Pacific Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 19, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 385 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

PACIFIC MILLS 385 any other manner to discriminate against employees because of their mem- bership in a labor organization other than UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78, C. I . 0., or because of their non- membership in said union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, except to the extent authorized by said section. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of ARENA COMPANY OF SALINAS, its successors or assigns , in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL, jointly and severally , with GROWER -SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSOCIA- TION OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA , and said ARENA COMPANY OF SALINAS, and in the manner and to the extent set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order entitled "The Remedy ," make Edna Cooney whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78, C. I. O. Labor Organization. By ------------------------------------------------ (Representative ) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for sixty ( 60) days from the date hereof, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. PACIFIC MILLS ( CARRBORO WOOLEN MILLS DIVISION ) and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 11-CA--71 (formerly 34-CA-271). January 19,1953 Decision and Order On September 12, 1952, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The General Counsel has filed a brief herein. The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The ' As corrected September 15, 1952. Pursuant to the provusi ns of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [ Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. 'The Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's ruling excluding from evidence certain tabulations and a graph which the Respondent prepared in an attempt to prove that Sheila D. Peterson, a web drawer whose discriminatory discharge was alleged in the complaint, was actually discharged because her weekly earnings were too low. The Re- 102 NLRB No. 46. 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Order Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Pacific Mills (Carrboro Woolen Mills Division), Carrboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer- ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- charging any of its employees or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their reasons for joining or assisting the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, or inquiring as to who has solicited their mem- bership in the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization; engaging in surveillance of meetings of the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion ; and making annoying and threatening calls. (c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer Hazel L. McKnight, Sheila D. Peterson, and Roscoe M. Davis immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- spondent also excepted to the Trial Examiner drawing an adverse inference from the Respondent 's refusal to make available to the General Counsel the timecards from which the information contained in the tabulations and the graph was culled . As the documents in question , which are in the record as rejected exhibits , would in any event not have altered our c nclusion herein, we find that the Trial Examiner committed no prejudicial error in excluding the documents . Moreover, regardless of whether or not an adverse inference is drawn from the Respondent ' s failure to make the timecards available, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Peterson was discriminatorily discharged. PACIFIC MILLS 387 tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its Carrboro Woolen Mills Division, Carrboro, North Carolina, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent or its authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith. 4 This notice , however, shall be and it hereby is amended by striking from the first paragraph thereof the words "Recr mmendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order." In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enf. reing an Order." Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore , Maryland ), of the National Labor Relations Board herein called the Board , issued his complaint dated August 28, 1951, against Pacific Mills, Carrboro Woolen Mills Division , herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and ( 3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charge together with notice of the hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance that the Respondent had (1 ) engaged in certain acts of interference , restraint, and coercion ; and (2 ) discharged certain three employees because of their member- ship in or assistance to the Union or because they engaged in concerted activity. The Respondent ' s answer denies the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on various dates from November 8, 1951 , through January 12, 1952, at Chapel Hill and Greensboro , North Carolina, before the undersigned , the Trial Examiner designated by the Chief Trial Exami- ner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union by its representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded the parties. Although afforded an opportunity none of the parties presented oral argument at the close of the testimony. Only the General Counsel filed a brief with the undersigned. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Massachusetts corporation, with offices, plants, and places of business in various States of the United States, including Carrboro, North Carolina, the only operation involved in this proceeding, is engaged in the manu- facture and sale of cloth. During the year preceeding November 1951, the Respondent in the conduct of this operation only purchased and caused to be shipped to its Carrboro mills from points outside the State of North Carolina, certain raw materials, supplies, and equipment valued in excess of $100,000. During the same period, Respondent processed finished products at its Carrboro mills valued in excess of $100,000, which was shipped to points outside the State of North Carolina. The undersigned finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion 1. The events The Respondent's mill and certain houses it owns and maintains for its em- ployees are located at Carrboro, North Carolina, a town of less than 2,000 popula- timi.' The Respondent is the largest single employer in town, and has a normal complement of about 550 employees. In the spring of 1950, the 3 persons the Respondent then employed as web drawers, including Mrs. Sheila D. Peterson , 1 of the persons alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged , were dissatisfied with their piece rates and they took the matter up with management. In a discussion they had with John Clark, resident manager of the mill, they indicated their dissatisfaction with the rate setup for a certain warp, pointed out that none of them could make production on that warp, and contended that the rate was not properly estab- lished. Peterson stated that because the Respondent wanted production and the employees wanted pay, she was certain that Clark would be of some help. Clark stated that he would do what he could to help them make production and ex- plained that the web drawers at the Respondent's Halifax, Virginia, mill were doing very well on the same warp. Peterson informed Clark that the Carrboro web drawers were willing to visit that mill at their own expense to learn how the web drawers there were able to earn so much more. Clark explained, how- i U S. Census of Population : 1950; Number of Inhabitants, Chapter 33, North Carolina, U. S Government Printing Office, Washington, D C., 1951. PACIFIC MILLS 389 ever, that it was against the Respondent's policy to permit employees of one mill to visit another mill but undertook to do something about the matter. Some- time thereafter Clark informed Peterson that the matter had been studied and it was found that the rate was properly set. Thereafter, Peterson spoke to Supervisor Dillard Powell and he told her that her work was satisfactory and above any of the other web drawers. Powell also informed Peterson that Clark had stated that she knew too much to be one of Respondent's employees, that she