Boaz Spinning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 518 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

518 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boaz Spinning Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 10-CA-9932
October 23, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On May 16, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Frank
H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the extent consistent herewith.
1. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by its
conduct during August 1972 in threatening employee
Herbert Amos that he and others would be discharged
if they engaged in union activities and by giving Amos
the impression that employee union activities were
under surveillance. However, we do not agree that the
events of that period, as found by the Administrative
Law Judge, reveal that the Respondent interrogated
Amos or any other of its employees concerning their
union activities. The only circumstance that suggests
any possibility of questioning employees is the inter-
views conducted prior to the 1972 election in Supervi-
sor Gore's office,' but this is too uncertain and
ambiguous to warrant such a finding. Therefore, we
do not adopt that finding and shall modify the recom-
mended Order accordingly.
2. The Administrative Law Judge also found that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
issuing warning slips to Amos, laying him off for 3
days, and discharging him on December 19, 1972. We
find merit in the Respondent's exceptions to this por-
tion of the Decision. Notwithstanding its clear knowl-
edge of Amos' union adherence and the coercive
statements to Amos found above to be violative of
Section 8(a)(1), we conclude that the facts as found by
the Administrative Law Judge reveal that he was rep-
rimanded and discharged for cause.
t Reported in detail in fn 9 of the Administrative Law Judge' s Decision
The credited evidence indicates that Amos had
been performing effectively on the third shift as a
twister tender, one of the most difficult jobs in the
mill, and before the election bid for a job opening 'on
the first shift as a turbo or autoclave operator. This
latter is an easier and lower paid job. Shortly after the,
election, Amos was transferred to the turbo operator
opening, as requested. During approximately the first
6 weeks, when he had a helper, Amos produced the
six-load minimum quota established by the Respon-
dent. At that time, the helper position was eliminated
on all three shifts in an economic cutback, and the
quota was cut to four loads, but in about October
1972 the Respondent established a five-load quota for
the autoclave operator on each of the three shifts.
Amos on the first shift never produced the quota of
five loads and sometimes produced only three, where-
as the turbo operators on the second and third shifts
almost always produced the five loads. On occasions,
during the relevant period herein, when the second- or
third-shift operator substituted for Amos on the first
shift, the substitute always produced the five loads
required. Furthermore, Larry Millwood, who first re-
placed Amos after his discharge, was a "young man
with 30 days' seniority" but he, too, ordinarily got out
five loads a day. All three worked under conditions
identical to those of Amos.
During October and early November, Supervisor
Gore orally reprimanded Amos concerning his failure
to meet the quota. Thereafter, on November 10 the
first of four written warning slips was issued to Amos
for taking too long between loads after being told not
to do so. With the third slip, on November 25, Amos
was laid off for 3 days. After his return to work, he
continued to perform in the same way until December
18, 1972, when he was given the fourth slip at the end
of his shift and told to report to Plant Manager Wal-
lace Howard the next morning, at which time Howard
gave Amos his pay and told him he was being dis-
charged for low production.
The Administrative Law Judge states that others
were not reprimanded when they produced less than
five loads, implying but not stating directly that Amos
was treated disparately. However, there is no indica-
tion in the record that any of the other turbo operators
consistently or even frequently failed to make the
quota, whereas Amos repeatedly failed to do so and
admittedly told Gore that he was doing all he could
and felt like he was "doing $2.36 [the hourly rate]
worth of work." Amos' attitude toward his work is
further shown by the credited testimony of Garrard,
the third-shift turbo operator. Thus, Garrard testified
that a few months before Amos' discharge the latter
sought to have Garrard slow down his own produc-
tion in order to avoid a possible demand by the Em-
206 NLRB No. 62
BOAZ SPINNING COMPANY 519
ployer for an increase in loads and in the hope of
perhaps having the quota lowered. Garrard also testi-
fied that Amos requested that Garrard attempt to
secure the cooperation of the second-shift turbo oper-
ator.2
Under all the circumstances, we are unable to agree
with the Administrative Law Judge that the General
Counsel has sustained his burden of establishing that
Amos' union activities were a motivating factor in the
Respondent's actions in reprimanding him, laying
him off, and then discharging him. On the contrary,
we are persuaded that such activity did not play any
part in the decisions, inasmuch as Amos had been
very active in three prior union campaigns during his
5 years of working for the'Respondent; he was grant-
ed the new job at his own request, notwithstanding his
activity in connection with the former and most re-
cent elections; and his union activity had ceased at
least 3 months prior to the first reprimand and 4
months before his discharge. We deem it significant
that he consistently and perhaps deliberately failed to
meet the production quota, although others regularly
were able to do so under the identical conditions, and
no 8(a)(1) violations have been found or alleged for a
period of about 3 months before his termination. It is
well settled that union adherence or activity does not
insulate an employee from reprimand or discharge
where valid cause therefor exists. Here the facts as
found by the Administrative Law Judge compel the
conclusion that Amos' poor performance supplied
adequate cause for the Respondent's conduct and
that such action would have been taken even had
Amos not engaged in the union activity. Accordingly,
we find no basis for holding that Amos was unlawful-
ly discriminated against, and we shall dismiss this
aspect of the complaint.
