M & B Headwear Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1634 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives or agents, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof ; and be main-
tained for 60 consecutive days- thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all places
where notices to applicants for register on the out-of-work list are customarily posted.
Reasonable ' steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region , in writing , within
20 days from the date of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.3
3 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision,
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from,
the date of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR REGISTRATION ON INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL.
No. 38 's OUT-OF-WORK LIST
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 you that:
WE WILL NOT by failing or refusing to make job referrals from our avail-
ability or out-of-work list in a nondiscriminatory manner , or in any like or
related manner, restrain and coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT by failing or refusing to dispatch employees on our out-of-
work list in a nondiscriminatory manner , or in any like or related manner,.
cause, or attempt to cause, members of Associated General Contractors of
America, Inc., Mountain Pacific Chapter , to discriminate against employees in
violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make whole Harold L ..Wilkins for any loss of pay he may have-
suffered from having been refused dispatch in a nondiscriminatory manner from
our out -of-work list.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA , LOCAL No. 38,
Labor Organization.
Dated------ ------------- BY-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
ELMER DAVIDSON,
Agent.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate , directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327
Logan Building , Seattle , Washington , Telephone No. Mutual 2-3300, Extension
553, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
M & B Headwear Co., Inc. and United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers International Union , AFIrCIO. Cases Nos. 5-CA-2.1j95
and 5-CA-2560. May 15, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 19, 1964, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued
his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent
146 NLRB No. 188.
M'& B HEADWEAR CO., INC.- 1635
had engaged in and was 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 Decision. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices all in the complaint and recommended
that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Decision anda 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
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom 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 Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the cases, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER,
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended; the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner 1 and orders that Respondent, M & B
Headwear Co., Inc., its officers; agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
I The Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision is hereby amended by adding
the following immediately below the signature line at ,the bottom of the notice:
NOTE.-We will notify the abovenamed 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.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed in Case No. 5-CA-2495 on June 19 , 1963, and a charge filed in
Case No..5-CA-2560 on August 21, 1963 , by United Hatters, Cap & Millinery
Workers , International Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the' Union , the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board; herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region , issued his consolidated complaint, dated
September 17, 1963 , against M & B Headwear Co., Inc. , herein called the Company or
the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2(6)
and. (7 ) of the National Labor Relations Act (61 Stat . 136), herein called the Act.
The Respondent's answer to the consolidated complaint denied the allegations of
statutory violations . Copies of the complaint and the charges and notice of. con-
solidation and hearing were duly served upon all parties.
. Pursuant to. notice , a hearing was- held on • October 1 ; 2, and 3 in Richmond,
Virginia, before-Trial Examiner Morton D . Friedman . All parties were represented
by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties . The parties waived oral. argu-
ment . After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
briefs which have been duly considered.
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in,this-case, and from my observation of `the witnesses,'
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint
herein, a representative period, the Respondent, a Virginia corporation, engaged in
the manufacture and nonretail sale of headwear, and received goods, materials, and
products at its plant in Richmond, Virginia, directly from points located outside of
Virginia, valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period the Respondent
shipped-products.of a value in excess; of $50,000 froni i•ts•plant•directly to points and.
places outside of Virginia.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate ,the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion in this proceeding.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is an organization the function of which is to organize employees in the
hat industry, of which the Respondent is part. The Union negotiates with employers
in that industry on behalf of their employees. Employees are permitted to participate
in the affairs of the, Union. In dealing, with employers, the Union negotiates con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of. pay, hours of employment, or
other terms or condition's of work .2 Accordingly, I find that-the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The complaint alleges, in substance, that during the Union's organizational ac-
tivities among the Respondent's employees, the Respondent, by its various officers
and supervisors, threatened and interrogated its employees' and engaged in surveil-
lance of their union activities and also discriminatorily discharged two of the leading
union adherents. The Respondent's 'answer constitutes, in the main, a general denial
of the allegations of the complaint. More specifically, the Respondent contends
that the two alleged disoriminatees were discharged for cause and that the Respondent
did not engage in interfering with its employees' Section 7 rights; that if statements
were made at all by the Respondent's officers and supervisors they were privileged
statements within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act. Thus the issues are:
1. Did the Respondent threaten and unlawfully interrogate its employees and en-
gage in unlawful surveillance of their union activities?
2. Did the Respondent discriminatorily lay off employee Rena Vaughan and later
discriminatorily discharge her?
3. Did the Respondent discriminatorily discharge employee Agnes Watson?
B. The background
As alluded to above, the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of headwear
for men. Among the items which it manufactures are civilian caps and also head-
wear for the Armed Forces. Shortly before the events which allegedly constitute
the unfair labor practices herein, the Respondent moved its operations from an older
and smaller plant to the plant it now occupies.
Shortly after the move occurred, the Union began its organizational activities
among the Respondent's employees. This organizational activitiy was begun by
one of the employees, Rena Vaughan, who, it.is alleged in the complaint, was dis-
criminatorily laid off and then discharged by the Respondent. The Union began
its organizational activity in earnest with the handbilling of the plant in early June
1963. Organizational activity continued on through August 1963. On June 17,
1963, without making,.a demand; on. the: Respondent, the -Union.filed, a representa-
tion petition for all of the'Respondent's production workers. The petition was -fol-
lowed by a hearing and, ultimately, a direction of election. The election was held
on August 28. The Union won the election by a vote of 119 to 73;
1 To the extent I credit any witness only 'In' part I do so upon the established evidentiary
rule that it Is not uncommon "to believe some. and not all of a -witness' . testimony.
X.L.R.B. v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F. 2d 749, 754 (C.A. 2).
2 From the credited testimony of Carmen Lucia.
M & B HEADWEAR CO.,.INC. 1637
• It was in , the-context of the organizational activity set forth above that it is alleged
in.the. complaint that the. Respondent's allegedly unlawful activities occurred.. It
should be-notedthat there. is no question but that Samuel Bigler, the Respondent's
president, expressed his opposition to the Union during the organizational period.
Whether this expression.of opposition constituted unfair labor practices is discussed
below.
C. The interference, coercion, and restraint -
1. , The .testimony and other evidence
As noted above, the Respondent moved its plant sometime around the middle of
Maya963:and.the-.Union began'.its organizational-.activities- at the new plant--soon-
thereafter. About the same approximate time, President Samuel Bigler began to in-
terview some of the employees with regard to their opinions as to the facilities
and working conditions at the new plant. In all, Bigler interviewed approximately
10-to ,15 employees.3 . The testimony with respect thereto may be summarized as
follows: ' .
