The American Pad & Textile Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1474 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fernandez
Juncos Station , P.O. Box 11007 , Santurce , Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 724-7171, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
The American Pad & Textile Company and Upholsterers' Inter-
national Union of North America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-
2316. December 9, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 17, 1964, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. The Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof.
Thereupon, the General Counsel filed a brief in answer thereto and
also cross-exceptions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the
exceptions and cross-exceptions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, The
1 The General Counsel filed , in addition , a "Motion To Strike a Portion of Brief for
Respondent on Exceptions From Findings and Conclusions of the Trial Examiner." The
motion is denied . It should be noted, however , that inasmuch as that portion of Re-
spondent 's brief which the General Counsel sought to strike contains a recital of events
alleged to have transpired after the hearing in this matter had been closed and which is
not contained in the record thereof, we have not considered these allegations in reaching
our decision herein
149 NLRB No. 134.
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY 1475
American Pad & Textile Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge and amended charge of unfair labor practices filed on July 9 and
September 16, 1963, against The American Pad & Textile Company, herein called the
Company or Respondent , the General Counsel of the National Labor R elations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated October 22, 1963, alleging that
Respondent had violated Section 8 ( a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , herein called the Act. An answer, admitting certain allega-
tions of the complaint but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices, was
filed by Respondent and a hearing was held before Trial Examiner George J. Bott at
New Orleans , Louisiana , on December 16 and 17, 1963. All parties were represented
at the hearing. Subsequent to the hearing General Counsel and Respondent filed
briefs which I have considered.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in'the manufacture of marine safety
equipment and sleeping bags at its two plants in New Orleans, Louisiana . During
the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint , which is a representative period,
Respondent manufactured , sold, and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000
from its New Orleans plants directly to States in the United States other than the State
.of Louisiana.
Respondent concedes , and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
-within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Upholsterers ' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter some-
-times referred to as the Union ,'is -a labor organization as -defined in Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Anna Magee
1. The setting and the issues
During the late spring or early summer of 1963'the Union was engaged in an attempt
-to organize Respondent 's employees . The -Union filed a petition 'for an election with
the Board on June 11 , 1963, and a hearing was held on June 27, 1963. Subsequent to
the hearing the parties executed a stipulation for certification upon consent election on
July 5, 1963, and the election was held on September 6, 1'963. The Union filed objec-
tions to the election on September 11, 1963, and later, on November 27, 1963, filed
- exceptions to the Regional Director 's report on objections.
Magee was active in the Union's campaign to organize Respondent and testified
.at the representation hearing for the Union. It is General Counsel's contention that
she was discharged because of her activities on behalf of the Union and because she
testified at the representation hearing. Respondent , on the other hand, contends, in
brief, that Magee was laid off in an economic layoff and has not been recalled for
- reasons unconnected with her union activities.
Magee was laid off on August 24, 1963, and had been employed by Respondent for
a little over 5 months at the time. Magee was hired in the sleeping bag department
-under the supervision of Cora Cope and her assistant , Thelma Rodgers. After Magee
]had sewed two pieces of material together for a short while, Cope assigned her to
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sewing canopies to sleeping bags. Magee did this work for about 2 weeks and then
was assigned to operate a center reamer on the multineedle machine which produces a
line of sleeping bags known as "482." Magee continued to do center seaming, operat-
ing a single-needle sewing machine until her layoff.
Magee testified without contradiction, and I credit her testimony, that she was
responsible for calling the Union into Respondent to organize the employee. Magee
attended five or six union meetings between the time she first contacted a union repre-
sentative in April of May 1963 and the Board election on September 6, 1963 She
signed a union card on May 15, 1963, and also obtained signatures on union authoriza-
tion cards from about 50 employees As indicated, she testified for the Union at the
June 27 hearing on the Union's petition for an election. She also acted as the Union's
observer at the election.
In a period of about 2 months befoie her layoff, Magee was involved in certain
incidents and had certain conversations with Respondent's representatives. General
Counsel contends that Respondent's participation in these matters demonstrates its
knowledge of and antipathy toward Magee's union activities. The facts relating to,
these incidents are somewhat in dispute.
2. Magee's conversations with Cope and Rodgers about the subpena
Magee testified that, after she was subpenaed by the Union for the June 27, 1963,
representation hearing, she spoke with Supervisors Cope and Rodgers on June 26.
According to her, she told Cope she had something to show her and then laid the
subpena on Cope's desk Cope asked Magee how she had come by the subpena and
why the Union had chosen her. Magee replied that she did not know but that "maybe
they needed.a goat." Cope made a remark that ". . . Turk knew this was coming [that]
is why he left." Magee advised Cope that "Turk" had nothing to do with it but that
Cope ". . . would be surprised who was guilty of it, it was some of her favorite pets
who started it ...." Cope, according to Magee, asked who they were but Magee
refused to respond, stating that she was not one of Cope's "pimps."
During the above conversation Rodgers told Magee that she did not know what
"she was in for." Rodgers told Magee something about an incident she had been
involved in in a plant in Mississippi. It also appears from Magee's cross-examination
that Cope had previously told Magee that she thought the Union was "crooked."
Magee testified that when Cope asked her why she had been subpenaed Magee replied
that, ". . . I guess they think I will fight for what I believe is right and I won't go the
crooked route." Her reference to "crooked route" was a reference to the previous
conversation with Cope, she explained, and meant that she would back the Union if
it was "right."
