Southern Maid Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 1, 1963

141 N.L.R.B. 1023 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY 1023 WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the United Packinghouse , Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except as permitted by the proviso of Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their attitude toward a union. WE WILL NOT threaten to close the warehouse if a majority of the employees select the Union to represent them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form a labor organization, to join or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion , or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer Dell Wayne Ivey and Matt West immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. SHOP RITE FOODS, INC., Employer. Dated-------------- ----- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement on applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge. This notice must be posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building , 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth 2, Texas, Telephone No. Edison 5-4211, Extension 2131, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Southern Maid Paper Company and International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America, AFL- CIO. Case No. 15-CA-2116. April 1, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On January 11, 1963, Trial Examiner James T. Barker 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 attached Intermediate Report. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, both the Gen- eral Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Boar(! has delegated its powers in connection with this. case to a t-hree-member panel.. [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at 141 NLRB No . 89., .. . 1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.' ORDER The Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 1 The Trial Examiner 's recommendation that the backpay obligation of the Respondent include payment of 6 percent interest per annum is adopted . However, for the reasons given in his dissent in the Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., case, 138 NLRB 716 , 'Member Rodgers would not grant any interest in this case. The appendix attached to the Intermediate Report is hereby modified by adding the following immediately below the signature line at the bottom of the notice: .TOTE,-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on July 6 , 1962, by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for the Fifteenth Region on August 21, 1962, issued a complaint against Southern Maid Paper Company, hereinafter called Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter called the Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent admitted certain allegations of the com- plaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James T. Barker at Oakdale , Louisiana , on October 9 and 10 , 1962. All parties were represented at the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence , to present oral argument , and to file briefs. The parties waived oral argument and in lieu thereof filed briefs thereafter. Upon consideration of the entire record and the briefs of the parties , and upon observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged at its Elizabeth , Louisiana , plant in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of paper bags. During the calendar year 1961 , Respondent in the course and conduct of its business operations manufactured, sold , and shipped directly from its Elizabeth , Louisiana , plant to points outside the State of Louisiana , products valued in excess of $50,000. Upon these admitted facts I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7 ) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America, AFL-CIO,. is admitted by Respondent to be a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and I so find. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The complaint alleges, in substance , that since on or about January 6, 1962, the Respondent has maintained and enforced a no-solicitation rule illegal because it prohibits solicitation at times other than working hours. The complaint further alleges that Respondent discriminatorily discharged employees Elizabeth Soileau and Melba Mancil because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union. SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY 1025 The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that there is no substantial evidence to show that its no-solicitation rule was enforced during nonworktime and the mere promulgation of the rule alone does not constitute a violation of the Act; and, further, that the discharge of neither Elizabeth Soileau nor Melba Mancil was un- lawful because both individuals were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and, accordingly, not entitled to the Act's protection. A. The no-solicitation rule Respondent concedes that at all times pertinent it maintained a written rule prohibiting "Canvassing, soliciting or selling for any reason, at any time, without express permission of Management or Superintendent." This rule, designated "Rule 24," was one of 27 rules which Respondent had incorporated in a written list that had at all times material been displayed on the employee bulletin board.' Soileau and Mancil, the alleged discriminatees herein, were aware of the rule, and its existence appears to have been well known to Respondent's employees generally.2 It is admittedly for allegedly violating this rule that Soileau and Mancil