Employee Annie Slade Porter testified that about, May 30, 1963 Bigler summoned
her into his office and in his talk with Porter mentioned the Union. He stated that
there was a plant on'the "Eastern Shore" that hired girls, worked them 3 months,
and laid them off; and that- plant was a union shop. Porter further testified that
on June 6 she was in Bigler's. office together with another employee, Josephine
Proctor. , The. visit was occasioned, by Porter's request to see Bigler with regard to
a rumor which' had circulated' around the-shop-that-Porter had told a union represent-
ative that she, Porter, wanted the job of -her supervisor, Josephine Proctor, and that
therefore Porter wanted to tell' Bigler that she 'not' only -did not want Proctor's job
but desired to be transferred away from the department in which Proctor worked
in order to dispel the rumors. On that occasion, and in the presence of Proctor,
according to Porter, Bigler said that the girls were not satisfied and they were try-
ing to start a union and he turned to Porter and told her that she, Porter, and
Agnes Watson were the heads of the union movement. Porter, according to her
testimony, told Bigler that they were not. Bigler reiterated that the employees had
been having meetings and that Porter had been to a meeting but in the end Bigler
consented to have Porter transferred. Proctor was not called to testify.
Agnes Watson testified that on June 4 4 Bigler spoke to her and asked her if she
knew anything about a union and that she had answered in the negative to that
question and also to Bigler 's question as to whether she had been to a union meet-
ing. Bigler then became annoyed at her denial and stated to her, "You mean to
sit there and tell me you don't know anything about a union?"
Employee Carrie H. Giles testified that on June 6 5 Bigler called her into his
office. Bigler wanted to know how the girls were getting along and whether they
liked the new building. -and the recent move. He also talked about the Union,
stating he had a brother in New York who had a business but was being run out
of New York because of -a union . Giles then asked Bigler why he did not want
a union and Bigler answered that he did not want anyone telling him how to run
his business. Bigler also stated, during the conversation, that he was not going
to bid on any more Government cap contracts and that it was up to the girls. He
said the. girls would have to use their own judgment. Giles admitted that the office
intetview'on'June'6 ended with` Bigler's stating to Giles that the girls had a right
to choose the Union or not as they desired and that they should use their own
judgment as to that.
Emma Gordon testified that she was called to Bigler 's office on Thursday, June 6,
1963. Present' with her was Lillie Mae Entzniger. Bigler stated that he wanted
to talk to them about the factory, their work, and their opinion of the Respond-
ent. Bigler steered the conversation to a discussion of money and whether he was
making any money at the plant. He told Gordon -and Entzniger that he felt he
knew who started the Union and that they (the individuals whom he felt started
the Union) had deliberately lied to him about it. He stated further that he did not
like the idea of people coming' in, telling him what to do, and controlling his business.
He stat'ed' affirmatively` that-he did - not .feel--that he could stay in business with'the
Union financially. He said that he-felt he would be out of business within a month
From the credited testimony ofSnmuel Bigler.
Unless otherwise specified all dates are 1963: • .
5 Giles' testimony was to' the 'effect that this incident occurred either on June 6 or
July 6. Because of the sequence of events and the other testimony given as to Bigler's
alleged unlawful activity, I find that the interview occurred on June 6.
1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if the Union came • in. He elaborated on this to state that he was almost certain
that the Union would demand things from him that he could not possibly give the
people and, if any such demand was, made , he would probably go out of business
within a month.
Lillie Mae Entzniger testified to almost the same matters . Bigler , with regard' to
the Union , stated that the union people would take everything he had and he
would not be able to stay in business if the Union took over . He further stated
that he did not want picketing in front of his door . However, Entzniger , like the
others, admitted that when the meeting ended , Bigler said that each person had to
make up his or her mind individually with regard to the Union.
Agnes Watson testified that she was interviewed by Bigler at his office the day she
was discharged , August 16 , 1963 . She was accompanied in that visit to Bigler's
office by Helen Meade , a fellow employee . During the conversation , Bigler said that
he was losing money and that there was a slump in -business . When Watson asked
him to put her back on the floor as a floorgirl , Bigler became very 'angry and began
to scream and beat on the desk . He shouted that he was not going to sit idly by and
see anyone else come in and tell him how to run his business and before that could
happen the business could "go to hell."
Helen Meade , in her testimony , confirmed the foregoing testimony of Watson.
She testified to the effect that Bigler raised his voice , slammed the desk , said that no
one was going to come in and tell him how to run his business , and before anyone
could tell him how to run his business it could "go to hell."
Bigler admitted that he had the girls come into his office , as noted above, to ask
them about the conditions in the new plant. He further admitted that he had never
before this time called girls in for interviews . He testified that whenever he spoke
to any of the girls in reference to the Union he told -them that this was "a free
country; that everybody is entitled to their opinion and they can do as their mind
dictates to them, as they feel they want to do."
However, Bigler admitted that during the time that he interviewed employees about
the new plant , he did ask them about the Union in that he stated that he heard
rumors that there was a union and asked the people if they knew anything about it.
But, he testified , this was the extent of his conversation with regard to the Union.
However, he further admitted that he did have a brother-in-law in New York who
had a union shop and that he had had trouble with the Union and would probably
be forced out of business. Bigler also testified that he told his employees, as he inter-
viewed them , "I would like to run my plant the way I see fit . I think I have done a
good job since I eliminated my partners and my associates I think . that people
are doing a good job-let's not disturb it and let 's stick together ." He also admitted
on the stand that be told employees he did not want the Union -telling him how to run
his business or anybody else for that matter . He wanted no one to come in and tell
him how to run his business.
He denied all of the other matter which could constitute violative statements.
The foregoing constitutes the summary of testimony of alleged interference,
coercion , and restraint by Samuel Bigler.
Rena Vaughan , who was one of the leading union adherents in the plant, testified
that on the night of June 4 she held a union organizational meeting at her home which
was located on Spotsylvania Street in the city of Richmond . Vaughan was standing
on her front porch before the meeting , which was scheduled for about 8:30 or 9
in the evening , looking for the people who were scheduled to come to the meeting and
noticed a black Cadillac automobile drive up the street and slow down in passing her
house. She especially noticed the car because she thought it might be one of her
prospective union members and she wanted to wave to show the driver where the
house was located . She then noticed that in the car looking -toward the house was
Dorothy Ellis , her supervisor . After the car passed her house it speeded up and went
on its way. It later appeared a second time.