3. The Barletta incident
There is no dispute about the fact that on June 24 Magee made a remark to
employee Felicia Barletta, as Barletta passed Magee's machine, about "how many fish:
(Barletta) caught" on the previous Saturday. Magee testified that Barletta retorted
that Magee was the third person who had asked her that question and that she was
tired of it. Barletta indicated that the remark amounted to an insinuation that she had
gone fishing with the husband of another employee. Magee told her that she did not
know anyone was involved but that she was merely innocently interested in whether
Barletta had caught any fish. According to Magee, Barletta was not crying when she
left Magee's machine, but she admitted that she saw Barletta crying at Supervisor
Cope's desk later that morning.
Magee testified that Barletta left Cope's desk headed toward the dressing room and
passed-Magee's work station on the way. Magee asked the employee why she was
crying and Barletta told her she was tired of the "men in the back teasing her ..." and
could not take it any longer. She told Magee that it was "... Al and the other guys in
the back. . ." who were responsible for her distress.
A few minutes before quitting time Supervisor Cope asked Magee why she had
made Barletta cry and Magee denied responsibility. She testified that she insisted on
calling the employee to Cope's desk for an explanation. Barletta came to Cope's desk
and told the supervisor that she had not said that Magee had made her cry but only
that Magee was "the one who had asked her" about "going fishing." Cope had indi-
cated that a report had been turned into the office about the Barletta incident, and
Magee asked that they go to President LeBlanc's office to straighten out the report.
According to Magee, Cope refused to go to LeBlanc's office and said that she had not
turned in a report. During the conversation about Barletta, Cope told Magee, accord-
ing to Magee's admission, that she "... couldn't put up with any more carrying on
like making people cry ... ."
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY 1477
At quitting time, as Magee and Barletta left the plant, Magee again asked Barletta
why she had led the supervisor to believe that Magee had made her cry. Barletta said
that she was afraid to tell Cope who actually had made her cry because it was Foreman
Al Teal, and he could cause her discharge. Magee asked Barletta to get the matter
straightened out and Barletta said she would see Cope the next day and give her the
facts.
Magee testified that on the next morning, June 25, Barletta told Cope that Magee
had not made her cry, that Foreman Teal was responsible, but Barletta had concealed
it out of fear. Magee again requested a visit to LeBlanc's office on the matter, but
Cope did not accede.
Magee also testified without contradiction that later that day she reproached Fore-
man Teal for teasing Barletta to tears and letting the onus fall on Magee. Teal told
Magee that if Barletta could not take a little teasing she had no business around the
plant, but he promised that he would straighten the matter out when he returned from
lunch. After lunch Magee heard Teal shout to Cope that he wanted to "get this
straight about Phyllis [Barletta] crying, and Anna being blamed with it." Magee did
not hear the rest of the conversation.
4. Respondent's warning letter to Magee of July 5, 1963
On July 5, 1963, Respondent President J. H. LeBlanc sent Magee a letter noting
certain alleged acts of misconduct which Respondent warned the employee could
affect her future with the Company. The Company stated in the letter that "On at
least three different occasions" Magee had to be warned "against continual talking
with the other operators in your work area and especially against making uncompli-
mentary remarks or insinuations against certain employees " Magee was accused of
forcing "Barletta to leave her work station crying and in such a nervous condition
that she was forced to take almost an hours rest to compose herself ...." LeBlanc
stated in the letter that the Barletta incident was reported to Cora Cope and that she
"immediately again" warned Magee and "reminded [Magee] of the two previous
instances and advised that if such complaints were received again" regarding Magee's
attitude and remarks Respondent would be forced to dismiss Magee. In repeating its
warning to Magee that she would be dismissed if she were "guilty again of causing
dissension in [her] work area, or . . persist in continually distracting other workers
by talking," Respondent also advised Magee that her appearance as a witness at the
Board hearing did not in any way effect the Company's warning.
5. The incident of the fans and Magee's conversation with LeBlanc on July 18, 1963
On July 18, 1963, a group of employees, including Magee, left their work stations
because of the heat and proceeded toward President LeBlanc's office to ask him for
additional fans. Supervisor Cope stopped the group and went into LeBlanc's office
alone. When she returned she stated that LeBlanc had directed all employees to
return to work except Magee who he would see. Magee testified that when she saw
LeBlanc he asked her who started the affair and Magee replied that no particular
employee started the movement for fans but all were interested in relief from the heat.
LeBlanc asked Magee to go out in the plant and see who started the matter and return
and report to him. Magee refused and told LeBlanc he could discharge her but she
would supply no names.
Magee testified that a long conversation ensued in which the subject of the Union
was brought up. She said LeBlanc asked her why she had been subpenaed as a
witness at the recent hearing and Magee told him, as she had earlier told Cope, that
perhaps the Union needed a "goat." LeBlanc insisted that Magee must have some
sympathy toward the Union or she would not have been called as a witness, but Magee
denied that such was a fact At or about this stage in the conversation Magee asked
LeBlanc why he had picked her out of the group of girls outside his door and he replied
that her's was the only name he knew because of her presence at the representation
case hearing.
