Lone Star Textiles, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 244 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
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
amended by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
This Union will jointly and severally with C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc.,
make Sherman M. Hawkins whole for any loss of pay suffered because of the
discrimination against him.
WE WILL notify C. & H. Mason Contractors, Inc., in writing and furnish copies
of such notification to Sherman M. Hawkins that we have no objection to his
employment by said Company.
LOCAL 98 , INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
PETER R . TIBERIO,
Business Agent.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Peter R. Tiberio ) ( 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 , Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street , Boston , Massachusetts, Tele-
phone No. 523-8100 , if they have questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Lone Star Textiles, Inc., Guadalupe Valley Cotton Mills Division
and Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases
Nos. 23-CA-18921, 23-CA-18921-f2, and 03-CA-1821-3. April 29,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 9, 1965, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
152 NLRB No. 24.
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 245
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders
that Respondent. Lone Star Textiles, Inc., Guadalupe Valley Cotton
Mills Division, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with the General Counsel and Respondent represented by counsel,
was heard before Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin in Cuero, Texas, on October 14 and
15, 1964, on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Lone Star Textiles, Inc.,
Guadalupe Valley Cotton Mills Division, Respondent herein.' The issues litigated
were whether Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act in the severance
of Alton Fellers and Louis Grunder on or about May 25, 1964, whether on June 15,
1964, Respondent discriminatorily discharged four named employees and then rein-
stated them 3 hours later; and whether Respondent otherwise violated Section 8(a) (1)
by unlawfully interrogating employees, threatening employees, and encouraging an
employee to circulate an antiunion or procompany petition among the employees.
Decision was reserved on Respondent's motion at the conclusion of the hearing to
dismiss the complaint as to Louis Grunder. This motion is hereby disposed of in
accordance with the conclusions and recommendations below. After the hearing the
General Counsel and Respondent filed helpful briefs which have been carefully
considered
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Texas corporation with its principal office and place of business in
the small town of Cuero, Texas, herein called the plant, is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of duck, Osnaburg, sheeting, and related products. During the
12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint (on August 4, 1964), Respondent
manufactured , sold, and distributed from the plant , products valued in excess of
$500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped from said plant
directly to States of the United States other than the State of Texas. Respondent
admitted, and I find, that Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. Respondent has other plants, but the Cuero plant is the only one involved
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, CLC , herein referred to as the
Union, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference , restraint , and coercion
The employees' efforts at self-organization began in earnest immediately after
employee Alton Fellers obtained union cards in late January 1964.2 He obtained
them from a former employee of Respondent who, during a previous year, had
attempted to organize the employees . Fellers signed one and began passing them
out to other employees for signatures.
I The charge in Case No. 23-CA-1821 was filed by the Union on May 28, 1964. A
suffix to the charge , docketed as Case No . 23-CA-1821-2, was filed by the Union on
June 19 , 1964. A suffix to the charge , docketed as Case No . 23-CA-1821-3, was filed by
the Union on June 29, 1964.
2 Unless otherwise noted all events herein occurred in 1964.
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In late January Louis Grunder told the plant's general manager, Frank Kelley, of
the arrival of the cards in Cuero for another organizational attempt by the employees.
General Manager Kelley asked Grunder to try to get one of the cards for him and
Grunder said he would. Kelley testified that the day before Grunder told him of the
arrival of the cards, a supervisor had already told him the cards had arrived in Cuero;
and that he (Kelley) had heard rumors of union activity even before Christmastime
1963.
1. Many times during the succeeding months, when General Manager Kelley was
in the plant, he would ask Grunder questions about the Union, such as whether he had
heard anything more, how the Union was coming, and so forth. In testifying Kelley
attempted to justify these interrogations on the ground that Kelley then thought
Grunder was a "company man." However, such followup and repeated questioning
tended to let Grunder, and through him other employees, know that Respondent was
following the employees' union activities closely; a conclusion further suggested by
the testimony of General Overseer Frank Mills that at times he and General Manager
Kelley and Plant Manager Johnson discussed how the Union was coming along, what
"they" were doing, and so forth. As seen below, the entire record shows that this
was not idle curiosity on Respondent's part, and that Respondent's interrogations
were a part of Respondent 's effort to defeat the self-organization of the employees.
Upon the entire record considered as a whole, I find and hold that Respondent' s inter-
rogations of Grunder reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain , and coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
2. One day about mid-April, General Manager Kelley sent for Fellers and the
latter reported to Kelley's office. After discussing Feller's injured finger ( considered
below) and his status with the Company (also considered below), Kelley brought up
the subject of the Union. Kelley testified that many times before this interview he
had heard, in the plant, that Fellers had been passing out union cards or attempting to
get people to sign cards for the Union.
Fellers credibly testified that Kelley opened the subject of the Union with the
statement that he (Kelley) had heard Fellers was "fooling with the Union." 3 Fellers
admitted that he was. Kelley then asked him why. Fellers replied, in substance,
because other employees asked him to, because they felt they needed help "the way
they were being laid off and everything." In substance, Kelley asked him how many
he had signed up. Fellers refused to state. In substance, Kelley asked why the
employees did not come to him with their problems. Fellers replied in substance
that he, Fellers, had come to Kelley on November 22, 1963, when Fellers thought
General Overseer Mills had not kept his word with Fellers on a given matter. Kelley
said that several employees had told him that when Fellers asked them to sign cards
for the Union, they "would eat ... [Fellersl out." Fellers replied that that was not
so, that "the people had told me that they didn't have anything to lose."
At this point in the conversation Kelley left the room. When he returned a few
moments later, he told Fellers to forget what he had said before. Then, according to
Fellers, Kelley promised him his old job back (as a fixer) if he would abandon the
Union. In testifying Kelley denied making this promise, and said that he told Fellers
that when he was able to return to work, "we would think about the possibility of
putting him back on a fixing job and we would try him again on this job." Upon all
the evidence considered as a whole, I believe and find that General Manager Kelley
made the promise substantially as testified by Fellers.