was no fool and could cause the Respondent much trouble and embarrassment, and that he felt that the best thing that they could do was to get rid of her at the first opportunity? Additional dissatisfaction among the web drawers occurred early in Sep- tember when the Respondent eliminated waiting-time pay-payment for the time web drawers spent waiting for the arrival of work. After Peterson dis- cussed the matter with Powell, she and Powell went to Overseer Richard Silverthorne's office, Peterson pointed out to Silverthorne the unfairness of the change in that a web drawer might have to wait and lose as much as 2 hours pay under this system. Silverthorne, who was close to retirement, replied that he didn't care whether she thought it was fair, that he had been in a weave room since he was 14 years old, that neither she nor Powell nor anyone else was going to run the mill, and that if she did not like the way that the mill paid she could go home. Peterson stated that she was not going home, that the reason she paid taxes was for protection against such employers as the Respondent, that she was going to take the matter up with the State Board of Labor at Raleigh, and that if they could not help her she thought a union could be of some service. Silverthorne became angry and ran out of his office into Clark's office taking Powell along.3 That night Peterson and her husband went to the mill to see Floyd M. Durham, office and personnel manager. Mrs. Peterson explained to Durham the difficulties the web drawers had been having and particularly the difficulty she had had with Silverthorne concerning waiting-time pay. Durham assured her that there must be some mistake. Mrs. Peterson stated that she was certain that there was no error, that Silverthorne himself made it clear to her that he decided there was going to be no waiting-time pay. She also told Durham that she was telling him the same thing she had told Silverthorne earlier, namely, that if nothing could be done about the matter there she would take it to the State Board at Raleigh and if that would not help she would see what a union could do. Durham became excited and asked her to please not take the matter outside the mill family. Durham then stated that in view of the whole story he was certain that there must be some mistake and that he would take the matter up with Clark the first thing in the morning. The next day Durham, who lived across the street from the Petersons and had known them for some time, came over to see them and at his request spoke to Mrs. S The undersigned finds Peterson a credible witness. These findings are made on the basis of her testimony. Powell did not appear as a witness. Clark testified that he did not tell Powell that he should get rid of Peterson because she was causing or may cause trouble 3 As already noted, Powell did not appear as a witness , Silverthorne testified that there was an incident in his office on this subject in the presence of Powell and Peterson, that Powell took the position that waiting-time pay should be given, that, he, Silverthorne took a contrary view, that the matter was taken up with Clark, and that Clark upheld Silver- thorne. Silverthorne denied that Peterson mentioned going to the State Board or to a union . Silverthorne did not impress the undersigned as a reliable witness and his denials are not credited. 250983-vol. 102-53-26 390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Peterson alone. He told her that he had spoken to Clark and that Clark had said that there had been an error and that waiting-time pay would continue.' In the latter part of September, another issue arose. The Respondent had instituted an 8 percent pay increase throughout the mill but the web drawers felt that they were not benefiting from the increase. After the web drawers took the matter up with Silverthorne, Peterson suggested to the other 2 web drawers, Betty I. Cole and Jacqueline Copeland, who then constituted the entire web drawing staff, that they go to the State Labor Board at Raleigh. On Mon- day, October 16, the 3 went to Raleigh as planned but did not obtain any help there. On the way home that day, they discussed the matter and Peterson, who had mentioned a union to these employees before, suggested contacting a union. The next day Silverthorne talked to Cole and Copeland together and told them that he knew that they had arranged to be out together and that he would not tolerate another such incident. It does not appear that Silverthorne spoke to Peterson on this subject. On Friday, October 20, Peterson, Silverthorne, and Clark were in Clark's office discussing the pay increase. This conference came about as a result of Peterson's questioning certain aspects of the operation of the wage increase. Peterson contended that the other employees were getting the increase and that she was not, while they, on the other hand, endeavored to explain to her that she was getting the increase and explained the method of computation as it affected the base pay but not the minimum pay. That evening Mrs. Peterson and her husband went to Durham, North Carolina, and contacted an official of the Union. He advised her to talk to the employees to see if they were willing to join a union and that he would have some organizers come to see her during the next week. Sometime during this week, Peterson had informed another of the persons alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged, Hazel L. McKnight, a mending and Burling employee who had difficulty in obtaining in- formation as to her piece rates, that she was going to contact some union organizers. Peterson inquired of McKnight if she was willing to help her and McKnight replied in the affirmative. During the next week on Tuesday, October 24, McKnight suggested a union to some of the other Burling and mending employees as the solution to the problem of obtaining piece rate information. On this day at about noon, after the employees had had lunch, some of the burling and mending employees, Hazel McKnight, her sister-in-law, Esther McKnight, and Edna Pepper, were in the restroom standing near the door discussing their rates and obtaining information as to what their rates were. Hazel McKnight took the position that the only solution was to get a union. Pepper and Esther McKnight indicated that they were favorably disposed. Another hurling and mending employee, Ruth Kil- patrick, was also present in the restroom but not part of this group. Clark was standing outside the door when another employee, Frances Rigsby, came to the restroom door, leaned in, and whispered, "Shhh, Mr. Clark is standing outside," and then called out to Kilpatrick that there was a roll of cloth hanging at her place of work. Kilpatrick thereupon left the restroom and then the others fol- 4 These findings are based upon Mrs. Peterson's credible testimony corroborated in part by Mr. Peterson Durham admitted that the Petersons came to the mill one night, that the subject of waiting-time pay was discussed but denied that the subject of a union arose. He also admitted coming to see the Petersons the next day. Clark, who did not impress the undersigned as a credible witness, denied that he told Durham he would see to it that Mrs Peterson was paid for waiting time Durham was not questioned as to whether he talked to Clark about waiting-time pay for Mrs. Peterson and whether he talked to Mrs. Peterson thereafter about the subject mentioning a c..nversation with Clark. PACIFIC MILLS 391 lowed When they exited, both McKnights and Pepper saw Clark standing directly outside the door. The restroom door did not fit well so that a space remained when the door was shut. In addition, wire mesh had been used to replace the bottom panel of the door. There appears to be no doubt that conversations in the restroom could be overheard outside the door. Clark denied listening at the restroom to hear the conversations taking place inside the restroom and denied any knowledge of talk about a union at the mill while he was manager until about the middle of November 1950. Clark admitted that there was an occasion when he was in the department for a period of 10 or 20 minutes, that at the time he did not know there was anyone in the restroom, that he did not see anyone enter, and that he did not hear anything in the restroom. Clark continued that 1 of the employees in the department walked past him and went to the restroom, that immediately thereafter 4 employees came out of the restroom, and that he reported the names