Burlington Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 27, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 245 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES , INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 245 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, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8400, Extension 2100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Burlington Industries , Inc., Vinton Weaving Company Plant and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO-CLC. Case No. 5-CA-2207. August 27, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On February 8, 1963, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled case, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and recommended that the complaint with respect thereto be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the Charging Party filed a brief. 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 Rodgers and Leedom]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record 1 in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,2 conclusions, and recommendations with the modifications herein noted. ' The Charging Party's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record, in- cluding the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties 2 The Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by posting on its bulletin boards two pictures which, together with a caption above and a statement beneath the pictures, suggest that the advent of the Union would result in the closing of the plant Since the same order, in any event, would issue, Members Rodgers and Leedom do not find it necessary to pass upon this alleged violation. Chairman McCulloch would affiim the Trial Examiner 's finding that the posting of these pictures violated Section 8(a) (1). 144 NLRB No. 37. 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERS The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner 4 3 The Charging Party has filed with the Board a memorandum in which it has pointed out past violations by the Respondent at this plant and others and requests the Board to adopt broader and more stringent remedies than those recommended by the Trial Examiner It urges, for example, that the Respondent be required to instruct all its supervisors in all of its 114 plants that they will be discharged if, in the future, the Board should find they have engaged in unfair labor practices ; post a $10,000,000 performance bond to guarantee that the Respondent will comply with any cease-and-desist order issued in this case ; and post such order in all its plants and mail a copy of the order to each employee. The Board has, in unusual circumstances where previous remedial orders have proven in- effective, devised special remedies In an effort to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. J J. Hagerty, Inc., 139 NLRB 633, enfd but order modified sub nom. Local 138, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, et al., 321 F. 2d 130 (C.A. 2). We have given careful consideration to the Charging Party's request for a broader remedial order, but despite the serious nature of the unfair labor practices found in this case and the companion cases involving the same Respondent and this plant, we do not believe that more stringent remedies are required at this time Upon appropriate request, however, we shall in any future cases again review the record of the Respondent's conduct to determine whether it warrants or compels a finding of such serious, repeated, or widespread viola- tions of the law and opposition to its purposes and policies as to warrant added provisions to implement our orders. 4 The notice is hereby amended by the addition of the following Note to appear immedi- ately below the signature line at the bottom of the notice: NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in ac- cordance with the Selective Serviee Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U.S.C., Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act, was heard before Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin in Roanoke, Virginia, on October 16 and 17, 1962, pursuant to due notice to all parties. The complaint, issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and based on charges duly filed and served, alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent con- ceded that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, but it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At the hearing all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to argue orally. Oral argument was waived. Subsequent to the hearing, the General Counsel and the Charging Party submitted briefs which have been fully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile fabrics. Only its plant at Vinton, Virginia, is involved in the present pro- ceeding. During a representative 12-month period, the Respondent shipped products valued at in excess of $50,000 from this plant to points located outside the Common- wealth of Virginia. During the same period, it received raw materials and supplies valued at in excess of $50,000 at the plant in Vinton which were shipped to it directly from points and places located outside Virginia. Upon the foregoing facts, the Re- spondent concedes, and I find, that Burlington Industries, Inc., Vinton Weaving Com- pany Plant, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 247 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein called Textile Workers or Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and sequence of events In the spring of 1962 the Union initiated an organizational campaign at the Re- spondent's plant in Vinton. In June it filed a representation petition that eventuated in an election on August 31, 1962, which the Union lost. The General Counsel alleges that in March and thereafter by wage increases and other benefits and from June through September by various other acts the Respondent engaged in interfer- ence, restraint, and coercion. The General Counsel further alleged that on July 12, 1962, the Respondent discrimmatorily discharged Charles Crouch. All of these allegations are denied by the Respondent. B. The facts with respect to the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion; conclusions with respect thereto James Cobey Snyder, an International representative for the Union, testified that the Textile Workers have been attempting to organize the employees at the Vinton plant for from 11 to 12 years. The first campaign was conducted in 1951-52, a second was carried on in 1956-57. Neither of these was successful. In January 1962 the Textile Workers began the drive which figures in the instant case. Leaflets were passed out at the plant gates which solicited the employees to mail an attached coupon to the union headquarters if they were interested in joining. As a result of the employee response to this initial effort, the Textile Workers thereafter launched an intensive organizational campaign among the employees of the Vinton plant. Much of the testimony as to the Respondent's course of conduct during the en- suing months is in conflict These conflicts will be resolved later herein. There is no dispute, however, as to certain measures which the Company adopted. To the evidence in that connection we will now turn. Sometime early in July the Respondent posted notices on the plant bulletin boards which set out its position as to the Union. This notice was also read to the em- ployees on each shift by R. P. Arnold, the plant manager, and copies were mailed to them at their homes. It read as follows: TO ALL EMPLOYEES Since the Textile Workers AFL-CIO Union is again trying to get in here, there are various rumors being circulated and various questions being asked. We want to state to you as clearly as possible what the Company' s position is on these matters, so that there will be no doubt or misunderstanding on the part of anyone: (1) We have heard of a rumor to the effect that it is no longer a matter of interest or concern to Burlington Industries whether a Union comes in or not. Such rumor is completely false-and just opposite to the truth. (2) Our sincere belief is that if the Union were to get in here, it would not work to your benefit but to your serious harm. (3) It is our definite intention to oppose the Union and by every proper means to prevent it from