Star-News Newspapers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 1003 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1003
Star-News Newspapers , Inc. and Nixon B. Howard.
Case 11-CA-3975-1
June 24, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On January 20, 1970, Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine issued his Decision in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom-
mended that these allegations be dismissed. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
when Production Manager George T. Hutchinson
told employee Harold N. Marks that he would not
put up with union activity around the shop, and
when Hutchinson asked Marks what his wife, who
worked at the A & P Store, was doing in picketing
against Ekerds' Department Store.
2. The Trial Examiner concluded that the
Respondent discharged Nixon B. Howard for en-
gaging in protected activity, and that the reason ad-
vanced at the trial for his discharge, i.e., miscon-
duct toward employee Theresa Croom, was a pre-
text to disguise or mask the true reason. We find
merit in the Respondent's exception to this finding.
The Respondent hired Nixon B. Howard as an
apprentice "ludlow" operator on May 26, 1969.
Prior to his discharge on August 5, 1969, Howard
aided the International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the I.T.U.,1 in its campaign
to organize the Respondent's employees.
On August 5, 1969, Howard went to Production
Manager George Hutchinson's office to inquire
about his timecard. Hutchinson told Howard that
he had his check. Howard asked if he had been
fired. Hutchinson replied that Howard was
discharged. When Howard asked for an explana-
tion, Hutchinson said he was exercising company
policy-6-month probation. Howard had been
employed for approximately 2 months. Also present
in Hutchinson's office at the time of Howard's
discharge were Thelma Smith,2 who worked in the
composing room with Theresa Croom, Personnel
Director Arthur Tuggle, and Theresa Croom.
According to Howard's testimony, Hutchinson
told him he was fired and that they did'nt want the
likes of him around there. Howard testified that
the Respondent did not give any other reason for
his discharge. Howard stated that prior to the time
of his discharge, the I.T.U. had been involved in a
campaign and that he played an active role in that
campaign.
The Respondent contends that Howard was
discharged not for anything remotely related to
legitimate and lawful union activities, but for seri-
ous threats and coercion against an employee who
obviously wanted nothing to do with the Union;
that Howard was a probationary employee; and that
it had every right to inform him that he was being
dismissed because during his period of probation he
had proved unsatisfactory. The Respondent con-
tends further that it was not required, under the cir-
cumstances, to conduct an adversary proceeding
over his discharge.
Howard testified that on July 30, 1969, at approx-
imately 11 p.m., Miss Theresa Croom, age 19, a
teletype operator in the composing room on the
night shift, was upset and told him that someone
had threatened her. Pursuant to Howard's sug-
gestion, Howard and Croom clocked out together
at approximately 1 o'clock in the morning on July
31, 1969, and walked to Croom's car. About half-
way to the car Croom started crying and Howard
told her there was nothing to worry about. When
they got to the car, Croom gave him her keys and
Howard sat beside her. Croom cried and leaned
against his shoulder.
Shortly thereafter, another employee, Mrs.
Camille Cook, pulled up on the right-hand side of
Croom's car. Cook noticed that Croom was upset
and directed Howard to follow Cook to her res-
idence and to bring Croom with him. Howard told
n The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's finding that the I T U
is a labor organization We find that I T U is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, since it was organized for the pur-
poses of representing employees of various employers concerning wages,
hours, and conditions of employment
II Thelma Smith was discharged for threatening to cut Miss Croom's face
Although Smith , like Howard, filed an 8 ( a)(3) charge , no complaint issued
in her case
183 NLRB No. 98
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Croom he wasn't going to Cook's house; he said
that if she wanted to go he would take her but that
he also wanted to talk to her about some ad-
vantages and disadvantages of belonging to the
Union. A few minutes after Mrs. Cook left, Miss
Janice Harrell, an employee and union member, got
into Croom's car. Croom told Harrell that she had
been threatened, and that someone was going to
cut her face, whereupon Harrell laughed and said,
"Nobody is going to hurt you." Thereafter, Howard
suggested that all three go to a restaurant ap-
proxmately 3 miles away to discuss the matter
further.
Upon arriving at the restaurant, Howard locked
Croom's car and put the keys in his pocket. In the
restaurant, Croom sat against the wall in a booth
and Howard sat next to her on the outside. Harrell
sat opposite Croom. They were joined by Joe Blake
and his wife, Herman Jackson, Kenneth Rabon, and
Thelma Smith. Howard testified that they all
discussed the Union, and that that was their prime
objective there. Howard asserted that Croom
willingly allowed him to fill out an application for
union membership for her, and that she divulged all
the information and signed the application.
Thereafter, Howard gave the application to Rabon.
Howard stated that he made it obvious that Croom
had nothing to fear, and that after this assurance
she acted normally.
Howard testified that he and Croom left the
restaurant at approximately 2:45 a.m. on July 31.
Croom had indicated to Howard earlier in her car
that she had to be home by 3 a.m. After leaving the
restaurant Croom and Howard returned to his car
and he asked her for a date sometime and she
agreed. Thereafter, they went their separate ways.
Theresa Croom testified that she had a conversa-
tion with Nixon Howard and that she told him she
had been threatened by Thelma Smith and that she
was scared. Howard told her not to worry, that
nothing would happen to her. After clocking out
with Howard, she crossed the street and saw Rabon
and Smith in Rabon's car parked bumper to
bumper behind Croom's car. Howard's car was
parked bumper to bumper in front of Croom's car.