of these employees to Silverthorne. At the end of the week, Friday, October 27, Hazel McKnight was discharged. Before the week was out, as had been arranged, union officials called at the Peterson home after the working day on two occasions, once on Wednesday and the other on Friday. On the following Monday, October 21, NXith the Respond- ent's permission, Peterson left work because of illness. Peterson returned to work on Tuesday, November 7, and was discharged on Friday of that week, November 10. In about the middle of December, a union meeting was held at the Petersons. Around Christmas time, Silverthorne gave expression to his views regarding labor organizations. According to Pepper's credible testimony, Silverthorne stated that he was not going to have a union at this mill if he could have any- thing to do with it, that he had worked in a mill which had a union and they were always having trouble and that was something he did not want at this mill and was not going to have Another union meeting was held at Hazel McKnight's house on Wednesday, January 10, 1951. On the night of the meeting Durham, who admitted that he knew of the meeting in advance, and Supervisor William F. Fyfe, each separately drove toward the house slowly as he passed the cars parked on the street and then almost came to a stop when he was in front of the McKnight house. Each looked toward the house and then proceeded slowly as he passed the remaining parked cars on the street. They each repeated the same operation later that night. Another supervisor, Caswell Andrews, engaged in substantially similar conduct but only drove by the McKnight house once.' 5 Silverthoine on direct examination admitted that in a conversation with Pepper he informed her that he hoped they would never have a union at the mill while he was there. He thereafter testified on cross-examination that he did not care whether there was a uni n at the mill. 6 The findings as to the conduct outside the McKnight house are based upon the testi- mony of Sheila Peterson, her husband, and Preston McKnight, husband of Hazel McKnight. Durham's and Fyfe s denials are not credited. Andrews did not appear as a witness. There is an issue as to Andrews' status, with the General Counsel contending that he was a supervisor and the Respondent taking a c ntrary view. Clark testified that be- ginning sometime in 1950, and until about the middle of November 1950, when Clark left the mill, Andiews was a scheduling clerk According to Clark, he gave Andrews a work schedule each week and that Andrews' duty was to see to it that the work was done in conformance with the schedule. This was to be accomplished by Andrews seeing t ' it that the work was brought to the employees but it was not Andrews' duty to direct the employees to do the work. Clark further testified that Andrews was hourly paid and that he had not hired or fired anyone. In addition to a description of Andrews' duties, there is credible testimony as to what he actually did According to Peterson, when Powell left the Respondent in September 1950, Andrews and Fyfe gave orders to the web 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Among the employees who joined the Union at this meeting was a maintenance employee, Roscoe M. Davis, who is also alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged. The next morning Davis volunteered the information that he had joined the Union to his supervisor, John J. Neal, and about a week later Davis ceased working for the Respondent. In the early part of January, another employee volunteered to Neal that he had been solicited to join the Union, and Neal inquired who had done the soliciting on behalf of the Union. On Saturday afternoon, January 13, the Union conducted another meeting. This meeting was held at the White Cross Grange Hall located on a public high- way about 5 miles from Carrboro which highway connects Carrboro and Burling- ton, North Carolina. On this occasion, Supervisors Andrews and Tommie Hoenig were seen in the vicinity. Hoenig drove on the highway and when he approached the Grange Hall he proceeded very slowly and looked toward the building. When he passed the hall he resumed his normal rate of speed. In about 5 minutes Hoenig came by again and repeated this conduct. Andrews also drove on the highway and slowed down at the hall. He turned off on a dirt road which inter- sects the highway at or near the hall, proceeding slowly as lie passed the parked cars and then continued on the dirt road. Later on, as the meeting was breaking up and the people were leaving the hall, Andrews came back on the dirt road and proceeded slowly as he passed the parked cars. Mrs. Peterson waved her hand and shouted "hello"; Andrews immediately turned his head forward and entered the highway without stopping and then proceeded at a high rate of speed. In about the middle of January, the Petersons, who had become leaders in the Union's organizational drive, began receiving anonymous telephone calls which continued for a period of about 2 months. In general these calls were received at night between the hours of 6 and 7, around 9 o'clock, and between 11 and 1 o'clock in the morning. The pattern was that if 1 call was received during the night, 3 calls were received. The usual thing when the phone was answered was that there would not be a verbal reply but a ticking sound which was described as similar to that of a clock or time bomb .7 On one occasion when Mrs. Peterson answered the phone while the usual ticking sound was being produced, she heard someone state in a weird sounding voice, "You better leave that damn Union alone or you're going to be sorry, there will be trouble." On another occasion, when Mrs. Peterson answered the phone, after some nasty language was used she was told that if she did not leave the Union alone, her house would be blown up. The Petersons took the matter up with the telephone company officials on sev- eral occasions. Efforts were made to trace these calls, but it was not until the night of February 23 that the telephone people were successful. On that night about 11 p. m. the telephone official who was monitoring the Peterson line heard the ticking sound and found that it was coming from a four-party line which served Silverthorne, John F. McLaughlin, Ernest Wilkins, supervisory employees, and Earl Strauch, who by this time had replaced Clark as resident manager of the mill. The phone official could not identify the particular party on this four- party line from which the call originated and also pointed out the possibility that a line could be illegally tapped and used without authorization. No further calls of this type were received by the Petersons after this date. drawers. Cole, another web drawer, testified that she took orders from Andrews. Cope- land, also a web drawer, testified that she took orders from Andrews . She testified fur- ther that she requested of Andrews and that he granted her time off to go to the doctor without consulting any-ne. 7 A call fitting this description was also received at the McKnights within a day or two after the union meeting at their home. PACIFIC MILLS 393 Strauch denied making anonymous phone calls and denied producing a ticking sound on the phone to the Petersons . He also denied that anyone had made such calls in his presence . Strauch also testified that he received anonymous phone calls himself . Wilkins denied making such calls and denied being present when such calls were being made. McLaughlin denied making anonymous calls to the Petersons and denied producing a ticking sound from his phone. McLaughlin also testified that he too received anonymous calls. Silverthorne also denied making anonymous calls to the Petersons or producing a ticking sound over the phone. Silverthorne also testified that he received anonymous calls during the night in January and February and that these calls were merely used to wake him. The telephone official testified that complaints were received regarding calls awakening Silverthorne but not involving abusive language . He testified further that on the basis of the complaints he monitored the Silverthorne phone for 3 nights about 60 days before the Peterson incident and that no calls came in. The uniqueness of the ticking sound as an identifying symbol, which was present in these calls to the Petersons including the one monitored by the tele- phone company official, shows that all the calls were made by the same person or persons. The extent, the late hour, and the pattern of these calls both as to sequence and sound contents rebut the possibility of an unauthorized use of one or more of these phones. The four persons on this party line, Wilkins, McLaugh- lin, Strauch, and Silverthorne, moreover, did not impress the undersigned as credible witnesses. It is accordingly found that these calls were made by one or more of the four persons on the party line and/or that the calls were made with the knowledge and consent of one or more of these persons. 