America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or any other labor organi-
zation, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its offices and facilities in Boaz, Ala-
bama, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed insofar,as it alleges viola-
tions not found herein.
2 Garrard's testimony is quoted in In. 13 of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board orders that the Respondent, Boaz Spin-
ning Company, Boaz, Alabama, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with discharge if they
engage in union activity.
(b) Creating the impression that employee union
activities are under surveillance.
(c) In any-like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the United Steelworkers of
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity
to present their evidence, the Board has found that
Boaz Spinning Company violated the National Labor
Relations Act and ordered us to post this notice. We
therefore notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge if they engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that em-
ployee union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist the
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-
CLC, or any other labor organization, or to re-
frain from any or all such activities.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All of our employees are free to join, or to refrain
from joining, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC, or any other labor organization.
BOAZ SPINNING COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730
Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Tele-
phone 404-526-5760.
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
tried before me at Albertville, Alabama, on April 3, 1973.
The unfair labor practice charge was filed on January 9, as
amended on March 5, and the complaint issued on March
6, 1973. The issue presented is whether Respondent Compa-
ny violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act by threatening employee Herbert Amos with
discharge if he engaged in protected union activities; by
interrogating employee Amos about his union activities; by
creating the impression that employee union activities were
under surveillance; and by issuing employee Amos warning
slips, laying off employee Amos for 3 days commencing on
or about December 6, 1972, and discharging employee
Amos on or about December 18, 1972, all because of the
employee's protected union activities.
Upon the entire record, including myobservation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief Tiled by
counsel for Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent Company is engaged in the .manufacture and
sale of textile products at its facility in,Boaz, Alabama, and
that during the past calendar year Respondent has sold and
shipped its finished products valued in excess of $50;000 to
customers located outside the State of Alabama. I find and
conclude that Respondent is and has been at all times mate-
rial engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits and I find and
conclude'ihatthe Charging- Party Union is-a labor-organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Employee Herbert Amos testified that he was first hired
by Respondent Company during 1967 "running twisters"
on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift at a starting rate of $1.51 per
hour and that on December 18, 1972, his last day of employ-
ment, he was running an autoclave or turbo machine on the
7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift at a rate of about $2.44 per hour. Amos
testified that after he finished work on December 18, 1972,
his supervisor, Larry Gore, I instructed Amos "to check with
Wallace Howard [the plant manager] the next morning be-
fore [he] clocked in." Amos testified that on the morning of
December 19 he went to Howard's office; that Howard told
Amos: "this is your full week's check . . . this is your pay
for yesterday and here is a refund on your bonds"; and that
Amos asked Howard "what I was fired for and [Howard]
said low production...... Amos claimed that he was not
given "a separation notice in writing."
Amos recalled that since his employment with the Com-
pany in 1967 there have been several union campaigns in-
volving the Textile Workers Union, District 50 of the
United Mine Workers Union and the Steelworkers Union.
Amos participated in all the campaigns; "he got cards
signed, passed out handbills and passed out literature" at
the gate of the Company's plant. Amos testified that the last
campaign was conducted by the Steelworkers Union during
August 1972; that he "passed out literature . . . at the gate,
talked to people getting cards signed ... "; that he served
as an observer for the Steelworkers Union at a Board-con-
ducted representation election on August 19, 1972; and that
the Steelworkers Union lost the election.
Amos recalled that earlier, before a previous Board-con-
ducted election in 1971, Plant Manager Howard had told
Amos at his work station that the Union "was no good ...
we didn't need it in there." Amos, as he testified, "disagreed
with" Howard and Howard responded: " ... if I [Amos]
wasn't satisfied there, I ought to just get out and get me
another job somewhere else." In addition, Amos recalled
that his immediate supervisor, Gore, mentioned the Union
to him on several occasions during the August 1972 election.
As Amos testified:
... about a week before the [1972] election, he [Gore]
called several of us into the office one at a time to talk
to them. . . . I was one of them, and he wanted, you
know, he .told me we didn't need that union in there.
It was a steel plant union and they had the worst record
of strikes and layoffs of anybody, you know; and he
said that we couldn't stand to be off work two or three
months. And, so I told him that I was 100 percent for
'organized labor; and he said, "Well, I guess it is just a
waste of my time and yours too," and I said , "Yeah,"
and he told me to go down and send up somebody else.
1 The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find and conclude that
first Shift Foreman Larry 'Gore i s and has been at all times material a
supervisor within'the meaning of Sectien 2(11) of the Act.
BOAZ SPINNING COMPANY 521
Amos further testified that Gore approached him on the
day before the August 1972 election "at the break table."
