Perdue, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 8, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 530 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Perdue , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-6139 March 8, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On November 20, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Phil Saunders issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in reply to Respondent's exceptions and brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Perdue, Inc.. Accomac, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PHIL SAUNDERS, Administrative Judge : Based on a charge filed on May 31 , 1973,1 by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , a complaint against Perdue, Inc.,2 herein the Respondent or the Company, was issued on July 16 alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relation Act , as amended. Respondent filed an answer to the complaint denying it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this proceeding was held before me, and both the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs. I All dates are 1973 unless stated otherwise. 2 The proper designation of the employer as corrected at the hearing All credibility resolutions made herein are based on a composite evaluation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the probabilities of the evidence as a whole The eviscerating department has several production or conveyor lines and on which lines chickens pass by at a certain rate per minute (at full speed 51 birds a minute ). and the 30 or so employees on each line must Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: :s FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a Maryland corporation with a plant located in Accomac, Virginia, and where it is engaged in the processing and wholesale distribution of poultry products. During the past 12 months, a representative period, the Respondent has shipped to points located directly outside the Commonwealth of Virginia products valued in excess of $50,000. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES It is alleged that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated and threatened employees and that agents of the Company created the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities. It is also alleged that on May 31, the Respondent discriminatorily terminated the employment of Addie Madre. Madre was employed by the Company on March 22, 1971, and worked as a "liver trimmer" on line five in the eviscerating department until her discharged on May 31. Madre worked under the immediate supervision of Alphine Pettit .4 Madre first became aware of the Union sometime during the spring of 1972 and subsequently signed a card in November of that year. It appears that in the period between January 1973, and the second week in May 1973, Madre solicited and signed up approximately 35 to 40 fellow employees for the Union, and she made no attempts to disguise her support for the Union. On or about May 24, Madre attended a meeting held by Respondent's Vice President Donald Mabe and during which Mabe presented the views of Respondent relative to the union campaign. Following this meeting, Mabe and Madre then engaged in a conversation between themselves concerning the Union, and in the course of which Madre noted that she was "100 percent for the Union." Mabe testified that "the first time I knew who Addie Madre was, I suppose, was in one of the group sessions." Mabe also admitted that Madre was very outspoken and did not try to hide her union support during the group meeting.5 On May 31, Madre reported at the start of her shift at 7 a.m., and about 8:25 a.m. notified Alphine Pettit, her perform their particular functions as the birds go by their respective stations. From time to time the line or lines are stopped for various reasons. There are three liver trimmers on each line. 5 Earlier , in the spring of 1973, at a meeting held in the cafeteria attended by approximately 200 employees. Madre had stated that there were problems in the relief system for employees on the production lines, and that her medical treatments made this an acute personal problem due to her need to visit the restroom frequently These remarks were addressed to 209 NLRB No. 97 PERDUE, INC. immediate supervisor, that she had to go to the restroom and requested Pettit to send the relief girl for her. Pettit returned shortly thereafter to tell Madre that the relief girl would get to her in a few minutes. At about 8:55 a.m., not having yet been relieved, Madre then told Supervisor Rebecca Watson that she had to go to the bathroom "bad," and requested that Watson send someone to relieve her. Watson told her that the relief girl would soon be there. Madre testified that a few minutes after she requested relief from Watson, Alphine Pettit came by and again told Madre that the relief girl could not come because "the girls" down the line wouldn't let her relieve Madre until they themselves were relieved. Madre stated that at this point she told Pettit, "I have to go and I am going now." Pettit then immediately left, but Madre asked the two other trimmers on her line if they would "hold the line," and being told that they would, Madre left her station and went to the bathroom. She was gone for several minutes and when she returned from the bathroom the relief girl was in her place. Annie Dickerson, a liver trimmer along with Madre on line five, credibly testified that the line did not stop in Madre's absence .6 Shortly after Madre returned to her station on line five she learned that her name had been called over the speaker and was asked to report to the office, but Madre replied that they knew where she was if they wanted her. A few minutes later Supervisor Rebecca Watson came by and told her that Plant Manager John Spradling