According to Croom's testimony, Howard told her
he wanted to talk to her about the Union. Croom
stated that she had heard enough about the Union,
and that she didn't want to have anything else to do
with the Union. Howard said that she could go
home after he had talked to her about it. Croom
asked Howard to let her go home and he said he
had to take her out to a restaurant and that she
could not go home until after she signed the papers
now because she knew too much about the Union
and who was involved. Howard drove the car to
the restaurant and told Croom not to cry, and to
2)
3 ! P Stevens & Co , Inc , 163 NLRB 217, 218, enfd 388 F 2d 896 (C A
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
act as if nothing had happened when she went in
the restaurant. Croom was directed by Howard to
sign and not say anything if she wanted to get
home. She testified that she was frightened that if
she didn't do what he told her to do that she would
get hurt. Croom did not leave the restaurant until
after 3 a.m.
Finally, Croom testified that she was too
frightened to complain that she was being held
against her will in the restaurant and in her car
when Cook and Harrell were present.
The Trial Examiner found, essentially on the
testimony of Howard, that he did not engage in any
misconduct on July 30 and 31, and that he was
discharged for engaging in protected activity and
not, as contended by the Respondent, because of
Howard's misconduct toward employee Croom.
The Trial Examiner rejected the ground tendered
by the Respondent as a mere pretext.
The Trial Examiner found that Howard at no
time threatened Croom, that he offered her his pro-
tection, that she willingly accepted said protection,
that she voluntarily accompanied Howard to Ez-
zell's Restaurant, and that at no time did Howard
force Croom to go to Ezzell's or to sign a union
card. Finally, the Trial Examiner found that
Howard was engaged in protected activity when he
accompanied Croom and actively solicited her to
join the Union during the course of the conversa-
tion with her.
We may agree with the Trial Examiner that
Howard was engaged in soliciting for the Union,
but we find that Howard's conduct toward em-
ployee Croom exceeded the bounds of permissible
organizational activity. Moreover, Howard's mem-
bership in and solicitation on behalf of the Union
does not immunize him from the Respondent's right
to enforce its working rules, especially where, as
here, such conduct involves the conduct of a proba-
tionary employee toward a 19-year-old girl. The
Act's grant of rights to employees to engage in or-
ganizing activities, to belong to a union, and to en-
gage in collective bargaining was not intended to
deprive management of its right to manage its busi-
ness and to maintain production and discipline.3
In the course of Howard's testimony, he admitted
that Croom was upset when she came to him and
that someone had threatened her, that he offered to
help her and suggested that they clock out together;
that Croom had no way of knowing that Howard
was interested in the Union; that he first informed
her when he got into her car; that Croom started
crying as they walked toward her car; that he had
parked his car directly in front of Croom's car dur-
ing lunch hour; that Rabon and Smith were parked
directly behind Croom's car; that Howard and
Rabon had their cars parked so close to Croom's
STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC.
that she could not move her car; that Croom con-
tinued to cry in the car and asked Harrell if
someone were going to beat her up; that Smith was
discharged for threatening to cut Croom's face; that
he wouldn't drive Croom to Cook's house; that he
said that he would take Croom home but that he
wanted to talk to her about the Union; that Howard
suggested that Croom and Harrell go with him to
Ezzell's Restaurant where they met with other em-
ployees; and that their prime objective was to
discuss the Union.
It is clear that the Respondent was notified of
Howard's conduct toward Croom and of union ac-
tivity at the plant when employee Cook called
Hutchinson sometime between I and 3 p.m. on the
afternoon of July 31. Cook informed Hutchinson
that, although Croom had complained to her about
receiving threats concerning the Union, she had not
paid much attention to her until she had seen
Croom crying and hemmed in between cars owned
by Howard and Rabon. Thereafter, Miss Croom
and her mother complained to Hutchinson con-
cerning the harassment of Miss Croom. Hutchinson
directed Personnel Director Tuggle to do
something about the situation and Howard's final
check was prepared.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respon-
dent entertained union animus . However, that find-
ing was based, in part, on the Respondent's notice
posted on its bulletin board, that it "does not want
a union .... We do not believe that a union is good
for you or the Company." Clearly, the Respondent
was stating its preference to continue to operate its
plant without a union, a view it was free to express.
Another ground relied on by the Trial Examiner
was his finding that the Respondent did not con-
duct an impartial investigation to ascertain the facts
about Howard's alleged misconduct. We disagree.
As a probationary employee, Howard had not
acquired any right to his job. Moreover, the Board
has often held that an employer is free to discharge
an employee for any reason, or for no reason, pro-
vided that the discharge is not based on the em-
ployee's union activity.
Where, as here, a discharge is prompted by con-
duct involving the coercion and harassment of a 19-
year-old girl, albeit during an attempt to solicit her
membership in the Union, the General Counsel has
the burden of establishing that the Respondent
seized upon this conduct, which it would not other-
wise have considered objectionable, as an opportu-
nity to get rid of a union adherent. We are not
satisfied that this was the case here.
We have carefully examined the facts dealing
with Nixon Howard's discharge and we find, on the
record as a whole, that he was discharged for cause
and not because of his union activities. Ac-
cordingly, we shall order that the complaint be
dismissed with respect to the allegation that the
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Nixon
Howard.
ORDER
1005
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Star-
News Newspaper, Inc., Wilmington, North
Carolina , its officers , agents , successors , and as-
signs , shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete all portions of the Recommended
Order and the attached Appendix which relate to
employee Nixon B. Howard, including paragraph
1(a) of the Recommended Order and the first para-
graph of the Appendix.
2. Substitute the following for the last paragraph
of the Recommended Order:
"IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the com-
plaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar
as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act
by discharging Nixon B. Howard."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner : This is
an unfair labor practice case litigated under Section
10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
called the Act (29 U.S.C. 160(b)). It was com-
menced by a complaint issued on September 30,
1969, by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
through the Regional Director for Region 11 (Win-
ston -Salem, North Carolina ), naming as the
Respondent Star-News Newspapers, Inc. That com-
plaint is based on a charge filed on August 15,
1969, by Nixon B. Howard, the Charging Party.