2. Conclusions It is accordingly found that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1), thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by tie following alts and conduct: (1) Engaging in surveillance of union meetings on January 10 8 and 13, 1951, (2) interrogating an employee as to who had solicited him on behalf of the Union, and (3) making annoying and threatening telephone calls. B. The discrimination; interference, restraint, and coercion The General Counsel also alleges that the Respondent discriminatorily dis- charged Hazel L. McKnight on October 27, 1950, Sheila D. Peterson on November 10, 1950, and Roscoe M. Davis on January 19, 1951. As to the McKnight and Peterson allegations, the Respondent urges that it did not learn of any union activities involving the Carrboro mills until January 1951. 1. Hazel L. McKnight The essence of the Respondent's explanation for discharging Hazel L. McKnight is that she engaged in objectionable conduct as an employee. McKnight was employed in August 1949, and discharged on October 27, 1950. Plant Manager Clark testified that he observed that McKnight engaged in loud and boisterous talking and that in his opinion it would distract other employees from their work. He testified further that there were several occa- sions when he took up McKnight's excessively loud talking with Overseer Silver- s By way of additional support of the surveillance allegation , the General Counsel ad- duced testimony involving Ashwell B. Harward. The undersigned finds it unnecessary to pass upon the issue of what responsibility , if any, the Respondent had for Harward's conduct during January 1951. 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD thorne. Clark testified also that supervisors reported that McKnight engaged in "traveling" around among the employees. Silverthorne explained that Mc- Knight was always on a "rampage" and that she always engaged in loud talking. Silverthorne testified also that he was constantly having to reprimand McKnight for leaving her place of work and engaging in loud conversations, which loud talking continued week in and week out all of the time. Silverthorne explained further that beginning shortly after McKnight became an employee he criticized her once or twice a week, that he did not remember how many times he threatened to discharge McKnight, but that if he had made a record of these occasions in the form of a personnel or "grievance" slip, which the Respondent maintains for this purpose, he would have had to have a large folder to hold them. Earl C. McCartney, a second hand under Silverthorne, described McKnight's objec- tionable conduct as engaging in loud continuous conversation often away from her place of work talking to other employees. He also testified that he talked to her about these matters about two times a week. McKnight was employed by the Respondent under Silverthorne for about 14 months, about 8 months of which she was also supervised by McCartney. The separation notice issued to Hazel McKnight stated, "temperamentally unsuited for job." Although Silverthorne admitted that "grievance" slips are made out only after an attempt is made to do something with the employee, and that threatening an employee with discharge was a very serious matter sufficient to write up a "grievance" slip, no slip was written up on McKnight prior to October 24,s when she disclosed her union interests, 3 days prior to her discharge. The incident which occurred on that day, October 24, already described when a "grievance" slip was executed for the first time, is the one in which McKnight urged unionization to two other employees, Esther McKnight and Edna Pepper, in the restroom and they indicated that they were favorably disposed and Clark was seen standing directly outside the door. Later on during the day of the restroom incident, McCartney told Esther and Hazel McKnight that they had gotten themselves into trouble, that they had talked "too much" or they had talked "too much about the wrong thing," and that they and Pepper would be moved downstairs the next day. Clark, as has been noted, testified that he saw 4 employees, the 2 McKnights, Pepper, and Kilpatrick, leave the restroom and that he reported them to Silver- thorne. The next day the group which had a discussion about a union, Hazel and Esther McKnight and Pepper were sent to a downstairs room to work but Kilpatrick, who was also in the restroom at the time but did not participate in the discussion, was not sent downstairs or even criticized for being in the rest- room. According to the Respondent, it had had no difficulties of the character it asserts it had with Hazel McKnight with any of the other burlers and menders, including Esther McKnight, Pepper, and Kilpatrick. Under Clark's version he did not see any of the 4 employees enter the restroom or hear the conversations which occurred there, yet Esther McKnight and Pepper were sent downstairs along with Hazel McKnight, but Kilpatrick was not included. Silverthorne admitted that there was nothing to prevent him from sending Hazel McKnight down alone, and no explanation was offered to show why Kilpatrick was not sent downstairs along with the rest. According to McCartney, there admittedly were a sufficient number of places of work in that room to accommodate Kil- 9 Another circumstance reflecting upon the accuracy of the Respondent 's portrayal of McKnight's conduct is the admittedly acceptable record of production which she was able to maintain. McCartney, who engaged in a certain amount of joking with the em- ployees himself, admitted that he did not care what conduct the employees engaged in so long as they made production. PACIFIC MILLS 395 patrick along with the others , there being 5 places of work downstairs and only 1 employee, Virginia Thomas Cox, was working there at that time. Silverthorne also admitted that the occasion for sending Hazel McKnight downstairs was, among other things, talking to a group of employees in the restroom and that she was sent there as punishment . It is accordingly found that Clark heard the conversation in the restroom in which Hazel McKnight urged self-organiza- tion upon Esther McKnight and Pepper, which suggestion they were receiving favorably. After working at the downstairs location for 3 days with Esther McKnight, Pepper, and the fourth employee, Cox , Hazel McKnight was discharged on Fri- day, October 27. According to McCartney. on that day he saw Hazel McKnight sitting in her chair out in the aisle away from her work laughing while Esther McKnight, Pepper, and Cox were present. McCartney testified that he told her that she had been sent to this location because she had talked and disturbed other employees upstairs and that if she did not return to work immediately he would discharge her. McCartney continued, that she did not return to her work immediately and that he then got Silverthorne with whom he had arranged earlier that if Hazel McKnight showed no improvement she would be let go. Silverthorne testified that he had' reprimanded Hazel McKnight earlier on the basis of a report by McCartney while she was working on the new location, and testified further that he discharged Hazel McKnight explaining to her that it was for "talking too much and leaving her place of employment and disturbing other people." Both Pepper and Esther McKnight testified credibly that they were unaware of the aisle incident related by McCartney. Cox did not appear as a witness. Hazel McKnight denied that the aisle incident occurred but testified that on the first day at the new location shortly after they began working that morning she and the other girls were laughing as McCartney came by and he told them that they should not be laughing, that they had been sent down as punishment. Hazel McKnight also denied receiving complaints from McCartney and Silver- thorne, but testified that there were occasions when the group as a whole had been told to quit singing and talking so much. McKnight testified further that after the