The interrogations by Kelley in his office during this interview of the employee he
had sent for, reasonably tended, on the entire record, to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
Respondent thereby further violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act Kelley's promise
of benefit if Fellers abandoned the Union was a further violation of Section 8(a) (1).
3. On May 7, according to the undenied testimony of Louis Grunder, Marvin
Luker, general overseer of the weaving department, told Grunder that General
Manager Kelley had heard that Grunder was tied in with the Union; and Luker
instructed Grunder that if he was so tied in he should drop it, he should have nothing
to do with the Union, and he should be neutral. Luker said that he had been instructed
to talk to Grunder about the Union. General Manager Kelley testified that he had
heard that Grunder was active in union affairs, had talked to Luker about it, and had
instructed Luker to ask Grunder about it and then tell Grunder that Kelley wanted
to see him.
30n the witness stand Kelley admitted that he asked Fellers if he was working for
the Union and was passing out cards and trying to get cards signed °
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 247
On May 11, when Grunder talked to Kelley, General Manager Kelley asked
Grunder if Luker had talked to him about those "nasty rumors." Grunder admitted
that he had . Grunder tried to convey the impression that he was on the Company's
side , and he explained that during an earlier union campaign (m 1958 or 1959) he
had voluntarily circulated a petition in favor of the Company. Grunder testified,
Plant Manager Johnson confirmed ,4 and Kelley did not deny, that during this inter-
view Kelley suggested indirectly that Grunder circulate another petition in the nature
of a loyalty pledge to the Company. It was not denied that Kelley suggested the
name of a local newspaper editor as one who would draw up the petition for Grunder.
By instructing Grunder to stay out of the Union and be neutral, by asking him if
Luker had talked to him about the "nasty rumors"-clearly referring to rumors of
Grunder's union activities, by suggesting that Grunder circulate a procompany peti-
tion; and by suggesting the name of a person who would draft such a petition for him,
Respondent further interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby further
violating Section 8 (a) (1).
B. Respondent 's responsibility for the antiunion petition, threats,
and interrogation by Wesley Aldis
From late April to late May, Wesley Aldis circulated an antiunion petition at
employees' houses and away from the plant on his own time, and urged employees
to sign it . While soliciting the signature of one employee , William P. Morrow, on
April 26, he told Morrow that he was giving up his overseeing job and was circulat-
ing the petition to stop the Union. The following day, in a grocery store, Aldis told
Morrow that almost all the employees in Morrow 's department had signed.
Employee Grunder credibly testified that Aldis was an overseer before and after
the period he circulated the petition but that during that period he was a fixer.
From the testimony of employees Morrow and Knocke it appeared that Wesley
Aldis directed the work of employees on the first shift just as Overseer Clyde Aldis
directed the work of employees on the second shift, and that Wesley also was an
overseer. Generally Respondent had one overseer, sometimes referred to as head
fixer, per shift, who was responsible to the general overseer for the operation of that
shift. If the shift overseer was not a supervisor, then Respondent had no supervisor
on the shifts or parts of shifts when the general overseer in that department was
absent. The general overseer must have been absent sometimes because the plant
worked three shifts, 24 hours per day. Clearly when overseers directed the work of
employees in the absence of the general overseer , the overseers had to use inde-
pendent judgment.
Respondent used a form called a "Talk to Record" which provided for the date
and department and stated that ". . . was talked to about the following." At the
bottom to the left was the word "employee" and to the right the word "overseer."
There was no space for the signature of a "general overseer." This form was proof
that overseers had authority to discipline employees.
As will be seen below Aldis took it upon himself to report to Plant Manager
Johnson, Grunder's failure to punch the timeclock in and out on May 21. This was
an act of a supervisor. Concerning this act by Aldis, Plant Manager Johnson
explained that "I had asked all supervisors if there's any discrepancy, or head fixers
if you want to call them that " to report any timecard discrepancies to him. {Empha-
sis supplied.]
As has been seen, in soliciting Morrow, Aldis connected up his leaving his over-
seeing job and his circulating the petition to stop the Union, but said nothing about
doing any special work in the cardroom. General Manager Kelley incredibly testi-
fied that Aldis took the initiative to change jobs and came to Kelley and gave as
his reason for wanting to change , the statement that he had some special work to do
in the cardroom. There was no showing that Aldis ever in fact did any special work
in the carding department . Of interest is that this alleged change involved no change
in wage rate. Aldis was not called to testify.
'Grunder testified that Kelley "suggested in a roundabout way that it would be a
good idea to take up a petition again . . . . He asked me if I would" On cross-
examination Grunder testified that Kelley asked him, "Would you be interested in
circulating a petition this time?" Johnson testified that Kelley "asked him did he think
that by having the petition going around this time it would benefit us any at all."
On the entire record , I find that Kelley's hint was stronger than Johnson testified , and that
Grunder understood Kelley's suggestion.
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Whatever change was made in Aldis' job, Respondent made no announcement of
the change to employees generally. Employee Knocke, who impressed me as a
credible witness, testified that it never came to his attention that Aldis had given up
his job as overseer. Respondent did not contend that it ever announced any changes
in Aldis' classification.
General Manager Kelley seemed to testify that Wesley Aldis had formerly been
called supervisor but had been changed to head fixer because of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. It was not claimed that this involved any change in his duties.
Respondent put in evidence a "change of rate" form dated May 16, 1964, stating
that effective May 18, Aldis was changed from head fixer to card grinder. This
document was signed by General Manager Kelley, Plant Manager Johnson, and Gen-
eral Overseer Mills. General Manager Kelley testified on October 15 that he thought
Aldis had just recently returned to his former job. Respondent's attorney stated that
he had ascertained that Aldis had never been changed back to his former job, but of
course counsel's statement was not evidence.