were discharged.3 1. The discharge of Elizabeth Soileau In the afternoon of June 4, 1962, Soileau was told by Foreman Elton Perkins that General Manager Parisey wanted to see her in his office. Foreman Perkins accompanied Soileau to Parisey's office where Parisey and Plant Superintendent Mack Thompson were waiting. Parisey told Soileau that "he hated this situation had come up" but that he was discharging her for "soliciting for the Union on the job." He told Soileau he was "depending on [her] to supervise people" and ex- plained the position that he felt management had been placed in by Soileau' s union solicitation. Soileau denied soliciting on behalf of the Union, a matter which Parisey disputed saying he had signed statements to support him. Soileau asked Parisey to call into the office those individuals who had given statements in order that she might confront them, but Parisey declined stating he did not believe it would serve "any purpose" as it would create trouble for "innocent people." Thereupon Soileau told Parisey that she had heard a rumor "approximately a year ago that he was wanting to get rid" of her and that she had attempted to "do [her] job right" to make it difficult for him to discharge her. Parisey observed that Soileau had been a "good employee" and asked Soileau why, having worked for the Company so long, she desired a union when she knew that the Company did not "want a union in there." Soileau answered that she desired a union in order to have job security and, in effect, to protect employees against abrupt discharge without recourse. Soileau inquired concerning her qualifications to draw unemployment compensation and Parisey stated that he did not know, that the compensation board would have to determine the matter. Parisey asked Thompson and Perkins if they had any com- ments and when both declined the meeting ended.4 2. The discharge of Melba Mancil On June 6 at approximately 9:40 a.m. Melba Mancil who was at home on vacation, received a telephone call from General Manager Parisey who first asked Mancil to come to the plant office that evening for a "talk." However, during the telephone con- versation Parisey informed Mancil that she was being discharged for soliciting for the Union while on duty. Mancil told Parisey that "she wasn't guilty" but Parisey stated, in effect, that he had signed statements supporting his contention. Mancil asked him to show her the statements. Parisey stated he could produce them but declined to do so because he desired not to "cause trouble on the job and in the com- I The credited testimony of General Manager Parisey, Elizabeth Soileau, and Melba Mancil. The credited testimony of Solleau, Mancil, Johnson, Fairchild, and Marty Thompson. The credited testimony of Parisey. Parisey concedes that an alleged statement by Soileau concerning the founder and principal. stockholder of Respondent which came to his attention was not alone sufficient to have led to Soileau's discharge. The foregoing is predicated upon a synthesis of the credited testimony of Elizabeth Soilead•., Mack Thompson, and Lawrence Parisey. I credit Soileau's testimony that Parisey stated to Soileau that the Company did not ,"want a union ." I'reject Thompson's contrary testimony in this respect for although I found him to be a generally credible witness, this aspect of Thompson's testimony was lacking in certitude and appeared based partly on conjecture. 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD munity." Parisey further stated to Mancil "that [she] knew how the Company felt about the Union, and he did not see why two ladies who had worked [there] as long as [she and] Elizabeth [Soileau] and [were] as well qualified for [their] jobs [would] hate the Company like [they] did." Mancil denied "hating the Company." Parisey offered to speak further with Mancil about the matter if she desired to come to the plant but Mancil did not further contact Parisey until a week or two later when she requested a letter of recommendation from him. Parisey declined, giving as the reason "a new rule" of 6 months standing. Parisey denied Mancil's alleged solicitation for. .the Union motivated his refusal to give her the letter of recommendation.5 3. The union activity of Soileau and Mancil Soileau and Mancil both signed union cards in May 1962 after the union organiza- tional campaign commenced in the early part of May, and during the ensuing period until their respective discharges engaged in casual discussions of the Union with fellow employees. However, neither solicited on behalf of the Union on work or breaktime,6 but, prior to the discharge of Soileau and Mancil, respectively, General Manager Parisey had received reports that each of them had solicited during working time on behalf of the Union.7 4. Employee solicitations Solicitation for a variety of purposes (charitable, benevolent, and commercial) had been at all times pertinent carried on by employees both on work and nonwork time.8 Fund raising for the Red Cross, United Givers Fund, and similar causes received front office impetus and apparent approval .9 Funds were raised for retiring and resign- ing employees and supervisors, ill employees and those who had been victimized by fire and other misfortunes; and Respondent either specifically approved these under- takings or let them proceed without sanction as a matter of policy.10 Employees engaged in such commercial undertakings as the sale of Tupperware, Stanleyware, and women's hosiery and lingerie.ii Samples and catalogues for persual were placed in the women's rest area where the women retired during their two daily break periods, but sales promotions were not entirely passive and some employees often undertook an oral sales effort on the work floor as a lull in production and their own movements through the plant or those of fellow employees permitted. The secretary to General Manager Parisey, without Parisey's approval, was an active vendor of hosiery and . 