close of the shift Silverthorne discharged her stating the reason as talking too much. In view of the foregoing and upon the basis of the undersigned's observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Hazel McKnight and finds no validity to the reasons for the discharge offered by the Respondent. The undersigned accordingly finds that the Respondent discharged Hazel L. McKnight on October 27, 1950, because it knew of and opposed her activity on behalf of self-organization among the employees in violation of the Act. 2. Sheila D. Peterson The Respondent's explanation for the discharge of Sheila D. Peterson is low earnings. Peterson was hired in September 1949 and was discharged on Novem- ber 10, 1950. In his direct testimony , Overseer Silverthorne in explaining how low earnings was the reason for Peterson 's discharge testified that after an operator com- pleted the training period she is put into the piece rate bracket, that is, the Respondent placed the operator in a position where it granted her "make up pay" by bringing the operator 's pay up to the minimum pay (86 cents an hour) in the event the operator did not earn the minimum pay on the basis of the piecework rates. Further , Silverthorne testified , Peterson did not make the piece rate. Silverthorne continued , that he spoke to Peterson about her pro- duction frequently , almost once a week , and that during the week as he would 396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pass through the department he spoke to her and others and asked them if there was anything the Respondent could do to help them bring up their earnings. Silverthorne estimated that he spoke to Peterson about low earnings once a week explaining that week he had a slip of paper showing the average earnings of the operators and he would go around to those who had low earnings-those who did not make above the 86 cents an hour minimum-warned them and asked them to bring their earnings up and to pay more attention to their work. The three web drawers including Peterson, Silverthorne explained, were usually in the group who received makeup pay, hence the ones he had to talk to, and that the web drawers as a group never did bring their earnings up to what they were supposed to be. Silverthorne testified further that he observed Peterson leaving her work quite frequently and talking to other employees, that he spoke to Peterson about this about 2 or 3 times a week and that although she had com- plaints about the work, she had no excuse for engaging in this conduct. Silver- thorne also testified that he had warned Peterson about her production. It was Silverthorne's opinion that Peterson had received the proper training, that she had the ability, and that she could have made a good web drawer if she had applied herself. In his cross-examination, Silverthorne admitted that Peterson' s earnings were a little better than those of the rest of the web drawing staff, Copeland and Cole. In reply to an inquiry as to why Peterson was discharged during the week she was discharged, Silverthorne stated that it was due to the warnings, she had been warned for some time after she had completed her 12-week training period, that the Respondent could not continually make up her pay to 86 cents and if her earnings were not brought up she would have to be discharged. Silverthorne also stated that these warnings were given once and sometimes twice a week, but that there were about a dozen weeks in which he did not have to talk to her. Further, that Peterson's production, like that of the other web drawers he had ever had at the mill, fluctuated but that none of the web drawers could meet the standards, and that they all had low earnings because they would not apply them- selves to the job, left their work, and engaged in talking. Silverthorne admitted that he did not discharge any web drawers but Peterson, and explained that Peterson had been employed longer at the mill and the Respondent had to start getting people in there who could make the rate. Silverthorne also testified that Peterson was discharged because the Respondent was making up her pay to the 86 cents an hour minimum but not every week. After Silverthorne testified that Peterson was discharged because she was not earning the guaranteed minimum pay, 86 cents an hour, and that the Re- spondent had to make up her pay or subsidize her as a regular matter, Plant Manager Clark, who together with Silverthorne decided to discharge Peterson, gave his testimony. He stated that during the 10-year period ending in Novem- ber 1950, when he managed the mill, there was considerable turnover among the web drawers, that none of them ever came up to expected production, and that none of the web drawers had applied themselves to their work as they should have and were spending too much time away from their work. Clark testified further that these employees were talked to several times by the supervisors about these matters, and that he looked into the physical setup of the job itself and could find nothing wrong. Clark expressed the opinion that Peterson was well trained for the job and that in ability she exceeded any web drawer he had had, but that she was not a satisfactory employee. He testified that he had observed that Peterson would not apply herself to her work, that is, she did not work sufficiently fast after she had completed her training, and that she would not stay at her work the length of time expected of her, that is, she was absent from her place of work on several occasions ; and that therefore she did PACIFIC MILLS 397 not make expected earnings . He recalled that he got after Peterson on two occasions himself and spoke to her about it. Clark also testified that he had received reports from Silverthorne that Peterson was not attending to her work. Clark, however, also testified that in his opinion Peterson's productivity was as good as any of the web drawers working there at that time. Concerning the circumstances immediately preceding Peterson's discharge, Clark testified that she had been warned about her earnings on several occasions but that the last time which he could recall in which he participated occurred during the discussion in his office with Peterson and Silverthorne concerning the computations under the 8 percent pay increase-already alluded to in the pres- entation of events and found to have occurred on October 20-when Peterson came to his office with Silverthorne. On that occasion, which had as its purpose a discussion of the wage increase and not reprimand, according to Clark, he warned Peterson about her earnings as a result of her remark that she was satisfied with the 86 cents an hour and should not the Respondent also be satis- fied. Clark then stated that the Respondent was not satisfied with earnings of around 86 cents per hour, but that they expected earnings by the web drawers of around $1.20 an hour. Clark testified further that he told Peterson that the Respondent was not satisfied with the minimum of 86 cents an hour and that she would have 2 weeks to bring up her earnings or be discharged. Clark thereafter testified that he did not know whether it was he or Silverthorne who had repri- manded Peterson for low production on this occasion. Later in Clark's testi- mony, it appears that he could recall only one instance of speaking to Peterson about low production in what he stated could be interpreted as a criticism for low production. This incident, according to Clark, occurred at Peterson's place of work after she told him that she thought that the rate of a particular style was not properly established and he reviewed the matter and informed her that the rate was properly set but that she was not applying herself and he expected her to do better. Concerning a warning of discharge to Peterson if she did not im- prove her earnings at the October 20 discussion, Silverthorne testified that it was Clark who issued the warning to Peterson and that it was given because of Peterson's asking questions, the substance of which he could not recall. As already noted, Peterson was discharged on Friday, November 10, payday, 3 weeks after the October 20 discussion. During this 3-week period, Peterson had been off from work because of illness for about a week. The substance of the reason Silverthorne gave Peterson at the time of her discharge is low pro- duction. Specifically, Silverthorne told Peterson that she had not made produc- tion and that she was discharged. Peterson told Silverthorne then as she had