Upon the above evidence, I find that at all times material herein Wesley Aldis
was an overseer who, using independent judgment, directed the work of employees
and had power to discipline them. As had been seen, Plant Manager Johnson infer-
entially referred to him as a supervisor, and other testimony showed he was con-
sidered a supervisor by employees. The proof on the entire record was that Respond-
ent engaged in the paper fiction of changing his classification because it thought this
would free him, a supervisor, to work against the Union without implicating Respond-
ent. Upon the entire record considered as a whole, I find that Wesley Aldis, at all
times material herein, was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, for whose activities against the Union Respondent was responsible. Therefore
Respondent was responsible for Aldis' circulation of the antiunion petition, and for
threats and interrogation considered below and by this act Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Even if Aldis' change of classification, effective May 18, insulated Respondent from
responsibility for his antiunion activity thereafter, Respondent was certainly respon-
sible for his circulation of the petition theretofore.
C. The severance of Alton Felleis
Alton Fellers worked for Respondent for some 27 years, from 1937 until his
severance on May 25, 1964. His principal job was that of fixer, but after he injured
his finger he worked for awhile in the wasteroom and then on the quiller.
Fellers badly mashed a finger on a spinning frame on September 5, 1963. Much
of the time from then until his severance he was under the care of doctors and under-
going treatment. He first returned to work some 5 days after the accident and was
placed in the wasteroom where he worked at light work for some 6 or 8 weeks.
Then, around November 1 or December 1, 1963, Frank Mills, who had begun
working for Respondent on September 2, 1964, just before Fellers' accident, as gen-
eral overseer of carding and spinning,5 put Fellers back on his fixer job. He con-
tinued on this job until about February 12, 1964.
During this period as a fixer, Fellers had his troubles and his superiors, Elmer West
and Frank Mills, were not satisfied with Fellers' work performance. Fellers com-
plained to Overseer Elmer West that the "green hand" learning to be a fixer on the
third shift was not performing his job and this meant that he, Fellers, had to do it
for him when he came to work in the morning. Fellers was on the first shift, 6 a in.
to 2 p.m. His job as fixer was to keep the 50 spinning frames going, taking care of
any breakdowns and minor repairs There was only one fixer to a shift. Mills testi-
fied, in substance, that it was a hard job and a full-time job. In addition to his feeling
that he was getting more than his share of the work because the Company had "no
fixer" on the third shift (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.), Feller was handicapped somewhat by
his sore finger (the middle finger of his right hand). The job required not only know-
how, but manual dexterity. There was no claim that Fellers lacked the know-how,
but his finger gave him trouble and sometimes it would lock on him and he would
have to get help in getting it unlocked. His finger was sore and stiff. On October 14,
1964, some 10 months later, Fellers credibly testified that his finger was still sore.
Several times during this period Overseer Elmer West complained to Fellers. in
substance, that he was not getting his work done; and Fellers complained to West that
they were putting too much work on him. Finally, on January 15, General Overseer
5 As Respondent's brief expressed it, Mills was "an old gentleman who had been
working around textile mills all his life." Mills testified that he had never worked in
a plant that was organized by a union.
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 249
Mills had Fellers sign a slip called a "Talked to Record ," signed also by Mills and
West, indicating that Fellers was "not running his job satisfactory." On this occasion
Mills complained to Fellers that he was not keeping his job up. Fellers replied that
he was doing the best he could, that there was too much work on him, that no one
could do it all, that they had no fixer on the third shift and so, in substance, he had
the work of two shifts to perform. Fellers also said that his hand was giving him
trouble.
Fellers had an operation on his finger on February 14, 1964, and returned to work
about April 6, at which time General Overseer Mills put him to work as a quiller
at regular quiller's pay, which was a 30-cent-an-hour reduction from his rate of pay
as a fixer. On this occasion Mills told him that he, Mills, would have to lay off a
fixer, if Fellers returned as a fixer, and, according to Fellers' credible and credited
testimony, Mills asked him why he did not quit.
Working 3 days as a quiller, picking up rather sharp-pointed quills to feed a machine
referred to as the quiller, reinjured Fellers' finger, causing it to swell. The plant
did not operate that Thursday and Friday, April 9 and 10. He was supposed to
return to work on Monday, April 13, but instead he sent word by his wife (this was
permitted ), who was also an employee , that he had a doctor 's appointment in San
Antonio. Respondent contended it did not receive this message . On April 15 a
San Antonio doctor recommended , in writing , that Fellers not return for 5 weeks.
Respondent received this recommendation . On May 20 the same doctor stated, in
writing, that he had seen Fellers that day and that Fellers could return to work the
following day.
At the request of other employees, sometime before January 30, Fellers took the
initiative to obtain union cards for employees to sign. The cards arrived January 30
and Fellers and others began to pass them out. General Manager Kelley testified
that he had heard it in the plant many times before April 21 that Fellers had been
passing out union cards or attempting to get people to sign cards for the Union.
Referring to the time of about May 21, Plant Manager Johnson testified that "every-
one in town was talking about" the Union.
As has been seen above, in mid-April 6 General Manager Kelley sent for Fellers,
and in Kelley's office Kelley interrogated him concerning his union activities and
promised him his fixer job back if he, Fellers, would abandon the Union. During
this conversation Kelley told Fellers, in substance, that he should have delivered the
doctor's note recommending Fellers be off from work for 5 weeks to one of the over-
seers rather than to Briere. The latter was the office girl who had taken care of his
workman 's compensation insurance matters, and to whom Fellers delivered the doc-
tor's note. During this conversation Kelley also talked to Fellers about his work
performance and the fact that Mills had complained to Kelley about it. Fellers
replied, in substance, that if they put him back on the fixing job he would perform
it properly and "keep up," and if he could not "keep up" he would quit. Mills was
present during this conversation . It ended, according to the credited testimony of
Fellers, with Kelley telling Fellers to sit there and think it over awhile as to whether
he would abandon the Union in return for getting his fixing job back. Kelley said
he wanted Fellers' answer before Fellers left. After awhile Fellers got up, asked if
that was all Kelley wanted of him, and when Kelley replied in the affirmative, Fellers
left without giving Kelley his answer.
