North Carolina Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

- In the Matter of NORTH CAROLINA FINISHING Co. and TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C-0150.Decided September 19, 1944
Jurisdiction : grey goods finishing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restlaont, and Coeicion: inquiries into union affiliation of em-
ployees; warning that "good reason" could be thought tip to discharge union
members ; disparagement of the union ; allegation that employer granted wage
,increases immediately following organizational activities of the union and
that employer warned employees not to converse with known union adherents,
dismissed; allegations of discriminatory transfer of several employees as to
whom, with the exception of one employee, no exceptions were filed, dismissed.
Discrimination: discharge of active union adherent because of its opposition to
her known union activity.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Messrs-..Earle K.,Shaw,e and, Albert P. Wlteatley,.4or the Board-.
Messrs. Walter Woodson, Walter Woodson, Jr., and Nelson Wood-
son, of Salisbury, N. C., for the respondent.
Mr. R. H. Brazzell, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Reynolds C. Seitz, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASF.
Upon an amended charge l duly filed on December 3, 1941, by Tex-
tile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations; hereirr calledrthe Union, the, National Labor -Re-
nations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint dated
January 22, 1942, against North Carolina Finishilig Co., Salisbury,
North Carolina, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and'
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of
hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
I The oiigmal ch.uge nnas bled on October 2, 1941
44 N L R B, No 33
0
184
NORTH CAROLINA FINISHING CO. 185
With respect to the' unfair labor practices, the complaint as
amended at the hearing alleged in substance that the respondent:, (1)
from on or about June 1, 1941, to the date of the complaint, made
disparaging and derogatory remarks about the Union; questioned
employees about uiiion activities ; transferred union members to unde-
sirable and less remunerative jobs; warned employees not to converse
with union members; and granted wage increases immediately follow-
ing organizational activities by the Union; (2) discouraged member-
ship in, the Union by discharging and refusing to reinstate Annie Mae
Evington and Carl- Cecil Peeler because they joined and assisted the
Union; (3) discouraged membership in the Union by- discharging
Bernard Peeler on November 6, 1941, and refusing to reinstate him
-until December 29, 1941, because he joined and assisted the Union,
and (4) by reason of the foregoing acts interfered with; restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
'Section 7 of the Act.
On February 2, 1942, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint.
As amended at the hearing the answer denied that the respondent had
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, asserted
that Annie Mae Evington was discharged for unsatisfactory work, and
that Carl Cecil and Bernard Peeler were discharged because there was
-insufficient work of the kind they did to keep them employed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held February i9,20, 21, 23, and 24,
1942, at Salisbury, North Carolina, before Frank A. Mouritsen, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The
Board, the respondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and
all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
- At.the beginning of the hearing counsel for the Board, with-consent
of all counsel, moved to amend the complaint to make it more definite
and specific. At the conclusion of the Board's case and at the end of
the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the pleadings to
conform to the proof. The Trial Examiner granted the motions with
the understanding that the respondent's answer be deemed amended to
deny the allegations of the complaint as amended. At the close of the
hearing counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint.
The Trial Examiner denied the motion. During the hearing the Trial
Examiner made various rulings on other motions and on the admissi-
bility of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and 'finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On April 1, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties, in which he
186 DECISIONS O1 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of, Section 8
(1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and .(7) of the Act. He recommended
.that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices
and, take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of
the Act. Thereafter, on May 23, 1942, the respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, and submitted a brief in support of the
exceptions. Pursuant to notice duly served on the parties, a hearing
for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Wash-
ington, D. C., on June 18, 1942. The respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the argument.
'The-Board has considered the respondent's exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and its brief and, insofar as the exceptions are incon-
sistent with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. '1'III? RUS1NESS OF THE RESPONDENT
North Carolina Finishing Co. is ,a North Carolina corporation hav-
ing its principal office and place of business at Salisbury, North Caro-
lina. At its plant and place of,business the respondent is engaged in
the finishing of grey goods, which involves the sizing, bleaching, and
dyeing of cloth. During 1941 the respondent used materials valied`at
approximately $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was received
from States other than North Carolina. During 1941 the respondent
finished goods valued in excess of $2,000,000. A large proportion 'of
such finished goods was shipped to States other than North Carolina.