Dorothy Ellis admitted that she had been on Spotsylvania Street on the night as
Vaughan testified . Ellis stated , however , that she went up the street often on
church work . She admitted that the car belonged to a Reverend Hinton and that at
the time he was driving her home from a church meeting . She denied , however, that,
at the time, she knew there was a meeting at Vaughan 's house or that she deliberately
passed -through the street for that purpose. '
On the other hand . Beulah Gay , an employee in the blocking department of• the
Respondent 's plant where Rena Vaughan had worked, testified that she learned of the
meeting during the workday of June 4 at the plant and that about 8 or 9 in' the
M & B HEADWEAR CO., INC. 1639
evening she telephoned Dorothy Ellis at the church where Ellis was working with
'a young folks group. In her conversation with Ellis about church work, Gay told
Ellis about the meeting, specifically mentioning that the meeting was to be at Vaughan's
home at 8 or 9. o'clock on that. evening. Ellis further testified that she. asked the
Reverend Hinton to drive her home through Spotsylvania Street because she used the
route frequently on the way from church to her home inasmuch as some of the chil-
dren she worked with at church lived in the area, and moreover, the route enabled
her to avoid the traffic encountered via the more direct route.
The Reverend Hinton testified that he permitted Dorothy Ellis to use his car
frequently to transport children to prayer service. Ellis in fact used his car whenever
hers was out of order. He stated that on the night in question he knew nothing about
any meeting but admitted that he-was told by Ellis to go through Spotsylvania Street
that evening. He further stated that although they passed Rena Vaughan's house on
the way to Dorothy Ellis' home that evening he was not even aware that Rena
Vaughan lived in that block inasmuch as at that time he did not know Rena Vaughan.
He further stated that he had taken Dorothy Ellis home over the same route before.
Both Ellis and the Reverend Hinton were shown representative maps of the
streets of Richmond, Virginia, including the streets over which they traveled from
the Reverend Hinton's church on the evening in question to Dorothy Ellis's home.
The maps clearly demonstrate that, on the basis of distance at least, the route through
Spotsylvania Street is circuitous and out of the way. However, both Ellis -and Hinton
testified that this was the way that they often chose to go in order to avoid traffic.
Rena Vaughan also testified that on the date on which she was laid off, June 10,
1963, she had a conversation with Roy Trivette, superintendent of the department in
which Vaughan was working. According to Vaughan, when she was informed of her
layoff she told Trivette that she did not think it was fair because there was work on
hand in the trimming department and that, therefore, the layoff was not proper.
Trivette, -according to Vaughan, then turned to her and said that while they were
talking about fairness did she think it was fair to try to organize the Union without
"the white[s] knowing it." Then, according to Vaughan, Trivette said to her, "Do
you deny you don't know where 1226 26th Street is?"
Vaughan said she would not deny it because that is where the hall of the union
of which her husband was a member was Iocated.e Then, according to Vaughan,
Trivette stated to her, "Do you deny that you have been having meetings in different
homes?" To. which Vaughan said that she did not have to answer because if she
said "yes," Trivette would say that she was a traitor and if she said "no," Trivette
would call her a liar.
Trivette's version of the conversation was quite different. He testified that when
he told her she was laid off, Vaughan stopped her work and in a loud and angry
voice stated that she was not being laid off because of lack of work but because
of her part in the Union, to which be answered-"what union"-because at that
time be did not know of the activity of the Union in the Respondent's plant.
Vaughan, according to Trivette, also remarked that it was not fair and he asked
her did she think it was fair when he had someone out on the street who had more
seniority than she had.
Vaughan also asked about her vacation pay and he told her that she was not
being discharged, she was merely being laid off, and she would be entitled to her
vacation pay. When she asked how long she would be laid off he told her not more
than 10 or 15 days. He stated that he did not know of the union organization at
that time and did not know of it before June 10, the day Vaughan was laid off.
With regard to still another instance in which it is alleged the Respondent violated
its employees' Section 7 rights, Watson testified that on the night of August 15,
1963, she attended a union meeting at the plumbers' union hall. When she left
the hall at the end of the meeting, she observed Winifred M. Gillespie, the vice
president of the Respondent, driving his automobile around the block on which the
Union was located. She 'observed him going by twice. After the first time he
passed, he drove around .the block and passed the hall again in the same direction.
Many of the girls who attended the meeting were standing at the curb and when
Gillespie passed by, they. shouted, "There goes Mr. Gillespie." Gillespie turned and
looked as though he had'seen them. On cross-examination Watson testified that
the car that Gillespie was driving was either a green or light blue and cream, two-
toned car.
Gillespie denied that he was in the vicinity of the union hall that evening. He
testified that, he had been, to New York on business the day before August 14, and
"Evidently Vaughan'a husband was a member of•a tobacco workers . union.
1640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had been engaged in. business most of the previous night . He returned to Rich-
mond late and went to work at the plant all day August 14 . He then went home
at 6 o 'clock in the evening and stayed home all evening as he was . very tired. How-
ever, he did not deny or seek to attack the description of the car as given by Watson.
2. Concluding findings with regard to interference , coercion,' and restraint
In view of Bigler's admissions . that he interviewed employees and spoke to them
about the Union, and from my observation of the witnesses, I credit. Annie Slade
Porter's testimony that on May 30 Bigler told her that there was a plant on the
Eastern Shore that hired girls, worked them 3 months, then laid them off; and
that this plant was a union shop. I further credit Porter's testimony that Bigler
said the girls were not satisfied and that they were trying to start a union; also that
Bigler stated that Porter and Watson were the heads of the Union. I also credit
Porter's testimony to the effect that Bigler told her he knew that they had: been hav-
ing meetings and that she had been to a meeting. Under these circumstances I
regard Bigler's statement with regard to the Eastern Shore plant as an unlawful
threat of economic reprisal to persuade Porter to abandon her Section 7 right to
organize and join with the other employees in the Union's attempt to organize the
plant. I also find Bigler's statement to Porter about attending the union meetings
and further statement to the effect that he knew that Watson and Porter were the
heads of the Union, as a form of unlawful interrogation violative of Section 8(a)( I)
of the Act.
On the same basis and for the same reason as heretofore set -forth , I credit Watson's
testimony to the effect that on June 4 Bigler discussed the Union with her and asked
her if she knew anything about the Union and if she had been to a union meeting.
I also credit Watson's testimony to the effect that Bigler said, "You mean to tell
me you haven't been to a union meeting?" It is clear that such statements and
questions constitute unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the:Act.
I credit also Carrie Giles' testimony to the effect that on June or July 6, Bigler
called her into his office, talked to her about the Union, and said that he had a
brother in New York who had a business and that the brother was being run out of
New York because of a union. This is based not only on my observation of Giles
and Bigler but also because Bigler admitted that he did have a brother-in-law in New
York who had a business and was having difficulties with the Union. I also credit
Giles' testimony to the effect that Bigler told her that he was not going to bid any
further on any more contracts and that the girls would have to use their own judg-
ment. Bigler did not specifically deny this testimony.
Although it is not entirely free of doubt, I conclude that Bigler's statement about
his brother or brother-in-law in New York was a threat to Giles that if the Union
came in he, too, would go out of business. I find that such threat is unlawful and
in violation of Section 8(a) (1). I find also unlawful Bigler's statement ; that he; was
not going to bid on any more contracts, and that it was up to the girls. This I
find to be a threat of economic reprisal, that Bigler would not bid on any more
contracts if the Union came in and thus the employees would lose.. employment and
that if the girls voted against the Union he would bid on such contracts. Such threats
are, of course, violative of the Act.