On May 10 Respondent received a letter from the Union, dated May 8, stating
that four named employees, including Fellers at the head of the list, were voluntarily
serving as members of the Union 's plant workers organizing committee . The letter
said others would be added.
From the Board's records I take official notice that on May 15 the Regional Office
sent to Respondent a notice of hearing in Case No. 23-RC-2258, setting the hearing
in that representation case for May 25. The hearing was not held because the parties
executed a consent -election agreement , the Union signing it on May 24 , the Com-
pany on May 25. The consent -election agreement set the election for June 17.
On Friday , May 22, the above committee ran a three -quarter page statement on
page 2 of the Cuero Record, the local newspaper, on why they had organized a union
at Respondent's Cuero plant. The names of seven committeemen appeared at the
bottom of the page, including Fellers' name as the first name. Mills testified that he
read this statement the day it was published.
As has been seen above, on Wednesday, May 20, Fellers received from the doctor
a statement that he could return to work the following day. That evening he showed
the statement to his supervisor, Elmer West, at the latter's home. West told him
the plant was not working Thursday and Friday and for Fellers to see Frank Mills.
O Fellers testified this interview occurred April 21 Kelley testified it occurred April 16
or 17. Solving this conflict is not vital to a resolution of the issues herein.
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From West , Fellers received the impression that he would return to the fixing job.
The next day Fellers saw Mills in his office at the plant . According to the credited
testimony of Fellers, Mills told him to come in Monday and go to work.? The
following day , Friday, May 22, the organizing committee 's statement appeared in
the newspaper and Mills read it.
When Fellers reported for work early Monday morning, May 25, Mills told him,
according to Fellers' credited testimony, that "since I talked to you last, we talked
it over the weekend and I [we] don't have a job for you any more."
During the weekend Mills and Kelley discussed what to do about Fellers. Asked
why he consulted Kelley, Mills replied,
Ordinarily, if it had been anybody, you know, I wouldn't have done it, but, due
to his injury and all of that, you know, and it had been so long, and the trouble
we have had . I thought , well, the best thing for me to do was to take it up
with Mr. Kelley.
Mills allegedly told Kelley that he did not want to put Fellers back to work but that
he would if Kelley wanted him to. Kelley testified that returning Fellers to the
fixer job on first shift would have necessitated laying off the man who had been
performing that function while Fellers was off the last 5 weeks. Kelley testified that
as a reason for not wanting to put Fellers back to work was that Mills mentioned
that the last time they had talked to Fellers, they had talked to him about his unsatis-
factory work. Mills also allegedly told Kelley that he did not think Fellers could
perform the fixer job properly. But Kelley and Mills had no discussion about the
possibility of giving Fellers another try at fixing and, if he did not work out, then
offering him another job, or of offering him some other job in the first place.
After his injury, Respondent had twice put Fellers back to work when he was able
to work and released by the doctors. As an injured employee, it had treated him
well and borne with him. Asked, in substance, what changed his mind towards
Fellers the last time he was ready to return to work, Mills replied:
Well, he was well then. His hand was well. He drawed workmen's compensa-
tion when he wasn't working . We paid his doctor's bills , of course ; the insur-
ance company paid his doctor's bills. You have to go along with one when
they are that way; you have got to do it. You can't discharge anybody until he
is well , as long as they are hurt on the job. I felt like, you know, that you owed
them that, to take care of them until they get well.
Thus, in essence , Mills testified that Respondent treated Fellers differently the third
time he returned to work than the first two times, because the third time "his hand
was well ." But there was no evidence that on this third occasion either Elmer West
or Mills, the only two supervisors who talked with Fellers, asked him how his hand
was, expressed any interest in that subject , or were in any way concerned with, or
interested in, that subject in connection with the impending decision over Fellers.
Of course they had the doctor's statement after the 5-week period saying he could
go to work. But twice before he had been released by the doctor and the hand was
not well. In fact, as Fellers credibly testified , it was still sore many months later.
In fact , I conclude , it was not well when Respondent decided to discharge him; and
in fact, I conclude , Respondent would have discovered this if it had been interested
in discussing the subject with Fellers.
Further, if Respondent had really thought that Fellers' hand was well, it reason-
ably would have thought that this would have improved his performance as a fixer
and reasonably would have given him another chance with a cured hand. At the
least Respondent could reasonably have expected that Fellers, after 27 years with
the Company, would be interested in some job with the Company, even if not as a
fixer . To be noted in this connection is that Fellers ' wife has been with the Company
some 20 years.
Upon the above facts and considerations I conclude, contrary to Mills' testimony,
that Respondent did not treat Fellers differently this third time , and decided to dis-
charge him , because this time his hand was well. I conclude upon the entire record
that we must look further for the real reason for the discharge.
Respondent contended, in substance, that Fellers was not discharged but had vol-
untarily left his employment in order to get medical treatment . The record showed
that Fellers was under the care of several doctors and was following their orders.
° Mills' version was that he told Fellers to "give me until Monday morning and I
would decide what I could do " As I believe Fellers would have remembered this
occasion accurately ; and as he arrived Monday morninc at the early hour of 5.55,
which it is doubtful he would have done if he had not been told to report for work (the
shift began at 6) ; I credit Fellers' version of this conversation.
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 251
He never told any supervisor that he had quit his job or did not intend to return. It
was not shown that his name had ever been removed from company lists of employ-
ees, such as payroll, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
etc. The entire record showed that the management all knew of his injury, his con-
cern that his finger did not heal and function as it should, and his earnest desire to
get it restored to normal functioning order. The entire record does not permit the
conclusion that Respondent thought Fellers, an employee of 27 years' standing, had
abandoned his job. Quite the contrary it showed that he was trying to get his hand
to rights so that he could perform his fixer's job correctly-and Respondent so
understood the situation.