Amos testified:
I was at the break table and he [Gore] came up to
me. So, we was talking and he told me that they were
going to get rid of me. He said "they." I presumed it
was the Company, but I had been there five years and
had had five elections. And, he said it wasn't going to
work. He said, "We are going to get rid of you, and you
are not the only one either.... "
Thereafter, on the day of the election, according to Amos,
Gore "came up on myjob and asked me . . . who was going
to win, who did I think was going to win, and I told him I
hoped we would win." Gore assertedly responded: "Well,
you won't. You won't even get 60 votes. . . . I could tell
you exactly how many you will get, but I won't." Further,
Amos recalled that about a week after the Union lost the
1972 election, Gore approached Amos at work and said:
"You know we have no use for the union." ... "The
Company is not going to forget that."
Amos testified that he transferred from his job as twister
to running the turbo or autoclave on the first shift about late
August or early September 1972. The turbo or autoclave, as
Amos explained, is a large "pressure cooker . . . and you
put yam in there to heat it for the winder to run"; there is
one turbo or autoclave operator on each shift; and the yarn
is processed from the autoclave to the winders. Amos re-
called that when he first started this job about August or
September 1972, he had a helper and about 6 weeks later the
Company eliminated the helper .2 Further, Amos recalled
that when he first started on this particular job, there were
five winders on his shift and that, after his helper was re-
moved, there were only four winders. Amos claimed that
when he was first assigned to the autoclave and had a help-
er, Gore instructed him that he was to process five loads of
yarn each day.' Amos claimed that with a helper he pro-
cessed five loads on his shift and without a helper he nor-
mally processed four loads on his shift. Amos recalled that,
following the loss of his helper, Gore "at first said that I was
doing a good job there for about a week or two, and then
they got dissatisfied with it and told me I was going to have
to do more." Amos added, . . . I couldn't do it."4
Amos acknowledged that Gore had complained to him
about his production. According to Amos:
... Well, the first time, he came by my job and started
2 Amos testified that the helpers were also removed for the turbo or auto-
clave operators on the two other shifts
3 Each load consists of two metal baskets of yam or a total of some 1200
pounds of yam.
4 Amos explained that a process known as "blowing the boiler" occurred
on the first shift (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) twice each day consuming some 30 minutes
on each occasion and, when the boiler was being blown , there is no steam
which is required to run the autoclave. Amos testified that this process did
not occur on the Company's two other shifts (3 p in. to 11 p in. and 11 p.m
to 7 a.m ).
... talking about I wasn't doing enough.... he said,
"Well, you know, you are for the Umon, and the Com-
pany is not going to forget it." And, I asked him if that
was the way they were going to get rid of me, and he
said no. So, I told him they would have to fire me. I
wasn't going to quit.
Amos recalled that Gore showed Amos "something in writ-
ing"; Amos did not read it or sign it. Amos testified that "a
little while after that [Gore] called [Amos] into his office"
and said, "they wasn't satisfied with what I was doing .. .
they wanted me to do more and more." Amos responded:
I couldn't to it.... " Amos stated that on this occa-
sion he was neither shown nor asked to sign a warning slip.
Amos claimed that about 1 week after the initial warning,
as described above, Gore "called [Amos] back up into the
office" and, in the presence of another supervisor, said:
they wasn't satisfied with what I was doing. So, he
said that he would have to give me a discipline slip
.. A pink slip, we call it. So, he said, "That is your
second one." And I asked him then ..., "When did I
get the first one? "and he said, "About a week or so ago
when I was talking to you." So, he explained to me .. .
about getting three pink slips and then we would get a
three-day layoff and then the fourth one, we would be
automatically fired... I
Amos testified that about 1 week later, Gore "called [Amos]
up there and it was the same thing again, and he said I was
laid off for three days" without pay. Following the layoff,
Amos returned to the same job and, as stated above, was
terminated about 2 weeks later on December 19, 1972.
On cross-examination, Amos testified that he "had ob-
tained the autoclave or turbo operator's job by "bidding"
for it at the plant; that previously he was a "twister tender";
and that he voluntarily bid for the turbo operator' s position.
Amos acknowledged that the job of turbo operatorpays less
per hour than the job of twister tender and is an easier job 6
Amos testified that Gore first became his supervisor while
he was twister tender in June 1972 and that he never re-
ceived any warnings or reprimands from Gore while per-
forming that job.
Amos acknowledged that he had participated in four
union campaigns since 1967 that went to election; that he
was active in all four campaigns; and that in the August
1972 campaign he "just got a little deeper in it." Amos
explained that in the last election, "I was an observer for the
Umon and I had never done that before."7 Amos also ac-
knowledged on cross-examination that during his earlier
1971 interview with Plant Manager Howard, Howard had
said that Amos should get another job elsewhere if he was
not satisfied, that Howard also stated his opposition to the
Union and that Amos then told Howard that he was for the
5 See, Resp Exhs. 5 and 6, setting forth the Company's policy on discipli-
nary action and general plant rules.