In substance the complaint alleges that Respon-
dent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and that
such conduct affects commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent has
answered admitting some facts but denying that it
committed any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice this case came on to be
heard, and was tried before me, at Wilmington,
North Carolina, on November 12 and 13, 1969. All
parties were represented at and participated in the
trial, and had full opportunity to introduce
evidence , examine and cross-examine witnesses, file
briefs, and offer oral argument. At the close of the
hearing Respondent and the General Counsel ar-
gued orally. Respondent also submitted a brief.
This case presents the issues of whether Respon-
dent (1) interrogated employees concerning the
union or other concerted activity of such em-
ployees and of the members of their families; (2)
threatened employees with reprisals if they engaged
in union activity; and (3) discriminatorily
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharged employee Nixon B . Howard because he
engaged in union or other concerted activity.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. AS TO JURISDICTION
Respondent , a North Carolina corporation, is en-
gaged in Wilmington , North Carolina , in publishing
a daily newspaper . It subscribes to interstate news
services and publishes syndicated features and ad-
vertisements of nationally sold products . During the
past fiscal year it ( a) received revenue in excess of
$200,000, and (b ) made sales to, and performed
services for, customers located outside the State of
North Carolina , valued in excess of $50,000. I find
that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to as-
sert jurisdiction over Respondent in this proceed-
ing.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO,
herein called I.T.U. or the Union, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act. While no direct evidence was adduced re-
garding the status of I.T.U., I infer from the meager
evidence in the record concerning it that it is a
labor organization ; and I so find.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. General Counsel's Evidence as to 8(a)(1)
Violations
At some time in 1969 I.T.U. engaged in "union
activity" at Respondent 's newspaper . Sometime
after employee Nixon B. Howard was discharged (it
is admitted that he was discharged on August 5,
1969), George T. Hutchinson, Respondent's
production manager , spoke to employee Kenneth
E. Rabon . I find that Hutchinson is a supervisor and
an agent of Respondent under the Act. During the
conversation Hutchinson mentioned that he had
"heard we have a union here now," and that "the
timing of the Union was bad." Rabon replied that
although he "knew nothing about that " he was not
going to help either the Union or Hutchinson.
As noted above a union campaign to organize
Respondent 's employees was initiated in 1969.
About August 1969, Production Manager George
T. Hutchinson spoke to employee Harold N . Marks.
Among other things , Hutchinson asked if Marks
knew anything about the union campaign. Marks
replied in the negative, but added that he thought
he "would be confronted with it." Continuing,
Hutchinson said that he "wouldn 't put up with it
. . . with union activity around the shop."
Two or three weeks later Hutchinson again spoke
to Marks in Hutchinson 's office. Personnel Director
Arthur G. Tuggle was also in the room at the time.
Initially Hutchinson expressed his sympathy on the
death of the brother of Marks . Then Hutchinson
asked Marks what the latter 's wife, who works at A
& P, was doing in picketing "against" Ekerds De-
partment Store . Marks replied that it was nobody's
business but his wife 's; that Marks had nothing to
do with it; that when his wife is not working at A &
P she "goes over at Ekerds"; and that such picket-
ing "didn't involve Star -News Newspapers or any-
body else ." At this point Hutchinson asked Tuggle
"if he had another nigger he could hire ." Shortly
before this Respondent had hired a Negro to be
trained by Marks "at the teletype."
B. General Counsel 's Evidence Relating to the
Discharge of Nixon B. Howard
Nixon B . Howard was hired as an apprentice
"ludlow" operator by Respondent on May 26,
1969. For some time prior to August 5, 1969, the
I.T.U. had initiated a campaign to organize Respon-
dent 's employees . Howard aided I.T.U. in that cam-
paign.
One Teresa Croom, age 19, is employed by
Respondent as a night-shift teletype service opera-
tor. At or about 11 p.m. on July 30 , 1969, Miss
Croom came to Howard in a narrow passageway
near their respective work stations . Croom, who
was "upset ," told Howard that someone had
threatened her. Assuring Croom that he would per-
sonally see that no one would harm her, Howard
told her that she had nothing to worry about. In ad-
dition he offered to escort her to her car if she so
desired and "see that she got home ." Thereafter
Howard spoke to her on two or three occasions in
"general conversation ." At or about 1 a.m. on the
next morning , July 31 , Howard told Croom that, if
she wanted , Howard would clock out with her and
walk downstairs with her . Croom agreed to this,
and the two clocked out together at this hour.
As they left the building Croom told Howard that
a Mrs . Camille Cook, another employee , was soon
to meet Croom at Croom's car to pick up a melon
and a cantaloupe. Howard accompanied Croom to
her car " for protection ." As it was then raining
Croom opened her umbrella and held it over both.
Before they reached Croom 's car , however, she
started to sob because of the earlier threat to her by
a person she did not name . As a result, Howard put
his arm around her and told her there was nothing
to worry about.
When they reached Croom 's car she gave the
keys thereto to Howard . He then opened the door
so she could enter from the driver's side. Howard
followed her into the car. As they sat there Croom
cried a little more and leaned against Howard's
STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1007
right shoulder. Howard turned on the engine and
started the defrosters because it was raining. He
had planned to drive Croom to her home after
Mrs. Cook arrived.
A minute or two later Mrs. Cook pulled up along-
side in her car and stopped on the right-hand side
of Croom's car. The doors on Croom's car were
locked at the time . Cook then opened the right
front door of Croom's car after Croom unlocked it
and entered Croom's car. After taking a melon and
cantaloupe Cook observed that Croom was upset.
Thereupon Cook asked Croom what was wrong,
but Croom replied, "Oh, nothing." Then Cook
directed Howard to follow her to Cook's residence,
bringing Croom with him.
