Dandridge Finishing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 1141 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

DANDRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY, INC. 1141
Dandridge Finishing Company, Inc. and American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-5168. June
14, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 18, 1963, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
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 [MMembers Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing sand finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the en-
tire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed on November 13 and 30, and on Decem-
ber 21, 1962, by American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Act-
ing Regional Director of the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued his complaint,
dated December 26, 1962, against Dandridge Finishing Company, Inc., herein called
the Respondent . With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance that (1 ) Respondent 's superintendent engaged in surveillance of the em-
ployees' union activities and threatened employees with discharge for engaging in
union activities ; ( 2) Respondent discharged two named employees on specified dates
because of their union and concerted activities ; and (3 ) by the foregoing conduct
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called
the Act. In its duly filed answer , Respondent denied generally all unfair labor
practice allegations.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at
Dandridge, Tennessee, on February 27, 1963. All parties appeared and were repre-
sented, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , to introduce relevant evidence , to argue orally , and to file briefs. On
March 25, 1963, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs , which I have
fully considered.
142 NLRB No. 124.
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record 1 in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Dandridge Finishing Company, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation with
its principal office and place of business at Dandridge, Tennessee, where it is engaged
in the business of finishing hosiery. During the calendar year preceding the issuance
of the complaint, a representative period, Respondent shipped products, valued in
excess of $50,000, from its Dandridge, Tennessee, plant directly to customers located
outside the State of Tennessee.
Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits in its answer, that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I find , in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, the Charging Union herein , is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The parties are in agreement that the issues litigated in this proceeding are (1)
whether Superintendent Emerson, an admitted supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, engaged in surveillance of union activities of employees; (2) whether Emerson
threatened employees with loss of employment for union membership or activities;
and (3) whether employees Helen Boyle and Hazel Rimmer were discriminated in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment because of their union membership and
activities. The parties are further in agreement that these issues are essentially factual
in nature and that their determination depends to a great extent upon credibility
resolutions.
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Surveillance
On the afternoon of May 23, 1962, Union Representative Rainey distributed union
leaflets to Respondent's employees as they left the plant parking lot. Specifically
about 3:45 p.m. that day, Rainey stationed himself at the rear of Respondent's plant,
on public property, at or near the exit of the company parking lot. Almost immedi-
ately thereafter, Superintendent Emerson parked his white Cadillac automobile on
the company parking lot, about 20 or 25 feet from where Rainey was standing and
facing Rainey. About 5 minutes later, Emerson was joined in the car by Floorlady
Ann Trout, also an admitted supervisor within the meaning of the Act. During the
next 15 or 20 minutes, the entire period of Rainey's leaflet distribution activities,
Emerson remained seated in the automobile, facing Rainey as he was passing union
leaflets to the employees leaving the parking lot. Most of the employees accepted a
union leaflet.
The above facts are not in dispute. Emerson admitted that he was sitting in his
car in the parking lot at the time Rainey was distributing union leaflets to the em-
ployees, and that he noticed them there but he denied that he was there for the pur-
pose of "spying on them." His explanation for being there, which first came out on
redirect examination by Respondent's counsel, was for the purpose of talking to the
foreman of the greige goods warehouse, located at the back of the mill just off the
parking lot. However, the Respondent did not call as witness, the warehouse foreman
and Floorlady Trout, the only persons in a position to corroborate Emerson's testi-
mony. Moreover, Emerson himself admitted, on recross-examination, that he was
not talking to the foreman at the time when he was sitting in his car in the parking
lot. Finally, the real purpose for Emerson's presence on that occasion is revealed
by the credited testimony of employees Barbara Moore and Helen Boyle. When
Barbara Moore arrived at her home after the leaflet distribution on May 23, Emerson
called her on the telephone. In the telephone conversation Emerson stated that he
1 I hereby note and correct the following obvious errors in the typewritten transcript
of the testimony :
Page 41 , line, substitute "my" for "your"; page 54, lines 17 and 21 , substitute
"seams" for "seems"; page 69, line 6, substitute "late" for "last"; page 70, line 25,
substitute "and he" for "and."
DANDRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY, INC. 1143
had seen Moore take "some of that damn union literature" and told her to what use
she could put it by making an indelicate reference to a part of her anatomy. Also
a few days later when employee Boyle was showing Emerson some defective socks,
Emerson stated, "I saw you stop and take one of those damn union leaflets and talk
to the organizer. I know every person that stopped and took a leaflet and every
person that didn't." 2
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I reject Emerson's attempted explanation
for his presence on the occasion in question and find that he remained in his car at
the time and location previously described for the express purpose of observing which
employees were accepting the union leaflets. That such surveillance of the em-
ployees' union activities by the superintendent of the plant constitutes a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the Respondent, requires no citation of authority.3
2. Threats of economic reprisals
During the telephone conversation with employee Barbara Moore on the afternoon
of May 23, 1962, previously referred to, Emerson also criticized Moore "for the
company" she "was keeping." Emerson stated that he knew that "Helen Boyle and
Grace Cox and Imogene Kurr were for the Union and were troublemakers" and that if
Barbara Moore "did not stop associating with them and to lunch with them," he
was going "to send them out the back door" and Moore was "going right out the
back door with them because they were nothing but troublemakers."
On the evening of September 6, 1962, employee Helen Boyle learned that Hazel
Rimmer had been laid off or discharged. She thereupon decided, with Rainey's ap-
proval, to tell Emerson that she was for the Union. The next day she told Emerson
that she had signed a union card and was 100 percent for the Union. Emerson
replied, "I am going to put a stop to some of this damn stuff that's going on in here
if I have to get rid of everybody in here and there's going to be a lot of you go."
Sometime during October, Helen Boyle reported to Emerson that Glenn Price,
employed by Respondent as an electrician, had tried to persuade her at the plant "to
go against the union and go over to the Company's side." Emerson replied that Price
could talk about the Union whenever he wanted, both inside and outside the plant.
Emerson then warned Boyle, "You are going to keep on fooling around with that
damn union until you are going to be without a job like Hazel Rimmer and some
of the others around here."
The findings in the preceding paragraphs are based on the credited testimony of
Barbara Moore and Helen Boyle. Emerson did not deny having made the statements
to Barbara Moore in the telephone conversation on May 23. On cross-examination,
he testified that the only time he mentioned the Union to Helen Boyle was on the oc-
casion when she told him that she belonged to the Union and had signed a card, and
that on that occasion he replied that he had nothing to say for or against the Union.
He further testified, in response to leading questions by Respondent's counsel, that
any statements attributed to him by Helen Boyle with respect to union membership
or activity affecting her job or those of other employees, were untrue. As previously
indicated, Emerson testified in a manner which convinced me that his denials are
not entitled to credence. I do not credit his testimony to the extent that it conflicts
with the findings previously set forth.
I find that Superintendent Emerson's statement to Barbara Moore in the telephone
conversation of May 23 carried a threat of discharge in reprisal for Moore's continued
association with known union adherents. His further statements to Helen Boyle
on September 7 and in October constituted clear and specific threats of discharge
for continuing to adhere to the Union and to engage in union activities. I find that
2 Emerson did not deny having telephoned employee Moore at her home on the after-
noon of the leaflet distribution on May 23. Nor did he deny telling her in the telephone
conversation that he had seen her take "some of that damn union literature." His sole
testimony with respect to this incident was a negative answer to a question by Respond-
ent's counsel on redirect examination as to whether he had ever made any suggestion to
Moore as to the application of any literature to any part of her anatomy. Nor did he
deny having made the statement to employee Boyle, set forth in the text. In response
to a question by Respondent's counsel as to whether "various statements as to things she
(Helen Boyle) alleges you said concerning the union and union membership with regard
to her job" were true or untrue, Emerson testified that "they are untrue." Emerson did
not impress me as a candid and forthright witness. Under all the circumstances, I do
not credit Emerson's denials.
8 Respondent concedes in its brief that if Emerson 's statements to Moore, set forth in
the text, were true, it would be sufficient to support a finding of surveillance.
1144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the above-described conduct of Superintendent Emerson , Respondent interfered
with , restrained , and coerced the employees in the exercise of their statutory rights in
violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
B. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
1. Hazel Rimmer
Hazel Rimmer was employed by Respondent as a "checker" from May 23 to
September 6, 1962. She took a union leaflet from Union Representative Rainey on
the first day of her employment , while Superintendent Emerson remained parked in his
car surveilling the leaflet distribution , as previously found. A few days later, Emer-
son stated during a conversation with employee Boyle at the plant that he knew
"every person that stopped and took a leaflet and every person that didn't," as
previously found.