6 According to Amos, a twister tender is compensated "on an incentive"
basis, and Amos was averaging $2.82 per hour on that job; a turbo operator
receives $2.36 an hour.
7 There was assertedly one other union observer, Katie Burns, and she
"still works at the plant."
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union.
Amos testified on cross-examination that he had a total
of four conversations with Gore about the Union; the first
one was in Gore's office about a week before the August 19,
1972, election; the second one was at the break table the day
before the election; the third conversation was on the job
"the day we voted"; and the fourth conversation was on the
job a few days after the election. Amos asserted that Gore
told him that "they were going to get rid of" Amos in two
conversations-the second and the fourth ones. Amos as-
serted that Gore mentioned "layoffs" and "strikes" in the
first conversation-"that the Steelworkers had a bad strike
record." Gore assertedly told Amos in the first conversation
that he was against the Union and that the Union was not
in the best interest of the employees. Amos, as he testified,
told Gore "that [he] was 100 percent for organized labor"
after Gore had said, "I guess it's a waste of my time and
yours too to talk to you."' Further, Gore assertedly told
Amos: "The employees in this plant cannot afford to be laid
off."9 And, Amos testified that he believed that it was dur-
ing his fourth meeting with Gore when Gore said: "I [Amos]
was going to have to do more work"; Amos responded that
he "was doing all [he] could do"; and Gore said: "they
would have to have more and they would have to take
further action." During this conversation, Amos said: "I am
not going to quit; you will have to fire me.""
Further, Amos testified that after he lost his helper on the
autoclave, Gore told him "to run the best [he] could." Later,
Gore said: "We expect you to get five" loads. Amos was
running about four loads, although occasionally he would
run only three loads on a shift. Amos never ran five loads
after he lost his helper. Amos recalled that shortly after he
became a turbo operator, Gore had said: "You are doing a
fine job"; "Just keep it up"; "You are keeping the women
[winders] off me." Thereafter, Gore started criticizing
Amos' work "almost everyday."11
8 Amos claimed that Gore had asked, in effect, "what I thought about the
Union."
9 Amos, after reading his prehearing affidavit, explained, inter alia, that
Gore "didn't just come out" in the first conversation and ask how he felt
about the Union. Gore, according to Amos, said "he didn't know how I felt"
whereupon Amos "told him that [Amos] was 100 percent for it" Amos
acknowledged that the following language in his statement is correct
About a week before the election, Gore called each person in the
department up to his office individually. When I was called up [he].
gave me a long talk against the union and how the Steelworkers had the
worst record for strikes and layoffs and how they did not need the union.
When Gore finished he said he guessed it was a waste of his time and
mine to say all this to me and I agreed and said that I was 100 percent
for the union and believed in organized labor Gore then told me to send
up the next person and I left
Amos claimed that Gore also said, inter aka, that "we can't afford" strikes
and layoffs. Amos explained that he "couldn't get everything in" his affidavit
"word for word."
10 As for the third conversation, Amos explained that on election day
Gore-
... just came up to my job and asked me how did I think it would go
and so I told him I hoped we won, and he said that we wouldn't get 60
votes and said, "I could tell you how many you would get but ... I
wouldn't."
ii Amos acknowledged that on one occasion he had said to Gore- "Well,
Harold Garrard testified that he is employed by Respon-
dent Company; that he worked the autoclave during a sub-
stantial portion of last year; that his supervisor, Keith
Stancil, apprised him that he would have to run six loads on
the autoclave with a helper; that his helper was later discon-
tinued; and that his supervisor then told him that he would
run five loads without a helper.12 Garrard, as he testified,
generally ran at least five loads; he explained that "there
were occasions when we were short of yarn and it throwed
us to run less than five.... " Garrard never ran "under
four loads." In addition, Garrard explained that he had
worked on the first shift (Amos' shift) as well as the third
shift; that the first shift winders run more yarn because of
their experience-"they run a lot harder" than the third
shift. Garrard also explained that on the first shift they
would "blow the boiler down" and this would consume
from 15 to 25 minutes.13
Gerald Walker testified that he works for Respondent as
a "winding section man" under the supervision of Gore on
the first shift. Walker assisted Amos by pushing skeins of
yarn to the winders. Walker testified that his "job was fixing
on winders if they had breakdowns . . . and being yarn
boy." Walker testified that on the day Amos was dis-
charged, he told Gore: ". . . I [Walker] didn't think it was
right, that I didn't have the yarn out there for the boy
[Amos], that he didn't have no yam out there to run on his
job." Walker claimed that it was his "responsibility to get
the yarn out there" for Amos. Walker explained: "I was just
telling [Gore] I didn't think it was right letting Amos go
because he didn't have the yam out there on his job to run."
Walker acknowledged that on the day in question he had
not pushed out enough yarn in order for Amos to run five
loads.