coming into this Plant. (4) We would like to make it clear that it is not now necessary, and it is not ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong to the Textile Workers, AFL- CIO Union, or any other Union, in order to work for this Company. (5) Those who might join or belong to the Union are not going to get any advantages or any preferred treatment of any sort over those who do not join or belong to any Union. (6) If anybody causes you any trouble at your work or puts you under any sort of pressure to join the Union, you should let the Company know, and we will undertake to see that this is stopped. (7) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities on the job. Anybody who does so and who thereby neglects his own work or inter- feres with the work of others will be subject to discharge. Anybody who tells you anything contrary to the foregoing is not telling the truth. VINTON WEAVING CO., BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD About 2 weeks before the Board election a poster appeared on the plant bulletin boards which consisted of two pictures, one of a plant, that was operating, with the gates open and employees reporting for work. In the other picture, the plant was abandoned, the windows broken, the gate boarded up, and a large "closed" sign appeared across the entrance. At the top of the poster was the caption: "THE UNION OFTEN MAKES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO PIC- TURES." Underneath the two pictures was the following statement: The records prove that Unions, and the troubles they often bring, have shut down many plants and caused many to close, ending jobs and bringing hardship and misery to people who want work. Where that happens, only the Union dues collectors benefit-everybody else loses! MAKE SURE THAT THIS SORT OF THING VOTE WILL NOT DESTROY YOUR JOB NO! The foregoing posters remained on the Respondent's glass enclosed plant bulletin boards for several weeks. Plant Manager Arnold testified that he thought that he ordered their removal "about the time of the election." 1 In April 1962, Burlington secured a 5-year lease on a manufacturing facility in the Roanoke area that was formerly the site of an American Viscose plant. Thereafter it began extensive renovation work on the building. On July 13 and 17, Roanoke television station WSLS-TV broadcast two news releases which it had received from Plant Manager Arnold. The first announced that Burlington had decided to halt the renovation it had undertaken at the Viscose plant. The announcement was very brief and referred, cryptically to "develop- ments that make it necessary to review earlier plans." The next release, broad- cast on July 17, commented on the efforts of the Textile Workers to come into the Vinton mill, stated the belief that the "great majority of our employees would not want this to happen," expressed the view that the employees would find "that it would not work out to their best interests," and concluded with a reiteration of the earlier announcement that Burlington had discontinued its renovation work at the other plant. At the hearing, Arnold testified that he understood that the work had been halted by what he referred to solely as "marketing conditions." However, he disavowed any personal knowledge of any facts other than what had appeared in the newspapers, or on television, on the ground that he was not directly connected with the operation and that it was handled by another depart- ment of the Burlington Corporation. If true, then these latter facts made incongruous the selection of Arnold to issue the press release which announced discontinuance of the renovation work at the Viscose plant. On the other hand, by mid-July the Company had made no secret of its intense opposition to the Union. At the time of these news broadcasts, Arnold had posted throughout the plant the notice which ap- pears above and had read it, as well, to the employees on each shift. This set forth the Respondent's arguments against the Textile Workers in very clear lan- guage and emphasized the view that "if the Union were to get in here, it would not work to your benefit but to your serious harm." About this same time there also appeared on the bulletin boards the posters which depicted a disastrous plant closing attributed to a union, and which appealed to the employees with the legend: "Make sure that this sort of thing will not destroy your job VOTE NO!" Under these circumstances, the newscasts in which Arnold was credited with an announce- ment that linked the Textile Workers organizing campaign with the termination of work on the opening of another plant could clearly lead to the employee conclusion that a union victory in the election would close the Vinton plant. The Board has al- ready found violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, the language of the notice to the employees wherein the Respondent predicted that the advent of a union "would not work to your benefit but to your serious harm." White Oak Acres, Inc., 134 NLRB 1145, 1149-1150; Rea Construction Company, 137 NLRB 1769. I so find here. I further find that Respondent likewise violated that same section of the Act with the promulgation of the plant closing poster, referred to above, which, along with the news releases of this period, so clearly emphasized the prospects of a shut- down of the Vinton mill and unemployment in the event the Textile Workers won the election. There was undenied testimony on the part of several employees as to certain conversations with supervisory personnel. Thus, Grady Barrett testified that early in July, Plant Manager Arnold had him come to his office where he asked if any employee had talked with Barrett about the Union and requested that Barrett let him 1 The quotation is from the testimony of Arnold BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 249 know in the event anyone did so. William Pendleton testified that in June he was called to the office of Thomas Hill, supervisor of the throwing department, where the latter asked Pendleton how he felt about the Union and then questioned him as to his knowledge of the union sympathies of two fellow workers with whom Pendleton rode to the plant every day. According to John R. Murray, about the middle of July, Hill questioned him as to what he thought of the Union, whether he had heard any of the employees talking about it, and then concluded the conversation with the statement that the Union would "do you harm." 2 Murray further testified that 4 or 5 days later, Dee Whitmyer, his immediate foreman, sent him to Hill's office where the latter asked whether Murray had been in contact with the Union. When the em- ployee gave a negative response, Hill told him, "Well, we have a definite statement that you had felt that the plant would be better off with the union." After Murray endeavored to explain away this information, Hill cautioned him "not to talk about it" and to "be careful." 3 Murray also testified that early in July Whitmyer questioned him as to his knowledge of the Union and asked that Murray keep him informed as to anything he subsequently heard about the Textile Workers. Pendleton, who was also under Whitmyer's supervision, testified that shortly before the election Whitmyer asked him how he and his fellow workers felt about the Union and concluded the conversation with the request that Pendleton let him know if he heard anything about the Union. James Crouch testified that on two separate occasions Glen Manning and Robert Sink, both of whom were foremen, came up to him while at work to ask what he thought of the Union. According to Crouch, in each instance he stated to the individual supervisor that he did not know what to think. Neither Whitmyer, Manning, Sink, or Hill testified. The last named did not take the stand, notwith- standing the fact that he was present at the hearing when Pendleton testified. Arnold testified but did not deny the conversation attributed to him by Barrett. Since Barrett, Pendleton, Murray, and Crouch were credible witnesses and their testimony was neither contradicted nor denied, I find that the above-described conversations occurred substantially as they testified .4 Richard Goad, a weaver on the third shift during the period in question , testified as to a conversation he had in June with J. C. Holland,5 his second hand, and George Mitchell, general