright, an employee
who had been discharged. Other incidents relate to
remarks allegedly made to Wright's husband, Douglas.
Othella Wright was not a witness, and the only testimony
for the General Counsel concerning Lawson's alleged
remarks was given by Douglas Wright.
Othella Wright was discharged on August 15, and that
discharge was one of the violations alleged in the initial
charge in Case lO-CA-7470. Her discharge is not an issue,
however. Douglas Wright was hired during August and
was discharged on October 19. His discharge also is not
an issue For a period of about 6 weeks after Douglas
Wright was hired, he rode to and from work with Lawson.
According to Wright, on August 27 when he and Lawson
arrived at a service station where Othella Wright was
awaiting him, Lawson asked Mrs Wright "what they
thought they would gain by getting a union in over there,"
to which she responded "that she thought they would gain
a lot," whereupon Lawson asked her how many employees
had signed cards, to which she replied "over 200," and he
then said that "they didn't have but 95." Wright testified
further that he thought that the operator of the service
station was present at the conversation between Lawson
and Mrs. Wright, but neither the operator nor Mrs.
Wright was a witness Turning to Lawson's version, he
testified that earlier that day he had seen her distributing
union leaflets outside the plant and that he had told
Douglas Wright of Mrs. Wright's activity, to which
Wright had replied that his wife had not been distributing
leaflets because she had been "in the tobacco field
working tobacco." Lawson testified further that upon the
arrival at the service station with Wright, the latter
inquired of his wife whether she had been distributing
leaflets, to which she responded affirmatively, and that
Wright then said to her, "you know you are going to fool
around until you get me fired." According to Lawson, he
remained silent and listened to the conversation between
Mr and Mrs Wright This conflict is resolved below after
the recitation of testimony concerning alleged remarks by
Lawson upon other occasions. Wright testified that,
during late August and early September, Lawson inquired
of him more than once whether he had signed a union
card, to which he responded affirmatively, and that
Lawson also asked more than once that Wright obtain
from his wife a list of card signers so that Lawson could
have those employees discharged. Wright testified further
that ultimately he gave to Lawson the names of some
employees who were already known to Lawson as card
signers. On the other hand, Lawson denied that he ever
questioned Wright about the Union or requested that
Wright give to him a list of employees who had signed
cards. Lawson testified further that on August 28, the day
after the conversation at the service station, Wright
offered to give him a list of names, and that he told
Wright that he "didn't want them." In determining
credibility, I note at the outset that Wright and Lawson
were on the witness stand only briefly and that there was
little opportunity to observe them. I had, and have, a
belief that in one instance at least Lawson was untruthful,
but his testimony concerning the conversation at the
service station is a believable version. In respect to
Wright, he was biased against the Respondent because
he and his wife had been discharged. Lawson had
discharged Wright. When Wright was asked on cross
examination whether the reason had been absenteeism,
he answered: "That was [Lawson's] excuse, yes."
When asked by me whether Mrs. Wright was a
member of the Union, Wright answered "Yes. She got
fired over it ""' Unquestionably, Wright's bias colored his
testimony. I find that he exaggerated to such an extent
that the truth cannot be found For these reasons, I
conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his
burden of proof on these allegations.
"Upon motion by counsel for the Respondent, I struck that portion of
the answer following the initial affirmative word . Although certain exhibits,
including the original charge in Case 10-CA-7470, reflect Mrs Wright's
discharge and her interest in the Union , I now reverse the ruling and
reinstate that portion of the answer because it reflects adversely upon
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 28, Roy Keck was discharged , as discussed
hereinafter . On the same day; the initial charge was filed
in Case 10-CA-7470, and Keck is named therein as a
discriminatee . He is similarly named in the amended
charge of September 24. During October, according to the
testimony of Frances Keck , Maxwell came to her and
suggested ' that she persuade her husband to withdraw the
charges. Maxwell denied that he spoke with Mrs. Keck
about withdrawal of charges . I shall not recite Frances
Keck ' s testimony and resolve the conflict . As discussed
hereinafter , she was discharged on November 1 and her
testimony'.co'ncerning events on that day was not entirely
truthful . I have found that Maxwell was not a reliable
witness, and thus I have a conflict in the testimony of two
witnesses who gave false testimony on other subjects. In
the absence of testimony to support that of Frances Keck
concerning a conversation during October, I conclude that
the General Counsel has not sustained his burden
concerning that alleged conversation between Mrs Keck
and Maxwell.
C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
Maxwell's remafkk to Collins on or about August 14,
1968, including his request that she ascertain for him the
names of union adherents, and by his advice to her a few
days later that she cease riding to and from work with
Roy and Frances Keck because those individuals were
union adherents.