Walker testified that Amos has been replaced by George
Pierce as operator on the first shift turbo and that Pierce has
been able to get out five loads on the shift. Walker noted,
however, that there has been a change in the method of
operation since Amos was discharged; the Company has
enlarged the skeins by one pound to each skein, thereby
reducing the total number of skeins to be placed in the
machine.14 On cross-examination, Walker recalled that it
was Larry Millwood who first replaced Amos, that Mill-
wood was a "young man with 30 days seniority" and that
Millwood ordinarily got out five loads a day. Also, Walker
recalled that the change in size of the skeins did not occur
until sometime after Pierce got the turbo job. Also, as Walk-
I feel like I am doing $2.36 worth of work " Amos did not attempt to bid back
to a twister's job.
12 Garrard was on the third shift at the time (I1 p in. to 7 a m.).
13 Garrard recalled that when he worked that shift the Company blew the
boiler down once, but assertedly they blow it down twice now.
On cross-examination, Garrard acknowledged that when he worked the
first shift as a turbo operator, he got out five loads a day Garrard also
acknowledged that a few months before Amos' discharge, Amos said to him
he [Amos] felt they were going to increase the number of loads we
had to do, and he wanted to slow down to make sure the increase in
loads would maybe drop . . lower. .
Amos, according to Garrard, wanted Garrard to "to say, something to" the
turbo operator on the other shift, "and see if [he] could get him to cooper-
ate"-"slow down a little bit"
14 Walker explained that the employer changed from 3 pounds of yarn in
a skein to 4 pounds of yarn in a skein
BOAZ SPINNING COMPANY 523
er testified, although fewer skeins were placed in the tum-
bler under the change in operations, each skein weighed
more. Further, Walker recalled that on the afternoon of
Amos' discharge, " ... [Gore] just told me [Walker] that he
had to let him [Amos] go because he didn't get but four
loads, and I just told him it wasn't right; that I didn't have
yarn put there to him. It was more or less my fault." Accord-
ing to Walker, nothing else was said at the time.
John Smith testified that he is employed by Respondent
as an assistant section man on the third shift; that his super-
visor is Keith Stancil; and that he previously served as turbo
operator working on all three shifts. Smith observed that the
first shift "is harder than the other two shifts" because there
were "five to six winders that we had to see after, haul the
yam out and all the yam in too, plus running the turbo."
Smith stated that normally he has four winders on the sec-
ond shift and, on the third shift, he has "has as high as six
... but most of them were trainees just learning." Smith
testified that he ran "four and five loads" on the third shift
without a helper. Smith was given a helper while working
the second shift; management told him at the time that he
would be required to run five loads. Smith recalled that even
with a helper on the second shift, he occassionally would
make less than five loads because of "boiler trouble" or "we
have run short of yarn." Smith testified that he ran five
loads most of the time on the second shift, "without a help-
er, too." Smith was never criticized by his supervisor when
he ran less than five loads.ls
George Pierce testified that he is employed as turbo oper-
ator on the first shift; that Gore is his supervisor; and that
he has been working on that shift about four weeks. Previ-
ously, about August 1972, Pierce was a turbo helper for
Amos. His "job was to push yarn from the old part [of the
plant] to the new part and to help [Amos] on the winders
and to help him on the turbo." At the time according to
Pierce, the turbo operator was required to process six loads
a day and they "usually" ran six loads. However, according
to Pierce, they also ran five loads and even went down to
four. At the time, there were five or six winders on the first
shift. Pierce explained that now, as turbo operator on the
first shift, he only "has four winders and he runs four to five
loads a day without a helper.
Pierce, who had been working Amos' job during the 4
weeks preceding this hearing, explained that he was recently
criticized by Gore because he only ran four loads. He ex-
plained to Gore that he "was late getting started" because
"it took a long time to blow [the boiler] down that morning
.... " According to Pierce, blowing the boiler occurs
twice on the first shift and on each occasion takes 20 to 30
minutes. In addition, Pierce recalled that when Gore re-
lieved him as Amos' helper, Gore said that he "was going
to have to lay off part of the winders"; Pierce would be "put
15 Smith also testified that in the past he and another operator each worked
4 hours on the first shift and together they ran four to five loads without a
helper. On cross-examination , Smith explained that when he replaced Amos
during Amos' absence on the first shift, he would run four and five loads
occasionally. Smith denied getting out five loads on the first shift "the majori-
ty of the time." However, Smith acknowledged that he never got out only
three loads on the first shift. Smith also acknowledged that "today" all three
shifts "normally" get out five loads. Smith noted that if he was short of yarn
as turbo operator, "normally I went over and got it myself "
... to doing something else; and that [Amos] would be
required to run four loads a day." At the time there were five
winders on the first shift and some were laid off.16
Supervisor Larry Gore testified as a witness for Respon-
dent. Gore has been a supervisor on the first shift in the
Company's No. 2 Mill since November 1971. The depart-
ments under his jurisdiction include blending, twining, spin-
ning, twisting, winding, and warehouse. There is a turbo
machine in the winding department. Gore explained that
the Company utilizes a bidding system to fill job vacancies.