Nevertheless Croom did not give Howard "any
indication that she wanted me [Howard ] to follow
Mrs. Cook ." Since Howard did not know where
Cook lived he offered to drive Croom to Croom's
home . However, Howard also told Croom he
desired to talk to her about " some advantages and
disadvantages of belonging to the union in
question ," but suggested he could not talk and
drive at the same time.
About a minute after Mrs. Cook left employee
Mrs. Janice Harrell came by and entered Croom's
car. When Croom told Harrell that she (Croom)
had been threatened and that someone was going to
cut Croom's face , Harrell replied , "Nobody is going
to hurt you." Then Croom asked Harrell if the
latter belonged to a union . Harrell replied that she
did or that she "had signed an application" and had
nothing to worry about.
Shortly thereafter Howard suggested that the
three of them go to Ezzell's Coffee Shop about
3 miles away on Columbia East Road for further
discussion . Ezzell 's was a meeting place for several
of Respondent 's night-shift employees where they.
enjoyed coffee or breakfast after work. Since
Croom and Harrell agreed to go to Ezzell 's all three
proceeded to go there, Croom and Howard in
Croom's car and Harrell in her own . Before doing
so, however , Howard went to his car for a pack of
cigarettes and then returned to drive Croom in her
car to Ezzell's.
The Croom and Harrell cars arrived at Ezzell's at
or about the same time and parked next to each
other . Then Howard , Croom , and Harrell entered
the restaurant where they occupied an empty
booth. They all partook of light refreshments. Soon
employee Joe Blake and his wife and employee
Jackson sat in their booth. All of them were
discussing the Union . Howard also saw employees
Rabon and Thelma Smith in the restaurant. While
there Croom divulged " all the information " neces-
sary so that Howard wrote it on an application
for membership in the Union ; and Croom then
signed it . Howard later gave it to Rabon.
While in Ezzell's Croom acted normally. Twice
she went to the restroom accompanied by Janice
Harrell . Once Croom asked Blake for a drink of an
alcoholic beverage . Blake complied.
As Croom had told Howard that she had to be
home by 3 a . m., Howard decided to leave Ezzell's
with her at 2 : 45 a.m . on July 31 . As he drove
Croom to Howard 's car , he told her to call him if
she became frightened again . Then Howard entered
his own car , which was parked near Respondent's
premises , and drove away alone.
Towards the end of July 1969, employee Ken-
neth Rabon was present in Ezzell 's Restaurant at or
about 1 : 30 or 2 a . m. I find that this was July 31.
Rabon testified that while there he observed em-
ployee Nixon B. Howard sitting with employee Miss
Teresa Croom at a booth in the front of the restau-
rant . Rabon "saw nothing out of the ordinary" in
Miss Croom' s behavior and observed that her
behavior "appeared normal."
Early in the morning of July 31, 1969, employee
Joseph W . Blake , accompanied by his wife , visited
Ezzell 's Restaurant . He testified that he observed
Howard , Janice Harrell , and Miss Croom there on
that occasion and joined them for about 45
minutes . The party discussed the Union , among,
other things . In Blake 's opinion Miss Croom's
behavior was "natural ... normal , laughing and
all." During that time Howard filled out a union ap-
plication for Croom , which Croom then signed.
Mrs. Blake confirmed her husband 's testimony as
recited above in this paragraph.
Mrs. Blake further testified that "members of law
enforcement agencies ," one of whom was a sheriff,
were present at Ezzell 's during the time mentioned
in the preceding paragraph, and that at no time did
Miss Croom ever "make any complaint or attempt
to approach this sheriff in any manner."
On August 5, 1969 , Howard went to Production
Manager George Hutchinson 's office to inquire
about his , Howard 's, timecard . Hutchinson replied
that Howard had none as he, Howard, was fired,
and that Hutchinson "did not want the like of
[Howard ] around there ." Personnel Director
Arthur G. Tuggle was present on this occasion.
When Howard asked for an explanation , Hutchin-
son "mentioned something about six months'
probation ," but offered no other reason for
Howard's termination.
On August 13, 1969, Respondent 's personnel
director , Arthur G. Tuggle , posted on the Com-
pany 's bulletin boards a notice (G.C. Exh. 2)
which , among other things, apprised employees of
some of the tactics used by "some union [ which] is
attempting organization of this Paper . Your com-
pany wants you to understand that it does not want
a union . We do not believe that a union is good for
you or the Company ." This notice , according to
Tuggle , also refers to an incident for which Tuggle
testified Howard was discharged by Respondent.
This incident is described as follows in said notice:
During the last week of July, one of our young
female employees in the production depart-
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment , after completing a day 's work ... was
physically forced into an automobile and
required to sign some union petition before
being returned to her own car .... Those in-
volved have been dealt with.
C. Respondent's Evidence
Respondent 's initial witness was Theresa Croom,
an employee in its composing room . An abridgment
of her testimony follows.
On the night of July 30 , 1969, Croom , who was
then 19 years of age , went to and told Nixon B.
Howard , a fellow employee with Croom on the
night shift, that Croom was "scared " as she had
been " threatened " by employee Thelma Smith. He
assured Croom not to worry and that he would see
that nothing would happen to her. When Croom re-
ported for work that night she parked her car by
the side of the post office at a point where no other
cars were parked in front of or behind hers.
Sometime later Howard and Croom clocked out
together and Howard accompanied her across the
street . Croom was crying as they came out of the
building because she was scared . As they crossed
the street Croom observed Kenneth Rabon and
Thelma Smith seated in Rabon 's car which was
parked "real close bumper to bumper " behind
Croom 's car . Howard's car was parked " the same"
way in front of Croom 's car . Croom and Howard
"got into" Croom 's car . Respondent's evidence is
silent as to how they "got into " the vehicle ; and, in
the absence of such evidence from it relating
thereto , I assume that Croom voluntarily entered
the car and invited Howard to join her.