D. fihe Discharge of Bussell
Shirley Mae Bussell was hired by the Respondent
during July 1967. She worked in the boxing department
for about 6 month's when her employment was terminated
for a short period. She returned to work as a member of
the quality control unit, examining shorts to assure that
the garments had been sewed to standards of quality.
During March 1968, Bussell quit her fob, again for a short
period, and she returned to work as an inspector of
T-shirts. There' is d conflict in the testimony concerning
whether Bussell's first termination was a quit, as she
testified, or a discharge for absenteeism, as witnesses for
the Respondent, 'testified. There also are conflicts
concerning , the circumstances under which. Bussell
obtained reemployment during March 1968, but these
conflicts need not be recited and resolved.
The initial 'question is whether Bussell received a
written warning during July 1968 concerning her work as
an inspector of T-shirts. Preliminarily it may be noted
that the Respondent stressed quantity and quality of work
by the employees, but there was a considerable amount of
inefficient, work' due in part to new and inexperienced
employees and to the use of new material. The task of the
inspectors was to examine each T-shirt, to reject those
garments that had not been properly sewed, and to fold
the remaining ones. The inspectors worked on a quota
system, however, and in their efforts to "make
production" they sometimes passed garments that should
have been rejected. At the next stage, quality control,
selective inspections occur and, if improperly sewn
garments are found, those garments are returned to the
inspector who passed them. All inspectors of T-shirts had
garments returned to them and at times Maxwell spoke
Wright's credibility Too, I reiterate that the discharges of Mr and Mrs
Wright are not in issue
with inspectors concerning the need for improvement in
their work Bussell was one of a group to whom he spoke.
Betty Purkey was an inspector who quit her employment
during September 1968 because of the pressure upon her.
Purkey testified credibly that she was not as capable an
employee as Bussell because the latter had worked earlier
in quality control and "was one of the best" inspectors.
On the other hand, the testimony for the Respondent
differs greatly Shirley England (not to be confused with
Janice England, mentioned hereinafter), an inspector in
quality control, testified that Bussell did "[p]retty poor
work," that she had returned work to Bussell upon many
occasions, that she had to watch Bussell's work closely,
that Bussell did not show improvement, and that Bussell
passed more "bad work" than other inspectors. England
was not a credible witness She testified that Purkey's
work was not "very bad" and that the work of another
inspector, Amy Moyers, was not bad. England testified
further that she did not have to watch Moyers' work
closely. When confronted with an affidavit that she had
executed, however, England acknowledged reluctantly that
Purkey's work had been "pretty bad" and that she had
said in the affidavit that she had watched Moyers' work
closely Turning to other testimony for the Respondent,
Maxwell testified that Bussell's work was of "a very bad
quality," that she showed no improvement, and that "it
got worse" toward the end of her employment Shipley
testified that Bussell did not do good work as an inspector
although in her earlier employment in other capacities she
had done "pretty good work" at times and not "so
good" work at other times.
The record contains a "warning notice" dated
"7-17-68," addressed to Bussell, signed by Maxwell, with
the following portion handwritten.
On 7/ 17/68 your work was checked by quanity [sic]
control, out of two dozen garments 9/ 12 of them was
seconds. Two open seams on sew collar, three dirt and
grease stains, one hole, two open seams on sew sleeves,
one cut deep on hem bottoms. You have been warned
verbal[ly] several times and you have shown no
improvement in your work. If there is not improvement
immediately you will be discharged
Maxwell testified that on July 17 he read the notice to
Bussell and gave it to her. Shipley testified that he was
present. On the other hand, Bussell repeatedly denied that
management had read or given the notice to her. In
resolving this credibility issue, I note first that the
Respondent does not require that warning notices be
signed by employees to whom they are addressed or that
such employees otherwise acknowledge receipt in writing.
Thus, there is no written proof that the notice was read or
given to Bussell. Next, the notice addressed to her, but
retained by the Respondent, is an original. The notice
given to Frances Keck, discussed above, was an original
and the Respondent retained a copy Hurst, the personnel
manager, testified that she is given copies of warning
notices to place in the files. Next, the date of the notice to
Bussell appears in it twice, once as "7-17-68" and later as
-7/17/68", as recited above. In the second instance, there
is a space of over 3/4 of an inch between the numeral 8
and the next word, "your." No such spacing appears
elsewhere in the notice. Additionally, the numerals
7/ 17/68 were written with a different pencil point than the
one used for the remainder of the writing. Maxwell
testified that it was possible that he used one pencil to
write everything preceding "7/17/68", at which time he
broke the pencil point Another possibility is that the
notice as originally written contained a blank space for
TAZEWELL DIV. OF SIGNAL KNITTING MILLS
the insertion of a date -and that "7/ 17/68" was written
therein. These details concerning the notice addressed to
Bussell create a suspicion that the notice is not authentic.