Gore recalled that when he first became a supervisor Amos
was a twister tender. Gore admittedly never had occasion
to discipline or criticize Amos' work while Amos was a
twister tender. Amos bid on the job of turbo operator about
August 14, 1972. Amos was awarded the job 3 days later on
August 17 and started working as turbo operator the follow-
ing Monday.
Gore testified that when Amos started working as turbo
operator in late August he had a helper, George Pierce.
During late September or early October 1972, Amos lost his
helper.'' During the period of time that the turbo operators
had a helper, the Company had a "six-load minimum stan-
dard." After the helper was eliminated, the minimum load
was dropped to five. P1 However, Gore acknowledged that he
had told Amos during a period "no longer than a week"
following the loss of an account that, "in order to balance
the three shifts . . ., we did go to four loads.... " Gore
testified that "after that week or so was up," he told Amos:
"we had to run a minimum of five -loads."19 Gore claimed
that the minimum standard for a turbo operator does not
vary on different shifts. 0
Gore testified that every morning 7 a.m. "the boiler is
blowed down, and that is just a means where they empty the
boiler with excess that had built up over night." This occurs
twice a day; the second occasion is "about 15 minutes be-
fore 3 o'clock" also on the first shift. Gore testified that it
takes approximately, 10 to 15 minutes to "blow the boiler"
each time. Gore acknowledged: " .... sometimes it will take
longer, occasionally." Gore acknowledged that the 7 a.m.
blowing of the boiler puts the turbo operator "at a disadvan-
tage because his steam is cut off.... " As for the second
blowing of the boiler, Gore claimed that by 2:30 p.m. "they
16 On cross-examination, Pierce acknowledged that he normally gets out
five loads a day on the first shift. Pierce testified that the current extra weight
in each skein "helps" get out more loads because "you don't have as many
skeins to handle", "it is easier " And, Pierce testified that Amos was instruct-
ed when Pierce was removed as his helper that only four loads a day would
be required and, later, "they changed it to five "
17 Gore claimed that the Company eliminated helpers on all turbo ma-
chines because of a "loss of business."
15 Gore explained that there were occasions when the standard would be
relaxed such as, for example, the boiler pilot would not ignite; the boiler
would be down; or there would be a mechanical breakdown.
19 Gore testified. "I don't know the exact date, but it was a week or so after
we lost the Avondale account"-"It was around September because we lost
the Avondale account; then we eliminated the turbo helpers all at the same
time.""
20 Gore also explained that the "tumbling process" involved in the turbo
operation actually takes longer with the 4 pound skein than with the 3 pound
skein. Gore testified "I think it takes 16 minutes longer on the 4 pound skein
to get one load ready to go to the turbo"; "the four pound tumbles 5 minutes
.. the three pound tumbles 3 minutes " However, Gore claimed that this
change from 4 pound skeins to 3 pound skeins was effected "about a month
ago" during March 1973.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
should have their load out" and, therefore, the first shift
operator should not be affected by this second blowing of
boiler.
Gore testified that he knew of no occasion "when Mr.
Amos . . . working as a turbo operator without a helper
... got out five loads a shift." Gore claimed that other
operators on the first shift normally have gotten out five
loads. Gore explained that he gave Amos four warning slips.
The fist slip stated:
Discipline Slip
Discipline Slip
NAME: Herbert Amos
CARD NO: 116-3
JOB: Turbo Operator
DAYS LAID OFF:
FROM: 12/6/72
TO: 12/9/72
ISSUED BY: Larry Gore
CONFERENCE DATE: 12/5/72
WITNESS: Bill King
REASON:
For not operating turbo efficiently after being
warned about this.
NAME Herbert Amos
CARD NO: 116-3 -
JOB: Turbo Operator
DAYS LAID OFF:
FROM:
TO:
ISSUED BY: Larry Gore
WITNESS: Paul Crutchfield
CONFERENCE DATE: 11/10/72
REASON:
Failure to carry out specific instructions concerning
operation of the turbo. He is taking an hour or more
between each load after being warned not to do so.
The second warning slip stated:
Discipline Slip
NAME: Herbert Amos
CARD NO: 116-3
JOB: Turbo Operator
DAYS LAID OFF:
FROM: NONE -
TO: -
ISSUED BY: Larry Gore
CONFERENCE DATE: 11/23/72
WITNESS: Paul Crutchfield
REASON:
Failure to carryout specific instructions regarding
operation of the turbo. He was taking too long be-
tween loads without reason, after being instructed
otherwise.
Gore assertedly told Amos that "this was his second one,
... I told him what the third one would mean.... " Gore
recalled that Amos said "that he didn't know he had gotten
the first one, but I showed it to him and Mr. Crutchfield was
there and he signed it in front of him."
The third slip stated:
On this occasion, Gore told Amos that, "under normal com-
pany policy ... [he] would be laid off for 3 days, [and] he
never said anything."
