Haynesville Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 977 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

HAYNESVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 977
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following voting group of employees at the Employer's place of
business in Norwood, Massachusetts:
All employees engaged in lithographic production work at the
Employer's place of business in Norwood, Massachusetts, in-
eluding offset pressmen, assistant offset pressmen and floormen,
apprentices, offset pressmen, the cameraman,' platemakers, and
strippers involved in the lithographic process, and Foreman
Kinney," but excluding all other employees, the ink matcher,'
office clerical elnployees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting group
vote for Local 3, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, they will
be taken to have voted for separate representation, and the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for that unit. If a majority of the employees in the voting
group vote for Norwood Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
Local 35 and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union
of North America, AFL-CIO, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the overall unit now represented by
the Pressmen, and the Regional Director will issue a certification
of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'+Although , at the time of the hearing , the Employer did not have a cameraman in its
employ, it had already purchased camera equipment and was searching for a qualified
lithographic cameraman . As the cameraman is an appropriate part of a lithographic unit,
we shall include this category in the unit found appropriate.
8 The Petitioner contends that Foreman Kinney is a supervisor , and should hence he
excluded from the unit ; the Employer contends he is not a supervisor . He is classified
as a working foreman, and he spends 70 percent of his time as a regular crew member
Ile does not attend supervisors ' meetings , and all his responsibilities are of a routine
nature . We are satisfied from the record that Kinney is not a supervisor as defined in
the Act, and hence include him in the unit found appropriate
6 The Petitioner contends that the ink matcher should be excluded In view of the
fact that no one objects to his exclusion , and that he spends the vast majority of his time
working with letterpress inks, we shall exclude him
Haynesville Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-2080.
February 1, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
140 NLRB No. 86.
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Re-
port. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
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 en-
tire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the excep-
tions, and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified herein.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Haynesville
Manufacturing Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by dis-
charging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate any of its employees be-
cause of their union membership or activities, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
I Respondent ' s counsel assert , in effect, that the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate
Report insinuated that they fabricated testimony in connivance with a witness, Respond-
ent's plant manager , Jake Humble , during a recess We do not read the Intermediate
Report in that light, but find that the Trial Examiner was merely giving the sequence
of events as they occurred at the hearing However, other statements and findings made
in the report do require correction , clarification , or disavowal First , we note that the
Trial Examiner referred to the dates of the hearing herein as August 20, 21 , and 22,
1962 . No hearing was held on August 20, and the report is corrected accordingly.
Secondly , there is an implication in the report that Attorney Paul Newell was counsel
for the Respondent at the time employee Linda Williams sought advice to "get back" a
union application card she had signed. We note here that Newell had not been retained
by the Respondent at that time . Next, we find no reason here to adopt the Trial Ex-
aminer ' s comments in section III of his report upon the "leading citizens" of the town
of Haynesville . With regard to the Trial Examiner ' s concluding finding that Respondent
violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by Forelady Hayfield's interrogations of employees,
we note that elsewhere in his report (footnote 3), the Trial Examiner held , in effect,
that because these interrogations took place outside the Section 10 ( b) period, there
could be no finding of unfair labor practices here. Accordingly , we do not adopt the
concluding finding that Respondent violated the Act by these interrogations Finally,
we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Humble Impliedly threatened to close
the plant The record shows that it was an employee who asked Humble about rumors
that Respondent's home office in Ohio would close the plant , and that Humble simply
answered that he did not know-that he had no authority to close the plant.
HAYNESVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 979
labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer employee Lois Smart immediate and full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against her in the manner set forth in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled "The Remedy." 2
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Haynesville, Louisiana, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 Member Rodgers, for the reasons expressed in his dissent in Isis Plumbinq & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716, would not award interest on backpay.
IIn the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
681-492-63-vol. 140-63
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of any employee in Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization, by discharging or laying off any employees,
or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in
regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions
of employment.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in any
other manner, in connection with the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own free choice, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid. and protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Lois Smart immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her rights, and will make her whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of our discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization, except
to the extent that the right may be affected by a lawful agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment.
HAYNESVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serv-
ing in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act 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, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
HAYNESVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
981
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 2, 1962, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , filed a charge against Haynesville Manufacturing Company, herein
called the Respondent . Upon this charge , on July 23, 1962 , the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board issued and served his complaint , alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended . The Respondent duly filed its answer , denying the allegations of unfair
labor practices . Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held in Haynesville , Louisiana,
on August 20, 21 and 22, 1962, before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally, and to file
briefs. Briefs have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent.
Disposition of the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint , upon which
ruling was reserved at the hearing, is made by the following findings , conclusions,
and recommendations.