Conclusions
Respondent concluded to discharge Fellers during the weekend prior to the hearing
in the representation case. Respondent knew of Fellers ' prounion activities and had
interrogated him about them. In April Kelley, knowing that Fellers wanted his fixer's
job back, promised it to him if he would abandon the Union, and Fellers left Kelley's
office without saying that he would abandon it. Thereafter he never indicated to
Respondent that he would abandon the Union. Rather, from the newspaper state-
ment, if not otherwise, Respondent knew Fellers was on the union committee and
Respondent was, no doubt, disturbed by the large union statement bearing Fellers'
name which appeared in the Friday, May 22, edition of the local paper. From all of
this Respondent knew that Fellers was a strong union adherent who could not be
dissuaded from his conviction and union activity. It appears to me on the entire
record, and I conclude, that Respondent decided to discharge Fellers at this time
without even considering any alternatives to discharging him, such as offering him a
different job, in order to make an example of him and let employees know that it
was not safe to be active in the Union; and in order to discourage support for the
Union at the election set for June 17. Upon the entire record considered as a whole,
I conclude that Respondent discharged Fellers because of his union sympathies and
activities and in order to discourage employee membership in, sympathy for, and
activity on behalf of, the Union, and to discourage support for, and to defeat, the
Union at the upcoming election, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
D. The discharge of Louis Grunder
Louis Grunder worked for Respondent for some 7 years between 1953 and 1960.
He returned to the Company in August 1962 and continued until his discharge on
May 24, 1964. His job was to take care of the air-conditioning equipment, which
was important because the weaveroom had to be kept at a proper "dampness and
humidity."
Grunder signed a union card on about April 20, 1964, and thereafter obtained
signatures of employees on about 45 union cards, which he turned over to Alton
Fellers. As has been seen above, General Manager Kelley learned about this union
activity by Grunder, and caused General Overseer Luker to caution Grunder about it.
Then Kelley himself conveyed to Grunder his disapproval with the phrase "nasty
rumors," and suggested that Grunder circulate a company loyalty pledge among the
employees. Grunder told Kelley, in substance, that he would test out the idea by
speaking to a number of employees, but that he himself did not think it was a good
idea because this was not the right time for it. It does not appear that Grunder ever
circulated such a petition for the Company, ever spoke to the local newspaper editor
about drafting such a petition, or that any further reference was made to such a
petition in any further conversation between Kelley and Grunder. As he had
signed up some 45 employees into the Union it is highly unlikely that Grunder did any
of these things.
The record does not reflect the precise information Kelley had heard about
Grunder's union activities. As has been seen above, Luker referred to it as
Grunder's being "tied in with the Union," and Kelley testified that it came to his
attention that Grunder was "active in the union activities." As Grunder's only union
activity consisted of getting cards signed, it follows that it was this union activity
that Kelley knew about. Nothing that Grunder said in his May 11 interview with
Kelley and Johnson could possibly have negatived in Kelley's mind the knowledge
that Grunder had abandoned his earlier procompany attitude and had lately been
actively engaged in persuading employees to sign union cards. Although during
this interview with his highest "bosses" when Grunder was "on the spot," he tried
to convey the idea that he was procompany, and despite their testimony to the con-
trary, I conclude upon the above considerations, Respondent's later treatment of
Grunder, and the entire record considered as a whole, that at the conclusion of this
interview Kelley and Johnson were convinced that Grunder was then a prounion
252 DECISION' S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man. Grunder was told of his discharge by his immediate superior, General Over-
seer Marvin Luker, on Sunday, May 24. Luker told him, in substance, that he had
been told to tell Grunder not to come to work on Monday because he had failed to
punch out his timecard, that failure to punch out and eating on company time was
reason for dismissal, but Luker "didn't know what the trouble is," and "I don't know,
I tried to talk to them about it, but I can't find out anything." These latter remarks
by Luker showed that General Overseer Luker was less than convinced that the
stated reason was the real reason for discharge and that Luker was conveying the idea
that he had been unable to find out what the real reason was.
Luker had received his instructions to discharge Grunder from Plant Manager
Johnson, who decided to discharge Grunder allegedly for a mistake he had made
without discussing the matter with Grander. Although Johnson allegedly thought
of the mistake as going to Grunder's integrity and his honesty, Johnson, a relatively
new member of management, apparently made no effort to discover from older
members of management their opinion as to the integrity and honesty of Grunder,
who had served the Company over 81/2 years. Johnson testified that as far as he
knew Grunder had been a valued worker for the Company and Johnson had never
heard that he was not an honest employee.
In his capacity of maintenance man of the air-conditioning equipment , Grunder
had some freedom about leaving the plant without punching out on the timeclock.
Sometimes he would go over to the company warehouse, evidently not far away, for
material or a part, without telling anyone he was leaving. Many times he was sent
out in a pickup truck to make purchases for Respondent in Cuero or nearby towns,
on which occasions he would not punch out on the timeclock.
On Thursday afternoon, May 21, Grunder left the plant during working hours
without punching out to go to the warehouse not far away to get a part to make a
needed repair on an air conditioner. As he had not had lunch he stopped at a
hamburger stand next door to the warehouse to order a hamburger "to go," but was
refused service because the hamburger stand was just then closing up. Then after
obtaining what he needed at the warehouse, he drove 11 blocks to a place called
El Patio intending, according to Grunder's credited testimony, to order some food
"to go," with the idea of eating it back at the plant As he was about to order the
food Wesley Aldis, who had finished his day's work and was on his own time, came
into the El Patio, told Grunder he wanted to talk to him, invited him to sit down, and
engaged him in conversation about the Union. Under the circumstances Grunder ate
his food there instead of taking it to the plant and eating it, as he had intended to do,
During this 15 or 20 minute conversation, according to the undenied and credited
testimony of Grunder, Aldis asked Grunder twice what they had to gain by bringing
the Union in and observed that $18 a month for insurance and union dues was a
high price to pay for only 1 week's vacation. Aldis also threatened that if the Union
succeeded in getting into the plant, work regulations would be stricter, there would
be no coffee or drinking on the job, and that if they got a union contract new people
would probably lose their jobs. Under all the circumstances of this case, and as I
have found above in this Decision that Respondent was responsible for Aldis' anti-
union activities, this interrogation and these threats by Aldis reasonably tended to
interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1).