Magee testified that during the conversation in LeBlanc's office he asked her if she
had received the July 5 warning letter he had sent her. Although the Union's attorney
had received a copy of the letter, for some unexplained reason Magee did not, but it
had been read to her over the telephone at home by the Union's attorney. Magee
explained this to LeBlanc, and he asked her if she were aware that the Company was
being "sued" on her account, referring to the first charge of unfair labor practices that
the Union filed against Respondent claiming that Respondent had "threatened and
coerced" Magee because she appeared and testified as a witness for the Union in the
representation hearing. A conversation then took place regarding the letter and its
contents.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Magee told LeBlanc that the report turned in to him about the Barletta incident
was not true and gave her version . LeBlanc said the only report the Company
accepted was the first report, and Magee asked permission to bring employees in to
clarify the record . LeBlanc said that would not be necessary because the report had'
been turned in and that was it. Magee accused LeBlanc of convicting her without
a trial.
During the conversation Magee told LeBlanc that "everything was fine until the
dirty word Union came up," but LeBlanc denied that the letter had anything to do with,
the Union . Magee commented that it appeared odd to her , if she had done the things
the letter complained of on June 21, that it took until July 5' to mail the letter. She
added that it appeared to her that the Company did not intend to send the letter until
after she served as a witness . According to her, LeBlanc at that point just threw up
his hands.
Also present at the LeBlanc conference with Magee were Head Supervisor Cope and
Assistant Plant Superintendent Waddell. At one point Magee told the group that
there were two incidents, other - than the Barletta incident , mentioned in the July 5
warning letter and asked what they were . Cope told Magee she had been warned
about talking but Magee denied it , stating that no individual warning had been given
her but she understood that there was merely a general instruction from LeBlanc
about talking . Magee explained how talking came about at her work station.
LeBlanc asked if she continued to work and Magee said she did not stop her machine,
and, according to her, Cope confirmed that fact . More conversation about talking
ensued, with Magee explaining that all employees talked and that the location of her
machine put her in a spot where talking was inevitable , if she were not to ignore her
fellow employees . LeBlanc suggested that Magee's work station could be moved and
Magee had no objection . LeBlanc said he would rather have his workers on a
friendly basis as long as the machines were producing . Magee turned to Cope and
said, "Miss Cora, you heard what Mr. LeBlanc said, so long as we are working we
don't have to have a piece of tape over our mouths ...." The meeting then dissolved.
6. Respondent 's position about the above incidents
Cora Cope , head supervisor , admitted that she asked Magee why the Union had
called her as a witness when Magee showed her the subpena . Cope denied however,
that she asked Magee who started the union movement or for the names of anyone
She also admitted that she asked Magee if she would be paid for attending the hearing
but explained that she merely wanted to know if the Company was going to pay Magee
Thelma Rodgers, Magee's immediate supervisor , who was present at the subpena
conversation , denied that she or Cope asked Magee for the names of any persons. She
said Magee told Cope that she did not know why she had been subpenaed and that
Cope said there must be some reason . Rodgers mentioned that Magee said she did
not know why she was called "for a good while."
Cope's recall of the subpena affair was admittedly poor. Rodgers indicated that the
conversation lasted longer than her very concise answers as a witness took. I find
that the conversation occurred substantially as narrated by Magee. I find that Cope
tried to find out from Magee why she had been subpenaed; that she indicated that one
"Turk" knew something about it ; that, when Magee responded that it was others who
were responsible for the Union , Cope asked her who they were. I also find that Magee
indicated that she would support the Union despite Cope's and Rodger's implications
that the Union was "crooked."
Regarding the Barletta incident, Cope testified that Barletta came to her crying and
said that Magee had insulted her. Cope asked how, and Barletta repeated the "catch
any fish" remark . Cope said she did not understand , but Barletta insisted that she
thought it was an insult . Later Cope asked Magee about it and testified that Magee
said it was meant as a joke, not an insult. Cope denied that Barletta told her the next
day that Magee was not responsible. Cope, under cross-examination , first stated that
she talked only with Barletta and Magee about the Barletta affair but she then said
she thought she mentioned it to LeBlanc on one occasion . She did not remember
when . Cope also said that Magee had said something to her about others being
responsible for teasing Barletta , but she was vague about details.
I find that Magee had a better recall of events , and I credit her in her testimony
about the Barletta incident . I find , more particularly , that Magee denied to Cope
responsibility for causing Barletta 's tears; that Barletta told Cope Magee had not made
her cry; that Cope refused Magee's request to visit LeBlanc 's office to clear the matter
up and stated she had not turned in a report; that again on June 25 Barletta told
Cope that Foreman Teal and not Magee was responsible for the unpleasantness; that
Teal, who did not testify, made light of the affair, promised to speak to Cope about it,
and did.
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY 1479
LeBlanc, Assistant Superintendent Waddell, and Cope were present in LeBlanc's
office on July 18 during the conversation precipitated by the employees' desire for fans.
LeBlanc testified that he told Cope he would see only one employee and asked for the
names of those outside. Recognizing only Magee by name because of the recent
representation hearing, he had her come in and then sent for Assistant Superintendent
Waddell. He said Magee denied knowing what the problem was about but had
merely followed the group to the office. He asked Magee to find out the source of the
problem and Magee stated that she would give no names. He insisted that he wanted
no names but only wanted to know the problem. He admitted that the July 5 letter
was mentioned and that he asked Magee why she had filed an unfair labor practice
charge against the Company if she had not received the letter. LeBlanc did not deny
Magee's testimony that he asked her why she had been subpenaed to the recent hear-
ing and commented that she must have had some sympathy for the Union or would
not have been called. LeBlanc said he could not "remember too much" about the
meeting.