While the two sat in Croom 's car Howard said he
wanted to talk to her , but she replied that she did
not want to talk and wanted to go home . Neverthe-
less Croom asked him what subject he desired to
converse about . When he answered that he wished
to speak about the Union, she responded that she
had "heard enough about it [and ] didn't want to
have anything else to do with the union or anything
else about it." Although she asked Howard to take
her home he refused to do so and assured Croom
that she "could go home " after he had talked to her
"about it."
So Croom "did talk to him." Howard remarked
"that it was good " and briefly enumerated two of
the benefits flowing from union membership. While
the two "were sitting there " Camille Cook came to
Croom 's car and opened the door to pick up a
watermelon and a cantaloupe which Croom had
brought for Mrs. Cook . Croom was crying at the
time . Although Cook asked Croom "what was
wrong," the latter replied, "nothing ." Thereupon
Cook commented that "no one was going to hurt
Croom " and requested Howard to take Croom to
Cook 's home.
At this point Croom told Howard that she
"wanted to go home." Nevertheless Howard said
"no ... he wanted to talk to [Croom] about the
Union ." But Croom insisted that she "didn't want
to know anything about the union ." Although
Croom "repeated" that she wanted to go home "or
to Camille Cook's house" Howard told her that she
"couldn 't go home until he had finished talking to
[her] about it."
Soon Janice Harrell came to Croom's car.
Howard was still in it . Croom , who was crying at
the time , told Harrell that " I [Croom] was going to
get beat up and get my face cut up ." Harrell as-
sured her that no one was going to hurt Croom
"that [Harrell] knew of." Then Harrell left. Croom
again asked Howard to take her home or to let her
drive home. However Howard replied that he had
to take her to Ezzell 's Restaurant and that she "had
to sign some papers now before [Croom] got to go
home because [Croom] already knew too much ...
about the union and who in all was involved."
Then Howard drove Croom to Ezzell 's Restau-
rant in Croom 's car . On the way Howard suggested
that Croom should "act like nothing had happened
and ... not to be crying or act like [Croom] was
upset when [ Croom ] went in there ." He also told
her to "sign the paper and not say anything" if she
wanted to get home. Croom further testified that
her "state of mind" on the way to and at Ezzell's
was "I was scared that if I didn 't do what he told
me to do that I would get hurt." At or about 3 a.m.
Croom departed from Ezzell 's Restaurant with
Howard, who drove her to his car. They conversed
for a while . During the conversation he told her
that she did not have to worry that anyone was
going to hurt her . He also gave her his telephone
number and address so that she might communicate
with him if anyone tried to bother her. Then
Howard left and Croom drove home in her own
car.
It was after 4 a.m. on July 31, 1969, that Croom
arrived home . Upon arriving there she related to
her mother "what had happened." This caused her
mother to "get real mad." Later that week Croom's
mother called Production Manager Hutchinson, ac-
cording to Croom . A couple of nights later Croom
talked to the police about the matters " related" in
her foregoing testimony . Finally Croom testified
that her mother was "pretty definite " in warning
Croom to stay out of the Union and "not to have
anything to do with that union ." When Croom
returned home in the morning of July 31, she told
her mother that she , Croom, had signed an "appli-
cation for the Union ." Her mother "wasn't very
happy about that."
On cross-examination , Croom testified that
Howard never threatened her and that she had so
stated in writing to the National Labor Relations
Board in its investigation of the charge in this case.
Her written statement confirms this. (See G.C.
Exh. 4.)
Mrs. Camille Cook, a night-shift employee, also
appeared as a witness for Respondent . A summary
STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC.
of her testimony ensues. During the night of July 30
and the early morning of July 31, 1969, Cook ob-
served that Croom was "very upset." Upon Cook's
inquiring of Croom the reason therefor, Croom
replied that Croom "had been threatened to beat
up if this so-called Thelma Smith lost her job or if
[Croom] told about her [Smith's] union activities
in the office."
Early the next morning, July 31, Cook found
Croom and Howard together in a car. Cook then
picked up some melons from Croom's car. At the
time "tears were still on [Croom's] face." This
caused Cook to ask Croom "what was the matter."
Immediately Croom sobbed. Again Cook asked
Croom "what was wrong." But Croom merely "sort
of shook her head." Thereupon Cook told Croom,
"Theresa, don't worry. There is nobody out there
that can hurt you." This prompted Howard to say,
"That's what I've been trying to tell her." At this
Cook told Howard to "bring her out to my house."
But Howard and Croom did not come to Cook's
house. At 3 p.m. of the same day, July 31, Cook re-
ported to Production Manager George Hutchinson
"what she had observed and seen earlier in the
day."
Mrs. Janice Harrell, another witness for Respon-
dent, testified in substance as follows. Harrell works
in Respondent's production room. Upon finishing
work in the early morning of July 31, 1969, she
drove her car "around to" Croom's car. Observing
that Croom's car was "blocked off" by Howard's
car in front and Rabon's car in back, Harrell
parked in back of Rabon's car and then walked to
Croom's car. Then Harrell "went in" Croom's car.
Harrell discerned that Croom was crying. Soon
Croom said to Harrell, "I am not going to get beat
up, am l?" Harrell replied, "Not by me you're not."
Shortly thereafter Harrell again saw Croom at
Ezzell 's Restaurant . Croom was "still upset " there.
On one occasion at Ezzell 's Harrell accompanied
Croom into the restroom. While at said Ezzell's
Howard filled out a union application and handed it
to Croom who signed it "afterwards." Nothing hap-
pened at Ezzell's "to cause [Harrell] to believe that
[Croom] was forced to sign a union application."
Respondent's production manager, George P.