told him earlier in the week that she had been assigned difficult or bad work upon which she could not make production, at which time Silverthorne had told her that she would have to do the work assigned to her or go home. In his testi- mony Silverthorne admitted that Peterson had complained about difficult work during the last week as she had on other occasions but denied intentionally as- signing more difficult work to Peterson during that week. During the course of the hearing argument was heard concerning the admis- sibility of certain exhibits and testimony the Respondent offered. The Respond- ent then stated in explanation for Peterson's discharge substantially as follows, that Peterson was not discharged because she was lower in production than the other web drawers, but that she was discharged because her earnings were too low, that it discharged 1 or 2 of the web drawers and that the others quit under reprimand because they like Peterson were not producing sufficiently ; and that as to Peterson particularly, her earnings were too low from the time she first went on piece rate (after 12 weeks of training ) despite her longer experi- ence than the other web drawers with the possible exception of 1 employee 398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD who had had longer experience, her earnings did not improve or come up to the Respondent's standards, she did not attend to her work and apply herself, she stayed off her job, and it was the opinion of supervision that she had the ability but that she was not trying. The exhibits involved consist of certain tabulations and a graph which were prepared by the Respondent for the hearing. Also involved is certain derivative testimony which like the exhibits was received with the understanding that the Respondent would disclose the underlying original records without limita- tion. Certain limitations were thereafter imposed by the Respondent and upon the General Counsel's motion, the undersigned struck from the record the exhibits and the testimony derived from the underlying records. The tabulations purport to show the weekly average hourly piece rate earnings and the total average hourly earnings of certain 6 web drawers, including Peterson. The graph purports to show the combined weekly average hourly piece rate earnings of these 6 web drawers as a group during 1950, in relationship to the 86 cents an hour minimum or makeup point, and in relationship to expected earnings of $1.19 an hour prior to the 8 percent increase and to $1.29 an hour subse- quent to the increase. These exhibits were based upon the Respondent's records known as weekly timecards which were in turn made up in the course of the Respondent's business from work tickets submitted by the employees. The time- cards, it appears, show for each employee the styles of work performed, the respective rates, the quantity produced, and the total weekly piece rate earnings per hour. Only the last item on the timecards, the weekly total of piece rate earnings per hour, was used to prepare these exhibits, and hence the exhibits are a partial summary of and substitute for the original records. The Respondent refused to make the rate information appearing on the cards available to the General Counsel as being confidential, irrelevant, and immaterial, except that at one point, as already noted, it made the cards available to the General Counsel, including the rate information, for a short period of time when it temporarily receded from this position and the General Counsel obtained a cursory inspec- tion of the timecards without limitation. After some discussion, the Respondent limited its purpose in offering these exhibits to show only that Peterson's earnings like those of each of the other web drawers were below expected earnings," and took further the position that no consideration be given to and no inferences be drawn from any comparisons 10 If the Respondent 's exhibits had been received and a showing was thus wade of the relationship of the group of web drawers, including Peterson, t, earnings of $1 19 an hour prior to the 8 percent increase and $1 29 an hour after that increase, the record does not contain assurance that these figures represent the Respondent's concepts or standards of expected earnings or which figures , if any, were actually used in the operation of this mill . As has already been noted concerning the October 20 conference on the operation of the 8 percent wage increase which had already been granted, according to Clark, he informed Peterson that the Respondent expected earnings of about $1.20 an h-)ur. According to a "grievance" slip which Silverthorne testified was a summary of the conference and which he executed about the time of the events, Peterson was then informed that the minimum expected earnings was $1 . 14 an hour and that the expected average earnings was $1.28 an hour. At the hearing Silverthorne stated that the ex- pected earnings before the 8 percent increase was $1 10 to $ 1.12 an hour and that after the increase it was $1.14. David E Arthur, the Respondent's manager of the southern division which embraces the Carrhoro mill, als i testified about expected earnings. Com- putations from his testimony show that the average expected earnings for web drawers before the 8 percent increase was $1.19 an hour and that with that increase it was $1.28 an hour , and that the minimum expected earnings before the 8 percent increase was $1 05 and that with that increase it was $1.14. In any event, according to Silverthorne, it was Peterson 's failure to earn the guaranteed minimum pay (f 86 cents an hour and that the Respondent 's subsidizing her as a regular thing which was the cause for her discharge. PACIFIC MILLS 399 between Peterson and the other web drawers. The Respondent maintained that the General Counsel may inspect timecards in order to make compilations or otherwise test the validity of the computations it offered and test the truth of the testimony derived from these records. However , the Respondent took the position that the General Counsel would have to limit himself to the matters which the Respondent used and insisted were relevant-the weekly earnings figures of the web drawers, and exclude from consideration the rate paid for the individual styles of work and how the rates were derived, which matters the Respondent viewed as confidential, irrelevant, and immaterial. The General Counsel contending that the partial presentation was mis- leading and that inspection or a presentation of the whole was necessary to show explanations for the conclusions and/or that other conclusions were indi- cated, pointed out that upon the basis of his cursory examination the tabulations and the timecards showed that no consideration was given in the tabulations to the wage increase and that there was a distinct correlation between the styles assigned and the quantity assigned and the weekly earnings. Specifically, he asserted that the web drawers who were assigned styles rated high, received high earnings . He urged also that the Respondent's refusal to permit him a thorough and practical inspection of the timecards prevented him from setting forth other specific matters of relevancy. Further, on the issue of the relevancy of the rate information, it is noted that the correlation asserted by the General Counsel-that the assignment of high rated styles and high earnings went together-and an analysis of Peterson's assignments bears upon the testimony of the witness to qualify the exhibits, which is supported by Silverthorne, to the effect that such a correlation was not possible. Specifically, the testimony involved is to the effect that the rates for the work were based upon time studies which took into consideration the difficulties or factors of each style and had the effect of equalizing earnings on each style by establishing rate dif- ferentials. Silverthorne, as has been noted, denied having intentionally as- signed more difficult work to Peterson. Peterson's testimony, on the other hand, that she was aware of low earnings with certain styles and that she took this matter up with management particularly toward the end of her employment, would be supported by such a correlation which would thus tend to refute the Respondent 's contention that Peterson 's production was low or that her earnings were below that which was expected because of her own shortcomings. In addition to pointing out that the rate information was relevant and important to a determination of the facts, on the issue of the confidential nature of the information, the General Counsel pointed out that upon the basis of the Respond- ent's testimony, it was the Respondent 's practice to disclose this information to the employees upon their request. The undersigned accordingly rejected the exhibits involved and struck from the record the testimony derived from the time- cards which had been received with the understanding that the timecards would be made available without limitation . The General Counsel sought to have an adverse inference drawn from the Respondent 's refusal to make this information available . The undersigned is of the opinion that the General Counsel is entitled to have the adverse inference drawn. The Respondent , as has been noted , does not contend that Peterson was dis- charged because her production was lower than that of the other web drawers. Clark was of the opinion that Peterson's productivity was as good as, and Silverthorne viewed Peterson's earnings as a little better than, those of the other web drawers at the time . Clark also admitted that in ability Peterson exceeded any web drawer they had had in the 10 years he was manager of the mill. 