5 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Mancil which is supported in several essential aspects by Parisey's testimony. 6 The foregoing is predicated upon the credited testimony of Soileau and Mancil. Lela Johnson was the only witness called who claims to have been solicited by Soileau and/or Mancil and her testimony regarding the alleged efforts of Soileau and Mancil to present her with a union "card" Is not credited as showing solicitation by Soileau and Mancil. She was unable to recall when the alleged Incident occurred and admitted that she had not seen the "Card." General Counsel's witnesses Hargrove and Clark, as well as Respond- ent's witness Fairchild, testified that neither Soileau nor Mancil had approached them on behalf of the Union. . I Parisey testified he had received such reports, including a reportfrom employee Marty Thompson concerning Soileau and one from employee Wallace Morris relating to Mancil. Fairchild also testified that she had informed her shift supervisor of statements made to her by employees concerning the alleged union activities of both Mancil and Solleau. It is reasonable to assume that Fairchild's report was passed on by the shift supervisor to Parisey. Although Parisey was most vague concerning the specifics of these reports, viewing his testimony in conjunction with that of Fairchild, Marty Thompson; and Mack Thompson, I am convinced and find that at the time of the respective discharges herein, rumors (born, I am convinced , of personal friction and animosity) concerning union activities by Solleau and Mancil were extant in the plant and Caine to Parisey's' attention. e The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, and Hargrove. Soileau credibly testified to solicitation of this type during working hours. Y The credited testimony of Parisey, Clark, Mancil , and Soileau. 25 Parisey concedes that specific approval for fund raising for gifts was not always re• quired because, singly, each undertaking was limited to a small group and , in effect, not disruptive . Mancil credibly testified • that Shift Supervisor Lambright observed work- time solicitation for funds on behalf of an ill employee and took no action. 11 The credited testimony of Mandl , Soileau , Hargrove , and Clark. SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY 1027 Tupperware during working hours.12 Others were similarly engaged.13 There is in the record no direct evidence of management knowledge of these strictly commercial pursuits either as to work or nonwork time. However, the extent of these under- takings and their physical manifestations impels a conclusion, which I make, that supervision above the level of forelady was aware of and permitted extensive com- mercial solicitation at times pertinent during both work and nonworktime. B. The supervisory question Respondent's Elizabeth, Louisiana, plant is under the management of General Manager Lawrence Parisey who is assisted by Plant Superintendent Mack Thompson. Under the plant superintendent are six departmental supervisors, including shift super- visors in charge of each of Respondent's three operating shifts. In addition, each operating shift has a forelady.14 The complement of operating employees on each shift is divided into five groups or "lines" of from five to seven female employees who operate the machines and perform related work tasks essential to the production of paper bags. To each operating group is signed a leadlady.15 At the time of their respective discharges Elizabeth Soileau was the forelady on shift C and Melba Mancil a leadlady on the same shift.16 On June 4, 1962, there were approximately 28 machine operators on C shift.17 The total number of employees on a shift ranged from 70 to 85, depending upon the level of operations.18 1. The supervisory status of Elizabeth Soileau At the commencement of each day's shift it is the responsibility of the forelady to distribute to the five leadladies on her shift the production schedules that have been prepared in advance by the shift supervisor, placed on a clip board and made available to the forelady at the beginning of the shift.19 The number of machines to be used in production is specified by the production schedule, as well as alternate machines to be used in production in event of machine breakdowns 20 The forelady assigns the machine operators to their machines taking into considera- tion the known skill of the operator and the complexity of the job to be performed 21 In addition, pursuant to the production schedules, the forelady informs each leadlady of the number of machines she will be required to inspect during the shift 22 The forelady then passes through the shop to ascertain and assure the availability of materials for all special orders schedules to be filled, and after production commences collects samples bags from each machine operating. The sample bags (which have been previously inspected by leadladies, as discussed more fully below) are taken to the plant superintendent's office and serve as a form of quality control and gauge L The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, and Soileau Parisey testified he had no knowledge of his secretary's sales activity. is The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, and Soileau. 