overseer of the weaveroom. According to Goad, after a brief dis- cussion of Goad's work, Mitchell brought up the subject of the Union, asked what Goad thought of it, and requested that he report to Mitchell if he saw anyone distribut- ing cards among the employees. Goad further testified that the overseer stated that "he believed as firmly as he believed in the Bible that if the Union was to come into Burlington Mills they would close the doors." Later, in July, and after the dissemina- tion of the news release referred to earlier that Burlington had ceased its renovation work at the Viscose plant, Goad had a further conversation with Holland. According to the employee, on this occasion he asked his second hand if the Company had taken this action because the Union was trying to organize the Vinton plant and Holland replied in the affirmative. Mitchell testified that he had had a conversation with Goad at the time and place that the employee had testified, but that neither he nor Holland mentioned the Union. On the other hand, Holland, who testified that he was present during this conversation, conceded that there had been some mention of the Textile Workers and that he told Goad that he "didn't think it would do us any good at the plant." At the time of the hearing, Goad was no longer in the Respondent's employ having voluntarily quit for other employment sometime before. The comments which Goad attributed to Mitchell as to the plant's closing were consistent with the posters which the Respondent had displayed about the plant at this time and the publicity being given the Respondent's position by Plant Manager Arnold. For this reason, as well as the fact that Goad appeared to be a credible witness, I do not credit the denials of Mitchell nor the testimony of Holland which are in conflict with the testimony of this employees 2 The quotations are from Murray's credible, undemed testimony. 3 All of the foregoing quotations in this paragraph are from Murray's credible, undenied testimony 4 Versa] Stevens, a weaver, itestified that during this same period Manning, a foreman on his shift, once asked him if he was filling out a union card Although this testimony was undenied, no further reference will be made to it since the witness himself stated that at the time he passed off the question from Manning as a joke 5 Also referred to in the transcript as "Clay" Holland. U Hilton Dooley testified that he had a conversation with Holland in which the latter questioned him about his contact with a Board agent Holland testified that Dooley did not work under him, that he never talked with him, and that the conversation which the employee attributed to him had never taken iplace Although, as found later herein, 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dexter Neighbor, a loom fixer, testified that about the middle of July, Grady Hubbard, his immediate supervisor, called him into the weaveroom office where he asked what Neighbor thought of the Union, and questioned him as to how the organizational campaign began. According to Neighbor, after he had given a non- committal response to these questions , Hubbard told him that "in his opinion, . . if the Union come into the plant, the plant would close down." Hubbard's version of this conversation was somewhat different from that of the employee. On the other hand, Hubbard conceded that he had questioned Neighbor as to how he felt about the Union and that he told the employee "my honest opinion was , that if it came in the plant that it would close the plant down." 7 Several employees testified that Joe Stovall, a foreman in the weaveroom, inter- rogated them as to their union sympathies. Thus, Versal Stevens, a weaver, testified that, early in July, Stovall ordered that he report to the weaveroom office where Stovall asked how Stevens felt about the Union, told the employee that an organizer had been at his home the day before, and asked who had sent the organizer to Stevens' house. According to Stevens, after he told the foreman that no one had sent the union representative to his home, Stovall then asked whether Stevens had suggested the names of any other employees for the organizer to visit. Stevens testified that Stovall thereafter told him about several mills which had been closed after the union arrived, reminded him, "You and I have families and we both need our jobs," and then asked that Stevens keep him informed as to "any talk out on the job about the Union ...." 8 Richard Goad, an employee of the weave- room during this period, voluntarily quit the Respondent's employ in mid-August. He testified that about 2 weeks before he left, Stovall told him he heard that Goad had another job and then asked, "How much is Snyder 9 paying you?" According to Goad, after he told Stovall that he was only casually acquainted with Snyder, the foreman told him that he had heard that Goad and one Larry Schell, another employee, were signing up their coworkers. Hilton Dooley, an employee under Stovall's supervision, at this time testified that late in June or early July, Stovall came to him at his work station and asked whether any of four named employees had ever mentioned the Union. According to Dooley, when he answered in the negative, Stovall reminded him that these four individuals all came to work with Dooley and then requested that if Dooley heard any of them discuss the Textile Workers to inform Stovall of this fact Dooley testified that on two or three occasions thereafter, Stovall asked whether he had beard any talk of the Union at the mill. Hugh Kanode, a loom fixer, testified that shortly after a union repre- sentative had been to his home, Stovall questioned him about the matter Stovall denied that he had mentioned any plant closings to Stevens or that he reminded the employee that he needed a job On the other hand, he conceded that he had had a conversation with this individual at the time and place in question According to Stovall, he summoned the employee to the weaveroom office to discuss the quality and efficiency of his work, although at the time the quality of Stevens' work was "fairly high." 10 He also conceded that during the course of their discussion the subject of the Union was mentioned. Stovall denied that he interrogated Goad in the manner that this employee testified, but he acknowledged having a conversa- tion with this individual at the time and place in question He also conceded that during this conversation he had talked about the Union "a little." 11 Stovall likewise acknowledged having had the conversation with Kanode about which that employee testified. According to Stovall, however, it was Kanode who brought up the subject of the Union. Stovall did not deny the conversations about which Dooley testified. Upon a consideration of the foregoing, and from my own conclusions drawn from the demeanor of the witnesses, I find that the employee versions of these various conversations are more credible than the generalized denials which Stovall gave. I so find. Gilbert Johnson was a supervisor in the weaveroom. William Goad, an employee under his supervision, testified that, on an occasion late in June, Johnson called him to the weaveroom office where the supervisor asked whether anyone was hand- ing out union cards. According to Goad, after he told Johnson that he had no Dooley was a generally credible witness, in this instance it is my conclusion that the testimonv of the foreman was more convincing 7 The nuotation is from Hubbard's testimony. 8 The foregoing quotations in this paragraph are from Stevens ' testimony 6 James Cobey Snyder, International representative for the Textile Workers and director of the organizing campaign. 10 The quotation is from Stovall 's testimony. 11 The quotation is from Stovall 's testimony. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 251 knowledge of any such activities, the latter advised Goad that if anyone contacted him about the Union it should be reported and that anyone "that gets messed up with the union will be discharged." Goad testified that during the course of the conversation Johnson also mentioned Burlington's cessation of work at the Viscose plant and told him about a plant in Georgia with 1,500 employees which closed because of the Union. Johnson denied having questioned Goad as to whether he had been solicited to join the Textile Workers and he denied having told Goad to report on union activities. He also denied having told Goad that anyone involved in the organizing campaign would be discharged. On the other hand, Johnson con- ceded that he had had a conversation with Goad at the time and place in question, that he had called the employee into the office to discuss his "troubles," 12 that the Union was discussed, and that he mentioned the closing of a Burlington plant in Georgia. According to Johnson, "I said something about the plant in Georgia and we were talking about the troubles the union had caused . . . that no profit that the plant was making. I felt like it was the union that caused the plant to close the doors." From his own testimony it was apparent that Johnson had discussed this subject not only with Goad but with many others under his supervision. On cross- examination, he conceded that he had talked with about half of the employees concerning the shutdown of the plant in Georgia. Upon a consideration of the testimony of these two witnesses, it is my conclusion that, notwithstanding Johnson's general denials, the supervisor did question Goad about the Union and make the other comments which Goad attributed to him. Albert Armentrout, a weaver, testified that shortly before the election James Silvers, his supervisor, called him off the job to question him about the Union According to Armentrout, Silvers first asked him how he felt about his job and then asked him to tell him about the Union. The employee testified that after he stated to his supervisor that he had no knowledge of the Textile Workers, Silvers told him that "he didn't know whether the mill would shut down if the union got in or not . Armentrout further testified that during this same period, George Mitchell, general weaveroom overseer and Silver's superior, called him into the weaveroom office. According to the employee, Mitchell asked him how he felt about his job and after Armentrout told him that he was satisfied Mitchell asked for his views on the Union Armentrout testified that he told his superior that he knew nothing about the subject and that Mitchell then asked that he let him know if he heard anything about the Textile Workers and further stated that "Just as sure as the union got in, that he and myself both would be looking for a job." 13 Mitchell denied that he had ever discussed the Union with Armentrout Silvers testified at considerable length about other matters but never denied the conversation attributed to him by Armentrout. The latter was a credible witness. It is my con- clusion, and I find, that the discussions with Mitchell and Silvers occurred sub- stantially as Armentrout described them. There was also testimony about various statements on the Union which were allegedly made by Gregory A. Tillitson, a foreman and second hand on the third shift. Robert Wright. a smash hand under Tillitson, testified that about a month before the election, his foreman called him into the office and told him that he understood that Wright was a "pretty strong union man." Thereafter, according to the employee, Tillitson told him that three different people had reported that Wright was working for the Union, that he had no choice but to believe that the employee and his coworkers who were in the same car pool were for the Union, and that, as a result, Wright "was in the middle of a hornet's nest because of that and because of the bulletin board " This last was a reference to a bulletin board maintained at a nearby welding shop that was operated by Wright's uncle and on which some of the union notices had been posted. Wright testified that Tillitson then told him that if the Union came in the Company would move the machines out to other locations and close the Vinton plant, "They weren't going to operate this one mill under the union." According to Wright. before concluding the con- versation, Tillitson also told him that although "he couldn't prove it." 14 he believed Wright had something to do with a prounion leaflet that was then being circulated in the plant. Tillitson testified that he questioned Wright about the circulars which were being passed around among the employees but that the conversation covered nothing further than that As will be seen below, Tillitson conceded having discussed the Union at some length with other employees. At the time in question Wright 12 The quotation is from Johnson's testimony. 11 The quotation is from Armentrout's testimony. 11 This quotation and the others in this paragraph which precede it are from the testi- mony of Wright. 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had been employed at the Vinton plant for approximately 6 years. He was still so employed at the time of the hearing. His testimony was frank and forthright and withstood a searching cross-examination. It is my conclusion that his testimony as to the foregoing incident is the more credible and I so find Grady Barrett was a loom fixer on Tillitson's shift He testified at some length as to various alleged conversations with Tillitson. Thus, according to Barrett: In July, Tillitson asked Barrett whether he was carrying on any union activities in the plant. When Barrett denied that he was, Tillitson asked him if he had been showing a newspaper clipping on the Textile Workers to the employees who were union sympathizers. After the employee denied this, Tillitson told him that he had infor- mation to the effect that Barrett had been doing this and that, in any event, Barrett should be careful not to talk to any of the employees about the Union, that he (Tillit- son) did not want any of the men discussing the subject. A short time later, Tillitson called Barrett and a fellow employee named Charles Huddleton to the weaveroom office where he asked them whether they had signed union cards. Both denied that they had done so. Tillitson then criticized the character of Barrett's work and asked him if he was ready to quit. After Barrett strenuously objected that he was not ready to resign his employment, Tillitson told him, "We can make you quit." 15 Thereafter, Tillitson frequently criticized Barrett's work. On several occasions he referred to mills which he described as having shut down because of a union. In one instance he stated that "Burlington would not operate under a union .. . They never have and they never will now." Barrett finally protested to Jay W. Huff, Tillitson's superior, about the treatment he was being accorded. For a short while thereafter Tillitson did not criticize Barrett's work. Then, one evening shortly before the election, Tillitson questioned Barrett as to why Snyder, the Textile Workers' representative, had been at his home. Barrett reluctantly conceded that he had seen Snyder and angrily demanded from Tillitson what that meant to him. The following day Barrett protested to Plant Manager Arnold about Tillitson's criticism and asked whether it stemmed from the fact that during an earlier union campaign at the plant his wife and brother had been involved in the organizational movement. Arnold promised to investigate Barrett's protests. Subsequent to the election, which the Union lost, Barrett was subjected to no further criticism from Tillitson. The latter denied that he had unduly criticized Barrett's work On the other hand, he conceded having discussed the Union with Barrett and others on various occasions. He described his conversation with Barrett about the Textile Workers as having been "casual " Barrett was still in the Respondent's employ at the time of the hearing. He testified throughout in a frank and straightforward manner. Tillitson, on the other hand, was not a persuasive witness. In view of his numerous concessions as to the subjects covered in his discussions with this employee, as well as the compara- tive demeanor of these two witnesses, it is my conclusion that Barrett was the more credible. For this reason, I find that Barrett's testimony is a more accurate account of the conversations about which he testified. The General Counsel offered further testimony with respect to various alleged conversations had by supervisory personnel with the employees. Thus, Claude Ed- wards, a laborer, testified that Herman Johnson, his foreman, on an occasion early in July told him that "if the Union got in here, this plant would look like a ware- house." Johnson, on the other hand, testified that at the time in question it