Upon the record thus made , and from his observation of the witnesses , the Trial
Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Haynesville Manufacturing Company is a Louisiana corporation, with its place
of business in Haynesville, Louisiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of
glove linings and coated fabric gloves.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint the Respondent purchased
directly from sources outside the State of Louisiana goods and services valued at
more than $50,000. During the same period its gross volume of business was
more than $500,000
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that the Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE CHARGING UNION
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issue
Although only the local employer is named here as a violator of the Act, the
evidence adduced in this proceeding, in composite, depicts a distressful drama in
which a northern corporation 1 has within the past few years come into the low-cost
labor area of the South and obtained the assistance of leading citizens of a small
town, including a newspaper editor and a reputable attorney, in a concerted effort to
deprive the wives and daughters of such local citizens of the right guaranteed them
by the Congress of the United States-the right to join a labor organization and seek
betterment of their wages and working conditions.
For example, it is undisputed that Vice President Leader, of the Edmont Manu-
facturing Company in Coshocton, Ohio, and in charge of the Haynesville plant
production, shortly after employee Lois Smart, the wife of a local minister, had been
summarily discharged for the claimed reason that she had handed a union card
to a fellow worker in the plant, assembled all employees but in separate groups and
read them a letter purporting to be from "citizens of Haynesville" stating that they
"did not want the Union out there." 2
It is also uncontroverted that employee Linda Williams, within a few days after
the treatment accorded Mrs. Smart (and apparently concerned about her own
security), called Editor Morelock of the Haynesville News and asked him how she
could "get back" a union application card she had signed. Morelock not only
advised her but, according to her own testimony, went with her to Paul Newell,
1 Edmont Manufacturing Company of Coshocton, Ohio.
s The quotations are from the testimony of employee Opal Collie.
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counsel for the Respondent. Newell offered to and did draft a formal document,
replete with "whereases," and not only withdrawing such union applications but
also stating that "nor do we want in any way to encourage the unionization of the
Haynesville Manufacturing Company."
Williams obtained the signatures of a number of employees on this document,
which Newell then forwarded to the Board's Regional Office with a covering letter
in which, among other things, he gratuitously declared, "They do not want the calling
of an election at their plant."
This spectacle of prominent southern citizens supporting a northern enterprise
instead of their own womenfolk has other details. Plant Manager Humble, as a
witness, admitted that after learning of the employees' move toward self-organization
he summoned them to several meetings, during one of which he declared that he
could not deny a rumor that the plant would close if the Union came in. He posted
restrictive plant rules. And, as will be more fully described below, he fired Lois
Smart, without previous interview or warning, upon the mere accusation of another
employee-a notorious plant gossip and informer-that the wife of the local pastor
had left her machine just before buzzer for the morning break sounded and handed
another employee a union card.
Mrs. Smart's discharge occurred in a context of open union hostility displayed
both by Plant Manager Humble and Forelady Mayfield, the latter having full charge
of some 70 sewing room employees and plainly a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act. Contrary to Humble's claim that the union campaign caused "confusion"
in the plant, strong evidence supports the reasonable inference that management
itself, by its open opposition to self-organization, inspired and inflamed such confu-
sion as may have existed. Shortly after the first union meeting, on October 31,
Forelady Mayfield came to employee Merritt while the latter was working at her
machine and demanded to know what she had "against the Company." When
Merritt replied, "Nothing," the forelady asked why she had "been running to the
union meetings." Merritt replied that she had done so because other employees
were going and inquired if Mayfield had "jumped the rest of them that went to the
union meeting." Mayfield admitted that she had. The same forelady likewise went
to employee Kilpatrick at the latter's machine, declared that she knew she had
attended a union meeting, and asked if she had been "enticed" by anyone to go.3
And at one of Humble's assemblage of employees the manager asked them if they
had been "bothered about signing union cards."
The discharge of Lois Smart raises the chief issue in these proceedings.
B. The discharge
At the time of her summary discharge on November 30, 1961, Lois Smart had
had longer service at this plant than had Humble, its manager. She had special
duties, operating the one automatic turning machine in the sewing room.
As a witness Humble admitted having known of Smart's activity in organization
of the Union before her discharge.
Without previous warning or even inquiry by Humble as to the merit of the accusa-
tion, she was summoned into the manager's office on the morning of November 30
and informed of her immediate dismissal on the grounds that she had been "soliciting
union on company time" and had been shutting her machine down and "leaving it
before time."