wanted to see her, and Madre then went with Watson to the front office. Alphine Pettit also came into the office and left with Watson for a few minutes, but upon their return Pettit informed Madre that Wayne Jester, Respondent's person- nel manager, had told Pettit to take Madre to the locker area and get her things. At this point Madre asked, "What are they doing, firing me"? To which Pettit replied, "We don't know until you get your things. Pettit then went with Madre to her locker, and when they returned Pettit and Madre went into Spradling's office while Watson remained in the hall, and in a few minutes, Spradling came into his office. Spradling first asserted that Madre had walked off the line, which she admitted, but Madre then told Spradling she had to go to the restroom and could not get relief to do so. Spradling replied, "You are still not suppose to walk off the line." Madre then asked Spradling, "Well, if you had to go real bad, and couldn't get no relief, would you have stayed there and wetted your clothes"? Spradling then reminded Madre that just the other day she had left the line to use the bathroom and had used the telephone instead. Madre replied that on that occasion she had been Plant Manager John Spradling , and whose response was that this matter was her personal problem 8 Supervisor Watson stated that at the time in question she told Wynola (Bernadine) Fisher, the acting relief girl on line five, that Madre wanted to go to the bathroom , but said that other employees overheard this request and informed her that they were not giving up their turns Bertha Townsend , a relief girl, testified that several employees had complained to her in the past about Madre being relieved out of turn, and Supervisor Pettit said that on the morning in question she had also been told by other girls that they would not give up their turns for Madre Wynola Fisher stated that when Supervisor Pettit informed her that Madre wanted relief two other employees had already told her that they wanted off, and Fisher also testified that "the girls" had been "fussing" because Madre was "always 531 relieved, and then explained that only when she was relieved on her regular breaks, four of them each day, did she use the telephone, and that occasionally she had to call because her husband is an invalid and many times he is left at home alone. Spradling then stated again that the Company could not tolerate her walking off the line and she was to be discharged. Madre replied that she had never received a warning or suspension, and further expressed the opinion that she was being dealt with unfairly. Madre also informed Spradling she had never received a company handbook when she was hired. Spradling then handed her an envelope containing a cash payment of the wages owed her at that time, but Madre refused to sign a receipt for the money. She was then escorted off the plant premises. Spradling testified that in the time he has been with the Company he had discharged "three or four or five" employees, and that he became involved with the discharge of Madre because of the "atmosphere" at the time, and also related the difficulties they had encountered a month prior when there had been a walkout at the plant over another discharge, and to settle this dispute it was necessary to call the sheriff and the State police. Wayne Jester, personnel manager, was asked why he thought Madre important enough to take her case to the Plant Manager John Spradling, and Jester replied: Because she stated that she was going to leave the line whether she was relieved or not. As I stated, with the other walkouts that we have had, I felt, in a particular case where we had just had a walkout a month or two prior to that, the Plant Manager should be involved. Madre stated that in the period of time she worked for Respondent, a period of approximately 27 months, she had never received a written warning and her testimony on this point is uncontradicted by Respondent. Spradling indi- cates the decision to fire Madre was his, made after discussing the situation with Watson, Jester, and Clair Taylor in the personnel office just prior to going into his office to meet with Madre, as aforestated. Madre admitted that of the three trimmers on line five, she went to the restroom more than the other, and said that it was necessary 2 or 3 times a week for the other girls to "hold the line" for her.7 In explaining this abnormal need to relieve herself, Madre testified, "Well, I take a pill for blood pressure and it has medication in it for fluid. That's why I have to leave the line as I did." When asked if she were aware of the availability of a special procedure to get yelling" about going to the restroom Fisher testified that upon her return to the line Madre stated , "She showed them that she could walk off the line." T Holding the line describes the situation which results when one of the three liver trimmers leaves her line without relief . Each remaining girl's production requirement is thereby increased so that they must work on every other bird Alphine Pettit testified that she had warned Madre on at least two other occasions about leaving the line without permission, and explained to her that a full complement of liver trimmers was needed on the line to avoid increasing the risk of contaminating chickens. There is conflicting testimony in this record as to whether or not two liver trimmers can "hold the line" when it is operating full speed at 51 birds a minute. However, several of the witnesses agreed that it can be done and frequently is, but only for a very short period of time-from 5 to 10 minutes. 