As set forth above, both Emma Gordon and Lillie Mae Entzniger testified that
each was summoned at the same time to Bigler's office; that Bigler stated that he
had beard about the Union and felt he knew who started it but that "they" had
deliberately lied to him. In that conversation, Bigler also said that he did not
like the idea of people coming in and telling him what to do and controlling his
business. He further stated that he did not feel that he.could stay in business with
the Union,- financially, and felt that he would be out of business -within a month if
the Union came in. It is clear that Bigler's statement to the effect that he would be
out of business in a month if the- Union came- in is not. merely an .expression of
possibilities which would be protected. but was rather a prediction to the employees
of economic loss if they selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive. Such prediction is an unlawful threat within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1).
With regard to the foregoing incidents involving Samuel -Bigler, it should be noted
that, although the conversations were with different employees, the testimony of
these employees related a series of similar threats and statements all directed at the
suppression of. organizational efforts. The circumstances thus afford a great meas-
ure of mutual , though perhaps indirect , corroboration of the testimony of each of the
General Counsel 's witnesses . When this is considered in the light of-Bigler's own
admissions as to certain portions of these conversations such as Bigler's admission
that he did state that he did not want the' Union to tell him what to do , I am fully
M• & B HEADWEAR CO., INC. .1641
persuaded that the incidents occurred as set forth above, and I am equally persuaded
that Bigler's statements were violative of the Act in the manner, heretofore
described.? .
'Also -consistent-with the foregoingfindings is the testimony of Agnes Watson
and:. Helen' Meade. Both Watson and Meade testified that.on August: 16, 1963, the
day Watson was discharged, Bigler in his interview with them in his office became
very angry, beat on the desk, and shouted that he was not going to sit idly by and
see anyone come in and tell him how to run his business and before that could
happen the business could "go to hell." I credit Watson and Meade in this respect
not only because of the consistency of their testimony with the testimony of other
General Counsel witnesses but also from my observation of both of these individuals.
Watson impressed me as being an extremely dependable witness. Meade, who
was still employed by the Respondent at the time of the hearing and had everything
to lose and nothing to gain by her ,testimony, also impressed me as being a credible
individual. Accordingly, I credit their testimony and find that this incident occurred
as they related. I further find that Bigler's statements under these circumstances
constituted threats of economic reprisals if the Union were to be successful in its
organization of the plant. Such a threat is clearly in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
Although I do not credit all of the testimony of Rena Vaughan with regard to the
events which occurred on the day of her layoff on June 10 and her discharge on
.June 17, I nevertheless credit her testimony relating to the statements made to her
at the time of her layoff in her discussion with Roy Trivette.
On the other hand Trivette's denials of the statements of which Vaughan testified,
and his version of what occurred are muddied by his denial that he knew of the
Union's organizational activities among the Respondent's employees at the time that
he laid off Vaughan. It is clear from the record and from Trivette's own testimony
that there was union handbilling outside of the Respondent's plant about the time
of the layoff. The record shows that there was handbilling earlier on the same
day. According to the credited testimony of Carmen Lucia,. Trivette was a recipient
of one of the handbills and observed while standing in the doorway of the plant the
activity of the union handbillers. Moreover, on the basis of probability alone,
Trivette's denial of knowledge of union activity of Vaughan and other employees
as of the date of Vaughan's layoff when Bigler and Gillespie admittedly knew of
the activity and Ellis, Trivette's immediate assistant, knew of the activity, would
seem to be unworthy of consideration. Accordingly, and from my observation of
him on the witness stand, I do not credit Trivette's denials or Trivette's version
of the events surrounding the layoff on June 10. Thus, I find that on June 10,
Trivette did ask Vaughan, in effect, whether she knew where the tobacco workers
union hall was and whether Vaughan and other employees had been having union
..meetings in different homes.
It is apparent: that:Trivette's interrogation of Vaughan constitutes unlawful -inter-
rogation' and -interference with employees' Section 7 rights within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act 'and I so find.
There remains for disposition the two alleged incidents of surveillance, involving
Dorothy Ellis on'June 4, 1963, and the other involving Winifred M. Gillespie, the
Respondent's vice president, on August 15, 1963. With regard to the alleged sur-
veillance by Dorothy Ellis of Rena Vaughan's home on the night of June 4, it is estab-
lished through admissions that Dorothy Ellis did pass Rena Vaughan's home that
evening in Reverend Hinton's automobile at least once on the way to Ellis' home after
the church meeting. Reverend Hinton was driving.' Dorothy Ellis denied that she
knew that a union meeting was to take place that evening at Vaughan's home. There
is a discrepancy between Dorothy Ellis' testimony as to what Beulah Gay told her
when Gay informed Ellis of the meeting and .Beulah Gay's version. My observation
of both of these witnesses leads me to conclude that Gay is the more reliable. She
.stated that 'she told. Dorothy Ellis while the latter was still at church that there was
7 In making these credibility, dispositions, I. have not overlooked the testimony, although
I have not set it. forth, of Alma Brock; an employee whose testimony was offered by the
Respondent. Brock testified that she was one of the group of employees who were inter-
viewed by Bigler from time to time during late May or early June. She testified that
although the Union was mentioned , no threats or promises of any nature were made to
her nor was there any direct , Interrogation . I do not discredit Brock. • However,; the
mere fact that Bigler-did not engage in interference ,. coercion, and restraint in her. case
'does not, in my' opinion; constitute competent evidence . of sufficient weight . to alter„my
opinion that Bigler did so when he interviewed the other -employees. '
1642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be a meeting at Rena Vaughan's home that evening. " Accordingly, since Gay spoke
to Ellis while Ellis was still at the church, it follows that Ellis must have known of the
meeting at the time she passed Vaughan's home.
All of the foregoing has a direct bearing upon the contention of the Respondent
that Dorothy Ellis drove through Spotsylvania Street as a matter of routine and not
for the purpose of observing the union meeting at Vaughan's home. As Ellis was
informed of the meeting early enough in the evening so that she passed Vaughan's
home after receiving the information from Gay, there is at least some probability
that Ellis did go through Spotsylvania Street for the purpose of making observation
of the activities at Vaughan's home. When the route followed to Ellis' home is
considered, this likelihood is increased: I find that Reverend Hinton was a credible
witness and I therefore credit his testimony to the effect that he had gone through
Spotsylvania Street a number of -times on several other occasions when he drove
Dorothy Ellis home from the church. However, both he and Ellis admitted
that Ellis asked him to take the route through Spotsylvania• Street. As noted hereto-
fore, the route taken was a rather circuitous one. The foregoing factors, together
with the admission by Ellis that they were not taking children home which might
possibly have necessitated taking that route, leads me to conclude that the. -route
was taken to enable Ellis, unknown to the Reverend Hinton, to observe the activities
at Vaughan's home. This conclusion is bolstered by Ellis' attempt to deny knowledge
of the meeting.