Aside therefrom, Bussell impressed me as truthful in
testifying that the notice was not read or given to her, and
Maxwell and Shipley were unconvincing in testifying to
the contrary.
On July 23, Bussell signed a union card. She and her
husband each obtained the signatures of a few employees
to cards. On August 12, the day of Bussell's discharge,
Shipley went to her place of work and inquired whether
she had any cards, to which she responded by asking what
kind of cards he had in mind: Shipley said that she knew
what kind he was talking about, and he walked away "
Later that morning, Bussell was called to the office where
Shipley, Maxwell, Hurst and Shirley England were
present. Bussell was discharged.' i According to testimony
for the Respondent, that morning England examined some
garments that had passed Bussell 's inspection, among
which were garments so poorly made that they should not
have been passed, and England took the garments to
Maxwell and Shipley. The Respondent's version of the
discharge is that Bussell accepted it without protest.
Shipley, who testified that he was unaware of the
organizational activity -when he discharged Bussell,
testified also that he told her that she had been warned
orally and in writing, that "nothing seemed to do any
good with her," and that there was no alternative to
discharging her, to which she replied, "well, if that's the
way you want it, I am ready to go." Maxwell testified
that, after a discussion concerning the garments, Shipley
said that Bussell was being discharged, to which she
replied "that she had -done her best and if that was the
way it was, if that was the way [management] wanted it,
it was okay." Hurst testified that Shipley showed the
garments to Bussell, told her that she had been warned
earlier and that she- Was being discharged, and that,
insofar as Hurst could recall, Bussell did not offer any
explanation for her work. England testified that Bussell
was told that she had been warned before that she would
be discharged the next time she passed poorly made
garments, to which Bussell replied that "she knew it."
Turning to Bussell 's-' version, there are substantial
variances. She testified that when Shipley told her that he
had warned her for the last time and that she was being
discharged for "passing bad work," she told him to "go
ahead" if that was the way he -wanted it, that she had
done the best she knew how, and that the Respondent
could not "have good quality and production both." More
importantly, Bussell testified further that she said to
Shipley that he had-not warned her "before for bad work"
and that she would like to see the bad work that she had
passed. She testified further-that Shipley showed her seven
T-shirts, five of which were ' "off center," that she
protested that on the preceding Saturday she had shown
those garments to Maxwell who had said that they were
not sufficiently off-center to be rejected, and that Shipley
agreed to put those garments "off to the side."" In
respect to the remaining two garments, Bussell testified
that they contained imperfections. In resolving the
credibility issues, I am mindful that, in addition to the
conflicts already recited, the evidence for the Respondent
is that more than two garments remained after some had
been set aside and that there were more imperfections
than those about which Bussell testified I believe,
however, that Bussell was not an incapable, nor the least
capable, inspector, and that the Respondent accused her
of having passed bad work when its real motive was to rid
881
itself of a union adherent. Such motive is reflected in the
fact that Bussell had never been given a written warning
and in Shipley's inquiry of her on the day of her discharge
whether she possessed any cards I find that her discharge
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
E The Discharge of Roy Keck
Keck was hired by the Respondent on January 4, 1968
As a cutter, he was one of about 9 men who spread layers
of cloth upon tables, placed patterns on the top layers,
and cut the cloth according to the patterns He became a
member of the Union's organizing committee and he
solicited other employees to sign union cards. As we have
seen, Maxwell was aware that Keck was a union adherent.