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD extra relief, Madre answered that she was, but had not taken advantage of this special procedure .8 Before making my final conclusions as to Madre, I will first turn to the 8(a)(1) allegations in the complaint. The alleged threats of discharge relate to conversations between Plant Manager John Spradling and employees Alice Coles and Maggie Stanford. There is no question that both Coles and Stanford had been extremely active for the Union. Coles had contacted between 40 and 50 employees in seeking authorization cards, and Stanford had been successful in obtaining about 20 card signatures. Within an hour or so after Madre had been discharged on May 31, Plant Manager Spradling called Coles and Stanford into his office and told them this was his last warning, and the next time they would be fired. The Respondent admits a conversation between these parties, but categorically denies that it in any manner threatened to discharge employees in violation of the Act. Spradling testified that his remarks on this occasion were the result of threats having been made to other employees by Coles, and Stanford, and that the Company would not tolerate such conduct. While Stanford and Coles denied making any threats to other employees-there is considerable evidence in this record to the contrary. Employee Ruth Dozier credibly testified that on several occasions Maggie Stanford had talked to groups of employees in the restroom, and m so doing had threatened that unless the employees supported the Union there would be some "ass whipping." She also testified that Stanford had stated that unless the Union was victorious, they would "tear the white coats off."9 Dozier stated that she reported the above incidents to Personnel Manager Jester. Employee Frances Daggin gave credited testimony that Alice Coles had told her "you better join the Union, else there's going to be some ass kicking around here Friday." Daggin said she reported these threats to her line supervisor. Supervisor Harold Dickerson testified that about 2 weeks before the Board election on June 22, one of his employees, Brenda Chambers, told him that Coles had a "whole crowd" around her in the restroom and was telling them there was going to be a lot of "ass beating" if they did not vote for the Union. Chambers also reported to Supervisor Dickerson that she was "too scared and nervous to work." Dickerson replied that he would inform Spradling as to this situation and testified that he did so. After this incident it appears that Spradling once again called Coles into his office, and this time gave her a written warning for intimidating and threatening employees, and told her that if a third one was issued she would be discharged. The General Counsel argues that the denials of Coles and Stanford should be credited because of their forthright testimony, and that the impact of the timing of these warnings or threats by Spradling cannot be overlooked. However, I agree that there is substantial and adequate evidence in this record which warrants the conclusion that 9 An employee with a medical problem could receive special considera- tion from her supervisor by first explaining the problem to the doctor or nurse, and then obtaining a "slip" as confirmation that the problem was legitimate 9 It appears that line supervisors in the plant wear white coats. Coles and Stanford did threaten and intimidate other employees, and that, therefore, Respondent acted lawfully in reprimanding the offenders for their misconduct. From my observations of these witnesses, both Coles and Stanford appear to be intelligent and aggressive individuals and with considerable ability to readily expound, and I have no doubt they both pushed their fellow workers very hard in their efforts and frequently used the remarks and statements attributed to them, and that as a result other employees in this plant were frightened and reported this to management, as aforestated.10 Even if, arguendo, the conduct by Spradling be deemed initially coercive, it was effectively repudiated and neutralized in that Spradling made it crystal clear to both Coles and Stanford that they were being talked to and warned because other employees had specifically and repeatedly complained to manage- ment about the strong methods and verbal messages they were continually using in their support of the Union. I do not believe that the nature of this warning, in the total aspects and context of all the circumstances, is sufficient to establish a violation. Accordingly, I hereby dismiss that portion of the complaint. It is alleged that on or about May 30, 1973, Executive Vice President Donald Mabe threatened employees with a reduction in their wages should the Union be selected as their bargaining agent. This record shows that Mabe had a great many small group meetings with 8 to 15 employees at a time, altogether there are over 700 employees in the plant, and in which meetings he outlined the official position of the Company as it related to the Union. Mabe said that occasionally he would deviate from his prepared text depending on which group he was talking to, but that he never deviated from his prepared text on any of the controversial issues such as bargaining matters and wages. Madre testified that in the small group meeting she attended with Mabe, the following occurred: That was when he [Mabel was telling us about the dues. He said that the initiation fees would be $14.00 and that the dues would be $7.00, and that would amount up-the dues would-to $84.00 per year. He said that's a lot of money coming from 750 or more employees. That is when one of the girls said we would be out on strike without pay, we would probably have to pay our own insurance, and we may not get as much as we are getting now. We already have better benefits than most of the plants have. Mr. Mabe said that was right. The most that can be said of the above is that Mahe agreed with an employee when she was expounding on what could happen in event of a strike, but this in no way can be deemed as a threat by the Company to reduce wages. The only credible evidence concerning this matter is the testimony of Mabe, in which he affirmatively denied that he had ever threatened to reduce an employee's wages. 