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Silverthorne admitted to Peterson, according to her credible testimony, that she was usually at the head of the production list and earned more than the others." Supervisor Powell, as had already been set forth, also informed Peterson that her work was quite satisfactory and above any of the other web drawers. Cole and Copeland, the other web drawers, each gave credible testimony that Peterson was a faster worker than she was. It appears also that Peterson was selected to train another employee as a web drawer. Peterson's credible testimony shows that Silverthorne had on many occasions come to Peterson's place of work and informed her that the production of all the web drawers as well as the entire mill was low, that the local management was receiving complaints from Massachusetts, and that if production was not raised they might move the mill from town. Further, according to Peterson's credible testimony, Silverthorne got after Peterson personally and it was on one or more of these occasions that Silverthorne told Peterson that her production was usually at the head of the list. Silverthorne testified that he had warned Peterson frequently and for some time after she completed her 12-week training period that if her earnings were not brought above the makeup point, 86 cents an hour, she would have to be discharged. He also testified, as has been noted in the McKnight case, that "grievance" slips were made out only after an at- tempt is made to do something with the employee, and that warning of dis- charge was sufficient reason to write up "grievance" slip. Yet, Silverthorne did not write up a slip on Peterson until after about a year of her employment with the Respondent. The first slip Silverthorne did write on Peterson is dated October 12, 1950, which he explained he wrote up for the record in order to show that he informed Peterson that her earnings were low, and was executed after she informed him and Durham of her desire to obtain the aid of a labor organization. Peterson's credible testimony also shows that she was not warned at the October 20 wage increase conference that her production was too low or that it would have to be brought up in any certain time, and that Clark never reprimanded her for low production. Silverthorne never spoke to Peterson about leaving her work. There was one occasion, according to Peterson's credible testimony, when Supervisor Fyfe reprimanded her and another web drawer, whose employment with the Respondent ceased sometime before Peterson was discharged, for not attending to their work when the two went to the restrooln together as they were getting ready for lunch" 11 According to Copeland's credible testimony, Silverthorne admitted to her while Peter- son was an employee that Peters-n was the best web drawer he had ever had at the mill Copeland also testified that after Peterson was discharged Silverthorne stated that Peterson could be a good web drawer when she wanted to, but that she talked too much. 12 Peterson brought a portable radio to the mill on two Saturdays, one in the fall of 1949 and the other in the fall of 1,950, to listen to the broadcast of certain North Carolina football games. On the occasion in 1949, while her husband was employed by the Respond- ent, he and Supervisor Ashwell Harward, who was then a second hand, sat at her place of work and listened to the ball game. On the other occasion in 1950, Peterson tried to receive the broadcast of the game but the radio did not work pr'perly On this occasion in 1950, Harward, who was then engaged in loom fixing as training for the higher position of shift supervisor which position he obtained in May 19511, heard part of the game from a radio in an employee's car parked on the street while he was at or near a window in the mill and thereafter reported the score to Peterson. Other employees brought their radios to the mill and although they were told by their supervisor, Earl C. McCartney. not to bring their radios to the mill, they continued to do so McCartney admitted that he "more than likely" told them that they could listen to the radios so long as they did not neglect their work and create too much confusion. It also appears that while Peterson 's husband had been employed by the Respondent prior to May or June 1950, there were occasions when be came by Mrs. Peterson's place of work and visited with her and the other web drawers for about 10 or 15 minutes There were also cccasions in the latter part of the summer of 1950 , when Mr. Peterson PACIFIC MILLS 401 There are other circumstances which reflect upon the Respondent 's version of Peterson 's discharge . Prior to the time when Peterson sought the aid of a labor organization in solving her problems with the Respondent, she recog- nized that the Respondent wanted production and explained that she wanted earnings . To her own and the Respondent 's advantage she volunteered to the Respondent that she was willing to spend her own funds in order to visit another of the Respondent 's plants to learn how the web drawers there were able to earn more money and thereby increase production. This is hardly the conduct of an employee who, as the Respondent contends , neglected her obligation to her- self and the Respondent by not doing her work . The Respondent , like any other business organization , is interested in' increasing production yet it dis- charged Peterson while at the same time it permitted another employee to re- main who was then well beyond the normal training period and did not show prospects of becoming a good producer . Also, at that time the Respondent had no experienced operator to replace Peterson at a function which was per- formed by a small group of employees and which function the Respondent viewed as a significant link in its operations preceding the actual weaving process. The undersigned concludes and finds that the Respondent discharged Peterson not because of low earnings , but because she had informed the Respondent of her intention to go beyond the mill family and seek the aid of a labor organiza- tion in her grievances with the Respondent . It is accordingly found that Re- spondent discharged Sheila D . Peterson on November 10, 1950 , in violation of Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 3. Roscoe M. Davis The General Counsel alleges that Roscoe M. Davis was discriminatorily dis- charged on January 19 , 1951. The Respondent denies any discrimination and that Davis was discharged, but contends that he was laid off for lack of work on that date. Davis was employed under the supervision of John J . Neal , who was in charge of all of the Respondent 's maintenance and mechanical work. Davis performed work both at the mill and at the Respondent -owned houses. He did various types of work such as bricklaying , machine-shop work , carpentry , plumb- ing, electrical work , and painting , as assigned by Neal. Davis' earnings ranged from $1 .25 an hour when he was hired in about August 1948 to $1 .59 an hour when he was last employed . There appears to be no question that Davis was a satisfactory employee. As already noted in the statement of the events , Davis joined the Union at the meeting at the McKnights on Wednesday , January 10 , 1951 , and on the next morning Davis informed Neal