Hutchinson , testified in essence as follows . Respon-
dent's production employees, who in effect con-
stitute a night shift, report to work at 4 p.m. and
quit at 1 or 1:30 a.m. the following day. On July 31,
1969, at or about 1 p.m., employee Mrs. Camille
Cook reported to Hutchinson that Theresa Croom,
while crying, earlier that day had told her that
Croom "had been threatened if [Croom] did not
join the union ." At this time Hutchinson was not
aware of any union activity at the newspaper.
A day or two later Respondent 's managing editor
"came to [Hutchinson] with the same story Mrs.
Cook had given " Hutchinson. The managing editor
had received "that information ... of [Croom]
being afraid and the union threatening her" from
1009
Croom's mother . Hutchinson thereupon instructed
the managing editor to request Croom's mother to
call Hutchinson. Mrs. Croom did call Hutchinson.
Her conversation with Hutchinson , which was not
admitted for the truth of its content, disclosed that
her daughter, Miss Theresa Croom, was being
harassed on the job and that "something had to be
done or Theresa would have to resign." Hutchinson
then invited Mrs. Croom to come to his office "to
talk to [him] about the situation."
At a later date Mrs. Croom came to Hutchinson's
office. There she related that Thelma Smith had
threatened Theresa with physical injury and that
Nixon Howard had forced Theresa against her will
to go to Ezzell's Restaurant and would not let her
go home "until she had signed whatever this was he
had he wanted signed." Mrs. Croom also gave
Hutchinson a written statement to this effect. Per-
sonnel Director Tuggle was present at the time. "As
a result" of Mrs. Croom's statement Hutchinson
removed Howard's card from the timeclock rack,
gave it to the accounting office, and had a check
made out to Howard for time worked plus a week's
additional pay. Soon Howard came to Hutchinson
asking if Hutchinson had Howard's timecard. When
Hutchinson replied "No. I have your check ....
You are discharged," Howard asked for an ex-
planation . Hutchinson asserted , " I am exercising
company policy-six months probation." At the
time Howard was "under six months probation."
Among others, Theresa Croom was present at the
time.
About August 18, 1969, Hutchinson obtained a
written statement from Theresa Croom regarding
the events of July 31, 1969. (See G. C. Exh. 5.)
Some of it is inconsistent with her sworn testimony
at the trial of the instant case.
Some time after Howard was discharged,
Hutchinson had employee Harold Marks sent to his
office. Personnel Director Tuggle was present.
Hutchinson "expressed my sympathy for his
brother passing away .... Then I said, `Harold, I
did not know that your wife worked at Ekerd's."'
When Marks replied that his wife worked at A & P,
Hutchinson remarked that he thought that he had
seen Mrs. Marks "in a picket line in front of
Ekerd." Marks answered, "you did. She does this
when she is through work at A & P." But Hutchin-
son denies that during this conversation he asked
Tuggle, who was also present, "Do you have
another nigger?"
Hutchinson denies that he told employee Rabon,
"I hear we have a union here now." But he con-
cedes that, after he "had learned of Theresa
Croom's threats," he mentioned to Rabon that "I
hear we have some threats from the Union around
here." Rabon responded that he did not know
anything about it.
Respondent 's final witness , Personnel Director
Arthur Tuggle, in substance gave the following
testimony. About August 5, 1969, Hutchinson took
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an oral statement from Theresa Croom in Tuggle's
presence. As Croom narrated the facts Tuggle
recorded them in longhand on a "legal pad." Later,
"When this thing became a case," Tuggle asked
Croom to, and she did, dictate her statement to
Tuggle's secretary and this was "typed up by the
secretary and notarized." This occurred on August
18, 1969 . Such statement is in evidence as General
Counsel's Exhibit 5.
Tuggle was present during a conversation
between Hutchinson and employee Harold Marks.
After .Hutchinson "paid our respects for his death
in his family," Hutchinson remarked to Marks
"about the employment place of Harold's wife ...
Harold corrected him. . . no. she did not work at
Edkerd's, that she worked at A & P." When
Hutchinson stated that he saw Mrs. Marks "at the
picket line at Ekerd's," Marks retorted that his wife
was "just helping them out over there and what she
does is her business. . . ... But at no time did
Hutchinson refer to any "nigger" in this colloquy.
D. Concluding Findings and Discussion as to the
Discharge of Nixon B. Howard
"Direct evidence of a purpose to violate the
statute is rarely obtainable [ in connection with an
employee's discharge.]" Hartsell Mills v. N.L.R.B.,
111 F.2d 291, 293 (C.A. 4). "Nowadays it is
usually a case of more subtlety." N.L.R.B. v. Neu-
hoff Bros ., Packers, Inc., 375 F.2d 372, 374 (C.A.
5). Consequently it is imperative to scan the record
to ascertain the actual motive prompting an em-
ployee's dismissal. Radio Officers Union v.
N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 50.
On the record unfolded before me I am of the
opinion, and find, that Howard was discharged for
engaging in protected activity and that the reason
advanced at the trial for his discharge, i.e., miscon-
duct towards employee Croom, is a pretext to
disguise or mask the true reason . These ultimate
findings are based on the entire record and the fol-
lowing findings which I hereby find as facts:
1. Respondent had knowledge of Howard's
union activity prior to the time it discharged him.
This finding flows from the fact that (1) as Produc-
tion Manager Hutchinson credibly testified, he was
told that Howard had been soliciting Miss Croom to
join the Union during the time Howard accom-
panied Miss Croom on July 31, 1969, and (2) both
Hutchinson and Personnel Director Tuggle were
aware of Howard's union activity by reason of a
written statement given to them by Croom. (See G.
C. Exh. 5.) Although the foregoing written state-
ment is dated August 18, 1969, Respondent's
evidence indicates that it merely reaffirms a prior
written statement before August 5, 1969, taken by
Tuggle from Croom.
2. Respondent entertained union animus. This
finding patently follows from two facts: (a)
Respondent displayed a printed notice, posted on
its bulletin board, that it "does not want a union....