10 Coles agreed and admitted that she would do "everything necessary" to get the Union in, but then added certain limitations-so long as it wasn't intimidating or threatening She also admitted talking quite often to groups of employees in the restroom PERDUE, INC. 533 Accordingly, I hereby dismiss this portion of the com- plaint. It is alleged that at various times in May both Spradling and Mabe created the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities. Maggie Stanford testified that on May 31, right after she had been in Spradling's office, as aforestated, she noticed "a lot of supervisors," along with the nurse and others, watching her and Alice Coles when they went to the restroom or to their lockers, and said that this never happened before and that these people contin- ued watching them up until the election on June 22. Stanford said she never complained to anyone about this. From what I have detailed earlier herein, Coles and Stanford had been specifically warned, properly so in the exercise of managerial rights, not to threaten other employees in soliciting their support, and pursuant to these instruction the Company had every right to see that these directions were carved out. Because of these special circumstances supervisors may well have been watching and guarding for any additional threats to employees so that Spradling could be advised if there were any, but whatever the impact of these circumstances, it must have been extremely minor in character because Coles makes no reference whatsoever to these incidents in her testimony, and as a result the testimony of Stanford rests without any corroboration. In view of the above and in light of the surrounding extenuating circumstances, I will also dismiss this part of the complaint as it involves Coles and Stanford. Herman Johnson testified that on two respective occa- sions in late May, Donald Mabe and John Spradling spoke to him about the Union. Concerning his conversation with Mabe, Johnson stated that Mabe had informed him that "he knew [Johnson] was attending union meetings." A few days later Johnson talked with Spradling, and according to Johnson, Spradling stated, "I heard that you had made a suggestion the other night-referring to our union meeting -about not walking out." It appears that during these conversations each party expressed his thoughts concern- ing the pros and cons of the Union, and, in fact, the Respondent admits that each of the above conversations did occur, and further admits that Johnson's account of these conversations is reasonably accurate as to their content, but contends that the remarks by Mabe and Spradling were no more than casual and innocuous comments, and further, that they were made without an intention to infringe upon Johnson's rights. It appears to me that the above statements made to Johnson clearly tended to create an impression that the employee's union activities or meetings were being observed by management, and could be used as a basis for future retaliatory action, and especially so as Mahe fully assured Johnson that the Company would "fight to keep the Umon out." This announced determination on the part of the Respondent, and also made crystal clear on other occasions, takes the remarks here in question out of the category of casual comments, and makes them clearly violative of the Act, and I so find. It is also specifically alleged that at various times during the month of May, Donald Mabe interrogated employees concerning their interest in the Union. A careful review of this record discloses no reasonable basis to warrant a finding that Mabe asked any questions which could be deemed unlawful interrogations. It is also difficult to ascertain as to what evidence the General Counsel offers or relied upon as a basis for this allegation, and in his brief makes no argument whatsoever in reference or support thereof. Donald Mabe denies allegations that he engaged in any activity which could be construed as illegal interrogation. Accordingly, I also dismiss this portion of the complaint. At the very end of the trial and after all the parties had rested, the General Counsel attempted to amend his complaint to specifically allege additional 8(a)(1) conduct by one of the Respondent's agents.[[ I denied the motion to amend the complaint mainly on the grounds of its complete untimeliness.12 Coles had given her testimony for the General Counsel the day before, and, therefore, it appears there was ample opportunity to present the amendment much earlier in the trial rather then waiting until the very last possible moment. It seems to me that such practices must be vigorously discouraged as it places undue burden on most everyone concerned, and under some circumstances can be highly prejudicial. The prosecu- tion should know its full case prior to resting and most certainly before the opposition has rested its defense. The General Counsel further contends that his motion to amend should have been granted on the grounds that the issue here in question was fully litigated. The short answer to this argument is that the issue was not fully litigated. On the basis that the complaint was not amended "co- extensively" with the testimony in question-counsel for the Respondent did not examine Coles as to these statement on his cross-and recross-examination of her, nor did he ask Watson, when she was called as a witness for the Company, whether or not she ever made such remarks to Coles. At such times the Respondent did not consider this testimony and matter in issue since there had been no effort to include it in the complaint, and at the belated time when the General Counsel did advise the Company of his intentions to amend, all of