Accordingly, I find that Ellis engaged in unlawful surveillance of employees' union
activities on that occasion in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
I have heretofore referred to the incident to which Agnes Watson testified to the
effect that on the night of August 15, when leaving the plumbers' union hall after
a meeting of the Charging Union, Watson saw Winifred Gillespie, the Company's vice
president, pass twice by the union hall. Gillespie, on the other hand, testified that on
that night he was home, being very tired from a trip the day before to New York.
However, Gillespie did not contradict the description that Vaughan gave of Gillespie's
car. My observation of both of these witnesses is that they both seemed to be
reliable. I have heretofore credited Watson's testimony with regard to other matters.
I find nothing in Gillespie's testimony, however, upon which to base a conclusion
that I cannot credit his testimony. While it is true that much of the type of activity
to which Watson testifies with regard to Gillespie is found -to have been engaged
in by various supervisors of the Respondent, I have not heretofore found that
Gillespie was involved in any of these unlawful activities. Therefore, although sur-
veillance of the union meeting would not be inconsistent with other actions of the
"Respondent's officers and agents I cannot, nevertheless, find that Gillespie necessarily
would have engaged in such activity. Moreover, it should be noted that this meeting
occurred at night when the roadway was dark and it would be possible for Watson to
be honestly in error with regard to her belief that she saw Gillespie pass by. More-
over, there is nothing in the record to support Watson's testimony with regard to
this alleged incident. Watson testified that other employees were present and shouted,
"That looks like Mr. Gillespie." However, the General Counsel did not produce any
other witness to this incident. Accordingly, and on the basis of all of the testimony,
I conclude with regard to this alleged incident, that the General Counsel has failed
to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Gillespie engaged in sur-
veillance of the Respondent's employees' union activity and, accordingly, I shall
recommend that the portion of the complaint alleging this incident be dismissed.
D. The discriminatory discharges
1. Rena Vaughan
a. The testimony
As alluded to above, Rena Vaughan testified that it was she who first became
interested in having a union for the employees in the Respondent's plant. In May
1963 she made contact with the Union and shortly thereafter the Union held its first
meeting of the Respondent's employees. She attended that meeting which was held
at the tobacco workers hall in Richmond. During the meeting she signed an authori-
zation card. During the same period and immediately after the meeting she talked to
her "coworkers about the Union and distributed union authorization cards. Her
activities on behalf of union organization included at least one meeting held at
her own home, which was the subject of the surveillance incident found to be violative
hereinabove. It is established, of course, that Ellis, through Beulah Gay, knew of
Rena Vaughan's union activity.
M & B HEADWEAR CO., INC. 1643
Vaughan began her employment with the Respondent about the middle of June
1962 and was trained as a blocker and presser in the blocking department. She
worked at this job until sometime during the first part of March, probably the 4th
or 5th, 1963. She was then transferred to a job on another floor of the plant where
she was engaged in the job of clipping. This work involved the cutting off of excess
strings and threads from caps. It was while working in this position that she made
contact with the Union. On June 10, .6 days after the meeting at her home, about 8:30
in the morning, she was told by Josephine Proctor, her immediate supervisor, to see
the second floor supervisor, Perna Milstein. Milstein told Vaughan to report back
to Supervisor Dorothy Ellis, who put Vaughan back on blocking work. According
to Vaughan, at the time she was transferred from clipping to blocking there was
plenty of work still to be done in the clipping department. Her testimony was
supported by the testimony of Johnnie Mae Stephens, which I credit, that there were
many boxes of caps to be clipped on the floor at the time that Vaughan was sent to
the blocking department.
Toward the end of that day, Roy Trivette, the first floor controller (supervisor),
informed Vaughan that she was to be laid off at the close of work on that day.
He told her that the reason for the layoff was that there was insufficient work in the
blocking department: According to the testimony of Vaughan, at the time she was
laid off she told Trivette, as indicated above, that she did not think it was fair inasmuch
as there was still work to be done up in the clipping department. It was at this point,
as found above, that Trivette told her he did not think it was very fair to her to
organize without telling the "whites."
Dorothy Ellis testified that a few minutes before quitting time on June 10 Vaughan
engaged her in a conversation saying that she, Vaughan, had been fired. Ellis tried
to assure Vaughan that she was only temporarily laid off and that she would receive
her vacation pay as usual. Vaughan then said that she had no job and she was going
to talk as much as she pleased. She then asked Ellis about Ellis being on Spotsylvania
Street the night of the meeting of June 4. Ellis admitted this and told Vaughan that
she was in the Reverend Hinton's car. Then, according to Ellis, Vaughan stated that
Ellis was having improper relations with the minister and that she was going to tell
the church and the minister's wife. Further, Vaughan accused Ellis of being "a
dirty woman" and that neither Ellis nor Roy Trivette were going to sleep any more
at night. However, Ellis also stated that in that conversation Vaughan invited
Ellis to Vaughan's son's wedding .8
Vaughan denied that she had any such conversation with Ellis on the day of her
layoff, admitting only that sometime after Ellis drove by her home she did speak to
Ellis about this incident. But there were no threats made, the conversation merely
being about church, as she always talked to Dorothy Ellis about church.
However, Beulah Gay, whose .testimony. in other respects I have heretofore
credited, substantially corroborated Ellis' testimony to the effect that threats were
made as well as the accusations regarding Ellis' relationship .with -the Reverend
Hinton.
At the end of the workday on June 10, Vaughan left the premises but returned on
June 17. On that day she came to the Respondent's office and first inquired of
Florence E. Taylor, an office worker, if . she could file an application for employ-
ment. Taylor told Vaughan that the latter would have to see Bigler. According to
Taylor's testimony, Vaughan then said; "I am going to beat Dorothy Ellis if it is
the last thing I do."
According to Vaughan' s testimony Vaughan told Taylor that Ellis should be
whipped because the employees were trying to organize a union and the Union
would have helped the Company as much as it helped the employees. At any
rate, following her conversation with Taylor, Vaughan went into the office and spoke
to Bigler. Present. also at that interview was Winifred Gillespie, the Company's
vice president. Vaughan told Bigler that she had seen advertisements in a paper
for operators and she wondered whether she could apply for a job as operator.
e On cross-examination the following testimony was given by Ellis:
Q. And your testimony is that this woman said to you "you are a dirty woman, but
you are invited to my son's wedding," is that your testimony?
A. That is what she said.
Q. Which did she say first, that you are a dirty woman or that you are invited to
my son's wedding?