Rimmer signed a union card sometime in June. About that time, Floorlady Ann
Trout, admitted by Respondent to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, ap-
proached Rimmer to inquire about an applicant . According to the credited and
undenied testimony of Rimmer, the following conversation occurred. When Rimmer
stated that she did not know the applicant, Trout replied that they did not want this
applicant because she was from "that old union violence" at Magnavox. Trout then
added, "You know, they are trying to get a union in here." Rimmer replied, "I know.
I am for the union and I know I am for the right thing."
Throughout the period of her employment, Rimmer solicited employees to sign
union cards, telling them that they needed the protection of a union and explaining
how the Union would protect them . She conducted these activities during the lunch
period, before the commencement of work, and by telephone calls from her home.
During the lunch period , she customarily associated with Helen Boyle, Imogene Kurr,
and Barbara Moore, other known union protagonists.
Rimmer 's services were terminated on September 6 under the following circum-
stances. Before quitting time on September 4 Floorlady Trout engaged in a loud
argument with an employee working nearby. Since such arguments had been occur-
ring frequently and were disturbing, RimmeT decided to inform Respondent's President
Gaby about these matters. When she got home, she telephoned Gaby's office and told
his secretary, Alma Potter, that she wanted to talk to Gaby about the disturbances
and working conditions at the plant. Potter replied that Gaby was not in but that she
would tell him about Rimmer 's call. Not having heard from Mr . Gaby, Rimmer
called his office again the following evening , September 5, to inquire if Alma Potter
had given the message to Mr. Gaby and was informed that she had . The following
afternoon , September 6, Superintendent Emerson told Rimmer that Gaby wanted
to see her in his office after work. When Rimmer arrived in Gaby's office, Emerson,
Floorlady Trout, and Potter were also present . Gaby asked Rimmer what her com-
plaint was. Rimmer replied that she really had no complaint and that she had
called his office to talk to him about the working conditions at the plant . Gaby told
Rimmer that he did not need her and that he was not going to let her and a "bunch
of outsiders come in there and tell him how to run the plant." Rimmer asked if there
was anything wrong with her work . Emerson answered that there was not and that
he thought she was doing a good job. Gaby stated that he was going to lay Rimmer
off for a few days until he could "get to the bottom of this incident ." Rimmer re-
fused to quit voluntarily as Gaby had suggested to her, and left the plant . Despite
her repeated efforts, she has never been reemployed.4
The Respondent contends in its brief that Rimmer was temporarily laid off on
September 6 because of her complaint about her nerves and that she was never
rehired because , as a result of the work performed by her replacement, "it was realized
for the first time that Rimmer had not been able to do a competent job." Upon
consideration of the entire record as a whole , and particularly the following specified
incidents , I reject Respondent 's asserted defenses and find that Rimmer 's employment
separation was discriminatorily motivated.
4 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Hazel Rimmer
Respondent did not call Gaby as a witness , and gave no explanation for its failure to do
so Trout also did not testify Neither Emerson nor Potter denied that Gaby made the
statements attributed to him by Rimmer . Emerson testified that he did not "recall too
much " about what was said except that there was something said about her nerves and
the "commotion or something over there " and that Gaby told her to take some time off
until "we could get whatever the trouble might be , settled " Both Emerson and Potter
admitted that Emerson told Rimmer, in rerponse to her question, that her work was
satisfactory
DANDRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY, INC. 1145
(a) On September 7, the day after Rimmer's separation, employees Helen Boyle
and Imogene Kurr told Emerson that they had signed union cards and were 100 per-
cent for the Union. As previously found, Emerson replied that he was "going to put
a stop to some of this damn stuff that 's going on in here" it he had "to get rid of
everybody." When Hazel Rimmer returned to the plant on September 19 in an effort
to get her job back, she spoke to President Gaby in the latter's office. The only other
person present was Vice President Webb. Gaby told Rimmer that he had "done
wrong in laying" her off, that "you are not the one who should have been laid off
because the day after I laid you off, two girls went up and jumped on Mr. Emerson
and they are the troublemakers over there and we are going to get rid of them."
He also stated that he had told Emerson to put her back to work on a different job.