Smart countered the latter claim by reminding Humble that his predecessor as
manager had instructed her, and she had always followed such instructions, to shut
down her machine from 10 to 15 minutes early at the end of her shift-because
of the nature of her machine and the necessity to perform certain other tasks after its
heat was turned off and the machine cleared. She declared that if she had been in
error "it looks like you could have told me that before 4 years was up if that was
wrong." Humble then accused her of "soliciting union on the job." She said she
could recall no such instance, but said she had, the morning before, stepped over to
the sewing machine of another employee, Maxine Odom, to hand her a union card
but that she had not done so until after the buzzer had sounded for the 10 o'clock
break. Humble insisted that she must go. Mrs. Smart then said, "Whoever told
8 The failure of the Union to file a charge until May 2, 1962, which was not served until
May 7, 1962, prevents a finding that these interrogations by Mayfield are unfair labor
practices. The testimony of the employees involved is uncertain as to dates and does
not permit findings that they occurred after the date of the 10(b) period-November 7,
1961. The conduct, however, is relevant background and in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner establishes beyond question the historical fact of the Respondent 's hostility
toward self-organization.
HAYNESVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 983
you that I was soliciting union on the company's time, would you please go get
them and bring them to the front and talk about it." He refused. She asked him
to reveal the names and permit her to "talk to them." He refused. She asked if the
informer was Edna Mae Carter, an employee who worked in front of Odom. Humble
dropped his head. Smart asked the manager if he preferred to take Carter's word
instead of that of "the rest of us," observing that Carter was known as the "plant
gossiper." Humble insisted that she leave. Smart asked permission to obtain her
personal belongings at her machine. Humble refused, saying that Forelady Mayfield
would bring them to her outside.
Mrs. Smart then called her son at their home, asking him to come to the plant
for her. After he arrived, Mayfield brought her personal items to her, outside
the plant. Mrs. Smart told the forelady, in her son's presence, "Ruby, you are making
a terrible mistake. It is nothing but a be." Mayfield replied, "Well, we know different
than that. We have evidence that you are working for the Union and holding
a position with them." Mrs. Smart declared that it was "still a lie." Mayfield replied,
"You should have thought of that before you joined the Union." 4
When Plant Manager Humble, called as General Counsel's first witness, was asked
why he had fired Lois Smart, he replied:
She was terminated on two counts, one for leaving her machine before the
buzzer sounded for the break, and the other was soliciting on company time
during working hours.
Both of these "incidents," he declared, occurred on November 29, 1961.
In a sworn affidavit made by him to a Board agent in June 1962, Humble stated:
Lois Smart was terminated on November 30, 1961, for leaving her machine
before an authorized break period and for soliciting during her work period.
Neither during his examination by General Counsel nor in his previously made
sworn statement did Humble claim that there were any other "counts," reasons, or
"considerations" for this employee's discharge, which he admitted was invoked
without previous warning or threat.
After a recess, however, and after counsel for the Respondent asked the leading
questions as to whether he had observed Smart's "attitude towards her job and fellow
employees" and if in making his decision he had taken "other considerations into
effect," Humble then declared "I certainly did take other considerations into effect."
He then asserted: "I took into consideration what kind of employee she had been"
and went on to claim that the employee had been "causing rejects" by not doing
her job properly, that she "had tried to entice the other people" to go to the lunch-
room "before the buzzer sounded," and that in November her piecework rate dropped
from $1.37 the first week of November to $1 33 the last week of her employment.
As to these "other considerations" upon which the Respondent appears to rely
as additional reasons for the discharge, the Trial Examiner not only finds them to
be without merit but believes that the belated timing of their presentation as a
defense, and their development only after leading questions following a recess, cast
doubt upon the validity of any reasons proposed by Humble for his precipitate
action. In his affidavit he said: "Lois Smart was a good employee as far as work-
ing was concerned. Her production quota averaged 1259 percent. (That is, she
actually earned 25 percent more than the "quota" which was based upon the
minimum wage required by law.) And as to his claim regarding "rejects," his own
admissions offer full explanation of them and in effect negate the contention that
Smart was at fault. He admitted that "I have had many complaints on that
machine, every time I go around there seems to be something wrong. That has been
throughout . I never see a week pass that something is not done to it ( in repairing
or readjusting the machine)."
The credible evidence does establish, however, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner,
that he fired Lois Smart only after he had been informed by employee Carter,
previously identified as a notorious plant gossip, that she had seen Smart hand
a card to employee Odom before the buzzer sounded. Humble's claim that Odom,
the night before the discharge, told him over the telephone "that Lois Smart did
4 The findings as to the discharge interview are based upon Mrs. Smart's forthright
and credible testimony. The findings concerning Mayfield's remarks are also based upon
the credible testimony of Mrs. Smart, fully corroborated by that of her son, a college
student. The Trial Examiner does not accept, as true, Mayfield's version of what she said
to Mrs Smart. As previously found , the forelady's open hostility toward the Union had
been expressed to other employees. The unreliable quality of Humble's testimony will be
discussed later in this Intermediate Report.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
solicit during working hours" and that when he asked her if "she was definite
about it" she said "yes . .. before the morning break," finds serious dispute in
the testimony of Odom herself, a witness for the Respondent. Odom's testimony:
He called me and asked me if Lois-what time had Lois approached me
soliciting for the Union and I told him I did not know exactly. I said, "Why
don't you call the one that reported her?"