Aldis left the El Patio shortly before Grunder and when the latter passed by the
timeclock at the plant intending to correct his timecard by punching out, working a
half-hour, and then punching it back in, he did not do so because Aldis was standing
by the timeclock. As Aldis was not called to testify, the record does not have his
explanation as to why he was standing there at that moment. Subsequent events
and the entire record considered as a whole suggest that, as a supervisor working
against the Union, he was checking to see if Grunder had punched out before leaving.
In any case, seeing Aldis there, Grunder passed on by without punching his time-
card and made the needed repair on the air conditioner.
Thereupon Aldis telephoned Plant Manager Johnson at his home and told him,
in substance , that Grunder had left the plant without checking out, that Aldis had
gone into the El Patio and talked to him about the Union, that Grunder had eaten
at the El Patio, remaining about 30 minutes, and had failed to punch in upon his
return to the plant Johnson went back to the plant that night shortly before Grunder
checked out for the day at 6:51 p.m. especially to check Grunder's timecard for
error-. Although he saw Grinder's card was not punched out and saw Grunder
working on the air conditioner in the weaveroom, he did not speak to him about his
timecard and having allegedly had lunch on company time.
Three times the next day, Friday, May 22, Plant Manager Johnson looked at
Grunder's timecard to see if Grunder h=id done anything to correct his error the
previous day, but never spoke to Grunder about it. According to practice, appar-
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 253
ently Grunder should have taken the card to some overseer, explained what had
happened, and let the overseer make a note on the card. Grunder credibly testified
that he did not correct his card Thursday afternoon because he did not find an over-
seer when he finished his work and checked out; that Friday he completely forgot about
the matter; that Saturday he remembered it and that afternoon went to the home of
John Campbell and told him the story and asked him to correct the matter on his
weekly total of hours. Campbell was the head loom fixer and among his duties was
validating Grunder's hours and totaling the latter's weekly hours on his timecard.
Grunder credibly testified that he asked Campbell to dock him 30 minutes on his
weekly total because he had eaten his lunch Thursday afternoon without punching
out. He told him that he had intended to get "something to go" at the little ham-
burger stand, that it was closed, and that he had gone to another place and eaten.
Campbell replied that it was too late because Grunder's card had been picked up
by the office earlier than the others on Saturday morning.
According to Grunder's credited and undenied testimony (Campbell testified but
did not deny), Campbell injected the Union into the conversation saying, by way of
answer to Grunder's dilemma, that he was "neutral in this thing. I am neither for
the Union or against it. I am neutral. I don't want to be involved in this." Camp--
bell admitted on the witness stand that he had heard that Grunder had gotten some
cards signed for the Union, and the above words indicate beyond any doubt that
Campbell sensed that there was a connection between the early removal of Grunder's
card that morning and the Union. Campbell testified that he had no reason to,
doubt Grunder's word in this matter. This is of some significance since Campbell
had worked at the plant about 35 years, Grunder some 7 years, and the plant is.
located in a small town.
On cross-examination Grunder testified that "everybody has failed to punch out a
timeclock at one time or another." Respondent did not challenge this statement.
As a totaler of employees' weekly hours, Campbell surely knew this and knew
whether Grunder was honest or dishonest in his dealings with the Company about
his time. Up to this time no employee had ever been discharged by the Company for
failure to punch the timeclock or for any error in his timecard. Yet for some reason
Campbell made no move to help Grunder to correct his errors. Campbell never
told Plant Manager Johnson about Grunder's Saturday visit to his home and of
Grunder's effort to correct his card until the following week, after Grunder's discharge.
Johnson ordered Grunder discharged without ever discussing his failure to punch
out and in with Grunder or Campbell, or the circumstances surrounding Grunder's
failure, including the fact that he left the plant on company business. By contrast,
during subsequent months he discussed with some alleged wrongdoers their punch-
ing of timecards other than their own. Johnson's failure to inquire of Grunder
concerning the incident Aldis had told him about suggests that Johnson knew he
had a pretext to get rid of the prounion Grunder, and that he did not wish to know
of anything that might bar him from using the pretext for that purpose.
Conclusions
As has been seen , after May 11, 1964, General Manager Kelley and Plant Manager
Johnson considered Grunder a prounion employee and they knew that he had
solicited employee signatures on union cards. The entire record established that
Respondent discharged Grunder because of this union activity and the upcoming
election, and that his failure to punch the timeclock was but a pretext and not the
real reason for the discharge. Prior to this, and since, no other employee has ever
been discharged in this plant allegedly because he failed to punch the timeclock. Yet
Supervisor Aldis went out of his way to spy on Grunder and report on him to the
plant manager, even though Aldis himself had entered El Patio to talk to Grunder
against the Union and had himself detained him with threats and interrogations.
And although Plant Manager Johnson went to the plant especially to check on
Grunder and the next day watched his card closely, he never spoke to Grunder to,
see if there were any extenuating circumstances-which there were. Although John-
son allegedly thought of Grunder as stealing from the Company, he never attempted
to learn from Campbell, who kept Grunder's timecard, or others, what was Grunder's
reputation and record with the Company for truth and honesty.