On August 28, Keck was discharged The reason advanced
by the Respondent is that on the preceding day he had
spread cloth in a very improper manner. According to the
testimony for the Respondent, Keck would not have been
discharged except for that spread although he was an
incompetent cutter. Shirley England, who was identified in
connection with Bussell's discharge, testified for the
Respondent that Keck did "very poor work." Ellen Estes,
an employee in quality control, testified that she had
various occasions to check the work of cutters. According
to Estes, soon after Keck was hired she discovered that he
was performing "bad work" and "[h]is work was
continually bad from one day to the next," so much so
that he showed no improvement and his "work was the
most unsatisfactory of all of the cutters." According to
Eastridge, who became a supervisor in the cutting
department and who signed a union card upon Keck's
solicitation, as described above, Keck did more "bad
work" than any other cutter. Maxwell testified that he
"constantly had to carry bad work" back to Keck and
that he talked with Keck about such work at least two or
three times a week, sometimes that often in one day
Shipley testified that he took bad work back to Keck
"practically every week" and that Keck's work was so
poor that management "tried to keep him off of our best
quality merchandise." Sisco testified that Keck was
"never regarded" as sufficiently capable to be left "alone
without supervision" although his work must have
improved at some time or he would have been discharged
earlier
Keck acknowledged that he received criticism during
the period when he was learning the work of a cutter. He
acknowledged too that upon occasion thereafter he was
shown cloth which he had not cut properly and that he
was told to do better. This was not unusual because there
were occasions when all cutters made improper cuts, and
at times all cutters were assembled to be told that they
should do better Additionally, the Respondent never gave
"This finding is based upon Bussell 's testimony Shipley denied that he
spoke to Bussell about cards
"Three days later, on August 15, a charge was filed in Case 10-CA-7449
alleging that Bussell's discharge violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
That charge and case are not parts of this proceeding That charge was
withdrawn and Bussell 's discharge is an allegation in the amended charge
in Case 10-CA-7470
"According to Bussell, Maxwell denied having approved the garments
According to Maxwell and England, Bussell did not say that Maxwell had
approved On the other hand, it is clear that some of the garments were
put aside. England testified that Shipley put several garments aside, saying
that he was not holding Bussell responsible for them Maxwell testified
that he thought that Shipley gave Bussell "a benefit of a doubt on two or
three garments " Shipley testified that the defective sewing in some
garments was such that he "didn't feel [it] would justify bringing it
against" Bussell
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Keck a written warning . This fact is notable because the
Respondent gave written warnings to approximately 70
employees during 1968 Maxwell testified that a "verbal
warning is more or less a minor , depending on if you
make a certain amount of verbal warnings and it doesn't
do any good , then you have got to take a higher step," a
written warning . Maxwell testified also that written
warnings are not given if management believes that
improvement in employees' work is not likely to result
from such warnings. With respect to the extremely poor
spread of cloth that the Respondent says Keck did on
August 27 and that caused the discharge, discussed below,
Maxwell testified that Keck was not given a written
warning instead of discharge because the spread could not
be tolerated and a written warning would not have
prompted Keck to improve. Maxwell was not asked why
Keck was not given a written warning prior to August 27,
and alternative inferences may be drawn. One is that he
was so hopelessly incapable that he could not improve.
That inference raises the question why he was not
discharged before he engaged in union activity. A more
reasonable inference is that Keck was not so thoroughly
incapable as the Respondent contends. I conclude that
Keck was not given a written warning because his work
did not warrant one and because he was not the least able
of the cutters.
We turn to August 27 and to Keck's spread of cloth,
sometimes referred to in the transcript as a lay-up, on that
day. According to Keck, his last work was to spread a
great amount of cloth in layers on a cutting table, but he
exhausted the cloth on hand and went in search of
Maxwell or Shipley to obtain additional cloth. He testified
further that the buzzer signaling the end of the workday
sounded before he could find either man and that he left
the plant. Keck testified also that the spread was a good
one, within the' tolerances allowed. The Respondent's
evidence differs substantially. Estes testified that she
noticed the spread, that the layers of cloth were uneven at
the ends, that there were wrinkles, and that the spread
was the worst she had ever seen . Sisco testified that after
working hours an employee, Olive Mitchell, called his
attention to the spread, that he was astonished by what he
saw, and that he called Shipley, Maxwell and Eastridge
Sisco testified further that Keck had spread cloth of
different widths, whereas each layer should have been of
the same width, that there were uneven ends, that unrolled
layers of cloth were in the center of the spread, and that
the spread was the worst he had ever seen. According to
Sisco, the cloth was later removed from the cutting table
and put through certain processes to make it the proper
width "it should have been to begin with " Eastridge
testified that the spread was wide and wrinkled, the worst
spread he ever saw in the plant. Maxwell testified that
Keck had spread layers of different widths, that the ends
were uneven , that there was "a large ball [of cloth] rolled
up in the center," and that the spread was probably the
worst he had ever seen . Shipley testified that the layers of
cloth varied in width from 1/4" to I" and that the "ends
was folded back and it had a big roll of cloth rolled up in
the layout of the cloth." Shipley testified too that he had
never seen a spread of that type. During the hearing, the
Respondent produced a miniature spread which, according
to its testimony, was a reproduction of the spread by
Keck. The Respondent also produced a miniature spread
as representing a proper spread. I described the former as
follows:
.. The ends do not meet perfectly and to some extent
in other respects the cloth is not folded exactly to fold
over and cover the layer beneath. But the principal
point made by the witness [Maxwell] is that in one of
the lower layers of cloth, the roll of cloth is not
unrolled to its end but was left partially unrolled so as
to create what might be called a hump in the layers that
were placed on top of it And additionally, several
layers of cloth appear not to have been unrolled to their
ends.