of this. Neal then stated that that was Davis' privilege and/or that he would do the same if he were in a position to do so. That evening or on the next evening , Neal told Davis that he was a "damn fool" for joining the Union, that he did not have to join the Union, and inquired of Davis why he joined the Union . On that occasion or on some other occasion before Davis ceased working for the Respondent, Neal told Davis that he would not discharge Davis for joining the Union . During the afternoon of Friday, January 19, Neal informed Davis that he was laid off for lack of work. Neal , in his direct testimony , stated that sometime after his first conversation with Davis about the Union , the plant manager informed him that the operations came to the emergency door of the room where Mrs Peterson worked, which door opens upon the street , and they spent about 5 minutes in conversation. On these occasions he brought Mrs. Peterson lunch or a cold drink . It appears that other employees were accustomed to go to the same door to receive lunches and drink from their friends and relatives and stop to talk at the door. 402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the mill were slackening down and that it looked like he would have to cut his crew. Further, Neal testified that with decreased mill production, there would be decreased machine maintenance and repair , resulting in a decrease in his machine-shop work. In addition Neal stated that Davis was the youngest in terms of service with the Respondent there. Neal continued that after he laid off Davis no one was hired to do machinist work , that he did practically all of it, but that on occasion he had some of his employees , Jessie Howard and another , help out at the shop for a short time. On cross-examination of Neal it was shown that at the time Davis was told he was laid off, Howard , who helped out at the machine shop after Davis' employment ended , was doing painting work as Davis had done earlier in his employment with the Respondent . Neal also testified that Davis was hired before Howard was hired and then stated that seniority was not a factor in the selection for layoff . Neal explained that he selected Davis because he did not need a man in the shop as much as he did elsewhere . Neal also testified that it was sometime in the middle of Davis' final week of work that the plant manager informed him of the decrease in operations , that he paid Davis as usual on Friday morning, and that it was not until sometime that afternoon that he first informed Davis that he was laid off. Davis' last principal assignment was in the machine shop doing welding, a function which Neal at that time performed only on an occasional basis. On January 19, there was a backlog of about a week 's welding work on the bench. During Davis' last few weeks with the Respondent , he had been working with the electricians on a construction job. This construction job had not been then completed . When Neal gave Davis his paycheck as usual on Friday morning, January 19 , according to Davis' credible testimony , Neal told him that they would all work the next day, Saturday." In October 1951, when a vacancy next arose in Neal's department , Davis was offered a job as a fireman at $1.16 an hour . Davis declined this offer , which was less than his starting pay 21/2 years earlier , and explained in his testimony that he and his wife and 6 children could not live on that income. The undersigned concludes under the circumstances that the Respondent made this offer as an empty gesture or, in the event the offer was accepted , as a demonstration to its employees that self-organizational activities were to their detriment. It thus appears that Davis had satisfactorily performed a variety of mainte- nance tasks during his 21/2 years of service with the Respondent ; that he was terminated without notice on the day he was told to report the next day for Saturday work ; that at the time Davis was terminated there was a backlog of welding work and the construction work to which Davis had been assigned re- mained to be completed ; and that a junior maintenance employee remained working . The undersigned accordingly concludes and finds despite Neal's decla- ration that he would not discharge Davis because of the Union , that on January 19, 1951, the Respondent had Davis discharged-like it had McKnight and Peter- son-as part of a plan to rid itself of union adherents in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. It is found in addition that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by Neal 's inquiry of Davis as to why he joined the Union. is On cross-examination , when Neal was first questioned on this subject , he testified that he did not recall telling Davis on Friday , January 19, that he would w-rk the next day, Saturday . He was then asked if he would deny having so stated to Davis. Neal thereupon testified that he denied it when he testified that he did not recall. At another point in his cross -examination , Neal testified that he did not remember a certain matter and when asked if he was denying that the event occurred, be testified that he did not deny it PACIFIC MILLS IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 403 The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Hazel L. McKnight on October 27, 1950, Sheila D. Peterson on November 10, 1950, and Roscoe M. Davis on January 19, 1951. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to offer McKnight, Peterson, and Davis immediate and full reinstatement to his or her former or substantially equivalent position 14 without prejudice to his or her seniority or other rights and privileges and make each whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination, by pay- ment to each of a sum of money equal in amount to that which each would have earned as wages from the date of the Respondent's discrimination against him or her to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his or her net earnings " to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other such period. Having found that the Respondent has engaged in (1) surveillance of union meetings, (2) interrogating an employee as to who had solicited him on behalf of the Union, (3) making annoying and threatening telephone calls, and (4) interrogating an employee as to why he joined the Union, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist there- from. In view of these violations and the discrimination found above, the undersigned will, in order to make the recommendations coextensive with the threat of further violations and to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac- tices, recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act." On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Hazel L. McKnight on October 27, 1950, Sheila D. Peterson on November 10, 1950, and Roscoe M. Davis on January 19, 1951, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. 14 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, 65 NLRB 827. 15 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B.. 311 U. S. 7. 16 May Department Stores V. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. 404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By engaging in the acts and conduct summarized in section V, above, en- titled "The Remedy," including discrimination, and thus interfering with, re- straining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of our employees by dis- charging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings, interrogate our em- ployees as to who has solicited them on behalf of a union, make annoying and threatening telephone calls, or interrogate our employees as to why they joined a union. 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, to join, to assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Hazel L. McKnight, Sheila D. Peterson, and Roscoe M. Davis immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of discrimination against him. All our employees are free to join, form, or assist any labor organization, and to engage in any self-organization or other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from such activities except to the extent that such right is affected by an agreement made in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. PACIFIC MILLS, CARRBORO, WOOLEN MILLS DIVISION, Employer. By ---------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) Dated-------------------- This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.