Quite clearly Respondent decided to make an example of Grunder before the other
employees . But at that time there was no great practice among employees of failing
to punch the timeclock, which Respondent wished to stop by making an example of
an offender. The current employee activity upon which Respondent frowned and
wished to stop by an unhappy example was the union activity. That the union situa-
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion was uppermost in management thinking this particular weekend followed from
the fact that the Union had filed a petition in the representation case on May 15,
and that the hearing was set for Monday, May 25.
Statements by General Overseer Luker and Head Loom Fixer Campbell, who were
certainly in a position to know, showed that the timecard matter was but a pretext
and that the real reason was the Union. As has been seen above, Luker's remarks
while discharging Grunder proved that Luker knew or sensed that the stated reason
for the discharge , the timeclock matter, was not the real reason for the discharge.
And while Grunder was seeking a solution of his timecard dilemma and talking
about that matter, Campbell volunteered that he was "neutral in this thing. I am
neither for the Union or against it. I am neutral . I don 't want to be involved
in this."
Upon the above facts and considerations and the entire record considered as a
whole, I conclude that Respondent discharged Grunder because of his union sym-
pathies and activities and in order to discourage employee membership in, sympathy
for, and activity on behalf of, the Union, and to discourage support for, and to
defeat , the Union at the upcoming election , Respondent thereby further violating
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
E. The June 15 discharge and reinstatement of Robert Ruiz,
Daniel Rodriguez, Victor Zmeskal, and Ramon Martinez
On June 15 these four named employees reported for work at 6 a.m. In a little
while they removed their outer shirts and revealed their undershirts which were
T-shirts having the emblem of the Union printed on their fronts. The displaying
of this emblem 2 days before the election caused some argument between prounion
and antiunion employees . General Overseer Elmer West asked two of these employ-
ees, Zmeskal and Martinez, to go home and remove the T-shirts, which they did
and then returned to work. Somewhat later, about 7:40 a.m., West spoke to each
of the four employees and sent them out of the plant.
The uncontradicted and credited testimony of Ruiz was, in substance , that West
told him he was sorry, but he had to let him go home because of the T-shirt, that
West had been given orders to fire him. Ruiz testified he understood he was fired.
Martinez testified without contradiction, in substance, that West told him that he
was sorry but be had to fire him because he had worn the T-shirt earlier that morn-
ing. West said that he had already fired the other three employees, naming them.
Martinez asked if this meant West did not want him to come back to work any more
and West replied in the affirmative.
Without contradiction Rodriguez testified, in substance, that West told him he
had to lay him off because he was wearing the union emblem on the T-shirt. West
said that he had orders from Johnson that everybody wearing a T-shirt like that
had to be laid off.
Without contradiction Zmeskal testified that West called him over and said that
he was going to have to let him go home for the day , that it looked as though they
were going to have trouble. Zmeskal quoted West as saying that Sister Benson, a
female employee, had threatened to pull Martinez' shirt off of him.
Plant Manager Johnson testified , in substance, that because of threats of what
she was going to do, made to him by Benson , and because of some heated argu-
ments about the T-shirts, he told Elmer West to get the men wearing the T-shirts
out of the spinning room until they could get things calmed down . West allegedly
replied that he had already sent them home to remove the shirts . Johnson then told
West, in substance , to get them out of the mill until he could get the advice of the
Company's lawyer.
As West was not called to testify, the record has only the employees ' version as
to what West told them when sending them out of the mill. Without adducing any
evidence in its case -in-chief to that effect , other than the testimony of Plant Manager
Johnson , Respondent contended that, in fact , West did not discharge or lay off the
employees , but simply sent them home for an indeterminate period . Respondent
contended that the testimony of the employees that they were discharged or laid off
indicated that they did not understand what West told them. The employees
impressed me as sufficiently credible witnesses and as understanding the English
language well enough to understand the difference between a severance and merely
"being sent home . There is no intrinsic improbability that West would treat them
differently, according to his relationship and experience with them . Upon these con-
siderations and upon the entire record as a whole, I find, as testified by the employees,
-that West discharged Ruiz and Martinez , laid off Rodriguez , and sent Zmeskal home
for the day.
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 255
After his conversation with West, Plant Manager Johnson called Respondent's
attorney who advised him that he had no right to tell people what they could wear
and that he should get the employees back into the mill. Thereupon Johnson looked
for, and found, the four employees around the town, and by 11:15 a.m., some 3:Y4
hours after they had left the plant, they were back in the plant and in Johnson's
office. There he apologized to them, said he had lost his head earlier that morning,
and that he didn't want anybody to get hurt. He told them of an incident in Georgia
when somebody had been shot. He told them they were not discharged. He then
talked to Elmer West about putting them back to work and said all would be paid
for the entire day. In fact all were paid for the entire day but there was work that
afternoon for only one of them. All returned the following day and they have worn
their T-shirts "daily" since without incident. Despite Respondent's actions, 2 days
after this incident, the Union won the election.8
The right of employees to display union insignia at work has long been recognized
as a reasonable and legitimate form of union activity; and an employer's prohibitions
thereof, in the absence of special considerations, is an unwarranted interference with
the employees' right to engage in organizational activity.9 The employees' right
extends to the wearing of T-shirts bearing union insignia.10
Here Respondent attempted to justify Respondent's prohibition of the T-shirts and
the sanction it imposed upon the four employees for wearing them, on the ground that
Plant Manager Johnson acted for the safety of the employees, which was a special
consideration. But the employees who wore the T-shirts made no threats to other
employees, and did nothing which affected the safety of other employees or them-
selves. The only threat was made by an antiunion employee, Sister Benson, who
threatened to pull Martinez' shirt off of him. Any danger that she might actually
carry out this threat could have been prevented by discharging her or laying her off
or sending her home for the day. The least Johnson could have done was to order the
same treatment for her that he ordered for the four employees, thereby showing the
employees 2 days before the election that he was neutral between the prounion and
the antiunion employees Instead he took the side of the antiunion employees and
penalized the four employees who were peacefully pursuing their rights. Upon all
the considerations and the,entire record considered as a whole, I believe and find that
"safety" was but a pretext, and that a strong motivation behind Johnson's order and
West's treatment of the four employees that early morning was a desire to discourage
membership and activity in the Union and to defeat the Union in the election 2 days
hence. Upon the entire record, I find that by discharging two employees, laying off
one employee, and sending one employee home for the day, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and discouraged membership and activity in the Union, Respondent thereby
violating 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 connection
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 commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having unlawfully discharged Alton Fellers and Louis Grunder because
of their actual or suspected union activities, and not having offered them reinstate-
ment, I recommend that Respondent offer to Fellers and Grunder immediate and full
s At the election on June 17, in Case No 23-RC-2258, 176 employees voted for the
Union, 105 voted against the Union, and 32 votes were challenged. I take official notice
that the Company filed objections to the election which the Board found, upon considera-
tion and reconsideration, to be without merit.