The fourth slip stated:
Discipline Slip
NAME: Herbert Amos
CARD NO: 116-3
JOB: Turbo Operator
DAYS LAID OFF:
FROM:
TO:
ISSUED BY: Larry Gore
CONFERENCE DATE: 12/18/72
WITNESS: Bill King
REASON:
For not operating turbo as he was asked to.
On this occasion, Gore told Amos to go to the plant manag-
er the next morning and he was then discharged.
Gore also testified that he spoke to Amos about his work
on four occasions "sometime in October." Gore claimed
that Amos did not offer excuses "every time" and on one
occasion said that "he thought he felt like he was doing
$2.26 worth of work an hour and that was all he was [g]oing
to do." Gore testified that during the period when the writ-
ten warnings were issued to Amos, the employee "never had
by himself met the minimum requirements" in production
and there was "no improvement." Gore asserted that al-
though there were 10 or 11 twister job vacancies during this
period, Amos never bid on them.
Gore acknowledged that he spoke with Amos about the
Union on two occasions. On the day of the August 19, 1972
election, according to Gore:
... I [Gore] was walking by his [Amos'] job and I just
stopped and asked him how he thought the election
would come out and he told me he thought the union
would win, and I said, "Well, I figure that the Company
will win 4 to 1." And, he laughed about it and I laughed
and I kept walking.
Gore claimed that nothing else was said. Thereafter, during
BOAZ SPINNING COMPANY 525
September or October, as Gore further testified:
... [Amos] came up into the office one day and just
walked in and we sat down and started talking. The
subject of the union was brought up. I don't remember
which one of us brought it up .. .
I told him how I felt about it.
* * * * *
I told him I didn't think the union would do the em-
ployees here at Boaz any good. I thought it would do
more harm than good, that he and I couldn't be sitting
and talking like we were. If we had a union in here, we
would have to have a third party involved, and I just,
you know, told him that I didn't think the union would
do us any good at all.
Gore testified that Amos said that "he was for the Union
100 percent, that he used to be for the union but there were
so many liars in this mill that he was not going to mess with
the Union any more." Gore claimed that nothing else was
said about the Union on this or on any other occasion.21
Gore recalled that Amos ran the turbo machine con-
stantly from August 1972 until his discharge on December
19, 1972; that Amos' production while he had a helper was
considered adequate from August until late September or
early October; and that thereafter Amos never met produc-
tion. Gore could not recall the dates when he issued the oral
warnings to Amos. Gore, however, acknowledged that he
had complimented Amos, stating: ". . . he was doing a
good job out there as far as keeping the yarn for the women
to run and keeping the yarn weighed up." Gore admittedly
had said: "Herbert, you are doing a good job out there on
the Belmont "22
The testimony of Herbert Amos stated above is corrobo-
rated in part by the testimony of employees Harold Gar-
rard, Gerald Walker, John Smith, and George Pierce? The
testimony of Amos is also substantiated in part by the testi-
mony of Supervisor Larry Gore. And, relying upon the
demeanor of the witnesses, I am persuaded that the testimo-
ny of Amos, as corroborated in part by Garrard, Walker,
Smith, and Pierce, is a truthful and reliable account of the
particular events recited herein. Insofar as the above testi-
mony of Amos, Garrard, Walker, Smith, and Pierce con-
flicts with the testimony of Gore, I do not credit Gore. In
particular, I do not believe that Gore, as he testified, only
spoke to Amos about the Union on the day of the August
1972 election in a laughing manner and, thereafter, when
Amos assertedly told Gore that his coworkers were "liars"
and "that he was not going to mess with the Union any-
21 Gores also claimed that during one of his discussions with Amos in an
attempt to get Amos "to improve his performance." Amos said: "I am not
going to quit. You will have to fire me first "
22 No other witnesses testified.
23 Although Amos testified that the minimum load requirement with a
helper was five loads, the record makes clear that it was six loads and Amos
met this requirement with a helper.
more." Instead, I find and conclude that Gore in fact made
the statements attributed to Gore by Amos concerning the
Union and Amos' union activities.
III DISCUSSION
The principal question raised here is whether the Compa-
ny-in reprimanding, laying off, and then discharging em-
ployee Amos assertedly because of Amos' production
record-was really motivated at least in part by union ani-
mus. For, under settled law, "The Board is not compelled
to accept the employer's statement when there is reasonable
cause for believing that the ground put forward by the em-
ployer was not the true one , and that the real reason was the
employer's dissatisfaction with the employee's union activi-
ty." Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc., v. N.L.R.B., 354
F.2d 707, 709 (C.A. 5, 1966). "And, a discharge motivated
only in part by anti-union discrimination is similarly ille-
gal." J. P. Stevens & Co. v. N.L. R.B., 380 F .2d 292, 300
(C.A. 2, 1967), cert . denied, 389 U.S. 1005 ( 1967). Also see,
N.L.R.B. v. California State Automobile Association, 442
F.2d 426 (C.A. 9, 1971).