Waddell had a very poor recollection of the meeting. The record shows this,
Waddell admitted it, and that is the way I remember his demeanor. He recalled that
there was talk about a letter to Magee but said he could not remember what else. He
said he did not remember if LeBlanc said anything about Magee's union sympathies
but said he "would say" it was not asked about. He said he remembered just "pieces"
of the Barletta conversation.
Cope remembered that during the meeting LeBlanc asked Magee what the trouble
was and Magee said she would give no names. LeBlanc said he wanted no names but
wanted to find out the trouble. Cope said that LeBlanc asked no questions about
union activities or about union membership. Cope also said she did not recall any
conversation about the subpena for Magee in the talk about the fans.
In my opinion, based upon the entire testimony of the witnesses and recall of their
demeanor, Magee's detailed recall of the meeting is better than that of Respondent's
witnesses. I find specifically that, during the meeting, LeBlanc wanted to know from
Magee who was responsible for the group action about the fans, made a comment
about Magee filing charges against the Company, and brought up the subpena again
with the comment that Magee must be sympathetic toward the Union.
7. Magee's visit to the plant after her layoff
On Saturday, August 24, 1963, Mrs. Don Philhower, wife of the plant superin-
tendent, telephoned Magee at her home, told her that she was laid off, and not to
report for work until notified. Magee asked why she was laid off and was informed
that Respondent was rearranging the sleeping bag department
On Monday, August 26, Magee went to the plant to get her check, find out how long
the layoff would last, and whether there was any place in the plant she could work.
Magee saw Cope at the plant, asked if there was any place for her, and Cope said no.
Magee inquired why Cope had found places for other workers, mentioning Mabel
Manassa particularly, and Cope told her Mabel was more productive. Magee wanted
to see LeBlanc, but Cope refused the request. Magee was directed to see Philhower,
and did.
Philhower told Magee he did not know how long she would be laid off but that he
was waiting for the machines in the horse collar department (a new operation) to be
set up and that he had a place there for Magee. When Magee asked how long she had
to wait, she was told that the material would be in soon and that she would be
employed in the new department. Magee reminded Philhower that LeBlanc had
testified in the representation hearing that the employees already employed were not
qualified for jobs in the new horse collar department, but Philhower told her not to
worry because he had a place for her. He told her she would have to wait a few weeks
at the outside but that he actually expected operations to start in a few days. He said
she would be notified when to come back to work.
Magee acted as an observer for the Union in the Board election on September 6.
She had not been returned to work at the time of the hearing in the instant case.
Philhower, who had been ill but was back at work at the time of the hearing, was not
called. I credit Magee's testimony about her conversations with him.
8. Respondent's hiring and transferring of employees after the
August 24, 1963, layoff
Respondent cut production on the 482 sleeping bag on which Magee worked on
August 24. In addition to Magee, employees King, Carter, and Moseby were laid off,
and three other employees were discharged from the department according to Cope.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company continued to produce the bag at half capacity for a few days , and then
discontinued it completely . Cope testified that the employees on the 482 line were
transferred to the horse collar pad department . Two new employees were also hired
in the new department in November , Cope said.
According to LeBlanc , Respondent 's horse collar department is divided between its
Bienvenue and Solomon Street plants . Among other operations at Bienvenue , covers
are sewed . There are on the average about 10 or 12 women operating single-needle
sewing machines in the department . Some of the women were transferred from other
departments in Bienvenue , but admittedly some were new employees hired directly
into the department . Prior to the beginning of the horse collar department there were
no employees in the New Orleans area that were experienced in making horse collar
pads. LeBlanc testified that the single -needle sewing machines used in the operation
are not peculiar to Respondent 's operation but are Singer machines like machines
used in other departments , except for attachments . Respondent trained employees to
run these machines because they had no experience.
At the Solomon Street portion of the horse collar department sewing operations also
take place . Single-needle Singer machines, with adaptions to guide the material, are
used to "end" pads. The horse collar operation at Solomon Street began after the
Bienvenue operation and new women employees were hired to operate the Singer
sewing machines.
Employee Daniel Langsford , an employee at the Bienvenue plant, testified without
contradiction that the horse collar department had been in operation since September
1963, and that he knew of one new employee hired in the department to sew the ends
of material together . He also recalled the transfer of three employees from the
sleeping bag department to horse collar sewing. According to him, Lorraine sews a
straight seam down the center of the pad , Mabel sews ends , and the third employee,
whose name he had forgotten and who previously sewed canopies in the sleeping bag
department , operated a single-needle machine in horse collar after her transfer.
Respondent continued to hire new employees after Magee was laid off. New
employees have been hired, not only in the horse collar department , but also in the
marine, sportswear , and sleeping bag departments . Cope testified that Margaret
Nuccio was hired in sleeping bags around November . The employee operates a
single-needle sewing machine and sews canopies . Cope also stated that she was
always looking for good operators and had tried out many persons and let them go.
A new employee named Bennett was hired in the marine department in November
to stuff cushions with inserts. Cope said this work takes only a "`... little wrist
power." It also appears that Maria Marsh has been hired in the marine department
and works on cushions , according to Cope.