A. A dirty woman first. -
Q. And then she invited you to her son's wedding?
A. Yes.
1644 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
VaugNan`testified that Bigler'.answered'lier'that:she' had been-hired 'fdi 'blocking
and that he'could not train her for another job because he had spent too much money
on teaching her to: block. She further testified that during this conversation Gilles-
pie attempted to cut in upon -several occasions and finally, in exasperation, she told'
Gillespie she was talking to Bigler"and.nbt to Gillespie. Vaughan denied, however,
that she spoke to either Bigler or. Gillespie in a loud or threatening tone.
With regard to the reason why Vaughan was laid off, Trivette testified that on
June 10 he was told by Perina. Milstein that a girl was returning who had been
out sick and had seniority over Vaughan in the trimming department. Accordingly,
he looked around for other work for Vaughan to do and found out that there was
some work to do down in the blocking department. But when the work at the block-'
ing department slacked off he had to lay Vaughan off. Trivette insisted that when
he laid Vaughan off he told her that it would only be for a period of 10 to 15 days
but certainly no more. However, on cross-examination Trivette admitted that the
Respondent was hiring during the month of June and he further admitted that they
might have hired someone to do clipping and trimming. However, Trivette did
identify from the payrolls a Bernice Tinsley whom Trivette said was the girl who
was returning and who had more seniority then Rena Vaughan. The Respondent's
employment records verify this statement.
Bigler testified that Vaughan was changed from.layoff to discharge status because
when she was at his office on June 17 as she left the office after requesting that he
employ her as an operator it was reported to him that she made threatening remarks
and he then decided that he would have to let her go: Within a day or two there
after he instructed his office to write Vaughan -a letter saying she was discharged.
b. Concluding findings as to Rena Vaughan
As noted above, Rena Vaughan was perhaps the most active union adherent in the
plant. Moreover, it is established that the Respondent knew of Rena Vaughan's
activities through the information that Beulah.Gay gave to Dorothy Ellis. I refuse
to accept as highly improbable Trivette's denial that Dorothy Ellis said nothing to.
him about the union activities. Nor, as stated above, do I creditTrivette's denial
that he knew of the union activity inasmuch as he was an observer of the handbill-
ing and the recipient of a handbill which, I find, occurred before Vaughan's layoff.
Respondent seeks to.justify the original layoff on the ground that there was no work
in the department in which Vaughan. was working. However, I cannot help. but
note. the testimony of Johnnie Mae Stephens to the effect that when Vaughan was
transferred from the clipping department to the blocking department there was stilt
a large quantity of clipping left to be done.' I credit Stephens' testimony to this
effect not only because ,from my observation of her I believed her to be a reliable
witness, but also because of Trivette's later admission that the Respondent "might
have" hired another employee to do the clipping work. And although it may be
true that, as Trivette testified, Bernice Tinsley had, greater seniority than did Rena
Vaughan in the clipping department, nevertheless,' the fact that another employee
was hired, after Rena Vaughan to do work in the clipping department demonstrates
amply that the reason that Rena Vaughan was transferred from the clipping departs
ment to'the blocking department was-not because-of-any question of seniority as
between Rena Vaughan and Bernice Tinsley.
Moreover, I cannot consider Vaughan's layoff as having occurred in a'vacuum. ' • I
note that at the time of the layoff Vaughan had but recently had a meeting of the
Union at her house which was known to an observer, Dorothy Ellis, a supervisor of
the Respondent. I further note that at or about the same time Respondent's presi-
dent, Samuel Bigler, was unlawfully interrogating employees concerning union
activity-and also threatening them with economic reprisals. I conclude, therefore,
on the basis of the- foregoing and on the record as a whole , that Rena Vaughan's
layoff was for her union activity and not for the reasons advanced by the Respondent.
There remains for disposition the question of whether Vaughan's ultimate discharge
10 days after the layoff was occasioned, as contended by the Respondent because of
Vaughan 's threats to employees , or whether the threats were seized upon as a pretext
by the Respondent for the purpose of getting rid of Vaughan, one of the most active
union adherents, if not the most active union adherent.
There is little doubt that on June 10, the date of 'her layoff, Vaughan was distraught.
I find that when Vaughan was laid off she did state to Trivette that she was being laid
off because of her activity in the Union and not for lack of work. There is also
little doubt that Vaughan had 'a conversation shortly thereafter- with Ellis in which
she accused Ellis of engaging in surveillance. Moreover, from my observation of
Vaughan and her attitude on the stand, I do not doubt that Vaughan was and is capa-
ble of being quite vociferous regarding any matter upon which she felt strongly.
M ^& B HEADWEAR CO., INC: 1645
However, I have strong ' doubt ' as to whether - the threat attributed to Vaughan by
Ellis was made in quite th'e' context in,which the Respondent would have the Board
believe.
According "to Ellis, during the exchange Vaughan , stated that neither Trivette nor
Ellis were goingto sleep anymore, at night' I credit this testimony because of Beulah
Gay's corroborating testimony . I do not believe Ellis' testimony to the effect that
Vaughan in a state of anger then called her a dirty woman and in the same breath
invited Ellis to Vaughan 's son 's wedding . To accept Ellis' testimony that this was
a threat would be stretching credulity beyond the point of reasonableness. One
does not threaten a hated individual and at the same time . extend hospitality
to that individual . I therefore find that Vaughan ; in her anger and in her dismay
at being laid off at a time when she felt that there was still work in the plant, did
state that she felt that neither Vaughan nor Trivette would be able to sleep. But
this, in my opinion , was no more than a statement intimating that the consciences
of these individuals would be affected by their action in laying Vaughan off because
of the latter 's union activities . I cannot substitute my judgment for that of Samuel
Bigler, the president of the Respondent , but I must assess the basis for his judgment
in terms of what is ordinarily accepted as reasonable . Therefore, I believe that
consideration must be given to the events which occurred when Vaughan returned
on 'the 17th to ask for a position as machine operator -before any final judgment
can be made with regard to whether Bigler could reasonably have believed that threats
were made such as 'to warrant discharge.
As fully set forth above , Vaughan returned on the 17th and spoke to Taylor.
During her conversation with Taylor, in which Vaughan asked Taylor to give her
an application for a machine operator 's job, the conversation somehow turned to the
Union and to Vaughan 's original layoff. Vaughan had one version of this con-
versation and Taylor another. However, from my observation of Vaughan and
from my observation of Taylor, I am convinced that Vaughan was fully capable of
making the statement to Taylor that Taylor related, namely, that Vaughan stated,
"I am going to beat Dorothy Ellis if it is the last thing I do."