In response to her query as to what was wrong with the job she was on, Gaby replied,
"you just come in contact with too many people on the job you were on." Rimmer
stated that her "work record would hold up anywhere," pointing out that she had about
15 years' experience in a hosiery mill. At that point, Webb interjected, "yes, Hazel, I
know your work record would hold, but these outsiders don't care if you have a job
today or tomorrow or a job at all." She heard nothing further despite their promise
to let her know within a few days .5
(b) Rimmer saw Gaby on September 24 and inquired why he had not called her
as he had promised. Gaby replied that he had turned the matter over to Emerson.
Rimmer then telephoned to the plant the next day and reported to Emerson what Gaby
had told her. Emerson replied that he knew about it, that he did not have anything
for her, and that he had found her "work unsatisfactory." Rimmer immediately went
to the plant to get her termination slip. Before signing the slip, Emerson told Rimmer
that "you won't accept voluntary quit. And I can't say lack of work. I will just have
to put on it that your work is unsatisfactory." 6
(c) Sometime in October, one of Respondent's electricians, Glenn Price attempted
to persuade employee Boyle "to go against the union and go over to the company's
side." When employee Boyle reported this incident to Superintendent Emerson, the
latter replied that Price could talk about the Union whenever he wanted. As
previously found, Emerson then warned, "you are going to keep on fooling around
with that damn union until you are going to be without a job like Hazel
Rimmer . ...
(d) Although Respondent contended that its original intention was to lay off
Rimmer temporarily for a few days, Rimmer was given two checks on September 7,
1962. Alma Potter, President Gaby's secretary, admitted on cross-examination that
two checks are given to an employee on the occasion when he severs his connection
with the Company. Although Potter further testified that when an employee is not
discharged but merely takes time off, he is carried on the records as "temporarily
off," Respondent did not produce the personnel records to show what notation was
made in Rimmer's case. Under these circumstances, the inference is warranted
that the records would have been unfavorable to Respondent. Interstate Circuit, Inc.
v. U.S., 306 U.S. 208, 226.
When all the foregoing are considered in the light of Rimmer 's union activities and
her association with other known union adherents, Respondent's knowledge of her
prounion sympathies, and Respondent's unlawful conduct in opposition to the Union,
all as previously found, I am convinced and find that Respondent's defenses were
asserted as pretexts to cloak a discriminatory motivation and that Hazel Rimmer's
separation on September 6, 1962, whether designated as a layoff or discharge, and
the failure to reemploy her thereafter were truly dictated by antiunion considerations.
By such conduct, Respondent discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of em-
ployment , thereby discouraging membership in the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5 The findings as to the conversation in Gaby's office are based on the credited testimony
of Hazel Rimmer. Gaby was not called as witness. Webb testified that Gaby told Rimmer
that the only reason for her layoff was her nervousness and that Gaby wanted her to
stay off for a few days to get her nerves settled Webb did not deny having made the
stag--lent -ftributerl to him in the text Under all the circumstances, particularly the
failure of Gaby to testify. I do not credit Webb's testimony to the extent that it may
contradict the findings in the text.
e The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited and undenied testimony
of Hazel Rimmer Although Emerson testified as a witness for Respondent, he did not
deny having made any of the statements set forth in the text.
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Helen Boyle
Helen Boyle was employed by Respondent as a "pairer" from April 11 to Octo-
ber 30, 1962. Although the average daily production for a pairer during that period
was about 200 dozen a day, Boyle averaged 235 dozen a day and over, doing as high
as 285 dozen. Viola Myers, a witness for the Respondent, admitted that Super-
intendent Emerson stated that he would like the pairers to try to get out 200 dozen
a day.
Boyle signed a union card on April 15, when Union Representative Rainey came
to her home. Thereafter, she actively engaged in soliciting nearly all of Respondent's
employees to sign union cards. She carried on her union activities during lunch pe-
riods, before and after work, evenings, and on the telephone. On May 23, she ac-
cepted a leaflet from Rainey and stopped to talk to him while Emerson was surveilling
the leaflet distribution, as previously found. In his telephone conversation with
employee Moore later that day, Emerson stated, among other things, that he knew that
employees Boyle, Cox, and Kurr were for the Union and were "troublemakers."
A few days later, Emerson told Boyle at the plant that he had seen her "stop and take
one of those damn union leaflets and talk to the organizer," also as previously found.