14 The parties stipulated that supervisors from the level of shift supervisor and above are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. This stipulation was without piejudice to Respondent's position that foreladies and leadladies are supervisors within the mean- ing of Section 2(11) of the Act. is The credited testimony of General Manager Parisey and Elizabeth Solleau 19 The credited testimony of Soileau and Mancil. The job titles forelady and leadlady in May 1962 were substituted for those of head inspector and inspector, respectively, pur- suant to an independent management survey undertaken by Respondent. Credited testi- mony reveals that the respective job duties and authority continued in every respect unchanged 17 The credited testimony of Soileau. 11 The credited testimony of Parisey. 19 The evidence relating to status of foreladies indicates that each stands on an equ-il footing possessing the same authority and performing the same duties Thus, as there is no evidence to suggest Soileau's status was different in any respect from other foreladies, in arriving at my conclusions herein , I have considered testimony descriptive of foreladies' duties and authorities generally as applicable to Soileau, specifically. A similar assump- tion is made infra in regard to leadladies and the supervisory status of Melba Mancil 29 The foregoing is predicated on the credited testimony of Soileau and Fairchild 21 The credited testimony of Fairchild and Plant Superintendent Thompson. 22 The credited testimony of Soileau, Mancil, Clark, Johnson, and Fairchild 708-006-64-vol. 141-66 . 1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the machines' proper operations. The forelady makes periodic checks with leadladies to determine whether production schedules are being maintained 23 The forelady has no authority to revise production schedules, but it is her respon- sibility to assure a "satisfactory product" is being produced. Thus, without con- sultation with the shift supervisor, she has authority to remedy "minor" operational or personnel problems, as illustrated by her authority to require correction of defects in the bags being produced; to exact cooperation between dissident production em- ployees; and to settle disputes between employees that may be called to her attention by leadladies.24 Foreladies have authority to transfer employees temporarily from one task to another, but permanent transfers from one shift to another are decided at the shift supervisor's level. The forelady's recommendations as to the best em- ployees to assign to special orders or to certain categories of orders are sought by the shift supervisor.25 The forelady, in line of progression from machine operator, print setup man, leadlady up through shift supervisor, has the responsibility on special order print jobs to inspect the dimensions of the bags and the conformance of the printing, spelling, letter placement, and color with written specifications of the shift supervisor and scheduling clerks 25 In the event of defective operation of a machine, the matter is reported by the machine operator to the leadlady, or, in her absence, to the machine tender or to a machine adjuster, each of whom possesses authority to shut the machine down. The forelady likewise possesses authority to stop the machine in such circumstances. Although specific authority to restart a machine is possessed only by the forelady and the shift supervisors, in actual practice, upon completion of repairs, the machine adjusters or machine tenders restart the machine without consultation with either the shift supervisor or the forelady.27 The forelady may spend a portion of her time performing production tasks while relieving production employees during their two 15-minute break periods, or when making a "run" on a "special print job." Just prior to her discharge Soileau was spending approximately l V2 hours per shift per- forming production work 28 In connection with Respondent's on-the-job instruc- tional program for trainees, the forelady assigns the trainee to a senior production employee with whom the trainee works for a 5-day period.29 The forelady gives the trainee initial instructions in the operation of the machine before leaving her to work with a trained production employee.30 She periodically checks the trainee's progress through consultation with the production employee and/or the leadlady. In the event the leadlady reports unsatisfactory progress by the trainee the forelady transmits this report to the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor on occasion seeks the evalua- tion of the forelady, leadlady and/or machine operator as to the trainee's progress 31 At the end of the 30-day probationary period the shift supervisor might seek the forelady's opinion as to the trainee's qualifications and abilities 32 The forelady attends weekly meetings with the shift foremen and leadladies which are occasionally attended by General Manager Parisey and Plant Superintendent Thompson. At these meetings employee complaints are aired and the work performance, qualifications, and capabilities of the employees and trainees are discussed with each forelady and leadlady offering her evaluation 33 Recommendations in this respect as well as on other personnel actions are accorded weight by Thompson as well as by Parisey in whom all final authority in this respect resides,34 but the recommendations are sub- jected to independent investigation and determination.35 Neither the foreladies nor leadladies as a general rule attend a weekly "supervisors' meeting" attended by the shift supervisor, plant superintendent, and general manager, although foreladies have done so on one or two occasions. At the conclusion of each day's shift the forelady prepares a daily report summarizing production problems that may have been brought to her attention by leadladies during the shift. Foreladies have no authority to transfer, assign, reprimand, or alter the duties of leadladies or to give them time off. 28 The credited testimony of Soileau 24 The credited testimony of Soileau and Clark. za The credited testimony of Soileau. 