The respondent.concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
11. TI-IF ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to member-
ship-employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and interference, coercion, and restraint
In May 1941, the Union, through its organizer, McKee, initiated its
campaign to organize the respondent's employees. In the latter part
of May, McKee mailed union papers and circulars to the employees
0
NORTH CAROLINA FINISHING CO. 187
and later in June or July extended his activities to include personal
visits and discussions. A number of employees joined the Union in
July. During July, W. F. Robertson vice president and general man-
ager of the respondent, became aware of McKee's attempts to organize
his employees. On July 28 he called a lueeting of the overseers of the
plant, told them of the attempts being made to organize the employees,
instructed them not to interfere with the employees', right to self-
organization, and announced a general wage increase effective as of
July 14, 1941. He instructed the overseers to pass this information
along to the second hands .2 In connection with the rumor that Robert-
son had increased wages in order to counteract union activity, Boston,
a second hand,3 stated to employee Clifford Myrick, who testified to
the utterance, that the overseers had a nleetiug at which Robertson
announced the wage increase and said he hoped the boys would forget
about the Union and not pay someone to dictate to them. Boston did
not deny Myrick's testimony. Robertson, however, denied that the
wage increase was given in the hope of making the employees forget
their union activity and stated that the increase was in line with the
trend-in the industry. We credit Robertson's testimony that the, wage
increase was not granted for the purpose of discouraging union activi-
ties. However, we also credit the testimony of employee Myrick and
find that Second Hand Boston made the statement attributed to him
by Myrick and sought thereby to give the false impression that. the
wage increase was a manifestation of the respondent's hostility to the
Union.
Near the first of August, Walser, second hand in charge of the
sewing room, entered into a discussion with a group of subordinate
employees. In uncontradicted testimony, J. C. Allred, Jr., one of the
employees present, gave the following account of what happened.
Walser said, "Your, union is nothing but run by a bunch of Germans
to make you go out on strike for 2 or 3 weeks and to hamper defense
work." Walser asked the group why they chose the C. I. O. instead
of the' A. F. 'of L. or one of the railroad- brotherhoods and wanted
to know what good the Union could do. Informed, that the Union
would establish bargaining rights, he then asked the employees if they
could not bargain for themselves. The group asked Walser what
Robertson thought of the Union and Walser stated that Robertson
had said he had always taken care of the workers and if they wanted
,to organize and join a union and do so themselves "to go ahead."
Ellen Messick, another employee, testified, without denial, that about
the same time as the discussion previously alluded to, Walser told
her that the C. I. O. "was not worth a God damn."
2 Supervisory employees immediately below the overseers.
8 As a second hand , Boston did not attend the meeting of overseers.
188 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Messick further testified, without contradiction, to a
conversation she had with Walser in the early part of September.
Walser remarked that he thought the Union would never get a closed
shop at the respondent's plant,' and that he had "heard remarks about
here that if we get the Union we would not have authority to fire
anyone." Messick replied that if the respondent did discharge any-
one it would have to take the matter up with the Union and give a
good reason for the discharge . Walser then said, "Ellen, don't get
such stuff in your head. Don't you think the coinpan `y, has sense
enough to give a good reason?"
During August 1941 McKee continued his organizational efforts
on behalf of\the Union. He and some of the respondent 's employees
distributed union papers and circulars at the gates of the plant. More
employees joined the Union, and on August 17, 1941 , a charter was
installed and officers were elected . The following , all employees of
the respondent ; were elected , to office : Clifford Myrick, president ;
Walter Orrell, vice president ; Annie Mae Evington , recording secre-
tary; and Everett C . Conrad, financial secretary . The names of the
newly elected officers were published in an article in a union paper
which was distributed around the , plant on September 10, 1941.
Supervisory employees of the respondent admittedly read the paper
and knew what officers were elected. Ellen Messick, Louise Kapley,
J. C. Allred , Jr., and Mary Jane Evans, all employees of the re-
spondent, testified without contradiction and we find that during
August Second Hand Walser questioned them about their union
membership . Mary Jane `Evans further related that Walser asked
her whether Annie Mae Evington had asked her to join the Union,
and that she answered in the affirmative. Walser did not deny that
lie questioned Mary Jane Evans.
Wd credit the above testimony of Myrick, Allred , Messick, Kapley,
and Evans , as did the Trial Examiner , and find that Second Hands
Boston and Walser engaged in the conduct heretofore related in the
testimony of these witnesses.