Maxwell testified that a tolerance of 1-1/2" is allowed at
each end of the spread so that the uneven ends at the
beginning point would have resulted in "a minimum of
errors." On the other hand, the bulge or hump in the
center of the spread, about 8" in diameter, according to
Maxwell, resulted from Keck's failure to unroll layers of
cloth more than half way as he spread it, or, more likely,
to his having unrolled it entirely but not having made the
cloth secure at the end of the spread so that the layers
rolled up backwards to a point about midway on the
cutting table. Maxwell testified further that the unrolled
cloth would have been obvious to Keck as he began to
unroll the next layers, and Maxwell speculated that when
Keck saw the unrolled material Keck said to himself "[I]t
is too late now, I will let it go." Shipley testified that he
"never figured out how a man could do" such a spread.
According to Sisco, Shipley and Maxwell, they discussed
Keck's record as an employee. Maxwell testified that he
recommended Keck's discharge. Sisco testified that he
decided to discharge Keck and that his decision "was
based on that last spread." Sisco, Maxwell and Shipley
denied having known that Keck was active in the union
movement, and their denials were unconvincing. I find
that the Respondent's description of the spread grossly
exaggerates the facts. The testimony that layers of cloth
created a hump near the center of the spread is
particularly unconvincing. I do not believe that Keck
unrolled layers only halfway, or that layers that had been
fully unrolled somehow rolled themselves in reverse to a
point midway on the spread, or that Keck would have
deliberately unrolled additional layers atop unrolled layers
thereby assuring that much of the spread, if cut, would
have resulted in waste material.
On the next morning when Keck reported for work, his
timecard was not in the rack. He located Maxwell and
inquired about the timecard, and Maxwell's response was
that Shipley wanted to talk with Keck. Soon Eastridge
spoke to Keck, saying that Keck was being discharged.,1
Keck testified that the Union was mentioned in his
conversation with Eastridge, but Keck gave two versions
of that portion of the conversation On direct, he testified
that he said to Eastridge, "Well, you know what it's all
about, don't you?", to which Eastridge responded, "Yes, I
do. It's about the union." On cross, Keck testified that he
said to Eastridge that his discharge was "because of the
union," to which Eastridge replied, "Yes, I know it is."
On the other hand, Eastridge testified that Keck said that
he knew why he was being discharged, but that Keck did
not elaborate and that neither man mentioned the Union.
I do not credit Eastridge. The record is clear that Keck
believed that he was being discharged because of his union
adherence and, as will appear, he so expressed himself to
"Eastndge testified that he discharged Keck upon Maxwell ' s instruction
and that Maxwell said that the spread was the reason Maxwell testified
that he and Shipley decided that Eastridge should make the discharge
because Eastridge was a trainee supervisor and "supervision [should]
handle their own problems such as this ." Shipley testified that Eastridge,
as a trainee supervisor , "needed some experience in doing a job like that
and also to gain some respect from the other cutters "
TAZEWELL DIV. OF SIGNAL KNITTING MILLS
Shipley and Maxwell. Moreover, only the day before,
Eastridge, who had signed- a union card, asked Keck to
obtain cards for him, as described above. Additionally, in
telling Keck of the discharge, Eastridge did not attribute it
to the spread.16 Under these circumstances, it is entirely
reasonable to conclude that the two men spoke of the
Union when Eastridge notified Keck of the discharge.
Keck next talked with Shipley and Maxwell. Shipley
testified that Eastridge's conversation with Keck had
"undoubtedly . . . left some doubt in [Keck's] mind" that
he had been discharged. There is no dispute that Keck, in
talking with Shipley and Maxwell, said that he was being
discharged because of the Union and that Shipley denied
that the Union had been a factor and attributed the
discharge to bad work. Keck testified that Shipley spoke
of the spread as having been too wide, to which Keck
responded that he had measured it and that the spread
was within tolerances, that Keck asked more than once
that Shipley accompany him to the spread and point out
the defects, and that Shipley refused to go Shipley was
not asked whether Keck requested that they go to the
spread and whether he refused. I find that Shipley rejected
Keck's requests.
I find that Keck was discharged because of his union
activities. We have seen that the Respondent was aware
that both Keck and his wife were engaged in such
activities and that the Respondent disapproved, as
reflected by Maxwell's remarks to Collins. We have seen
too that the Respondent's witnesses described Keck as a
consistently and thoroughly incapable employee, but,
unlike many other employees, Keck was never given a
written warning and the Respondent did not decide to
discharge him until after it learned of his union adherence.