was Edwards who initiated a conversation about the Union. According to Johnson, Edwards told him that during an earlier organizational campaign he had heard that, if the Union won, the plant would be turned into a warehouse. Johnson testified that his only comment to this statement was, "Yeah, it would make a good one." Johnson was a forthright and credible witness. It is my conclusion that his account of this conversation is the more accurate and I so find. James Crouch testified as to several conversations he had with Larry Maust and George Mitchell, shift super- visor and general overseer, respectively. According to Crouch, on one occasion Maust told him that the Company had stopped work on the Viscose building and in another instance when both supervisors were present Mitchell told him that a plant in Baltimore had been closed after a union organized the employees. Both Maust and Mitchell denied having engaged Crouch in any discussion of the Union. Ac- cording to Mitchell, Crouch frequently endeavored to engage him in a discussion of the union campaign and often asked for Mitchell's views on the latest rumors. Mitchell testified that on these occasions he consistently declined to be drawn into any such discussions. According to Maust, during the conversation about which Crouch testified it was the employee who brought up the subject of the Viscose plant and that he (Maust) told him that all he knew was what he read in the newspapers. The testimony of both Mitchell and Maust on this matter was more convincing than 15 The quotation is from Barrett's testimony. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 253 the account related by James Crouch. Consequently, I find that in this connection the testimony of the supervisors was the more credible. The General Counsel also alleged that in March 1962, and at various times there- after, the Respondent granted wage increases, reduced the prices of hot and cold drinks sold in the plant to the employees, changed its policy on wage supplements, and added a loom fixer to each shift, all for discriminatory reasons. Plant Manager Arnold testified that on March 5, 1962, the Company put into effect a general wage increase at the Vinton plant. According to Arnold, however, this was effectuated not only in Roanoke but throughout the Respondent's numerous plants elsewhere as well as being general throughout the industry. This testimony was undenied. The General Counsel offered testimony to establish that during the organizational cam- paign, the Company reduced the prices of hot and cold drinks available in vending machines throughout the plant. Thus, Versal Stevens testified that the price of coffee was reduced from 10 to 5 cents and that the amount of soft drinks available for 10 cents was increased from 6 to 9 ounces. The vending machines were installed in January 1962. Arnold testified that such price changes as were made during the succeeding months resulted from improvements based solely on the experience which the Company had in operating the machines. He also testified, however, that there had been no change in the price of brewed coffee, that it had remained at 10 cents, but that instant coffee machines had been installed recently and that these sold coffee at 5 cents per cup. For many years the Company has followed a practice of supple- menting the piece-rate pay of its weavers when various conditions arise. When changes in styling, equipment, or other reasons cause a loom to be idle, the foreman may recommend the employee for a "supplement" Two witnesses for the General Counsel, Versal Stevens and Richard Goad, testified that after the union campaign began it seemed that the supervisors awarded supplements more readily. This was denied by Arnold who testified at some length about the Company's practice in this connection, and who stated that there had been no change after the organizational campaign began. The General Counsel also offered testimony through Dexter Neigh- bor, a loom fixer, that in July the Company added an extra loom fixer on each shift so that the workload was decreased. Arnold testified that this was done because of a general overhaul then underway at the plant. He further testified that this was not an uncommon practice and that frequently it had been done in the past. Moreover, he testified that when this change was made it had no effect on the pay or time of the loom fixers. Arnold's testimony in this regard was neither contradicted nor denied. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, it is my conclusion that the General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence: that there was any change in the company policy on supplements; or that the general, companywide wage increase, the hiring of additional loom fixers, or the company operation of its vending machines was discriminatory. I shall, therefore, recommend that paragraph VI(e) of the complaint be dismissed. Earlier herein I have found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the promulgation of the announcement in which it told the employees that the advent of a union "would not work to your benefit but to your serious harm," and that it further violated that same section of the Act when it displayed throughout the mill a picture poster which clearly threatened the closing of the plant if the Union won the election. In this context and with this background, it is my conclu- sion, and I find, that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act in the following instances: (1) Plant Manager Arnold's questioning Grady Barrett as to whether any em- ployee had talked to him about the Union and his request to Barrett that the employee report to him if anyone did so. (2) Supervisor Hill's questioning of William Pendleton as to the union sympathies of Pendleton and of two of his fellow employees with whom he came to work each day, as well as Hill's interrogation of John Murray on two occasions in the same connection and his statement to Murray that the Union would "do you harm." (3) Supervisor Whitmyer's interrogation of Murray and Pendleton and his request to them that they keep him informed about any information they learned about the organizational campaign. (4) The questioning of James Crouch by Supervisors Manning and Sink as to what he thought of the Union. (5) Overseer Mitchell's interrogation of Richard Goad as to the employee's union activities and that of his coworkers and Mitchell's statement that if the Union came into the plant "Burlington Mills would close the doors." (6) Overseer Mitchell's interrogation of Albert Armentrout as to his union views, his request that the employee report to him if he heard anything about the Textile Workers, and his comment to Armentrout that "Just as sure as the union got in, that he and myself both would be looking for a job." 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (7) Supervisor Holland's statement to Richard Goad that the Company had ceased work at the Viscose plant because the Textile Workers were trying to organize the Vinton mill. (8) Supervisor Grady Hubbard's interrogation of Dexter Neighbor as to the organi- zational campaign and his statement to Neighbor that "if the Union came into the plant, the plant would close down." (9) Foreman Joe Stovall's interrogation of Versal Stevens, Richard Goad, Hilton Dooley, and Hugh Kanode as to their own union activities and sympathies as well as those of their coworkers. (10) Supervisor Gilbert Johnson's interrogation of William Goad as to his union activities, Johnson's statment that anyone "that gets messed up with the union will be discharged," and the supervisor's further statement which linked the cessation of work at the Viscose plant with the union drive at the Vinton mill, as well as another remark which attributed the closing of a Burlington plant in Georgia to the advent of a union. (11) Supervisor James Silvers' interrogation of Albert Armentrout as to his union sympathies. (12) Foreman Tillitson's extensive interrogation of Robert Wright about the union activities of not only this employee but of his coworkers and Tilliston's state- ment to Wright that if a union came to the Vinton plant Burlington would close it because "They weren't going to operate this one mill under the union." (13) Foreman Tillitson's frequent interrogation of Grady Barrett about his union activities, his questioning of Barrett and Charles Huddleton as to whether they had signed union cards, his concurrent suggestion to Barrett that the latter resign, his state- ment to the employee in this context "we can make you quit," and his further state- ment that "Burlington would not operate under a union .... They never have and they never will now." C. The termination of Charles C. Crouch; contentions of the parties; findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto This employee was a weaver who was terminated on July 12, 1962. The General Counsel and the Charging Party allege that on the latter date Crouch was discrimi- natorily discharged. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Crouch voluntarily quit. Crouch was a weaver on the second shift who had been employed at the Vinton plant for 3 years and 9 months at the time of his termination. Mitchell, general overseer of the weaveroom, described him as an "average" or "fairly good weaver." In March, Crouch sent to the Textile Workers a coupon from one of their leaflets to indicate his interest in the union campaign. Thereafter he supported the organiza- tional drive and induced one of his fellow employees to sign an authorization card. In May, Crouch's immediate supervisor, Second Hand James Silvers, asked whether anyone had talked to him about the Union. The employee replied in the negative. Several weeks later and about a month before his termination Crouch was summoned to the weaveroom office for a conference with Overseer Mitchell and Supervisor Stovall. Mitchell initiated the conversation with a statement that the "seconds" 16 on Crouch's run were high and that something had to be done about the matter. The employee conceded that this was true, asked for suggestions on what he should do, and promised that he would endeavor to decrease the "seconds." Ac- cording to Crouch, at that point Mitchell introduced the subject of the Union and told him, "I want you to know it now, that we are not going to have a union in here. We will fight it until all the steam goes out of the boilers and if we lose then we will just shut the gates." Crouch testified that Mitchell told him that three employees had protested that he had tried to sign them up. According to Crouch he told his supervisors that these reports were unfounded. Thereafter, Mitchell asked if Crouch had signed a card himself. Crouch acknowledged having returned a clipping from a campaign pamphlet to the union headquarters. Stovall then com- mented that that was "the same as signing a union card." According to Crouch, at that point he admitted, "If that's what it means, that's what I done." The supervisors then concluded the conference. Both Mitchell and Stovall conceded having had this meeting with the employee, but both averred that it was for the sole purpose of dis- cussing the quality of Crouch's work and that there was no mention of the Union. Earlier in this report I have found that during this period both Mitchell and Stovall interrogated a number of employees as to their union activities and that Mitchell -The term "seconds" refers to cloth with certain flaws or defects . There are degrees of "seconds " which are referred to as majors and minors. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES , INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 255 told several that if the Union organized the employees the Vinton plant would close. Crouch was a credible witness. For this reason it is my conclusion, and I find, that this meeting occurred substantially as he described it. Shortly before this conference Crouch had been transferred from one set of looms under the supervision of Second Hand Silvers to another set of looms, also under Silvers' supervision. On the latter assignment he worked with Hugh Kanode as his loom fixer. At this time Silvers had had Crouch under his supervision for about a year. When he assigned Crouch to work with Kanode, Silvers told the latter, in Crouch's presence, "I got you a good weaver and I think you ought to run his job." 17 Crouch testified that he encountered no difficulties with Silvers until after the con- ference described above. According to the employee: Well, after that meeting he began to come on to my job much oftener than he ever had before and pointing out bad cloth, which that is his job, but he done it more oftener than he did and when he did find something that was bad he would puff and blow just like everything I did was wrong. Thereafter Silvers frequently charged Crouch with producing too many seconds. Most of the looms at the Vinton plant were operated continuously on a three-shift basis. Both Kanode and Albert Armentrout, the latter a weaver who had the set of looms next to Crouch, noticed that reports on "seconds" were frequent when Crouch operated the looms on their shift. Crouch had several 72-inch looms which were difficult to operate and which the Respondent discontinued using shortly after Crouch's termination. Armentrout testified that on one occasion during this period Crouch was charged with seconds on some 70 to 80 yards of tire fabric. Armentrout commented: I didn't think a loom would run that much in 8 hours and I don't think that the looms would make seconds today and wait until he come back and make them again. The standard method for a weaver to eliminate seconds is to "flag" 18 his loom so that the loom fixer may inspect it and accomplish the needed adjustments and repairs. While the loom is flagged, production ceases. Kanode testified that in the period immediately before Crouch's termination the latter was flagging his looms with great frequency. Silvers testified that Kanode complained to him that Crouch was flagging his looms too often. Nevertheless the "seconds" continued to appear on Crouch's shift in greater proportion to "seconds" on the shifts which preceded and followed him. It is significant that when Crouch left, the "seconds" on his looms declined and the Respondent discontinued use of the 72-inch looms. The grading of cloth to determine the presence of "seconds" is done in the grading room after the cloth leaves the looms. The cloth of a particular weaver is identified by stamp marks which the weaver places on it at the beginning of his shift. However, the apportionment of "seconds" to a specific weaver, according to General Overseer Mitchell, is made in accordance with a complex formula that can result in the charging of a weaver with more yardage of "seconds" on a particular shift than his loom is capable of producing. Thus, as noted earlier, Armentrout testified that on one occasion Crouch was charged with "seconds" amounting to 80 yards of fabric, notwithstanding the fact that a loom could not run that much fabric on an 8-hour shift. In the last days prior to Crouch's termination, Silvers came to this employee's work area to protest the "seconds" in the cloth more frequently than he went to other weavers. Armentrout testified to this effect and stated that Silvers "just kept coming back." Crouch testified as to these visits by his second hand: Well, he came to me much often, he didn't talk in the normal voice; in a temper, anger. Just like he wasn't satisfied with anything that I did. I had asked him several times what could I do to improve and he just said, "It is your job, you run it," and walked off. Kanode, the loom fixer, testified that Silvers' conduct in this respect was so noticeable that on July 11 he commented to Crouch, "What were they trying to do, run [you] off." The General Counsel urges that the treatment of Crouch was similar to that ac- corded Grady Barrett, another weaver, by Supervisor Garrett Tillitson during this 17The quotation is from Crouch's testimony which, in this respect, was undenied by Silvers 18 Each loom has on it various colored "flags," each one of which has a prescribed sig- nificance The weaver uses them to signal the loom fixer and others for making repairs and adjustments 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD same period. There is a parallel. As found earlier, Barrett was subjected to in- tensive criticism after Barrett's union sympathies came to Tilhtson's attention. Ac- cording to Tillitson, at one point Barrett asked him, "Why don't you fire me?" Barrett, however, did not quit and subsequent to the union defeat in the election he had no further difficulties with Tillitson. On the afternoon of July 12, when Crouch went to