Second Hand Walser's inquiries into the union affiliation of em-
ployees, his warning that the respondent could think up a "gold
reason" to discharge union members, and his, disparagerneht of the
Uiiion all tended to discourage the respondent 's employees from mem-
bership 'in the Union, for they indicated the respondent 's opposition
to such membership. A like opposition, tending to produce similar
results , was conveyed by the utterance of Second Hand Boston which
was 'addressed to employee Clifford Myrick. Moreover , it is signifi-
cant that the remarks of Walser and Boston were made at a time
when the Union was active in organizational efforts.
NORTH CAROLINA FINISHING CO. 189
We • find, as did the Trial Examiner, that by the statements of
Walser and Boston, as described above, the respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The trains fer of union officers
The complaint alleged tllat. the 'respondent transferred Walter
Orrell, Clifford Myrick, and Everett C. Conrad, union officers, to
undesirable and less remunerative jobs and thereby discriminated
against them. The respondent in its answer denied the allegations.
On October 8, 1941, Walter Orrell, vice president of the Union,
was transferred from his roll job to yarder machine operator. On
the roll'job his duties had taken him into other departments, and
he had freedom of movement throughout his own department. As
yarder machine operator he • was confined to a particular machine
and could not move throughout his and other departments. The
events leading up to the transfer are disclosed in the testimony of
Orrell that Overseer Little came to him around September 1, 1941,
and said, "I know you are a union man. I know you are working
for the union. I don't care anything 'about it. It does not mean
anything to me. . But it has been reported to me that you have been
going in other departments and talking about the union and I shall
have-to ask you not to do that.", Little corroborated the, above testi-
mony;' Orrell further testified that, shortly after the above-quoted
conversation, Little again came to him and said, "We are thinking
of changing your job. Your job requires you to contact every man
in this department, and it seems that you are taking up a little more
time than is necessary and we are kind of in need of yarder men and
folders." Orrell protested his transfer on the ground that he pre-
ferred his roll job. There is no evidence to indicate that the yarder
job'is less desirable than the roll` job. Orrrell received several wage
increases after the change, and despite the fact that Foster, who took
his place on the roll job, was receiving as much as Orrell at the time
of the hearing, there is nothing in the record to establish that Orrell
suffered financially because of the change. There is no showing in
the record that it was customary for employees to circulate freely
throughout the plant and to talk to each other during working hours
or that the transfer deprived Orrell of any established right or
privilege to which he was entitled.
On the basis-of all',the evidence, we find, that by the transfer of
Orrell the -respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its
employees-in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act. Such allegation of the complaint will be dismissed:
1`90' DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL 'LABOR 1RELAT1ONS BOARD
°D iiii October'1941, the respondent also shifted Clifford Myrick,
the-president-of the' Union. and' Everett`Conrad, the financial'secre-
tary of the T;nion, into new positions. The Trial Examiner recom-
mended that the portions of the complaint, relating to these trans-
fers be dlsuu^^e^1. The Union filed no exceptions to these recom-
mendations. We have reviewed the record and find that these allega-
tions are not supported by substantial evidence. We find, as did the
Trial Examiner, that by these transfers the respondent did not inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Those allegations of the com-
plaint will, therefore, be dismissed.
We also agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence is in-
sufficient to support the allegations of the complaint that the re-
spondent interfered with the employees' right to self-organization
by "warning employees not to converse with known union members,"
andfby "granting wage increases immediately following organiza-
tional activities by the U neon," and we shall order that such allega-
tions of the complaint be dismssed.
C. The dv,churye of the Peele'r's
The cdniplaiu t alleges that'.on or about November G. 1941, the re-
spondent discharged and has since refused to reinstate Carl Cecil
Peeler and Bernuird Peeler.4 for the reason that they joined and as-
sisted 't lie Union, 'and ' engaged -in ' concerted ;act'ivities with other
erriployees for the purposes of collective bargaining and, other mutual
aid and protection. The Trial Examiner-found that the evidence
does not sustain' a finding that Carl Cecil Peeler was discharged or
that he was refused reinstatement because of his union activity. He
also found that Bernard Peeler was not discharged because of his
union activity. The Union filed no exception to the aforesaid find
ings. The Union,' however, did object to such findings at the oral
argunient before' the Board: We have e amined the 'record and
agree with the Trial Examiner that it does not support the allega-
tions of the complaint with respect to Carl Cecil Peeler and Bernard
Peeler.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated in regard to
the hire and tenure of employment of Carl Cecil Peeler and Bernard'
Peeler, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
D. The discharge of Evington
The complaint alleged that on September 2.5, 1941; the respondent
discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate Annie Mae Evington
4 Bernard Peeler was reinstated in December 1941.
NORTH CAROLINA FINISHING CO. 191
because of her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union.,
The respondent's answer admitted that Evington was discharged at
the time alleged, denied that her dismissal was based on union mem,
bership or activities, and alleged that she had been discharged be-
cause, as an inspector, she had passed more defective sheets than any
other inspector.