Charles Degrado, employed in the sleeping bag department , testified that two of the
women employees laid off in the sleeping bag department were recalled . He also said
that the Company hired two new employees in the department early in December. He
testified that the new employees have been sewing canopy -hoods, which was the work
that Magee did when she was first employed . Degrado also testified that Mable
Manassa, who was transferred to horse collars when the layoff occurred, quit a week
after her transfer . Rodgers testified that Mable Manassa quit but could not recall who
replaced her . Manassa and Magee did the same kind of work before the layoff.
Employer Miller testified that six women employees were hired around the first of
September . Three of the six were hired in the sleeping bag department to operate
sewing machines , two were assigned to sportswear to operate sewing machines, and
one to marine
Supervisor Rodgers was transferred to supervise the coat section of the sportswear
department sometime in November 1963. There are about 13 women operating sew-
ing machines in the coat section but Rodgers said Magee was not qualified to perform
the work in the section . She admitted that she did not know if Magee could be trained
for the work. Some of the employees in sportswear had been transferred from the
marine department, and Rodgers testified that most of them had now returned to the
marine department . She also said that she had seen women being trained on sports-
wear machines who had no prior experience . She named Marie Mendez and Blanca
Soso as new employees hired after the layoff.
B. Analysis , additional findings, and conclusions
In my view , General Counsel made out a prima facie case of discriminatory dis-
charge of Anna Magee . Magee was the leading union activist among the employees.
She initiated the telephone call to the Union ; signed an authorization card; went to
union meetings; secured the signatures of about 50 other employees to union cards;
testified as a union witness in the representation hearing; and served as the Union's
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY 1481
observer at the Board election. In addition to her ordinary union activities, Magee
joined with employees in insisting upon fans to relieve the factory conditions and was
an articulate spokesman for both the employees and herself in her contacts with
management.
Respondent was fully aware of Magee's union sentiment , and she made the Com-
pany aware that she was no shrinking violet when it came to defending what she con-
sidered her rights as an employee and what she considered to be the Respondent's
unfair treatment of her. It is because of these union and concerted activities and her
vigor in making her views known that Magee is no longer employed by Respondent,
in my opinion, and I so find.
When Magee showed Supervisors Cope and Rodgers the subpena on June 26, a
conversation about unions occurred . Rodgers testified that Cope asked Magee how the
Union knew anything about Magee and Magee replied that she thought they chose her
because they thought she ". . would talk up for the girls ." Rodgers related an
unpleasant experience she had had during a union election at another plant and Cope
talked about "crooked" unions, but Magee made it clear that she would make up her
own mind about the subject.
In connection with the Barletta incident , described above, Magee made known her
resistance to apparent injustice by protesting , to Supervisors Cope and Teal, Cope's
attribution of blame to Magee. Magee went as far as confronting Cope with Barletta,
accusing Teal of responsibility , insisting that he straighten the matter out, and demand-
ing a conference with LeBlanc.
Also in connection with the Barletta incident, Magee , during her conference with
LeBlanc on July 18, 1963 , occasioned by the problem about the fans, colorfully
insisted upon bringing employees to the office to attest to her innocence . She argued
and debated with LeBlanc and Cope generally about the charges contained in the
Respondent 's warning letter of July 5, and was particularly scornful of Respondent's
delay of 2 weeks in issuing the reprimand and warning.
Magee showed her independence of spirit by visiting the plant after her layoff and
seeking an audience with LeBlanc over Cope's objection. She settled for a conference
with Assistant Superintendent Philhower and mentioned to him that this offer of
employment in the horse collar department seemed to be inconsistent with LeBlanc's
testimony at the representation hearing. She demonstrated her union proclivities by
appearing as a witness at the representation hearing where she testified contrary to
LeBlanc's position , and in acting as the Union 's observer at the election 1 Finally, she
was the basis of two unfair labor practice charges filed against Respondent.
Respondent showed concern and displeasure with Magee 's activities and attitude.
Cope asked Magee more than once why she had been subpenaed and reported the
fact to LeBlanc Cope and Rodgers made unfavorable comments about unions to
Magee at the time, with Rodgers indicating that the union activity would cause an
unpleasant situation. LeBlanc, in the July 18 meeting, after picking Magee for a
private meeting out of a group of employees protesting working conditions, told Magee
that she must have some sympathy for the Union or she would not have been called
as a witness , and that the Company had charges filed against it because of her. But
most significant was Respondent 's adverse reaction to Magee's activities demonstrated
by its letter sent to her after she had testified at the representation hearing. The record
shows that the asserted basis for the charges in the letter were fictitious or exaggerated.