Finally, we have seen that no one for the Respondent
showed to Keck the alleged defects in his last spread,
Eastridge having failed to do so and Shipley having
rejected Keck's request that they examine the spread
together. The facts dictate the conclusion that the
Respondent's discharge of Keck purportedly for bad work
was intended to conceal its motive of riding itself of a
union adherent. Keck's discharge violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1).
F. The Discharge of Frances Keck
Frances Keck worked for the Respondent from October
4, 1967, to November 1, 1968. Maxwell testified that a
sewing operation such as she performed was"[v]ery
difficult." Shipley testified that Keck "was a very capable
employee if she would only apply herself and do her job."
As will appear, Keck was discharged on the ground that
she had assaulted another employee, Joyce Watson.
Keck became a union adherent along with her husband
and together and separately they spoke in favor of the
Union and solicited signatures to union cards. As recited,
the Respondent was aware of her union adherence. On the
other hand, Sisco, who made the decision to discharge
her, testified that he had been unaware of her union
activity. He testified also that, because he had received a
charge alleging that her husband's discharge had been
"Keck credibly testified that Eastridge did not show him the spread On
the other hand, Eastridge 's testimony was unconvincing The following was
said on his direct examination.
Q Do you recall whether or not you showed Mr Keck the lay-up?
A Yeah, I believe I showed it to him
Q Did you point out what was wrong with it9
A Pardon''
Q Did you point out to him what was wrong about the work at that
883
invalid, it would have been a reasonable assumption that
Mrs. Keck had engaged in union activity but that he did
not recall whether he made such assumption. Maxwell,
who testified that he did not participate in the decision to
discharge Mrs Keck, testified also that he was unaware
that she was a union adherent
Before discussing the events on November 1, the day of
Keck's discharge, certain findings must be made
concerning the relationship of two women, Keck and
Watson, to each other. They had once been well
acquainted and friendly. For a period, Watson rode to and
from work with Mr. and Mrs. Keck, but this arrangement
was terminated, and unfriendliness developed. I need not
detail Watson's testimony concerning the unfriendliness
although I do note that I believe she exaggerated Mrs.
Keck's conduct On the other hand, I discredit Keck's
testimony that unfriendliness did not develop. In short, on
November 1, 1968, the two women had strong dislikes for
each other.
Turning to the events on November 1, 1 note first that
I do not believe that any witness was completely truthful.
The contact between Keck and Watson on that day
occurred outside the women's restroom. Keck walked out
of the room followed by Janice England and Jane
Chumley. Watson was standing 5 or 6 feet away in a line
of employees waiting to punch their timecards before
going to work at 7 a.m. Keck, in going to another
timeclock to punch her timecard, passed by Watson
Neither Keck nor Watson is a large woman. Keck's
testimony, supported by that of Janice England and
Chumley, is that they were facing Watson and intended to
walk through a narrow area between Watson and a wall
and that Watson placed her left hand on her hip so that
her elbow projected outward, decreasing the available
space in which Keck could walk. According to Keck,
England and Chumley, each of them merely "brushed
elbows" with Watson. I believe that this version minimizes
the facts. We turn to another version that exaggerates.
Watson denied that she had her hand on her hip and that
her elbow was extended Watson testified further that
Keck folded her left arm and used her elbow to hit
Watson at about the point of the lowest rib, that the blow
"just about knocked the breath out of Watson, and that
Watson would have fallen backwards to the floor if she
had not been caught by Pat Widner who was in line
behind Watson. Widner testified that Keck hit Watson
with an elbow, that Watson was knocked off balance, and
that Widner believed that Watson would have fallen if
Widner had not caught her. Joanne Venable, who was in
line and engaged in conversation with Watson, Widner
and Sharon Earl, testified that Keck "came out [of the
restroom] and hit Joyce [Watson] in the side with her
elbow and almost knocked the breath out of her and Pat
[Widner] had to catch her ." Earl testified that Keck
"came out of the restroom and hit Joyce on the left side
in the ribs knocking her off balance and Pat caught her."
Other testimony discloses what really happened I asked
Widner to stand and illustrate the path of Keck's elbow. I
asked her not to use force because she was in the late
stages of pregnancy. She stood and bent her left arm
slightly at the elbow and moved the elbow outward, not
backward. I asked Earl to stand and illustrate the blow,
using as much force as necessary to illustrate Keck's
action Earl illustrated a similar motion with the elbow
moving outward from the body with so little force that I
characterized it as a "tap." I asked Earl if she could
time9
A Yes
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
illustrate the force - used by Keck , to which Earl replied
that she "might not. use it exact ," and I withdrew my
request that she illustrate further . Near the conclusion of
Sisco's testimony , I commented that the illustrations did
not reflect a blow behind which there could be force.