0 Republic Aviation Corporation v N L R B , 324 U.S 793, 801-803 ; Standard Fitt n98
Co., et al, 133 NLRB 925, 941; Fabri-Tek Incorporated, 148 'NLRB 1623
10 See cases cited in Fabri-Tek Incorporated, supra, footnote 9 of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions," without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by pay-
ment to each of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his discharge, May 25, 1964, the date of the discrimination
against him, to the date when, pursuant to the recommendations herein, Respondent
shall offer him reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period (Crossett
Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498), said backpay to be computed on a quar-
terly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289. The backpay obligation of Respondent shall include the payment of
interest at the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As provided in the Woolworth case, I recom-
mend further that Respondent make available to the Board, on request, payroll and
other records in order to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due.
Respondent having unlawfully severed Ruiz, Rodriguez, Zmeskal, and Martinez,
and having reinstated them a few hours later without loss of pay but with nothing
said concerning their seniority and other rights and privileges, it is recommended that
Respondent reinstate them without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges, and inform them that Respondent has done this.
The violations of the Act committed by Respondent are persuasively related to
other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commis-
sion in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past. The
preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the order is coexistive with the
threat. In order therefore to make more effective the interdependent guarantees of
Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize
industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce and thus effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist
from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lone Star Textiles, Inc., Guadalupe Valley Cotton Mills Division, of Cuero,
Texas, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies, activities, mem-
bership, and views; by threatening an employee with economic reprisals and changes
of working conditions if the Union got into the plant; by instructing an employee to
stay out of the Union and be neutral; by promising an employee his old job back if
he abandoned the Union; by suggesting that an employee circulate a loyalty pledge to
the Company; by circulating and obtaining employee signatures on an antiunion
petition; and by other acts, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Alton
Fellers, Louis Grunder, Robert Ruiz, Daniel Rodriguez, Victor Zmeskal, and Ramon
Martinez, thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
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 considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Lone Star Textiles,
Inc., Guadalupe Valley Cotton Mills Division, Cuero, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO,
CLC, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard
to the hire and tenure of their employment or any term or condition of their
employment.
u The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827. In the case of Fellers , I recommend that Respondent offer him his old job
as fixer, and if Fellers believes that he cannot perform that job adequately, that Respond-
ent offer him a job at comparable wages which Fellers can perform
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC. 257
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies, activities, member-
ship, and views.
(c) Threatening employees with economic reprisals and changes of working con-
ditions if the Union gets into Respondent's plant.
(d) Instructing employees to stay out of the Union and be neutral.
(e) Promising any employee his old job back if he will abandon the Union.
(f) Suggesting to employees that they circulate a loyalty pledge to the Company.
(g) Circulating and obtaining employees' signatures on an antiunion petition.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organi-
zation, to bargain collectively through the representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer reinstatement to Alton Fellers, Louis Grunder, Robert Ruiz, Daniel
Rodriguez, Victor Zmeskel, and Ramon Martinez in accordance with the recom-
mendations set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Make whole Alton Fellers and Louis Grunder for any loss in pay they may
have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
(c) 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 and the rights of Alton Fellers and Louis Grunder under the
terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Notify Alton Fellers and Louis Grunder if they are presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion 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.
(e) Post at its plant in Cuero, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 23
(Houston, Texas), shall, after being signed by the representative of Respondent, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to all employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has.
taken to comply herewith.13
12 If this Recommended Order is 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. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court
of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "a
Decision and Order."
18If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the 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, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union of America,
AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor organization , by discriminating against our
employees in any manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union sympathies,
activities , membership , or views.
789-730-66-vol . 152-18
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic reprisals or changes of work-
ing conditions if the above-named Union gets into the plant.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees to stay out of the Union and be neutral.
WE WILL NOT promise any employee his old job back if he abandons the
Union.
WE WILL NOT suggest that employees circulate a loyalty pledge to the
Company.
WE WILL NOT circulate and obtain employee signatures on an antiunion
petition.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to Alton Fellers, Louis Grunder, Robert Ruiz, Daniel Rod-
riguez, Victor Zmeskal, and Ramon Martinez immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Alton Fellers and Louis Grunder for any loss of pay
suffered by them by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, in
accordance with the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named labor organization.
LONE STAR TEXTILES, INC., GUADALUPE VALLEY
COTTON MILLS DIVISION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion 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, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas, Telephone No. Capitol
8-0611, Extension 4371, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Lozano Enterprises and Jose Nabor Villasenor . Case No. 21-CA-
4513. April 29,1965
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On May 15, 1962, the National Labor Relations Board issued its
Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding, among
other things, that the Respondent had unlawfully discriminated
against Jose Nabor Villasenor, and ordering the Respondent to offer
him immediate and" full reinstatement to his former or substantially.
equivalent position, and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. Thereafter,
the Board's Order was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit?
1137 NLRB 128.
2 N.L.R.B. v. Lozano Enterprises, 318 F. 2d 41.
152 NLRB No. 25.