the pertinent witnesses thereto had long departed. At this late date, and under these particular circumstances, the Respondent was justified in refusing to reopen and litigate his defense on this matter. For the reasons here indicated, my prior ruling on the motion to amend is confirmed and I make no finding in these respects since the matter was not fully litigated. In essence, the Company maintains that Madre was discharged because she challenged the lawful authority of her supervisor and walked off a production line without permission in direct contravention of an established company rule. The critical issue for my determination is whether Respondent's asserted reason for discharging Madre was the real cause of her discharge, or was merely a pretext asserted by Respondent to nd itself of an individual whose activity for the Union was well known to Respondent in the midst of a vigorous election campaign. II Alice Coles had testified that on May 3l Supervisor Rebecca Watson and loss of her job told her that they did not need the Umon in the plant, and said that Watson 12 Even if found the remedy herein would merely be cumulative. then threatened her with a reduction of wages, a loss of insurance benefits, 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD The fact that Madre supported the Union and knowledge of it is not disputed on the record, nor is it denied by the Respondent. However, the Respondent does maintain and argues that evidence in this case established the following: (1) Madre intentionally violated a company rule; (2) Madre was aware of the rule and knew that she was not permitted to violate it; (3) the Respondent's rule was reasonable, and, indeed, necessary to the efficient opera- tion of its production lines; (4) Madre acted defiantly and insubordinately in her refusal upon returning to the line to report as directed by an official of the Company; and (5) Addie Madre, when given the chance to state the reason or explain the circumstances of her discharge, testified that she was discharged for walking off the line. The Company further argues that there was no disparate treatment of Madre with regard to the enforcement of Respondent's rule, and also points out that Madre was neither the most active union adherent nor the most open and unguarded in her union sentiments, and that had the Respondent wished to seize upon an opportunity to discharge the employees who were most active on behalf of the Union, the most likely candidates would have been Alice Coles and Maggie Stanford. Madre worked at the Respondent's Accomac plant for over 2 years without receiving any written warnings about her work or conduct, and the Respondent offers no evidence that Madre was ever criticized or warned by her supervisors concerning her work other than a routine oral admonition against "staining" the birds. As previously detailed herein, Madre took medication for a health problem that caused her to make frequent visits to the restroom. Furthermore, at an employee meeting in the plant cafeteria with John Spradling, Madre had spoken out about the problems of the relieve system, and had also stated her personal problem in this regard. As pointed out, the Company contends that Madre was discharged for leaving the production line without permis- sion or relief, in violation of a provision in Employees' handbook and a plant rule which states that, "any person walking off the line without the supervisor's permission will be considered to have quit." Yet, the fact remains that employees have walked off the line and continue to walk off the line for emergency purposes such as Madre did on May 31, and no disciplinary action has been taken against them. Indeed, the day before the discharge here in question, Madre herself held the line for fellow trimmer Annie Dickerson when Dickerson fell victim to an asthma attack, and this was even admitted by Supervisor Pettit. Rosemary Hill, a liver trimmer on lme seven, testified that she had left the line "last week" and this was known by her supervisor, Odis Kran. Hill stated that on this occasion she informed Kran she had to go to the restroom, but the supervisor replied that the relief girl was busy. Hill said that she then asked the other two trimmers working with her to hold the line and then went to the restroom and was gone for 5 or 6 minutes. Hill has worked at the plant for about a year and stated that in this period of time she had personally left the line "30 to 35 times" without permission and without relief, and then further testified 13 Respondent places considerable emphasis in its argument on Madre's own testimony that she was discharged for walking off the line Respondent that she had told Donald Mabe during a meeting between Mabe and a group of employees following Madre's discharge, that she and others had walked off the line on several occasions without any disciplinary action being taken. She said that Mabe then immediately went on to another subject. Hill further testified that she and one other trimmer have "held the line" for as long as 15 minutes , but clarified this by stating that the speed of the line does vary from time to time. Hill said that she did not know anything about the plant rule prohibiting the leaving of the production line until Madre was fired. Leversa Kellam, a trim girl on line three, testified that about 2 weeks prior to her testimony a liver trimmer by the name of Townsend left the line without relief to go to the bathroom and was not reprimanded or disciplined. Kellan further testified that about 2 months previously, and before Madre's discharge, Townsend had left the line without relief and the two other trimmers held the line until she returned. She said that Townsend had to walk near the supervisor on her way to the restroom so Supervisor Delores Hall knew that she was gone from her station, but yet no disciplinary