On September 7, the day after Hazel Rimmer's separation, Boyle frankly told Emer-
son that she had signed a union card and was 100 percent for the Union, also as
previously found. Boyle was subpenaed by the Union to appear at a Board rep-
resentation hearing on September 24 and informed Emerson of that fact. She testified
as a witness for the Union at the hearing which was attended by Respondent's execu-
tive and supervisory personnel, including President Gaby, Vice President Webb,
Superintendent Emerson, and Floorlady Trout. There can be no doubt that Re-
spondent was aware of Boyle's union activities and support, and Respondent makes
no contrary contention.
Boyle was discharged on October 30, 1962, under the following circumstances.
Because she had a flat tire on the way to work, Boyle did not arrive at the plant until
shortly after noon. Unable to locate her timecard, she waited at the timeclock for
Emerson's arrival. When he arrived, she told him she could not find her timecard.
Emerson answered, "No, Helen, as a matter of fact, we have decided we can't use you
any more " In response to her inquiry as to the reason, Emerson stated that it was
"because of all this commotion you are causing." Boyle asked, "what kind of commo-
tion?" Emerson replied, "you know what I am talking about. This was decided
last night." Boyle then stated, "in other words, you are firing me then." Emerson
answered, "that's about it." Boyle then asked for her termination slip. While
Emerson was walking with Boyle to the office, Emerson said, "Helen, you have been
warned time after time . . . for fooling around with the damn union." When
Boyle stated that "that is my privilege," Emerson replied, "that's right, it is your
privilege. But it is costing you your job." Her termination slip contained the words,
"failure to cooperate with the company." 7
In its brief, Respondent states that "succinctly stated, respondent's position is that
Helen Boyle was discharged because her profanity, attitude toward her fellow workers
and attitude toward her job was such that she was completely disorganizing
her section and causing great distress to her fellow workers." Emerson testified
that Boyle did not seem to get along with the other employees who complained to
him that their nerves were being so affected that they were going to have to quit.
To corroborate this position, Respondent called a number of employees, who were
still working for Respondent, to show that Helen Boyle made them "nervous" be-
cause she "cursed" and used profane language. However, none of these witnesses
attributed to Boyle any profanity exceeding the word "damn " Even more sig-
nificantly, none of these witnesses testified to having complained to Emerson about
Boyle's conduct or its alleged effect on them. On the contrary, they testified that
they did nothing about it. Indeed, as previously found, Emerson, himself fre-
quently used the word "damn" in referring to the Union and its literature. Re-
spondent endeavored to show that Floorlady Pollard had informed Emerson on
the day before Boyle's discharge that she was sick and had to stay home under a
doctor's care because of Helen Boyle. This endeavor collapsed during the direct
examination of Pollard, who testified that she did not mention Helen Boyle when
she telephoned Emerson to inform him that she was sick and had been told by
the doctor to stay home.
7 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Helen Boyle.
Emerson merely answered in the negative to Respondent Counsel's leading question as to
whether Bovle's statements relating to union membership and activity in regard to her
job took place. As previously indicated, I do not credit Emerson 's denials.
DANDRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY, INC. 1147
Respondent also contends that Boyle was a chronic complainer about her work.