Accordingly , I credit Taylor's testimony to the effect that Vaughan made this
statement . There is no question that this statement , taken out of context, could
constitute a threat in the ordinary meaning of the words employed. Assuming that it
could imply a threat, we must look to Taylor's immediate conduct thereafter to see
with what consternation the threat was received by Taylor and later by Gillespie,
and eventually by Bigler . Taylor admitted , on cross-examination , that after this
statement was made by Vaughan she was in and out of Gillespie's office several times
on errands involving her work , but that it was not until later .in the day when Taylor
casually mentioned her earlier conversation with Vaughan ' and in doing so related
the -alleged threatening statement..' It was only, after this was ultimately related to
Bigler that the latter contended ' he made the decision to discharge Vaughan for
making threats.
In the light of the entire record , in view of the displayed emotional reaction of
Bigler to the ' organization of his plant by the Respondent , in the light of Ellis' sur-
veillance of Vaughan 's activities , I cannot believe that Bigler was either horrified
or faced with the -possibility that Vaughan would do bodily harm to Ellis or to
Trivette . I conclude that in losing her temper and in making the statements that
she did , Ellis furnished to the Respondent the pretext which it needed to dispose of
her services as an employee and thus rid itself of a leading union adherent. In
coming to this conclusion , I do not disregard or fail to consider the fact that Vaughan
iri her final interview with Bigler virtually told her superior , Vice President Gillespie,
to'"shutup." Nor do I disregard , the fact that Bigler and Gillespie told Vaughan
that her recall to her former ' position of hat blocker would be forthcoming within a
few days. ' Nevertheless , I arh convinced that , in balance, the motivation of Bigler in '
deciding to discharge Vaughan was Bigler 's opposition to the 'union activity in which
Vaughan had .participated..
Accordingly , I'find , that Vaughan was discharged because of her union activity
and that in ordering , her discharge Bigler and-the ;Respondent discriminated against
Vaughan in violation of Section -8(a) (3) and ('1) of the Act..
2. Agnes Watson
a. The testimony' .
Agnes Watson had been'employed by the Respondent , prior to her discharge, for
a period of 17 years, the last 9 of which were spent as.-a floorgirl distributing work
among the other employees . in. the sewing department . As floorgirl she was constantly
moving about distributing work and coming in contact with approximately 45 other
1646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
women . As noted above, Watson was one of the leading union adherents in the
plant and, along with Rena Vaughan, distributed union authorization cards and
talked of the Union to other employees.
Watson, prior to the events hereinafter related, had no experience as a machine
operator. However,. about 18 months before June 10, 1963, Watson had requested
of Bigler that she be transferred to a job as a sewing machine operator. This was
because at that time Watson was unhappy about the amount of money she was being
paid in her work as a floorgirl. At that time she was told that the transfer would. be
impossible because she was too valuable to the Company as a floorgirl. Also, as
noted above, about June 4, 1963, Bigler called Watson into his office to speak to her
as he had a number of the other girls. Among the items he spoke to Watson about
was the Union. He asked her what she knew about the Union and interrogated
her with respect to the Union's campaign. When she denied that she knew anything
about it Bigler became very insistent and said to her, "You mean to sit there and
tell me you don't know anything about a union?" 9 Two days after Watson's interview
with Bigler, Bigler also had, as set forth above, an interview with Annie Slade
Porter at which he questioned Porter and made the statement that she, Porter, and
Watson were the heads of the Union.1° Additionally, Gillespie, the Respondent's vice
president, admitted that he knew Watson was active for the Union.
Following the foregoing incidents, on June 10, 1963, the day on which Rena
Vaughan was laid off, Watson, without any notice and without any prior experience,
was precipitantly transferred to a machine operation. She was placed on the
operation after a short demonstration by Perina Milstein, her department supervisor.
Her assignment on the machine was the closing of caps. This was a difficult operation
at which Watson was not very adept, having had no experience at all on a machine.
Although Watson did not protest to Bigler upon the transfer to the machine, she did
ask Milstein why she was transferred, stating at the same time that she had asked
for a transfer some 18 months earlier. Milstein, her supervisor, responded, "Well,
you asked."
It would serve no purpose here to state in detail what happened to Watson during
the next couple of months after her transfer to a machine operation. Suffice it to say,
she had a very difficult time at the cap closing assignment and Perina Milstein, her
supervisor, after several weeks, transferred her over to a different operation.
The second machine operating job to which Watson was assigned was actually the
operation of two separate machines. On the inside of a military garrison cap is a
leather band around the bottom edge of the inside portion of the cap known in the
trade as a "sweat." Watson's job was to close the sweats which involved bar-tacking
on a bar-tacking machine and then the sewing of the two ends of the sweat together
on a zigzag sewing machine.
Watson was given a quota of closing 45 dozen sweats per day. Watson testified
that she never did reach this quota but that on the day before she was discharged
she did close 308 sweats. Watson further testified that the zigzag machine was
defective and that she had a great dear of trouble with it in order to get it to work.
In this respect, Watson was corroborated by Clarrie Holmes, who presently performs
the work that Watson performed on the closing of sweats. Holmes stated that she
also has had a great deal of difficulty with the machine and stated that she had made
what she thought was her quota only with great difficulty. It should be noted that
Holmes was an experienced operator at the time she was placed on the machine.
It should also be noted that Watson worked at the machine only 5 weeks at the time
of her discharge on August 15.
Additionally, Kenton Nuckols, Jr., the machine maintenance foreman of the Re-
spondent's plant, admitted that he had been called to fix the machine after Watson
had been discharged and that Clarrie Holmes had complained that the machine was
not operating properly. The complaint in both Watson's case and Clarrie Holmes'
case was that the stitches were too small and did not cover properly the area between
the two ends of the sweatband.
Watson further testified that after she was transferred to the machine operation
her supervisor, Perina Milstein, harassed her constantly, yelling at her and throwing
work back at her. Milstein denied that she harassed Watson and testified that all she
did was try to assist Watson in her work and encourage her to get the work done
quickly and properly. However, Helen Meade, a fellow worker of Watson, testified
9I credit Watson's testimony to this fact over Bigler' s denial . As stated before I have
found that Watson was a very credible witness and have credited her testimony in all re-
spects. On the other hand I found Bigler to be vague, somewhat evasive, and, moreover,
his admissions make more credible Watson's statements.
10 I again credited Porter's testimony over any denials on the part of Bigler.
M & B HEADWEAR CO., INC. 1647
also that Milstein was constantly harassing Watson and that when Milstein would
bring work back to Watson that was not satisfactory, Milstein would throw the work
at Watson.
Milstein submitted five written reports of Watson's work during the period that
Watson was in her department. Two of them were filed before Watson was trans-
ferred to closing sweats and three after the transfer. In all cases the reports were
to the effect that Watson was unsatisfactory. A study of the daily reports on
Watson's production shows that although Watson never did reach her quota and al-
though she could not have been called a satisfactory employee from the point of
view of production and probably of quality, it should be noted that her production
did increase markedly during the 5 weeks from the day she was put on closing
sweats until the time that she was ultimately discharged. In other words, there
was a gradual improvement in her performance. Moreover, Milstein was unable
to positively state that written reports were made on employees ' performances be-
fore the date Watson was placed on machine operation.