Humble's credibility is further diminished by the fact that his assertion that, on
the morning of the discharge and before firing Smart, he talked to employees Arnold,
Carter, Odom, Poole, and Mills to "substantiate what he had heard" from Forelady
Mayfield on November 29 is wholly unsupported by the testimony of any of the named
employees. Mills, a witness for the Respondent, flatly denied that she ever told
Humble about this "incident," and said that she had never been questioned about it
until "a couple of weeks" before the hearing by Attorney Nowell. Employee Poole,
also a witness for the Respondent, declared that she had never told management
anything about any such incident, and had not been questioned about it by anyone
until "last week, I guess." Arnold was not called as a witness.
Although both Odom and Carter were witnesses for the Respondent neither one
confirmed Humble's contention that he had talked with them the morning of the
discharge. On the contrary, Odom flatly denied that she had talked to Humble that
morning regarding Smart.
In the opinion of the Trial Examiner these several contradictions by the Respond-
ent's own witnesses completely discredit Humble's account of an "investigation"
made by him before the discharge. In any event, it is clear that he at no time
questioned Smart herself as to the matter before firing her.
Turning to the point as to whether or not Smart in fact approached Odom before
the buzzer sounded, the Trial Examiner believes her forthright denial of the accusa-
tion. He can place no reliance upon the testimony of a few employee witnesses
for the Respondent who said that they saw her leave her machine early. For example,
while Poole testified to this effect, she admitted that in a previously executed affidavit
she had sworn that the buzzer had already sounded. Employee Mills also testified
that Smart had left her machine 5 minutes early, but admitted that she had informed
a Board agent that she had never seen Smart leave before the buzzer sounded.
It appears that these self-contradictions may well be explained by the coercive
effect of the Respondent's own actions in discharging Smart, and the resultant fear
that they might expect similar treatment if they did not testify in favor of the Re-
spondent. That fear is not a mere word in this setting is implicit in the frank declara-
tion by employee Odom, a witness for the Respondent, who said that her husband
had "said he would give me a whipping if I even took part" in a union. Odom
also testified that after Smart's discharge she had told employee Merritt, the inspector,
"I think this thing should cool off. I don't think there is any profit that can be made
from it and I think that the more we talk the worse it gets. .. " More than a passing
breeze, surely, is required to cause a woman to wish to stop talking.
The testimony of employee Carter, the notorious plant gossip and informer, is
not credited. As a witness she appeared to be enjoying an almost delirious delight
in her role. She glibly insisted that Smart had left her machine every day before
the morning break-and affirmed that this happened day in and day out, week in
and week out, month in and month out. That her antipathy ,toward her fellow
employees was not focused solely upon Smart was made manifest by her cheerful
accusation that "so were lots of others" violating the rule not to leave before the
buzzer sounded.
In short, the Trial Examiner concludes that the record contains no credible evi-
dence that Smart violated a plant rule the morning of November 29. On the
contrary, it is concluded and found that Humble seized upon Carter's unsupported
accusation as a pretext for ridding the plant of its most active union adherent. That
his own conscience may well have troubled him thereafter appears from the fact
that 2 or 3 weeks later he called employee Williamson into his office and asked
her if Smart had ever solicited her signature to a union card.
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that employee Lois Smart was discrim-
inatorily discharged by Humble in order to discourage union membership and
activity, and that by this -act, as well as by Mayfield's interrogation of employees,
previously described, and Humble's implied threat that the plant would be closed,5
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
s The Trial Examiner considers the threat to have been implied for the following rea-
sons: (1) As noted heretofore, at a meeting of his employees Humble said he could not
MARSHFIELD STEEL COMPANY, ETC. 985
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 operations 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the
Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer Lois Smart immediate and
full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any
loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her,
by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that she would have earned as wages,
absent the discrimination, from November 30, 1961, to the date of offer of rein-
statement, in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289.
The backpay obligations of the Respondent shall include the payment of interest
at the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the serious and continued nature of the Respondent's unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating as to the tenure of employment of employee Lois Smart,
thereby discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the above-named
labor organization, the Respondent has engaged 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 employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by 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 within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
deny a rumor that the plant would be closed if the Union came in, yet there Is no evi-
dence that any such rumor actually existed ; and (2) if such a rumor had existed its
origin more reasonably would have been found among management representatives than
among employees who were union adherents.
Marshfield Steel Company, Marshfield Development Corporation,
Frank L. Stockton , and Herschel L. Davis and United Steel-
workers of America
Marshfield Steel Company and United Steelworkers of America.
Cases Nos. 17-CA-1974 and 17-CA-2001. February 1, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 23,1962, Trial Examiner Phil Saunders issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
140 NLRB No. 99.