work, he found that the marking crayon which he needed for marking the cloth was not where he normally left it. Between the place where Crouch was standing and the place where extra crayons were kept, there was an area in which there was inspecting work for Crouch to perform. He then began to work his way toward the crayons, inspecting as he went. Almost immediately, Silvers came up to ask where his marking crayon was. Crouch explained that he was working his way toward the crayon supply. Silvers did not order him to interrupt the inspection process to get a new crayon. Instead he de- parted and returned in a minute or two to state, angrily, that "he wasn't having his job run like that " Crouch conceded that he needed a crayon for marking purposes but protested that he was proceeding toward the supply at that very time. Silvers then left again . When Crouch reached the end of the alley, a few minutes later, he picked up a crayon and went to one of the 72-inch looms which had stopped because the ends were broken out. At that point Crouch began tying up the ends in order to get the loom back into production. At the hearing Silvers conceded that that job was, in fact, a weaver's responsibility. Nevertheless, while Crouch was so engaged , Silvers appeared , criticized Crouch for not continuing the inspection process, and, in an angry voice, declared that "he wasn't going to have that done like that. He just wasn't going to put up with it." At this stage Crouch threw up his hands, told Silvers that he could stand no more, and asked that he be taken to see Plant Manager Arnold. As Silvers and Crouch left the weaveroom they met Stovall, who inquired as to the difficulty. According to Crouch, at this point Stovall suggested that Crouch return to work, but Silvers immediately stated that he did not want him back on his job, that he wanted another weaver. Crouch testified that Stovall then told him to go home and to report back for his next regular shift. In the meantime, Stovall assigned another weaver to Crouch's looms. According to Silvers, at the meeting with Stovall: He [Crouch] told Joe Stovall that he could not work for me and that he couldn't satisfy me and that he wanted to see Mr. Arnold; that he had quit, that he was not going to work for me anymore. Crouch left the plant immediately after the conference with Stovall. The following morning Crouch went to the office of Plant Manager Arnold. Ac- cording to the employee, after he related his difficulties with Silvers, Arnold prom- ised to investigate the matter and called Stovall. When the latter arrived, Crouch asked him what work he would be assigned. Crouch testified that Stovall then told him, "Well, Charles, right now we haven't got another thing .. . The first opening we have we will notify you." Stovall then suggested that Crouch get his check and took him to the office of Personnel Supervisor Ross Campbell, where the employee signed a "Request for Payroll Check" form and received his final check. Crouch testified that as he concluded the meeting with Campbell he told the personnel manager that he was taking his case to the Labor Board and that the latter responded, "Well, I couldn't help that." Campbell testified at the hearing, but Crouch's testimony in this connection was undenied. Between the date of Crouch 's termination and the hearing , the Respondent pro- moted five employees to the job of weaver, terminated two weavers, and promoted one weaver to the job of loom fixer. Crouch, however, was never reemployed. On two separate occasions he called on Stovall at his home to ask for work, but in each instance was told that nothing was available. Plant Manager Arnold testified at considerable length that Crouch was unsuited for any of the new jobs because of his particular experience in weaving. According to Arnold it takes from 5 to 6 weeks to train an experienced weaver to work on a new kind of cloth. Silvers, how- ever, testified that training an experienced weaver for work on another type of fabric would take no more than a week and probably only a couple of days.19 Silvers' statement in this connection is consistent with other testimony he gave to the effect that the Company's seniority policy provides for the regular transfer of weavers from one set of looms to another, irrespective of the different kinds of cloth which may be in process on the different looms. 19 It is not without significance that Silvers was not in the hearing room when Plant Manager Arnold testified. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 257 The General Counsel and the Union contend that Crouch was constructively discharged in violation of the Act. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that Crouch voluntarily quit, and that his termination was totally unrelated to his organizational activities. In support-of the Respondent's contention that this employee terminated his employment voluntarily, there is the fact that on the form which he signed to get his final paycheck there is the notation "Vol quit." Personnel Supervisor Campbell testified that this notation was placed on the form by Silvers, Crouch's immediate supervisor, and that it was done before the employee signed the sheet. Crouch testified that he did not notice this phrase on the form at the time he signed it. Nevertheless, it is clear from Campbell's testimony, and I find, that "Vol. quit" did appear thereon. I also find credible Crouch's testimony that he did not notice this language on the form which was presented for his signature at the moment he re- ceived his final paycheck.20 Earlier, I have found that as Crouch left Campbell's office he declared that he was taking his case to the Labor Board. In fact, within a few days thereafter the Union filed a charge with the Board alleging his discrimina- tory termination.21 Crouch's declaration to Campbell that he was taking his case to the Labor Board negates the contention that he voluntarily left the Respondent's employ on July 12. From earlier testimony it is apparent that Crouch sought to be reassigned from Silvers' supervision but that he had no intention of quitting the Respondent's employment. Thus, on cross-examination, Supervisor Stovall was asked the following questions and gave the answers which appear below: Q. Did he actually quit his job in your presence? A. No, siree. Q. This was what was reported to you by James Silvers, is that right? A. And him too. He told me he quit. He wouldn 't work with James Silvers anymore. Q. Did he tell you he wouldn 't work anywhere in the plant anymore? A. No, sir. He wanted a job with another supervisor but he wouldn't work with James Silvers. He quit. Q. He quit Silvers? A. Yes, sir. Q. But he wanted a job with another supervisor? A. He asked for a job with another supervisor. Stovall further testified that at that particular time he had no opening for Crouch. On the other hand, he also testified that upon this employee 's departure he ordered another weaver to take over the operation of Crouch 's looms. Manifestly , this left open the set of looms from which this other weaver was transferred . No satisfactory explanation was offered as to why Crouch was not assigned to the latter position, or to any of the other openings for weavers mentioned above, which subsequently arose. At the hearing the Respondent contended that Crouch's termination could not have been discriminatory because his union activities were so limited . It is true that Crouch conceded that he had successfully solicited only one other employee to sign a union card . On the other hand, as found above, at the conference with Overseer Mitchell and Supervisor Stovall, Crouch was told that three employees had protested that he was trying to sign them up, and, although Crouch denied that there was any basis to these protests , he did admit having signed a card manifesting his interest in the Textile Workers. Stovall immediately characterized this act as "the same as sign- ing a union card ." During this conference Mitchell also told the employee ". . . we are not going to have a union in here. We will fight it until all the steam goes out of the boilers and if we lose then we will just shut the gates ." The interrogation of other employees as to their interest in the Textile Workers by Mitchell and other supervisors has been related earlier herein . It is significant that all of the other em- ployees denied