' Evington, at the time of her discharge; had been enployed:approxi-,
mately 3 years by the respondent in the sheet department of the sew-
ing room. In De:,ember 1940 she was transferred from the second
to the first shift where she worked under the supervision of Walser,
second hand, 'and Grubb, overseer. On the first shift she worked as
an inspector and folder part of the time and did other work in the
department the remainder of the time. As an inspector and folder
it was her duty to detect and weed out defective sheets. The respond-
ent classified defective sheets as "seconds" and "thirds." A "third"
-was defined- as "a glaring defect"; "a very,bad defect, either a hole
or a torn selvage or a bad weave or a large stain or oil spot." A
"second" is a lesser defect. On September 25, Second Hand Walser-
brought two "thirds" to Evington while she was working, informed
her that her average of passing "thirds" was higher than that of any
other inspector and that she was therefore discharged.
Prior to her discharge, Evuigton took an outstanding part in the.
organizing program of the union. She joined the Union on August
1, 1941, attended, union meetings, solicited members for the Union.
signed up approximately 12 of the girls in her department, acted on
union committees, wore her union button in the plant, and finally was
elected to office in the Union on August 17. It is not denied that
before she was discharged, Walser had read in the union paper that
she was an officer of the Union, had seen her wearing her union
button in the plant, and had learned from questioning other em-
ployees that she had asked them to join the Union. '
The respondent endeavored to establish that Annie l\fae Evington
had been-discharged because she passed more "thirds" than any other
inspector. Records which the respondent introduced in evidence
showed that a number of "thirds''-' were being passed by'inspectors in
the sheet' department. The records begin with the 9-week period
ending on July 30, 1941.' The records continue with another 9-week
period which ended October 1, 1941, and then were discontinued.
The number of "thirds" passed in the first 9-week period by some 35
inspectors totaled 126. In the next 9-week period the total decreased
to 70. There is also evidence regarding complaints sent in to the,
respondent by its customers. The evidence shows that between Jan-
uary 1 and September 25, 1941, the respondent received 8 letters from
6 There were no records kept before that time
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-customers complaining of the receipt of defective sheets, and'-it was'
asked to replace '23 of the sheets a inspected during that period.,
Robertson testified that several days before Evington's discharge he
was informed by the respondent's representative in New York of a
complaint made by the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot which in-
volved the rejection of 33 sheets out of a shipment of 720. Further
records were introduced in evidence which showed the number' of
"thirds" with which, inspectors, had been charged between May - 29
and October 1, 1941-the entire period for which the statistics.were
kept. The inspectors credited with the largest number of "thirds"
and their totals were as follows: Mary Doby, 12; Annie Mae Eving-
ton and Laura McBride, 11 each; and Rozelle Richards and Nancy
Miller, 9 each.
The record discloses that on several occasions during the 18 weeks'
period when records were kept Walser and Grubb called the in-
spectors together and cautioned them'about their releasing of "thirds."
Walser testified that he had warned the inspectors as a group that
some would be "laid off" if they continued to pass as many "thirds."
Grubb testified that, about the middle of September 1941, he gave
the inspectors as a group a final 'warning that, "If you keep your
jobs you are going to have to improve your inspection." Grubb
further stated, without denial, that Evington was present when he
gave his final warning. According to the testimony of Robertson, it
was after this warning, on about September 21, 1941, that he received
the telephone report from his New York representative relative to
the rejection of 33 sheets by the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot.
Robertson testified that upon receiving the information he called in
Grubb, told him of the complaint, and directed him to discharge some
inspectors at the end of the week. Grubb corroborated the testimony
of Robertson by stating that Robertson had said, "We have got to do
something about it; it is up to you to correct it, and if it is necessary
to fire an employee, why, all right."