LeBlanc, Respondent 's president , said he composed the letter. The only information
he had about the Barletta incident , however, is what he got from Cope But Cope
did not make much of the affair and did not know how the alleged remark could be
insulting . She was also aware that Barletta had denied that Magee was responsible
and knew that others had teased Barletta. Cope made no effort to uncover those
persons Cope testified that she "thought " she mentioned the incident to LeBlanc
but. if so, on only one occasion . LeBlanc testified that he did not know who told
him about the incident but he thought it was Cope. Later he stated it was Cope who
told him that Magee had made an " insinuating" remark, and that he talked with Cope
again before he wrote the letter. I do not credit LeBlanc in his testimony that Cope
told him that Magee made an insinuating remark and that such caused unrest and loss
of production in the plant LeBlanc, in my opinion, was engaged in an after-the-event
attempt to build a dispassionate investigation of an event that he had seized upon and
inflated after Magee testified and made it clear that she was committed to the Union.
i LeBlanc testified that he offered to buy everyone a drink after the election but Magee
said she did not drink with crooks, thieves, and cheats Magee denied the remark, but
I credit LeBlanc I have considered the statement and the denial in evaluating Magee's
credibility . Respondent does not put forth the incident as a reason for not recalling
Magee
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The letter also states that Cope had, after the Barletta incident, warned Magee and
.. reminded of the two previous instances and advised that if such complaints were
received again regarding your attitude and remarks to your fellow workers, we would
be forced to dismiss you for the good of all concerned." There is nothing in the
record to support this statement, and Magee denied the previous warnings and the
warning of future disciplinary action. This is more evidence of the inflated nature of
the charges and justifies an inference that Respondent was attempting to build a case
against Magee because she had testified. The very handling of the letter or warning
from an internal point of view indicates that-there was more than merely an employee
reprimand involved and that Magee's appearance as a witness was a consideration.
In the first place, the letter was sent after the hearing in the representation case and
on the day the agreement for consent election was signed, but 2 weeks after Magee had
supposedly caused dissension in the plant which interfered with production. LeBlanc
does not normally concern himself with ordinary hiring and firing (he testified that
he did not make the decision about which employees would be let go in the layoff)
but he composed the letter, he said, and submitted it to Respondent's main office in
Pittsburgh for clearance. He had never done so before when issuing a warning to
other employees. All of the evidence surrounding the letter makes it clear to me that
it was contrived to impede or neutralize Magee's legitimate union activities during the
election campaign by the threat contained in the document and to lay a foundation
for her elimination if her activities continued.
Respondent asserts that Magee has not been discharged but laid off temporarily and
will be given consideration for recall when production on the 482 sleeping bag line
starts again. Respondent has no idea when this will be. I find that Respondent's posi-
tion is specious, that Magee for all intents and purposes has been discharged, and that
Respondent's reasons for not offering her employment are unfounded.
Much of the testimony of Respondent's witnesses is inherently improbable and there
are inconsistencies among the witnesses as well as in the testimony of individual wit-
nesses. LeBlanc testified that he did not make the final decision to lay Magee off and
did not know who did. Yet LeBlanc, contrary to normal practice, wrote a scathing
letter to Magee on July 5 warning her of alleged derelictions and cleared the com-
munication with his Pittsburgh office before mailing. He knew Magee from the
representation hearing, he had conversations with her about her attendance as a wit-
ness, and spent almost an hour in conference with her on July 18 discussing the cause
of employee unrest, the Barletta incident, and other matters. It is impossible for me
to believe that LeBlanc did not participate directly in the decision to lay off Magee
and does not know who made the decision. The impression he and Assistant Plant
Superintendent Waddell left in the record that the selection of persons to be laid off
was a routine function performed by subordinates was false.
Waddell impressed me as lying cooperatively, but not very cleverly. As found
earlier, he admittedly remembered little of the Magee-LeBlanc meeting on July 19,
but he was willing to testify that Magee made, or did not make, certain remarks even
though he had no real recollection of whether she did or not. I find his testimony
about Magee's efficiency to be in the same vein and a fabrication. He testified that
seven employees were laid off when the 482 line was cut back but that the more effi-
cient employees were retained. The decision on selection was made on the advice of
Cope, Rodgers, and Philhower, he said. He also testified that he too had observed
Magee at work, and he expressed the opinion, as a time-study engineer, that Magee
was working at 50 percent of capacity. He said 100 percent was normal. In other
words, Magee was half as efficient as the average employee. Waddell's observations
were casual, he admitted, and not based on an engineering study. He never com-
municated his opinion about Magee to anyone and Magee was never told about it,
evert though Respondent's president sent her a letter about her other faults. If
Waddell consulted with Supervisor Cope in selecting those to be laid off he apparently
never mentioned his low opinion about Magee to her, because Cope's testimony indi-
cates that Magee was not "fast" but certainly not half of normal.
Waddell's testimony about Magee's capacity not only does not jibe with Cope's but
is otherwise inconsistent with her evidence and his own story. Cope said some
employees were laid off (Magee included) and some were terminated. Those termi-
nated were terminated because the Company felt they were not needed. Those laid
off were treated as temporarily laid off because the Company expected to reemploy
them in the future. Clearly, if Magee were as bad as Waddell made her out, Cope,
on the basis of her 40 years in the industry, most of them as supervisor, would have
observed it and Magee would have been terminated, not subject to recall. Waddell
also testified that some employees caught in the layoff were transferred to the horse
collar department because the Company did not want to lose them. He admitted,
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY 1483
in addition, to hiring two new employees in horse collar. He inconsistently explained
that despite these facts, however, he expected the 482 sleeping bag to start up imme-
diately and it would not have been efficient to put Magee in horse collars when she
would soon go back to sleeping bags. In other words, it makes good sense to transfer
some sleeping bag employees to another department, even though their old jobs will
soon be open, but not to do the same for Magee. Waddell's testimony about Magee's
capacity does not even fit with Respondent's treatment of her prior to the layoff.