Watson testified that Keck did not lunge at her , and there
is no testimony that Keck , in walking the 5 or 6 feet from
the restroom to the point at which Watson was standing,
sought to put the weight of her body behind a movement
of the elbow at Watson. The illustrations reflect a flick of
the elbow with no more force than can be obtained by a
movement of the elbow outward and forward. Moreover,
Keck, Chumley and Janice England testified for the
General Counsel that Watson did not lose her balance,
and Watson was not so out of breath that she could not
turn towards Keck and say, as she acknowledged, "you
damn bitch, you had better watch who you are hitting."
Keck then addressed Watson with the same epithet
As Keck walked toward a different timeclock at which
she punched in, Maxwell ' s wife , identified above as an
employee, attempted to elbow Keck, but the latter moved
aside .'" Watson remained in the line at the first timeclock
until she punched her card, following which she went to
her place of ,.work. According to testimony for the
Respondent, Watson then began to cry. Sisco testified
that she was still crying at between 8:30 and 9:00 o'clock
when he saw her, a period of 1-1/2 to 2 hours after she
began to cry. 'There also is testimony for the Respondent
that, soon, after Watson began crying, she also was
trembling, shaking, obviously nervous, and could hardly
talk. I cannot determine the extent to which Watson cried
and I believe that the Respondent ' s evidence exaggerates
the fact. More importantly, I do not believe that Watson's
condition was caused by physical pain following Keck's
having elbowed her. I believe instead that Watson was
upset for another reason , perhaps having felt humiliated
or demeaned by a woman whom she disliked intensely.
The incident involving Keck and Watson was reported
to Shipley who interviewed Watson and thereafter
interviewed Widner, Venable and Earl. The employees
gave him the exaggerated version to which they later
testified at the hearing ." Shipley spoke with Sisco after
the latter's arrival at the plant, and Sisco also interviewed
Watson, Widner, Venable, and Earl, and from them he
received the same version . Neither Shipley nor Sisco
asked any employee to illustrate Keck ' s action in elbowing
Watson. Sisco was present in the hearing room when
Widner illustrated the path of Keck's elbow and when
Earl illustrated both the path and the force, and Sisco
testified that the employees' words to him painted a much
different picture than their illustrations when on the
witness stand. After Sisco talked with the four employees,
he interviewed Keck who told him that she had merely
bumped or brushed Watson when she had walked out of
the restroom. Sisco told Keck to go to Shipley's office.
Sisco and Shipley remained in the former ' s office and
discussed the matter. They decided to discharge Keck, and
Shipley went to her and told her of the decision. There is
conflicting testimony concerning whether Keck asked
Sisco to interview Chumley and Janice England, Keck
having testified that she did so, and Sisco, Shipley and
"Keck testified that Mrs. Maxwell made the attempt and that Keck
avoided her move by stepping aside so that the two women "only brushed
elbows." Janice England testified that Mrs Maxwell "stuck her elbow out
to hit" Keck, but that the latter dodged and was not touched Mrs
Maxwell was not a witness and did not deny having attempted to elbow
Keck
Hurst having testified to the contrary. I do not resolve
this conflict. The record is clear that, when Shipley told
Keck that she was being discharged, she asked him to
interview Chumley and England, and he declined.'"
Thereafter, Hurst had an employee type the papers
relating to Keck's discharge.