We do not believe that a union is good for you or
the company ." (See G. C. Exh. 2.) (b) Respon-
dent 's Production Manager Hutchinson expressed
antiunion sentiments to employees Harold Marks
and Kenneth E. Rabon . On the issue presented by
(b) in this paragraph I credit Marks and Rabon to
the extent that their testimony conflicts with that of
Respondent 's witnesses Hutchinson and Tuggle.
Although the antiunion remarks recited above
occurred shortly after Howard' s discharge, it is
reasonable to infer-and I do so-that they
reflected Respondent 's attitude towards unions as
of the time when Howard was discharged. Of
course I recognize , and rule as a matter of law, that
antiunion hostility in itself is not an unfair labor
practice, for an employer may lawfully dislike or
oppose unions and may lawfully express antiunion
sentiments. N.L.R.B. v. Threads, Inc., 308 F.2d
1, 8 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Howard Quarries,
362 F.2d 236 (C.A. 8). Nevertheless antiunion
animus is a factor which may be evaluated in
ascertaining the true reason prompting a discharge.
Maphis Chapman Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 368 F.2d
298, 304 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Georgia Rug Mill,
308 F.2d 89, 91 (C.A. 5).
3. Respondent committed other unfair labor
practices, as found below. This conduct may be
weighed in determining the actual basis for a dis-
charge. It is also significant that Howard's dis-
charge coincided with the Union's organizational
campaign. N.L.R.B. v. Mira-Pak, Inc., 354 F.2d
525, 527 (C.A. 5); Texas Industries, Inc., 156
NLRB 423, 425.
4. Howard was abruptly discharged during the
Union's organizational drive. Thus timing is also
significant. Arkansas-Louisiana Gas Company,
142 NLRB 1083, 1085-86. The abruptness of the
discharge warrants the inference-and I draw it-
that Howard' s union activity entered into the deci-
sion to discharge him. "The abruptness of a dis-
charge and its timing are persuasive evidence as
to motivation." N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward
& Co., Inc., 247 F.2d 497, 502 (C.A. 2), cert.
denied 355 U.S. 829; N.L.R.B. v. Hawthorn Com-
pany, 404 F.2d 1205, 1210 (C.A. 8); N.L.R.B. v.
L. E. Farrell Co., 360 F.2d 205, 208 (C.A. 2).
5. Production Manager Hutchinson avoided
giving a reason for Howard's discharge when
Howard asked for one. In this connection I find
that merely informing Howard that he was dis-
charged because of "a six month's probation" is
neither responsive to Howard's inquiry nor does it
constitute assigning a reason for terminating him.
Failure to give a reason "alone would be enough to
support an inference that the lay-off was discrimina-
tory." N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307
F.2d 275, 278 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. Plant City
Steel Corp., 331 F.2d 511, 515 (C.A. 5); Virginia
Metalcrafters, Incorporated, 158 NLRB 958,
STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC. 1011
962; Sutherland Lumber Company, Inc., 176
NLRB 1010. Idraw this inference.
6. Respondent did not conduct an impartial in-
vestigation to ascertain the truth or veracity of
Howard's alleged misconduct . At most Respondent
did no more than ( a) have Miss Croom 's mother
confirm orally and in writing in Production
Manager Hutchinson 's office a complaint which the
mother had previously made over the telephone,
and (b ) take a written statement from Miss Croom.
But at no time was Howard invited to offer his ver-
sion of the events in controversy . This omission to
ask for an explanation from Howard , the failure to
allow him to defend himself , and the neglect to af-
ford him an opportunity to present his account of
the events involving him in my opinion demonstrate
that Respondent did not conduct a fair and objec-
tive investigation of Howard 's purported derelic-
tions . I so find.
Failure to conduct a fair investigation of an em-
ployee 's alleged shortcomings is evidence of a dis-
criminatory intent in discharging such employee,
especially when viewed in the light of Respondent's
hostility to the Union on whose behalf the em-
ployee was active. Norfolk Tallow Co., Inc., 154
NLRB 1052, 1059. See Shell Oil Company v.
N.L.R.B., 128 F.2d 206, 207 (C.A. 5).
Further, an arbitrary attitude of discharging a
new employee may be considered in determining
the motive underlying a discharge . U-Tote M of
Oklahoma, Inc., 172 NLRB 228, affd. on this issue
sub nom. Fairmont Foods Company v. N.L.R.B.,
407 F.2d 828, 829 (C.A. 4).
In this connection I expressly find that Howard
did not engage in any misconduct , as I specifically
credit his testimony as to what occurred late on
July 30 and early on July 31, 1969. To the extent
that Respondent 's evidence is inconsistent with
Howard 's, I do not credit the Respondent's
evidence . Thus I find that Howard at no time
threatened Miss Croom, that he offered her his pro-
tection , that she willingly accepted said protection,
that she voluntarily accompanied Howard to Ez-
zell's Restaurant , and that at no time did Howard
force Croom to go to Ezzell 's or to sign a union
card . And I further find that Howard was engaged
in protected activity when he accompanied Croom
on the above occasion as he actively solicited her to
join the Union during the course of the conversa-
tion with her.
Because of the above finding that Respondent
did not conduct a fair investigation of Howard's
supposed misconduct , I find that Respondent did
not act in good faith in believing that he engaged in
reprehensible activity . But even if Respondent did
act in good faith in believing that Howard 's actions
towards Miss Croom were censurable , I find that
Respondent was mistaken in such belief for I have
found that Howard 's conduct was not blameworthy.
Further , I find that Respondent knew that Howard
was engaged in union activity while he was with
Miss Croom . Accordingly, I find that discharging
Howard in the mistaken but good-faith belief that
he was engaged in misconduct in the course of
union activity, when in fact the misconduct did not
occur , renders the discharge unlawful under the
Act despite such good faith. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup
and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21; United Aircraft Cor-
poration , 180 NLRB 278, fn. 3; Marion Manufac-
turing Company, 161 NLRB 55, 56, fn. 1.