11 The credited testimony of Soileau and Thompson. n The credited testimony of Thompson and Soileau. w The credited testimony of Soileau ^ The credited testimony of Soileau, Mancil , Clark, and Fairchild. 10 The credited testimony of Soileau The credited testimony of Soileau, Mancil , Clark, and Fairchild. se The credited testimony of Soileau and Fairchild. ' The credited testimony of Soileau , Mancil , Clark, and Fairchild. 34 The credited testimony of Parisey and Thompson 15 The credited testimony of Parisey. SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY 1029 In the event of the leadladies' failure to detect defective bags, the forelady has authority only to report this failure to the shift foreman. When a leadlady is absent due to illness the forelady may not select her substitute but merely reports the absence to the foreman 36 The forelady has no authority to hire, discharge, promote, or grant time off to employees. She is hourly paid as are admittedly rank-and-file employees but receives the highest rate of hourly pay of any individual on the shift. The shift supervisor is salaried . The forelady punches a timeclock whereas the shift supervisor does not. The foregoing reveals that while the authority of foreladies is to some extent circumscribed, they possess and exercise authority requiring the use of independent judgment to assign and transfer employees and to make effective recommendations in this respect; to responsibly direct employees in maintaining production quality and schedules through authority to require the correction of defects in the work product of employees and through their authority to reprimand employees and to make effective recommendations to the shift supervisor in respect to discipline of employees. Further, the forelady is the principal means by which the shift super- visor with 75 to 85 employees under his direction maintains. supervisory contact with the approximately 28 production employees on the shift. Accordingly, I con- clude and find that on June 4, 1962, and at all times pertinent herein, Elizabeth Soileau, as a forelady, was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.37 2. The supervisory status of Melba Mancil As above found, on each of the three operating shifts are five leadladies, each of whom is in charge of a "line" of from five to seven female machine operators who per- form production work.38 The lines are designated one through five with the lower numbered lines having more operators at peak seasons than the higher numbered lines. Leadladies rotate weekly from one line to another pursuant to a rotation schedule prepared in advance by the shift supervisor .39 At the commencement of each shift the leadladies are told by the forelady the number of machines that will be operated; and they obtain written production schedules prepared in advance by the shift super- visor from which they learn the production schedule projected for the shift 40 and on which is designated alternative machines to be utilized in event of a machine break- down.41 Leadladies have no authority to assign machine operators to machines and may not alter or adjust the production schedules. However, a leadlady may order an idle machine operator to perform work "in her line of duty" such as "cutting sam- ples, or cleaning under her table." 42 As production progresses the leadladies move from one machine to another and by a process of selective sampling inspect the bags being produced for defects. She extracts bags deemed defective but the decision whether a given bag is acceptable or must be reworked or salvaged is made either by the forelady or by the shift supervisor.43 If the defects are attributable to the operation of the machine (as is usually the case) the leadlady has authority to shut down the machine for repairs. If the fault is with the operator the leadlady points out the defect to the operator.44 Leadladies share responsibility for defective work pro- duced by machine operators on their line 45 Further, as does the forelady after them, the leadladies check special order bags for proper measurement and for conformance of print, color, and letter placement to specifications.46 The leadlady spends approxi- mately 2i hours operating machines while substituting for production employees "The credited testimony of Soileau. 81See Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc., 131 NLRB 132, 135; Mid-South Manufactur- ing Company, Inc., 120 NLRB 230; Applied Research , Inc., 138 NLRB 870. The parties stipulated that pursuant to a "stipulation election agreement" dated June 30, 1961, an election was conducted.on July.13 and 14, 1961. Soileau voted without challenge in that election. While this has been weighed as a factor in my determination, it is not deemed a determinative one. See Valentine Sugars, Inc., 102 NLRB 313,'' and cases cited therein at footnote 3; The Steel Products Engineering Co., 106 NLRB 565, 576. The credited testimony of Mancil and Clark. The credited testimony of Clark and Solleau. a0 The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, and Fairchild. ai The credited testimony of Fairchild. The credited testimony of Clark. The credited testimony of Mancil and Clark. The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, Fairchild, and Johnson. _ The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, and Fairchild. The credited testimony of Hargrove. 