any interest in the Union when interrogated by the Respondent's supervisory staff. Crouch, however, admitted having signed a card. Thereafter, his troubles began. "Even if this notation on the form in question constituted a "quit slip ," which Crouch recognized and acknowledged as such his signature thereon , it would not necessarily con- stitute a voluntary termination of his employment Cf. Detroit Gasket and Manufacturing Company, 78 NLRB 670, 674, set aside on other grounds 179 F. 2d 241 (CA. 6) 21 This charge was dismissed by the Regional Director on August 15, 1962. The original complaint in this case, issued on August 7, 1962, did not contain an allegation with re- spect to Crouch. An allegation that Crouch was discriminatorily terminated first appeared in the amended complaint which was issued by the Regional Director on October 5, 1962 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is clear beyond argument that an employer's supervisory staff can exact obedi- ence and demand perfection from all employees, so long as this is required for non- discriminatory motives unrelated to the prohibitions of the National Labor Relations Act. It is equally true that by overly stringent supervision most, if not all, employees can be forced to leave. As Supervisor Tillitson told Grady Barrett, -'Ve can make you quit." When this is done for discriminatory motives it is a violation of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corporation, 201 F. 2d 238, 242-243 (C.A. 1). On the last day of his employment Crouch was at work only a short while.22 Silvers conceded that prior to the instant when Crouch declared that he could go on no longer, he had been watching the employee in the performance of his duties for some 20 to 25 minutes, the entire time that Crouch had been in the process of in- specting, and notwithstanding the fact that at the same time Silvers had seven weavers over whom he exercised supervision. As found above, the character of Silvers' super- vision in the period immediately prior to Crouch's termination had caused his co- worker Kanode to ask if the Company was attempting to "run him off." In view of this record, I find that that was Silvers' objective. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, it is my conclusion that Crouch did not voluntarily terminate his employment. I find, instead, that subsequent to the con- ference at which he acknowledged having signed a union card, Silvers subjected Crouch to discriminatory harassment and surveillance that was calculated to make his work unbearable. For this reason, it is my conclusion that when this course of conduct eventuated in Crouch's termination on July 12, 1962,23 the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Saxe-Glassman Shoe Corporation, 201 F. 2d 238, 243 (C.A. 1); N.L.R.B. v. Gate City Cotton Mills, 167 F 2d 647, 649 (C.A. 5) (Jackson). I further find that since the date of his termination Crouch has been discriminatorily denied reemployment. Ideal Baking Company, Inc., 123 NLRB 1799, 1804-1805; Hunt Heater Corporation, 108 NLRB 1353, 1360. Finally, is was likewise an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) for Overseer Mitchell and Supervisor Stovall, at the conference described above, to interrogate Crouch as to his union sympathies and for Mitchell to declare on that same occasion that if the Respondent lost in its fight to keep out the Union "we will just shut the gates." IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operation of the Respondent 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 thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent dis- criminatorily caused Charles C. Crouch to quit on July 12, 1962, I will recommend that it offer him immediate and full reinstatement, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings that he may have suffered by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he nor- mally would have earned from the aforesaid date to the date of Respondent's offer of reemployment, less net earnings during said period. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Further, it will be recommended that the Re- spondent pay interest on the backpay due Crouch, such interest to be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum and, utilizing the Woolworth formula, to accrue com- mencing with the last day of each calendar quarter of the backpay period on the amount due and owing for each quarterly period and continuing until compliance with this recommendation is achieved. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Charles C. Crouch, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged 22 He was paid for 2 hours, described on the ",Request for Payroll Check" as "reporting time." 22 This was the date of Crouch's last day of employment. The next morning, on July 13, 1962, he received his final paycheck from Personnel Director Campbell BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING CO. 259 in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that on or about March 1962 and thereafter the Respondent discriminatorily granted wage increases and other benefits. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Burlington Industries, Inc., Vinton Weaving Company Plant, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization of its employees by discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure, or any other terms or conditions of employment. (b) Coercively, or otherwise unlawfully, interrogating employees concerning their union activities or sympathies. (c) Requesting employees to report about the union organizational activities of their coworkers. (d) Threatening to close the plant if the Union organizes the employees or wins a Board-conducted election. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor 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 or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Charles C. Crouch immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report 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 amount of backpay due. (c) Post at its plant in Vinton, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 24 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 25 It is further ordered that paragraph VI(e) of the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that on or about March 1962 and thereafter the Respondent discrimi- natorily granted wage increases and other benefits. 24 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 the 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 Deci- sion and Order" 0 251n 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 727-083-64-vol. 144-18 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, or in any other labor organization of our employees , by discrimi- nating in regard to hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment of any of our employees. WE WILL OFFER to Charles C. Crouch immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to any seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suf- fered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT ask any employee to report about the union organizational activities of his coworkers; threaten to close the plant if a union organizes the employees or wins a Board-conducted election; or coercively , or otherwise unlawfully, interrogate our employees concerning their union activities or sympathies. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above -named Union , or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities. BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., VINTON WEAVING COMPANY PLANT, 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, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland , Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Alton-Wood River Building and Construction Trades Council and Kopp -Evans Construction Company and Local No. 11, Congress of Independent Unions. Case No. 114-CP-31. August 07, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On March 14, 1963, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in the 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 Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a supporting brief. The General Counsel and the Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Intermediate Report. 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 Interme- 144 NLRB No. 31.