Acting in response to Robertson's order, Grubb told Walser to
discharge Evington on September 25, 1941. Grubb and Walser gave
the following' account of the, circumstances which preceded the dis-
missal of Evington. Walser testified that 2 days before the dis-
charge of Evington lie added up the number of "thirds" passed by
the various inspectors and entered the total on the records he was
-keeping. Grubb, although admitting that Walser "may" have en-
tered some totals, related that he himself did some totaling in' his
own mind which enabled him to note the inspectors who showed a
total of 11 or more "thirds." He, however, stated that he completed
the addition of the number of errors checked against some of the
0 Robei tson testified that the iecpondent produced 10,000 dozen sheets per week
NORTH CAROLINA .FINISHING CO. 193
inspectors after the discharge of Evington and after Robertson told
him that the Union had filed charges: Grubb also testified that,,
as a result of - his examination of the ,record on "thirds" kept by
Walser, he concluded that Evington and Messick had passed the 'high-
est number of "thirds." 7 Walser testified that 2 days before the
discharge of Evington, Grubb took the list,which showed the "thirds'?,
checked against the inspectors and told him to check the number of
days that "some" of those employees who had a "good many thirds"
marked against them had worked as inspectors during the period,
begin it ing,with May 29, 1941.$ Walser said that Grubb specifically
alluded to Evington, Doby, Roselle Morgan, and Edna Wilson.'
Walser further testified that he made the check as directed. There
is no evidence to indicate that Walser checked the employment record
of all who appeared on the records as having the most "thirds." e
Although the records listing the number of "thirds" with which each
inspector was charged gave the appearance opposite the names of
Doby and Messick of having had a notation erased in regard to num-
ber of days worked, Walser testified that he' did not mark any such
notation beside anyone's name except Evington's. Walser could not
`'recall" who noted or erased the information opposite the names of
Doby and Messick.
According to the testimony of Walser, after he had completed 'the
task of checking as described above, he reported his findings to Grubb
who then told 'him to discharge Evington and Doby. , Grubb, how-
ever, testified that he did not check the work records before Eving-
ton's discharge, and that he relied only upon his memory with refer-
ence to the time spent on inspection by Evington. Both Walser and
Grubb testified that in discharging Evington they took cognizance of
percentages of "thirds" passed by the inspectors as computed by.
reference to the number of days the inspectors worled.io
'At the hearing it was disclosed that two of the 11 errors listed against Eviiigton
were placed upon the records after the day of her discharge . Any examination of the
records prior to that time would have shown a total of only 9 " thirds" passed by her
when Walser was first called as a witness lie testified that he did not examine the
employment iecords to ascertain the number of days the inspectois had worked until
after the dischaige of Evington.
'Tile eiidence intioduced at the heating brings out the following facts in respect to
the nmmbet.of days worked on inspection byi those employees who were credited with the
laigest number of "thuds " Foi convenience a table is constructed AN hick also indicates
the number of "thirds" char ainst the nameded i l i s ct sg ag r pe org n
Thirds Days Thirds Day s
Passed Worked Passed Wei lied
Mary Doby________________ 12 41 Ellen Messick__________ 10 59
Annie Mae Evington________ 11 46 hazel Correll__________ 10 ' 72
Laura McBride------------- 11 69 Rozelle Richards-------- 9 67
Frances Bailey_____________ 10 64 Nancy Millet ----------- 9 68
The fact that Evington woiked'only 46 days duiing the period investigated afford,
no basis tor an unfavorable inference She woiked as an inspectoi only when the ieopond-
cut told her to do so At other times she worked on mangling
487495-42-N of 44--13
194 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL !LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Despite the fact that Walser testified than Grubb had ordered the
discharge of Doby at, the same, time Evington was .dismissed,. Doby
was not released until 1-day after Evington was discharged., Walser
explained such fact by intimating that Doby did not work on the
day when Evington was discharged. The respondent's records, how-
ever, show that Doby did work on September 25, 1941. Grubb gave
a very different account concerning the discharge of Doby. He testi
fled that the -fact that Doby had been absent from work a great deal
during the period covered by the record of "thirds" was not brought
to his attention until after Evington had been discbarged. Accord-
ing to Grubb, he and Walser made a check of the work records after
he heard of Doby's absences, and on the basis of such check Grubb
ordered Doby discharged. Walser made no mention of such later
check of the work records. Walser related that Doby was generally
known as a poor worker, and that she was absent from the plant on
many occasions without notifying the respondent.