1030 DECISION S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD during their two daily 15-minute break periods,47 and the balance of her 8-hour shift checking bags.48 In addition, through observation and inquiry the leadlady generally oversees the training of trainees 49 and may work with and correct trainees while relieving the senior employee to whom the trainee is assigned50 Upon inquiry from the forelady or higher supervision the leadlady renders her opinion of the trainees' progress and qualifications and, as found above, may offer her evaluation at the weekly meeting of leadladies, foreladies, and the shift supervisor.51 Leadladies have no authority to take disciplinary action against machine operators, to hire, discharge, transfer, pro- mote, or grant them time off.52 However, they may recommend the transfer of opera- tors to machines more suitable to their skills. In the event of disputes or disagreements between machine operators the leadlady calls the forelady who either settles the matter or invokes the assistance of the shift supervisor.53 Leadladies are hourly paid and re- ceive a differential of some 11 cents more than a machine operator and 18 cents less than a forelady. Like rank-and-file employees, leadladies punch a timeclock.54 I conclude and find on the basis of the foregoing that as a leadlady, Mancil was not on June 6, 1962, at the time of her discharge, or at any time material herein, a super- visor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. She was not endowed with authority independently to exercise any of the statutory indicia of a supervisor, or to effectively recommend such action. Such recommendations as she may have made in respect to transfer of employees or retention of trainees was subject to independent investigation and determination. Her direction of the work of the employees under her was routine in nature and did not require the use of independent judgment, inas- much as production work was planned in advance by the shift supervisor and carried out in strict conformance with the plan. Her leadership responsibilities were very minor and her relationship to production employees was that of the more experienced to the less experienced employees.55 C. Conclusions as to the alleged unfair labor practices 1. The no-solicitation rule The Board recently in the Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co. case 56 reviewed principles controlling with respect to union solicitation and distribution of literature. In pertinent part the Board stated: To sum up, we believe that to effectuate the organizational rights through the medium of oral solicitation, the right of employees to solicit on plant premises must be afforded subject only to the restriction that it be no nonworking time. Thereafter, relying upon the Stoddard-Quirk principle, the Board in General Industries Electronics Company,57 found unlawful a broad no-solicitation rule strikingly similar to Respondent's rule 24. As with the rule in the General Industries case, rule 24 does not by its terms specifically prohibit union solicitation. However, in invoking rule 24 as the basis for the discharges herein, Respondent has conclusively demonstrated that union solicitation is encompassed within the term "solicitation" as used in the rule. Nor is the rule against solicitation limited to working time only. Respondent has shown no special circumstances to exit which would warrant so broad a limitation upon solicitation during nonworking time. However, Respondent contends that contrary to the Board's decision in Walton Manufacturing Company,58 a broad no-solicitation rule is to be presumed invalid not by its mere promulgation but only where there is evidence of actual enforcement during nonworking time. It further contends that in actual interpretation and enforcement the rule was not applicable to nonwork- time.59 The credited testimony of Mancil , Johnson, Clark , and Fairchild. 's The credited testimony of Mancil and Fairchild. 49 The credited testimony of Hargrove, Mancil, Clark , and Fairchild.. The credited testimony of Mancil and Clark. m The credited testimony of Mancil, Clark, Johnson, and Fairchild. 6= The credited testimony of Mancil and Fairchild. The credited testimony of Clark. 69 The credited testimony of Mancil. See Phillips Petroleum Company, 129 NLRB 813 ; Schott Metal Products Company, 129 NLRB 1233. - 66138 NLRB 615. 67 138 NLRB 1371. - 6e 126 NLRB 697, enfd. 289 F. 2d 117 (C.A. 5). 51 General Manager Parisey and Plant Superintendent Thompson so testified. SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY 103 But, initially, as Respondent concedes, Walton is contrary to Respondent's first contention, and I perceive in Stoddard-Quirk no departure by the Board from the Walton rule in regard to oral solicitation. Moreover, as to the alleged "narrowing" of the broad rule through interpretation and application to render it, in effect, a rule preclusive of worktime solicitation only, there is, first, no showing that the alleged interpretation was ever orally or in writing communicated to employees. Secondly, although Respondent's assertion concerning actual application of the rule gains some record support from the evidence suggesting that management pursued :a permissive approach to solicitation during nonworking time for a variety of com- mercial pursuits and benevolent causes, I am constrained to conclude that Re- Spondent's mere acquiescence in some types of solicitation during nonworking