Emerson testified that she complained too much about not getting enough of the
better work and that, when work was brought back to her to be redone, "she
didn't do it with a smile." As Dorothy Williams, Respondent's own witness, testi-
fied when asked if she would not like to have better work also, "there is no one that
wouldn't." If Helen Boyle's work was as poor as Respondent tried to paint it,
she would not have been able to turn out the 235 dozen pairs and more during
a day, as in fact she did. That Respondent was more than satisfied with Boyle's
work is borne out by Vice President Webb at the time when he made out Boyle's
termination slip. When Boyle asked what Webb was going to put on her termina-
tion slip, Webb replied, "failure to cooperate with the company," and indicated
that Emerson had told him that. Boyle thereupon stated, "Tom, I have always
given you a good day's work ever since I have been here and I have always obeyed
working orders." Webb replied, "that's right, Helen. I don't have any complaint
about your work." He went on to tell her that Emerson had said that she was
a good worker and that he could not ask for a better one. Boyle then asked Webb
why he did not put on her slip that he was firing her for union activities "be-
cause that is what it is for and you know it is." Webb told Boyle that "you may
be smart, but you are not going to catch me on that." Boyle then resignedly
stated that she would have to take the slip with "failure to cooperate with the
company" on it, pointing out to Webb that the only way she failed to cooperate
with the company was when electrician Glenn Price tried to get her to go against
the Union and "I would not do it." 8
Upon consideration of all the foregoing, particularly Emerson's prior warning
that Boyle would be without a job if she was going "to keep on fooling around
with the damn union," Emerson's admission to Boyle at the time of her discharge
that it was her privilege to keep "fooling around with the union" but that "it is
costing you your job," Webb's admission to Boyle when preparing her discharge
slip that Respondent had no complaint about her work, and the failure of Respond-
ent's defenses to her discharge to stand up under scrutiny, I am convinced and
find that Respondent discharged Helen Boyle on October 30 for the reason that it
regarded her as a "troublemaker" because of her continued union advocacy, sup-
port, and activities rather than for the pretextuous reasons advanced at the hear-
ing. By such conduct, Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Helen Boyle, thereby discouraging membership in the Union
in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Iv. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of 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 com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain 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.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Helen Boyle and Hazel Rimmer, I recommend that
Respondent offer each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, by the payment to each
of a sum of money equal to that which each normally would have earned as wages
from the date of discrimination (September 6, 1962 , in the case of Rimmer, and
October 30, 1962, in the case of Boyle) to the date of Respondent's offer of rein-
8 The findings In this paragraph concerning Boyle's conversation with Webb are based
on the credited testimony of Helen Boyle . Webb did not testify concerning this incident.
He merely answered in the negative when Respondent 's counsel asked If Hazel Rimmer
had ever suggested to him that she was being fired by reason of union activities. As it
was Helen Boyle, and not Hazel Rimmer, who testified to such a suggestion, I believe
Respondent 's counsel mistakenly referred to Hazel Rimmer Instead of Helen Boyle. In
any event , I do not credit Webb 's testimony to the extent that it may be regarded as con-
tradicting the findings in the text.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
statement , less the net earnings of each during such period , with backpay and in-
terest thereon computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F . W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of Respondent 's violations , and because discrimination
with respect to hire and tenure of employment , such as in the instant case, "goes
to the very heart of the Act," 9 I am convinced and find that there exists the
danger of the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices . Accordingly,
I find it necessary in order to effectuate the policies of the Act to recommend that
Respondent cease and desist from infringing "in any other manner" upon the
rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act, in addition to those
rights found to have been violated herein.io
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Helen
Boyle and Hazel Rimmer , thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid labor
organization , the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By the foregoing conduct, by engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activities , and by threatening employees with loss of employment because of their
union and concerted activities , the Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act and thereby has engaged 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.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent , Dandridge Finishing
Company, Inc., Dandridge , Tennessee , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging or laying off its employees , or by discriminating in any other manner in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment.
(b) Engaging in surveillance of employees ' union activities.
(c) Threatening employees with loss of employment or other economic reprisals
for engaging in union or concerted activities.
(d) 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 the above-named
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from engaging
in any such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Helen Boyle and Hazel Rimmer immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of earnings each
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner set
forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve , and upon request , make available to the Board , or its agents, for
examination or 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 under the terms of this Recommended Order.
6 N.L R.B v. Entwistle Mfg Co., 102 F 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4).
10 See , e g. Layton Oil Company, 128 NLRB 252, 261.
DANDRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY, INC. 1149
(c) Post at its plant in Dandridge , Tennessee , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A." ii Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia ), shall, after being duly signed by an author-
ized representative of the Respondent , be posted by it 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 Tenth Region , in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith12
11 In the event that this Recommended Order shall be adopted by the Board, the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to the
Recommended Oider of a Trial Examiner " In the notice In the further event that the
Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
1' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
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 Rela-
tions Act , as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of American
Federation of Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging or laying off our employees , or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to our employees ' hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees ' union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of employment or other economic
reprisals for engaging in union or concerted activities.
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, join, or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Helen Boyle and Hazel Rimmer immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become, or remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization.
DANDRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------- ----------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE -We will notify any of the above-named employees if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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 528 Peach-
tree-Seventh Building , 50 Seventh Street , NE., Atlanta , Georgia, 30323 , Telephone
No. Trinity 6-3311, Extension 5357, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.