Samuel Bigler , who discharged Watson for lack of production on August 15,
admitted that when a new girl is hired who has never operated a machine she is
given an aptitude test and then given a minimum of 3 months to learn her job. He
further admitted that this was not done in Watson's case.
Watson further testified that she was not permitted to split her production tickets,
whereas other employees were permitted to do so. Bigler testified that uniformly
the splitting of tickets was not permitted,11 and that if anyone did so, the practice
was without his knowledge. Bigler and Milstein admitted that Watson specifically
was not permitted to split her tickets. Moreover, Clarrie Holmes, who was Re-
spondent's own witness and who took Watson's place at the job of closing sweats,
testified that she had never been told what her quota was whereas Watson was im-
mediately told what her quota was.
On August 15, 1963, Watson was summoned -to the office. She was shown her
production records and was told by Bigler that he could not keep her any longer
as she was not earning her salary with the amount of production she was making.
Helen Meade accompanied Watson to Bigler's office. Watson then asked Bigler
to put her back on the floor as a floorgirl and she was told that her job as floorlady
had been filled by another individual and that the only thing the Company could
do would be to let her go. At -this point, Meade reminded Gillespie that the work
on the floor was not being properly done and Bigler complained to her in a loud
and shouting manner that he did not want anybody to tell him how to run his busi-
ness. With that Watson was let go.
b. Concluding findings with regard to Watson
As stated above, I credit Watson in every respect. I furthermore do not credit
Bigler's denials. However, I do credit his admissions and those of Milstein, Gilles-
pie, and Clarrie Holmes whom Respondent called as its own witnesses. Thus, I
find that from the testimony as a whole Watson was beleaguered and harassed dur-
ing the entire period of time that she worked at sewing machines. Moreover,
Watson was suddenly transferred to machine work only after having incidentally
asked for a transfer 18 months before and she had actually forgotten and had
abandoned her request long before June 10, the day after her fellow union adherent,
Rena Vaughan, was laid off. These factors, when considered in the light of the
disparity of treatment of Watson in breaking into the new job as compared with
other new girls, the constant harassment by Milstein, the Respondent's knowledge of
Watson's union activities, the timing of the discharge just shortly before the union
election was to have taken place, Watson's 17-year record of satisfactory perform-
ance, together with the generally contradictory testimony of Respondent' s witnesses,
especially, Bigler and Milstein, and the general overall union animus displayed
by Bigler as heretofore set forth, amply support a finding that Watson was terminated
not for her inability to produce as a machine operator but for her union activity.
In view of the foregoing, I find without merit the Respondent' s contention that be-
cause Watson reported her production troubles each day during this period of
11 Tickets represented specific lots of work to be performed. Employees turned in a
ticket for each lot. A requisite number of lots constituted a day's quota. A split ticket
represented part of a lot. Thus, an employee who did not complete a lot had no tickets to
turn in and was not credited for production falling short of the lot unless permitted to
split the ticket.
744-670-65-vol. 146-105
1648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
harassment to a union representative, that Watson and the Union were building up
a case against the Respondent to excuse her failure of performance. No case could
have been' built up had the Respondent not been acting in a discriminatory fashion.
I find that in its entirety the record establishes factors which the Board has uni-
formly held to constitute discriminatory and coercive action. Accordingly, I find
that by discriminating against Agnes Watson the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3)
and (1 ) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The conduct of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that Respondent has engaged in and continues to engage
in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the Board issue an
order requiring that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action including the posting of appropriate notices designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, as amended.
It having been found that Respondent, by interrogation, threats, and surveillance,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
Also, having found that Rena Vaughan and Agnes Watson were discriminated
against in respect to their hire and tenure of employment, I shall recommend that
the Respondent be ordered to offer them immediate and full 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 earnings they may
have suffered because of discrimination against them by payment of a sum of
money equal to the amount each normally would have earned as wages from the
date of their layoffs and/or discharges to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
their net earnings during this said period, with backpay computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, 291-294. I shall also recommend that the Respondent pay to them,
to be included in any backpay award given to them, interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, the commission
of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall
therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in
any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. M & B Headwear Co., Inc., the Respondent herein, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
the Charging Party herein, is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By threatening its employees with economic reprisals, interrogating them con-
cerning union affiliations and activities, and conducting activity constituting union
affiliations and activities, and conducting activity constituting surveillance of its
employees' union activities, thereby interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Rena
Vaughan and Agnes Watson, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the
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. Winifred Gillespie, the Respondent's vice president, did not engage in surveil-
lance in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce.
M & B HEADWEAR CO., INC. 1649
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and 'conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that the Respondent, M & B
Headwear Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from: -
(a) Threatening its employees with economic reprisals if the Union should be
successful in organizing the Respondent's plant, interrogating its employees with
regard to their union activities and affiliations, and conducting acts of surveillance
of its employees' union activities and meetings.
(b) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of United Hatters, Cap
& Millinery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by discharging, laying off, or refusing to reinstate Rena
Vaughan or Agnes Watson or any of its employees, or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or con-
dition of employment.
(c) 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 United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization of their employees, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing,. or to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of'collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from engaging in such activities. - -
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Rena Vaughan and Agnes Watson immediate and full reinstatement
to their former 'or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earn-
ings they may- have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, as
provided in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay and interest due.
(c) Post at its plant at Richmond, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of the Re-
spondent, be posted immediately upon ' receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond-
ent to insure that these notices are not altered, defaced,-or covered by any other
material.
(d) File with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, within 20 days of the
date of the service of this Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, a
written statement setting forth in the manner and form in which it has complied
with this Recommended Order.13
' 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"
1n' 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."
13 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
It is further ordered that paragraph G(e) of the complaint is hereby dismissed.
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-
tioris Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisals for their union
activities.
1650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT engage in acts of surveillance of our employees ' union activities
or union meetings.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union activities in
a manner constituting interference , restraint , and coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Rena Vaughan and Agnes Watson immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prej-
udice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
WE WILL preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records , social security pay-
ment records , timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due to Rena Vaughan and Agnes
Watson.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form , join, or
assist United Hatters, Cap & Millinery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization.
M & B HEADWEAR CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, 707 North Calvert Street , Baltimore , Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460.
Extension 2100, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Irl N. Wagner d/b /a Wagner's Food Mart and Retail Clerks
International Association , Local 1565, AFL-CIO. Case No.
36-CA-1272. May 15, 194
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 3, 1964, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to such
allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the De-
cision 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
146 NLRB No. 191.