In respect to the,manner in which the record of "thirds" was kept,
Evington testified, without denial, that the last time she was shown
'the records there were only five "thirds" marked against her. Grubb
admitted that there were a number of girls who had as large a total
of "-thirds" as Evington at the close of the record keeping on October
1, 1941, but he testified that they did not have as large a total on
September 25=3 working days earlier, and the day on which Eving-
ton was discharged. Walser admitted that he actually showed the
inspectors the "thirds" they passed only about half .the time. The
respondent made no attempt to ascertain whether Evington had
worked on the Order about which the Philadelphia Quartermaster
Depot complained. In fact both Robertson and Grubb stated that
they were of the opinion that Evington did not work upon that ship-
ment:
We are of the opinion that the record establishes that the respond-
ent was coiicerned over the number of "thirds" passed find had taken
appropriate steps to remedy the situation by warning its inspectors.
However, we are not, satisfied that Evington was discharged for hav-
ing passed the largest number of "thirds," as the respondent asserts.
We have heretofore found that the respondent was opposed to the
Union, that in August Second Hand Wralsei had inquired about
Evington's solicitation of union memberships among the employees,
and that he had stated early in September, only a short time before
Evington's discharge, that the respondent could produce "good
reason" for the discharge of a union niember. In the light of these'
circumstances we are unable to credit the respondent's explanation for
the discharge of Evington. We note that the warnings of Walser
that inspectors world be "laid off" if they were not more careful about
NORTH CAROLINA FINISHING CO. 195'
passing "thirds," and of Grubb that "you will have to improve your,
inspection if you .keep your jobs" came at a time when the, responcl-
eut's . -statistics indicated a downward trend 11 in_ the passage of
"thirds,"but when union organizational activity was increasing. It'
was at this period that Evington's active role m union affairs. became.
known to the respondent. It is also significant that, .when Robertson
heard of'the'complaint from the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot,
he told Grubb "to fire an employee" if necessary, and that he did so,
in spite of the fact that he testified as follows about that complaint :
"There is no way to tell without examining the sheet. In other words,,
these could be `seconds,' and probably more of them are `seconds'
thtiii `thirds.' There may be a `third' in it, or there may be two or
may be three." t' Moreover, within a few days after the discharge
of Evington the respondent discontinued its practice of keeping It,
record of "thirds" passed by its various inspectors.
Walser'sinethodof keeping the records on the passage of "thirds,"
and Walser's lid Grubb's conflicting accounts of the, technique by
which they arrived at the conclusion that Evington had passed the
most `'thirds," raise additional doubts 'concerning the respondent's
explanation for the discharge. Evington testified, without denial,
and we find, that the last time she was shown the records on "thirds"
there were only five "thirds" marked against her. Such fact coupled
ni i_th Walser s admission that he showed the inspectors the "'thirds"
which they passed only about 50 percent of the time, and Grubb's
statement that on October 1, 1941, 3 working days after Evington's
discharge, there were a number of girls who had passed as many
"thu•ds" as Evington causes us to agree`with the Trial Examiner
that the records do not inspire confidence in their accuracy. Like
the Trial Examiner, we also lack confidence in the testimony of
Walser and Grubb 'respecting their method of determining that
Evington had passed the most "thirds." The inconsistencies in the
testimony of Walser Inid Grubb as to when and how the, totals on
"thirds" were ascertained and entered on the record sheet, the con-
fusion in their testimony as to when and how the statistics had been
gathered on the number of clays which inspectors had worked during
the record period, and the difference in their explanations of the
fact that Doby was not discharged until later than Evington despite
the fact that she passed more "thirds",! persuade" us that the re-
see supra,-p G
The record indicates that the respondent etas not regnued to replace an} of the sheet
about which the complaint was made and it kept no recoi d of ''seconds ' passed by Inpec-
ioo,
"Passing over Doby to discba,ge Esington is tendered all the more inexplicable by
\l'alsei's testimony that Dobv was generally known as a poor woil:er and that she was
absent fionl the plant on nanny; occasions as ithout notifying the respondent
196 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL iLABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent did, not make a good faith effort to determine which of the
inspectors had passed the greatest number of "thirds."
By reason of the facts heretofore found we conclude, as did the
Trial Examiner, that the real reason for Evington's dismissal was
the respondent's opposition to her known union activity. We ac-
cordingly find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent dis-
couraged membership iin the Union by discriminating. in regard. to'
hire and tenure of employment of Annie Mae Evington,and