When Magee was first hired she sewed canopies, but when, within a few weeks,
Respondent needed more sleeping bag production and center reamers were a bottle-
neck, Magee was transferred to center seaming, a more complex operation , where she
worked with no complaints about her speed until after she was laid off. It would
-seem that what Respondent is saying is that Magee was efficient enough to be laid
off rather than terminated but not good enough to be recalled, and this reflects
adversely on Respondent's account of its motivation. In respect to efficiency spe-
cifically, I find that Magee was at least average in capacity, productivity, and skill.
Respondent also offered testimony designed to show that Magee was not par-
ticularly efficient because she talked and turned out bad work. Rodgers testified that
Magee was inefficient because, on three or four occasions, Rodgers had to bring work
back to Magee for repairs. She could not recall exactly when this occurred and
.admitted that she had taken back bad work to many employees. Rodgers' experience
with Magee was confined to Magee as a center seamer and not in sewing canopies.
Cope said that Magee's seams were too wide "several" times, and that was her only
complaint about her work. Cope agreed that she had spoken to a "lot of people"
about their seams, including Mabel Manassa, who was retained and then transferred
to the horse collar department when Magee was laid off. The record also shows that
other employees who had received written warnings about defective work were
retained in the layoff or transferred to the horse collar department. Examples are
Dufour and Moseby. Magee never got a written warning about the quality of her
work. I find that the quality of Magee's work was as good as that of the average
employee.
Cope stated that Magee talked "quite a bit" but gave no evidence that it interferred
with Magee's work and did not seem to think it did, because when she was asked if
there was anything wrong with Magee's work other than sewing wide seams, Cope
replied, "No, she talked a good bit, but then ... you mean in her work."
Rodgers testified that Magee did "a lot of talking" from the time she was hired
until she was laid off. The entire testimony of Rodgers shows, however, that it was
not talking as such which was objectionable but only loud talking, and that she spoke
to Magee and Mable Manassa but once about that. Rodgers did not forbid the
employees to talk, and there is no contention that talking is forbidden by the Company.
Employees continued to talk at work after Rodgers stopped the loud conversation,
and Rodgers never had occasion to speak to them again. I find that there was no
more connection between any talking Magee did and the quality and amount of her
work than there was in the case of any other employee.
Respondent 's assertion and principal defense that Magee was not transferred to
another department because of the "expense of double training," which would be an
"inefficiency," cannot stand analysis. LeBlanc testified that it would not "make sense
from a business standpoint to train a person who knew how to work on sleeping bags
on the horse collar pads" and then have to train somebody else on horse collar pads
when sleeping bag production resumed. Waddell, as set forth above, also said it
would not have made good sense to train Magee on pads and then transfer her back
to 482 sleeping bags. He said at the time of the layoff the Company thought produc-
tion would resume at any time, perhaps in a week, or even in "a couple of days."
In the first place, it seems to me, that if there was any validity to the theory of waste
in training a laid-off employee for a new job when her old job would reopen in a few
days it totally evaporates when it is considered that, at the time of the hearing, Magee
had been laid off for almost 4 months and Respondent still did not know when 482
production would again begin. Some of the sewing jobs in horse collar are relatively
unskilled and the slight expense in double training balanced against indefinite unem-
ployment indicates that the reason is false.
Respondent's "double training" theory also implies that Plant Superintendent Phil-
hower, who according to Waddell, participated in the decision to lay Magee off, did
not understand company policy when he told Magee, a few days after her layoff, that
he would soon place her in the horse collar department. This would have, as General
Counsel points out, imposed upon the Company not only a double training expense
but double training of a hopelessly inefficient employee, if Waddell and Rodgers are
credited.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An additional defect in the "double training " defense is that Respondent engaged
in double training when it transferred trained employees from the sleeping bag depart-
ment to the horse pad department when the 482 line went down. One of the employ-
ees transferred was Mabel Manassa who did exactly the same kind of work as Magee
before the layoff. Manassa quit after her transfer but Magee was not offered employ-
ment in her place. The Company also engaged in double training when it transferred
marine department employees to sportswear.
Finally, Respondent 's entire argument is suspect in view of the apparent desirability
of multiple skills in a company which seems to shift employees from department to
department , but in any event, Respondent failed to recall Magee when there was
work that she could do in the sleeping bag department . New employees were hired
in that department to sew canopies which was work that Magee had performed when
first hired. The expense of training these employees when an experienced employee
was in layoff status did not seem to be a factor that concerned Respondent.
Rather than laying off Magee with the intention of recall, Respondent , it seems to
me, has done everything it can to avoid employing her. I have found that General
Counsel established a prima facie case of discrimination against Magee because of
her union and concerted activities , and because she had given testimony under the
Act at the representation hearing. I also find that the reasons advanced by Respond-
ent for its discharge and failure to recall Magee are pretextual and that Respondent
was substantially motivated in its actions by discriminatory considerations 2 I con-
clude that General Counsel has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
Respondent discharged Magee in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (4) of the Act
C. Alleged independent acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Upon motion made by Respondent at the hearing , I dismissed the allegations of
paragraph 7(b) and (c) of the complaint which alleged that Cope instructed an
employee to obtain her signed union card and destroy it, and also informed an
employee that she could not sign a union card because she was not an American.