7. Finally, I find that it is not necessary that
union activity be the only reason leading to
Howard 's discharge . It is sufficient in finding such
discharge to be discriminatory that union activity is
a motivating or substantial reason for such termina-
tion . N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing, Co., 328
F.2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7); N.L.R.B. v. Lexington
Chair Company, 361 F.2d 283, 295 (C.A. 4);
N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883,
885 (C.A. 1). And I find that union activity was a
substantial reason for Howard's discharge . N.L.R.B.
v. Park Edge Sheridan Meats, Inc., 341 F.2d 725,
728 (C.A. 2).
E. Concluding Findings and Discussion as to
Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
Some time after August 5, 1969, Production
Manager Hutchinson told employee Rabon that
Hutchinson had "heard we have a union here
now" and that "the timing of the union was bad."
Respondent's contrary evidence is not credited.
While not very serious (cf. N.L.R.B. v. Talbot
General Wire Products, Inc., 419 F.2d 824
(C.A. 8)), this statement of Hutchinson never-
theless interferes with the rights of employees to
be free of employer intrusion into their protected
activities. Hence I find it violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
About August 1969, Hutchinson asked employee
Marks if Marks knew anything about the Union.
Respondent 's contrary evidence is not credited.
This is coercive interrogation as no legitimate pur-
pose for such an inquiry is disclosed in the record.
Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, 774-775, en-
forcement denied 344 F.2d 617 ( C.A. 8). In this
same conversation Hutchinson said that he would
not put up with union activity around the shop. His
denial thereof is not credited . I find that this ut-
terance is coercive as it threatens employees with
reprisals if they show any interest in a union.
Two or three weeks later Hutchinson told Marks
that Hutchinson had seen the wife of Marks on a
picket line at A & P . This is coercive as it connotes
employer disapproval concerning the protected ac-
tivity of an employee's relative ; and I so find . In this
same conversation Hutchinson asked Personnel
Director Tuggle , who was also present, if Tuggle
"had another nigger he could hire ." Respondent's
evidence contradicting this version by Marks is not
credited. But I find that this remark by Hutchinson
contains no threat of reprisal against protected ac-
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 65
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tivity, and, therefore, is not coercive. Accordingly, I
find that this does not violate Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship 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
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices prohibited by Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that
the National Labor Relations Board order it to
cease and desist therefrom and to take specific af-
firmative action, as set forth below, designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act. Since the discharge
of Howard goes "to the very heart of the Act"
(N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company,
120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4)), I shall recommend
that the relief provided in the Board's Order be
broad enough to prevent further infraction of the
Act in any manner. Cf. R & R Screen Engraving,
Inc., 151 NLRB 1579, 1587.
In view of the finding that Respondent dis-
criminated against Nixon B. Howard in discharging
him, it will be recommended that it be ordered to
offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position or one substantially equivalent
tthereto, without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges. It will further be recom-
mended that Howard be made whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him.
In making Howard whole, Respondent shall pay
to him a sum of money equal to that which he
would have earned as wages from the date of his
layoff to the date of reinstatement or a proper offer
of reinstatement, as the case may be, less his net
earnings during such period. Such backpay, if any,
is to be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent
calculated by the formula set forth in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be
recommended that Respondent preserve and make
available to the Board or its agents, upon reasonable
request, all pertinent records and data necessary to
aid in analyzing and determining whatever backpay
may be due.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is an employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce as
defined in Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of
employment of Nixon B. Howard, thereby
discouraging membership in I.T.U., a labor or-
ganization , Respondent has engaged in an unfair
labor practice condemned by Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct set forth in this
paragraph, Respondent has committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act: ( a) telling an employee that Respondent
had "heard we have a union here now ... the tim-
ing of the union was bad"; (b) coercively inter-
rogating an employee if such employee knew
anything about the Union; (c) telling an employee
that it would not put up with union activity around
the shop; and (d) coercively intimating to an em-
ployee disapproval concerning the protected activi-
ty of such employee's wife.
5. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not committed any other un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law and the entire record in this
case, I recommend that the Board issue an Order
requiring that Respondent, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or
any other labor organization, by discharging em-
ployees or otherwise discriminating in any manner
in respect to their tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Telling employees that it had heard that they
had a union and that the timing of the union was
bad.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees regarding
their protected activities or those of the members
of their families.
(d) Telling employees that it will not put up with
union activity around the shop.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights vouchsafed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Nixon B. Howard immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or one sub-
stantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges en-
joyed by him, and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of his dis-
STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS, INC.
charge, with interest thereon at the rate of 6
percent.
(b) Notify said Nixon B. Howard if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of
his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) 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.
(d) Post at its plant at Wilmington, North
Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after
being duly signed by Respondent's duly authorized
representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor prac-
tices not found herein.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 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 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 Na-
tional 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 "
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify our employees that
1013
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in In-
ternational Typographical Union , AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization , by discharging
employees or otherwise discriminating in any
manner in respect to their tenure of employ-
ment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT coercively ask employees
questions about their protected activities or
those of the members of their families.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we have
heard that they had a union and that the timing
of the union was bad.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we will not
put up with union activity around the shop.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Nixon B. Howard immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or one
substantially equivalent to it , and will pay him
backpay for any loss of pay he may have suf-
fered as a result of his discharge by us, with in-
terest thereon at 6 percent.
WE WILL notify Nixon B. Howard if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selec-
tive Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refuse to become or remain, members of said In-
ternational Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
STAR-NEWS NEWSPAPERS,
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 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 1624 Wachovia Building, 301
North Main Street, Winston -Salem , North Carolina
27101, Telephone 919-723-9211 , Ext. 360.