The credited evidence of recordmakes clear that Respon-
dent Company was dissatisfied with employee Amos' re-
peated efforts to organize its employees . Thus, as Amos
credibly testified , Plant Manager Howard apprised the em-
ployee during the 1971 organizational campaign that the
union "was no good" and "we didn't need it in there." Amos
"disagreed" with Howard and was then told by the Plant
Manager that if he "wasn't satisfied there , [he] ought to just
get out and get ... another job somewhere else." Thereaf-
ter, during the summer of 1972, Amos again participated in
an organizational campaign at the plant . This time Amos
served as an observer for the Union at the Board-conducted
election on August 19 , 1972, as well as passing out organiza-
tional literature and soliciting the Union memberships of
his coworkers at the plant gate. About one week before the
August 19 election , Supervisor Gore called employee Amos
to the office; apprised Amos that "we didn't need that
Union in there"; warned Amos that "they [the Union] had
the worst record of strikes and layoffs of anybody" and
"that we couldn't stand to be off work two or three
months"; ascertained that Amos was "100 percent for the
Union"; and then said that it was "just a waste of . . . time"
discussing the Union with Amos and instructed him to
"send up somebody else." Later , on the day before the
election, Gore admonished Amos at the break table that the
Company was "going to get rid of" him-" ... it wasn't
going to work...... On the day of the election, Gore
informed Amos: "You won't even get 60 votes.... I could
tell you exactly how many you will get but I won 't." And,
about I week after the Union lost the election , Gore warned
Amos: "You know we have no use for the Union"; "the
Company is not going to forget that."
Amos started working for the Company in 1967 . Before
August 1972 , Amos was considered a satisfactory employee.
And, during late August 1972, Amos was permitted to trans-
fer to the job of turbo operator on the first shift-an easier
and lesser paying job then he had. Amos, at first, was con-
sidered satisfactory by Gore. Later, Amos lost his assistant
on the turbo and was thereafter repeatedly faulted by Gore
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for not meeting minimum production requirements. As
Amos explained: "They wasn't satisfied with what I was
doing ... they wanted me to do more and, more," and
Amos explained that he "couldn't do it." Gore, about this
same time , also apprised the employee: , " ... you are for
the Union and the Company is not going to forget it."
Supervisor Gore acknowledged that he never had occa-
sion to reprimand Amos before August 1972 when Amos
was a twister tender on the first shift; that Amos met his
production requirements during late August and September
on the turbo with an assigned helper; and that he, Gore,
complimented Amos on his work. However, Gore claimed
that commencing about October 1972, Amos never met his
minimum production requirements. According to Gore,
Amos was permitted to run the turbo below minimum pro-
duction requirements until December 19, 1972, while receiv-
ing oral reprimands on unspecified dates and written
reprimands on November 10, November 23, December 5,
and December 18, 1972. Although the record demonstrates
that there are turbo operators who can produce more loads
per shift than Amos in varying degrees, I am not persuaded
that this was Respondent's real reason for repeatedly repri=
manding Amos, laying him off, and then discharging him.
Rather, I find and conclude that, in the context of
Respondent's coercive and antiunion conduct directed to-
ward Amos, that the Company's action against Amos was
motivated at least in part by the employee's known union
activities. In this respect, I note that Amos, as turbo opera-
tor on the first shift, encountered special production delays
caused by the "blowing of the boiler." And, on the day
preceding Amos' firing, section man Walker confessed to
Gore responsibility for Amos' failure to meet production
that day and was ignored by management.
In sum, I find and conclude that Respondent seized upon
this asserted production shortcoming as a pretext to get rid
of Amos because of his union activities, in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Further, I find and con-
clude that Supervisor Gore, by the foregoing conduct,
threatened Amos with discharge because of his union activi-
ties, created the impression that employee union activities
were under surveillance, and coercively interrogated the
employee about his union activities, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Charging Party Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening employee Herbert Amos with discharge if he
engaged in protected union activities; by coercively interro-
gating employee Amos about his union activities; and by
creating the impression that employee union activities were
under surveillance.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by issuing employee Amos warning slips on November 10,
November 23, December 5, and December 18, 1972, by
laying off employee Amos for 3 days on December 5, 1972,
and by discharging employee Amos on December 19, 1972,
and thereafter failing and refusing to recall him because of
his protected activities.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Company engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices , I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. And, as the
unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of
a character striking at the core of employee rights safe-
guarded by the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist from in any other manner infringing upon rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, discriminatorily reprimanded,
laid off, and discharged employee Amos on the dates indi-
cated above. It will therefore be recommended that Respon-
dent offer to employee Amos immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of his unlawful layoff and termination,
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned from the date of discrimina-
tion to the date of Respondent 's offer of reinstatement, less
net earnings during such period, with backpay computed on
a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Backpay shall
carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
It is also recommended that Respondent expunge from its
records the four written reprimands discriminatorily issued
to Amos and notify him thereof. Further, it will be recom-
mended that Respondent preserve and make available to
the Board, upon request, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary and useful to determine the
amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement
under the terms of these recommendations.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.].