General Counsel concedes that paragraph 7(c) was properly dismissed I find no
evidence to support 7(b), and will recommend that it, as well as 7 (c), be dismissed
by the Board.
The only evidence in the record to support the allegation of paragraph 7(f) to the
effect that Cope created the impression that Respondent was keeping union activities
under surveillance is Cope 's remark to Magee, when Magee showed her the subpena,
that one "Turk" knew it was coming and left Respondent's employ as a consequence.
This statement is too vague, I find, to support the allegation, although it did indicate
Cope's concern about the union activities starting.
I also find the evidence insufficient to support the allegation of paragraph 7(a)
that Cope illegally interrogated an employee on May 20, 1963. The employee
involved here is Helen Bordelon . Bordelon testified that she gave employee Carmen
Montalvo a union authorization card and obtained her signature on it. Montalvo
spoke mostly Spanish and had little familiarity with English . Bordelon stated that
"I doubt if she could read it anyway." About 20 minutes later Bordelon saw Montalvo
speaking with Cope. She admitted that she heard Montalvo tell Cope that Bordelon
had given her a card and "had made her sign it, and she didn't know what it is
about." Some time later Cope spoke with Bordelon and asked her what kind of a
card she had given Montalvo. Bordelon said the card was "nothing" and that she
had destroyed it Nothing was ever said about the matter again. I find, in the
circumstances described , that Cope did not unlawfully interrogate Bordelon. There
is no evidence that Cope knew or suspected that Bordelon was passing out union cards,
and there is, therefore, no reason to believe that her inquiry to Bordelon, caused by
Montalvo's complaint that she did not know what she had signed , was not innocent.
I find, on the other hand, that LeBlanc, as alleged in paragraph 7(A) of the
amendment to complaint of November 13, 1963, interrogated Anna Magee about
2 In investigating Magee in December in preparation for trial, Respondent discovered
that Magee had injuied her hand when employed by a pre ions employei and bad re-
ceived workman's compensation and a lump-suns settlement for disability This placed no
part in Magee's layoff or Respondent's failure to iecall her Nevertheless, I have con-
sidered the circumstances in evaluating Respondent's contention about Magee's efficiency
while employed and find it has no hearing on it. If Magee were noticeably incapacitated,
Cope and Rodgers would have known it from their daily contacts with her.
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY 1485
being subpenaed. LeBlanc told Magee that she must have a sympathy for the Union
or she would not have been subpenaed. This conversation and interrogation was
weeks after the representation hearing at which Magee had testified LeBlanc's ques-
tioning served no legitimate company purpose, and I find it coercive in the circum-
stances. By such interrogation Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Cope also asked Magee, on June 25, 1963, why she had been subpenaed, indicating
that there must be some reason for it, and repeated the question a number of times,
according to Supervisor Rodgers. If Cope's questioning stood alone I would find it
insignificant in view of the fact that Magee showed Cope the subpena and said she
did not know why she had been called. However, because of the repetition of the
same kind of inquiry by LeBlanc weeks later, I find that the question was designed to
improperly discover Magee's attitude toward the Union and was coercive. By such
conduct Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
I find no violation in LeBlanc asking spontaneously who started the commotion
about the fans when he spoke with Magee, particularly because the issue, if there was
one, was settled by Magee agreeing with LeBlanc's consent, to find out what the
problem was and not disclose the names of those involved. Neither do I find any
violation where, after Magee told Cope that she would be surprised who started the
Union, Cope said, "Who?" Congress did not intend that one woman restrain her
curiosity and remain mute when so prodded by another.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Company 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
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, it will be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that the Respondent
offer employee Anna Magee immediate and full reinstatement to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal
to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
against her to the date of offer of reinstatement, less interim earnings , and in a manner
consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to
the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of
backpay.
It will also be recommended, in view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
the Respondent has engaged in, that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The Respondent Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
'2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
'organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Anna Magee in the manner found herein, the Respondent engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (I) of
-the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct found to be violations set forth in section III, C, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning
,of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that The American Pad & Textile Com-
pany, New Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Upholsterers' International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing
to reinstate employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard'
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because they have
given testimony under the Act.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning activities on behalf of the above-named
or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or
coercion violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above-named Union or any other organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Anna Magee immediate and full reinstatement to her former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against her as set forth in that section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay as set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in its plant at New Orleans, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 15, shall, after being signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d). Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within 20 days from•
the date of the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have
been taken to comply with the Recommended Order herein made .4
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced'
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
41n the event that this Recommended Order be 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
Pursuant to the Recommendation Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Upholsterers' International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any manner discriminating in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of'
employment.
TULSA SHEET METAL WORKS, INC. 1487
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning activities on behalf of the
above-named or any other labor organization, jn a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, or coercion violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees because
they have given testimony under the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form organizations,
to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Anna Magee immediate and full reinstatement to her former
or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result
of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remain-
ing members of Upholsterers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
THE AMERICAN PAD & TEXTILE COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By -------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone
No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Tulsa Sheet Metal Works, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers Inter-
national Association , Local Union No. 270. Case No. 16-CA-
1872. December 9, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 12, 1964, Trial Examiner James T. Barker 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 Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Decision and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
1 Respondent's motion for oral argument is denied because, in our opinion, the record,
exceptions, and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties.
149 NLRB No. 120.