I believe that Keck's union activity was a significant
factor in her discharge. There are several reasons. First,
the denials by representatives of the Respondent that they
knew of such activity have been rejected. Second, neither
Sisco nor Shipley told Keck of the version of the incident
as had been related to them by Watson, Widner, Venable
and Earl. Keck knew, of course, that her own version
minimized the incident, but she did not know of, and thus
was not afforded an opportunity specifically to disprove,
the exaggerated version that the Respondent's
representatives said that they decided to credit. Third,
Shipley's refusal to comply with Keck's request that he
interview Chumley and Janice England reflects a desire
not to have any information from other employees
contrary to that given by Watson, Widner, Venable and
Earl. In summary, I conclude that the Respondent seized
an opportunity to rid itself of a union adherent in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it
take affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the
Act. I shall recommend that the Respondent offer Shirley
Mae Bussell, Roy Keck and Frances Keck immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions (Chase National Bank , 65 NLRB
827), without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges, and that the Respondent make each of them
whole for any loss of pay he or she may have suffered as
a result of the discrimination against him or her, by
payment to him or her of a sum of money equal to that
which he or she normally would have earned from the
date of the discrimination to the date of a proper offer of
reinstatement, less his or her net earnings (Crossett
Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497-498) during said period,
the payment to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
"Shipley testified that Watson told him that, upon earlier occasions
outside the plant, she had been abused by Keck and that he said to Watson
that he was not concerned with events outside the plant This testimony by
Shipley is not entirely accurate He testified that Watson spoke to him of
harassment by Keck in driving by Watson's home Watson's testimony,
however, is that harassment at her home occurred during the night of
November I, after Keck ' s discharge The record contains considerable
testimony concerning the presence of police at the plant when the workday
ended on November I and of subsequent events on that day, all of which
took place after Keck's discharge Some of the testimony is hearsay that
was admitted for the purpose of explaining actions of a policeman None
of the testimony has any bearing on the issues except as it may relate to
Keck 's credibility , and I have found that she was not an entirely truthful
witness It is unnecessary, therefore , to recite the testimony concerning
events and alleged events after Keck 's discharge
"Keck testified that she made the request of Shipley and that he replied
that it "wasn 't up to him , the decision had done been made " I believe that
Keck, faced with discharge, would certainly have asked that Chumley and
England be interviewed Hurst testified that Keck asked Shipley to
interview England and that, insofar as Hurst could recall, Shipley did not
reply Shipley testified that Keck asked him why "the other girls" had not
been interviewed , that he did not believe that Keck identified anyone, and
that he said to her that when she was in Sisco's office she should have
suggested that other employees be interviewed I believe that Keck's
version is closer to the truth than the versions of Hurst and Shipley
,TAZEWELL DIV. OF SIGNAL KNITTING MILLS 885
manner established in N L.R . B.'v. Seven - Up Bottling Co.,
Inc., 344 U . S. 344 , with interest at 6 percent per annum,
Philip Carey Mfg Co. v. N.L.R.B .. 331 F.2d 720 (C.A.
6)'" 1 shall recommend also that the Respondent preserve
and make available to the Board or its agents, upon
request , for examination and copying , all payroll records,
social security payment records , timecards , personnel
records and reports , and all other records necessary to
analyze the amounts of backpay and the right to
reinstatement under the terms of these Recommendations
In view of the nature of the Respondent ' s unlawful
conduct and its underlying purpose and tendency, I find
that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively
related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and
that danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from the course of the Respondent ' s conduct
in the past . N.L.R.B v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U S
426, 437 This is particularly true because the discharge of
employees for union membership and activity , striking as
it does at their means of livelihood , "goes to the very
heart of the Act ," N.L R.B . v Entwistle Manufacturing
Co , 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4). In order , therefore, to
make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7,
I shall recommend further that the Respondent cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights
guaranteed in said section.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case , I make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discouraging membership in a labor organization
through discrimination in employment, and by interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights under the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges, and make each
of them whole, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision.
(b) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents all payroll and other records, as set forth in said
"Remedy" section
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its plant, including all
places where notices to employees customarily are posted,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""'
Copies of said notice, to be prepared by the Respondent
on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region
10, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's
representative, be posted by it promptly and maintained
by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any material
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2,
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint in
Case l0-CA-7470, as amended, be dismissed insofar as it
alleges violations of Section 8(a)(l) not found herein
'"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order of the" shall be substituted for the words
"The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the" in the notice In
the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree, the words
"a decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order of the "
E1 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 the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
Tazewell Division of Signal Knitting Mills, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in International Union of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, or in any
other labor organization of its employees, by discharging
any of its employees because of their union or concerted
activities, or in any other manner discriminating in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Shirley Mae Bussell , Roy Keck and Frances
Keck immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
"I have not included the usual provision concerning offers of
reinstatement to discriminatees upon their discharge from the Armed
Forces because I think that such provision would be unrealistic in these
cases
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 our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees
because they join or engage in activities on behalf of
International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT inquire of employees about their union
activities, or ask them to learn for us the names of
union adherents, or advise them to stop associating with
such adherents
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights that you have
under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union
of your own choice and to engage in union activities, or
not to join a union and not to engage in such activities.
WE WILL offer to Shirley Mae Bussell, Roy Keck
and Frances Keck immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs, or equivalent ones, and pay them
backpay to cover the earnings they lost because we
discharged them.
All our employees are free to become or remain
members of International Union of District 50, United
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mine Workers of America, or any other labor This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
organization . from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Dated By
TAZEWELL DIVISION OF
SIGNAL KNITTING MILLS, If employees have any question concerning this notice
INC. or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
(Employer) directly with the Board's Regional Office, 730 Peachtree
Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone
(Representative) (Title) 404-526-5741