time was not alone sufficient in the face of the broad terms of the written rule to establish the actual existence of a similar permissive policy concerning union solicitation.60 The obvious restraining effects upon free time union solicitation of a rule retaining to management the unfettered authority to grant or withhold, at will, permission to engage in solicitation "for any reason, at any time" compels me to conclude that rule 24 as promulgated and continued in effect constituted an unreasonable impedi- ment to self-organization and other forms of protected union activity and was viola- live of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.6' 2. The discharge of Elizabeth Soileau and Melba Mancil As a general proposition of law, the discharge of an employee in the belief that he had engaged in union activity is violative of the Act even though the belief is not well-founded.62 While I am convinced that neither Melba Mancil nor Elizabeth Soileau had en- gaged in union activity more extensive than the mere signing of an authorization card and casual discussion of the Union with other employees, I am nevertheless persuaded that prior to their termination General Manager Parisey had received reports that each of them had solicited for the Union leading him to believe they were active union adherents. I conclude and find that it was their supposed union activity and adherence and not their alleged worktime solicitation that brought about their respective terminations. As Elizabeth Soileau was a supervisor, her discharge did not violate the Act in the circumstances of this case.63 But as to employee Melba Mancil a different determination is required. A careful analysis of Respondent's terminal conference with Mancil (as well as that with Soileau which sheds light on Respondent' s union opposition) establishes that Mancil's purported interest in and activities on behalf of the Union was the matter of principal concern to Parisey, and her alleged breach of the no-solicitation rule as it related to worktime a convenient gambit only. Moreover, in view of Respondent's permissive attitude concerning other forms of solicitation during working time, its willingness to invoke the rule against purported union solicitation suggests greater concern with the prospects of unionization than with the sanctity of the rule. It is significant also that the discharge was timed soon after a renewed organizational attempt by the Union, and was precipitous and summary in nature, taken against an admittedly "good" employee without investigation or warning. Nor was Parisey's precipitous action stayed by Mancil's denial of his charges even though at the time he was acting only upon hearsay reports. Parisey could recall no specific previous instance wherein he had discharged an employee for violating rule 24. I am convinced and find that the discharge of Mancil was motivated by Respondent' s impression, albeit mistaken, that she had engaged in union activity per se, which he op- posed, and not, as contended, because she solicited on behalf of the Union on com- 80 See Allen-Morrison Sign Co., Inc., 79 NLRB 903, 906; J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufactur- ing Company, Inc., 86 NLRB 470, 472; N.L.R.B. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 277 F. 2d 759 , 763 (C.A. 5). °i See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., supra; General Industries Electronics Com- pany, supra ; Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc ., 137 NLRB 1057; Walton Manufacturing Com- pany, supra; N.L.R.B. v. Linda Joe Shoe Company, 307 F. 2d 355 (C.A. 5). 62 The Ridge Tool Company , 102 NLRB 512 , 513, enfd. 211 F. 2d 88 (C.A. 6) ; Gibbs Corporation, 131 NLRB 955, 962; Des Moines, Springfield and Northern Route, 78 NLRB 1215, 1217. 68 Cf. Better Monkey Grip Company, 115 NLRB 1170, enfd. 243 F. 2d 836 (C.A. 5) ; N.L.R.B. v. Inter-City Advertising Co. of Charlotte, N.C., Inc., et al., 190 F. 2d 420 (C.A. 4) ; Modern Linen & Laundry Service , Inc., 116 NLRB 1074; Salant & Salant, Incorporated, 92 NLRB 343; Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc., 106 NLRB 295. 1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pany: time. Rule 24, I am convinced, was, invoked as a mere pretext to cloak as discriminatory motive.64 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,. intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several" States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and` the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, involving discrimination against an employee in regard to her hire and tenure of employment. Since the Respondent's. unfair labor practices "go to the very heart of the Act" 65 and constitute a threat of other unfair labor practices in the future, I shall recommend not only that the Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices committed by it and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, but also that it cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of its em- ployees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.66 It has been found specifically that Respondent, on June 6, 1962, discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Melba Mancil in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I shall recommend that the Respondent offer the aforementioned employee immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position 67 without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of earnings that she may have suffered because of the discrimination against here, with backpay computed in the customary manner,68 and with interest added thereto at the rate and compounded in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations of the Respondent occur in 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 the tenure of employment of its employee Melba Mancil, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the aforesaid discrimination and by maintaining and enforcing a rule pro- hibiting its employees, when they are on nonworktime, from engaging in solicita- tion on behalf of the Union, or any other labor organization, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not, as alleged in the complaint, violated Section 8(a)(3) with respect to the discharge of Elizabeth Soileau. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case, I shall recommend that Respondent, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: In his brief the General Counsel in support of the allegations of the complaint places major stress on Respondent's disparate application of rule 24 as showing discriminatory motivation. While the evidence supports the General Counsel's contention as to disparate application of the rule, antiunion motivation Is otherwise apparent, as found herein. °N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4). ee See May Department Stores d/ b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376, affg. as modified 146 F. 2d 66 (C.A. -8). . 67 The Chase National Bank of the. City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827. es F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY 1033 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging any employee, or in any other manner discriminating against any indi- vidual in regard to his hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of em- ployment, except as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. (b) Maintaining, enforcing, or applying any rule or regulation prohibiting em- ployees from engaging during nonworking time, in oral solicitation on behalf of International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization. (c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exer- cise of their right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing; to engage in concerted activity 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 Act: (a) Offer to Melba Mancil immediate and full reinstatement to her former, or substantially equivalent, position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole in the manner and according to the method set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. Post at its Elizabeth, Louisiana, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 69 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by a representative of Respondent, be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including places where notices to its 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. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'70 It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within the prescribed period notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the aforesaid action. It is further recommended that so much of the complaint in this proceeding as alleges that Respondent by discrimination as to the hire and tenure of employment of Elizabeth Soileau violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, be dismissed. m If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order." 70 If this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this 'Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Pulp Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other other labor organization , by discharging any individual , or in any other manner discriminat- ing against any individual in regard to the hire , tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT maintain , enforce or apply any rule or regulation prohibiting our employees , during nonworking time, from soliciting their fellow employees to 1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD join or support International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL offer Melba Mancil immediate and full reinstatement to her former, or a substantially equivalent , position , without prejudice to her . seniority or other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against her. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to form, join or assist any labor organization ; to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing ; to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection ; or to refrain from any or all such activities. All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming, or re- maining, members of any labor organization. SOUTHERN MAID PAPER COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, T 6024 Federal Building ( Loyola ), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans 12, Louisiana, Tele- phone No. 529-2411 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Precision Fittings , Inc. and Wilbur Voght , Charging Party and Local 307, International Union , Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO and International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Parties of Interest. Case No. ?5-CA-1543. April 1, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On August 2, 1962, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers 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 attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Parties of Interest filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications noted. 1. We agree with and adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent's discharge of Wilbur Voght for his decertification activity 141 NLRB No. 92.