action was taken. Elain Peed, a liver trimmer on line seven, testified that she had personally left the line on May 30 to go to the bathroom because she was unable to get anyone in relief. Peed said that when she returned to her station the relief girl was in her place, and was then informed that the line had to stop due to her absence, but nothing else was said or done. Peed also testified that "a few months ago" she had observed Sue Dorsey and a girl known as Stella leave the line without relief. In addition to the above, there are also other factors and testimony which strongly militate against the Respondent's defense and contentions. Alphine Pettit, the immediate supervisor involved, admitted that she did not recommend to anyone that Madre be discharged nor was her opinion asked for, and Pettit also stated that if Madre had to go to the restroom "real bad" she would consider this an emergency. Rebecca Watson, also closely identified in this matter and the acting assisting foreman in the eviscerating department , admitted on cross-examination that she made no recommendation as to what should be done with Madre because no one asked her, nor was she ever given an opportunity to tell Spradling what the circumstances were. Personnel Manager Wayne Jester admitted that the Company has given suspensions of I to 3 days to employees who walked off the line, but contended that the situation involving Madre presented a direct "challenge" to the supervisor. Spradling was under the impression that Rebecca Watson made the recommendation for the discharge of Madre. From the above testimony it is difficult to understand how this matter could present such a challenge to supervision when the two most immediate supervisors involved, Pettit and Watson, readily admitted that no one even asked them for their opinions on the matter. It is most obvious that Madre's discharge was occasioned by something other than merely walking off the line in violation of a plant rule, which from most accounts is more honored in the breach than in the observance.13 maintains this was an open admission . However, a close examination of the record reveals that the testimony by Madre in this respect was qualified with PERDUE, INC. Noting Respondent's admitted knowledge of Madre's union activity prior to the discharge, coupled with evidence that numerous other employees have walked off the line without any disciplinary action being taken or mere suspension for a few days, and in consideration of Respondent's failure to even warn Madre, who had an excellent work record, there is substantial evidence to support a finding that Respondent used Madre's leaving the line as a mere pretext to discharge her, and this isolated event was seized upon by Respondent as a means of removing from the plant a vocal and productive union supporter, and at a time and under circumstances that would be a clear warning to other union adherents. IV. THE REMEDY In view of the findings above set forth to the effect that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom, and take such affirmative actions as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the findings of discriminatory discharge of employee Addie Madre it will be recommended that the Respondent be required to offer her immediate and full reinstatement to her former or a substantially equivalent position and make her whole for loss of earnings in accordance with the remedial relief policies of F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. The unfair labor practices committed were so extensive in scope that the remedial injunction must be against further commis- sion of any kind of unfair labor practices. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer whose operations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of the above-named employee by discharging her because of concerted and union activities, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. 4. By creating the impression of surveillance of employ- ees' union activities (Herman Johnson), the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER14 Perdue, Inc.. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Creating the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities. (b) In any other manner interfering with, Mrestraining, or 535 coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above-named organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Addie Madre immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former job or, if such job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records, and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its plant in Accomac, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places, where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. the condition that "walking off the line" was the reason the Company gave her. 14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 15 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of employees' union activities. WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment of our employees 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union herein or of any other labor organization of their choice. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join or assist labor organiza- tion , including the Union herein , to bargain collectively through a bargaining agent chosen by our employees, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities. WE WILL OFFER to Addie Madre her former job or, if such job no longer exists, substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges , and WE WILL pay her for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against her together with interest there- on. PERDUE, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Building , Room 1019, Charles Center, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 , Telephone 301-962-2822.