Stein-Way Clothing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 132 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
both the avionics and rockets divisions. There is no basis, therefore,
for establishing the separate bargaining units for the technicians, as
contended. by the Employer and the Association.' We find that a
single unit of all the technicians is appropriate, consistent with the
scope of the existing units.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
Niagara Frontier facilities (Erie and Niagara counties in the State
of New York) constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical employees in the avionics and rockets divisions of the
Employer, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors' as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 It is well established that the Board will find inappropriate a technical unit which
does not comprise all the Employer 's technical employees . See Westinghouse Air Brake
Company, Union Switch & Signal Divtision , 119 NLRB 1391 ; The Monarch Machine Tool
Co., 98 NLRB 1243.
7 Subsequent to the filing of the petition 24 technicians received promotions as a re-
sult of an organizational change by the Employer. The Employer 's witnesses testified
that these 24 individuals effectively recommend the hiring and discharge, and responsibly
direct the work of, the employees under their supervision As there is no evidence to the
contrary , we shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors
Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc. and United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO . Case No. 10-CA-4528. April 19, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 10, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner except as modified below.2
i Member Rodgers would not rely on the Trial Examiner 's inference that because of the
small size of its plant the Respondent knew or suspected that Agnes Garland was engaging
in union activity.
a The Respondent has excepted , inter alia, to the Trial Examiner 's recommended remedy
awarding reinstatement and backpay to Agnes Garland . The record reveals that a few
, 131 NLRB No. 27.
STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC.
ORDER
133
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc., Johnson City,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on behalf of United
Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating
against the employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with loss of employment because of
their union activities or support.
(c) Stating to employees that it knows who the union adherents
are or otherwise suggesting that their union activities are under
surveillance.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Textile Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, or to refrain from engaging in such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant at Johnson City, Tennessee, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent's official representatives,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and maintained by it for a period of at least 60
consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
minutes after she had been discharged in the office, Garland returned to her work station
in the plant , where she had been forbidden to go, and physically attacked Virginia
Bailey, a fellow employee , who Garland suspected had informed the employer of her union
activity . Although Garland's action does not affect the illegality of her discharge, the
Board, Member Fanning dissenting , does not believe that the purposes of the Act will be
effectuated by granting Garland reinstatement and backpay . Carthage Fabrics Corpora-
tion, 101 NLRB 541 , 555; Renfro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 122 NLRB 929. Member Fanning
affirms the Trial Examiner in this matter.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to
comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any
employee for the purpose of discouraging membership in United
Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment
because of their union activities or support.
WE WILL NOT state to our employees that their union affiliation
is known to the Company or otherwise suggest that the employees'
union activities or affiliation is under surveillance.
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, join, or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection and to
refrain from any or all of such activities.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members in good standing in the above-named
Union or any other labor organization.
STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended ( 61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act , was heard at Johnson City,
Tennessee, on November 9, 1960, pursuant to due notice with all parties represented
by counsel . The complaint issued by the General Counsel for the National Labor
STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. 135
Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board), on October 13,
1960, and based upon charges duly filed and served, alleged in substance that Re-
spondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discriminating against its employee, Agnes Garland, because of
her membership in and activities on behalf of the Union, and by engaging in various
specified acts of interference, restraint, and coercion against its employees in connec-
tion with their union activities.
In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is and at all times material herein has been a Tennessee corporation
maintaining its principal office and place of business at Johnson City, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of men's pants under a Government contract.
During the calendar year 1959, which is a representative period, Respondent sold and
shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000, from its Johnson City plant directly to
points outside the State of Tennessee. I find that Respondent is and at all times
material herein has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is and at all times material herein
has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The supervisory status of the foreladies
The General Counsel contends that the foreladies (and specifically Fleda Merritt
and Mildred Lewis) are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Respondent
claims that "not one shred of evidence was produced which would justify this po-
sition" and contends that foreladies are merely "group leaders." I disagree. While
it is true that they have no authority to hire or fire and that like the rank-and-file
they are hourly paid and punch timeclocks, the preponderance of the evidence shows
their identity with management within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Thus it appears that the foreladies train girls, check their work, correct girls if
they do improper work, give out production sheets, take up production and see
generally that the work gets out on schedule. They have authority to trans-
fer employees from job to job or place them where most needed. They do no pro-
duction work themselves but, unlike the rank-and-file, they attend production meet-
ings. According to the testimony of Joe Wood, Respondent's treasurer and service
manager, the foreladies take such disciplinary action as is necessary "to see that the
work is performed properly and see that the girls are at their work places on time
and that the work is generally coming through satisfactorily. . . Although they
do not have the authority to hire or fire, it is clear from both the testimony of
Wood and Ted Odum, supervisor of the cutting department, that their recom-
mendations in these respects "would carry a lot of weight." And while they are
hourly paid, unlike the rank-and-file their remuneration is not geared to production
quotas. In these circumstances and considering that there are 7 foreladies plus only
Wood and Odom to supervise some 350 to 375 production workers distributed in
several different rooms or work areas, I have no difficulty in concluding that the
foreladies are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. I so find.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Agnes Garland, the alleged discriminatee herein, testified about a conversation
she had with Forelady Fleda Merritt 3 days before her discharge. Garland asked
Merritt how she felt about a union coming in the plant. Merritt replied that since
she did not have to work it made no difference to her but added that it would "make
it easier on the girls." Merritt also said that an attempt had been made to get a
union in before "and they closed it down, and they would close it down before they
would have one in there." On the following day, according to Garland's further
testimony, Merritt came to her and said, "Agnes, be careful who you talk to in here
about union because some of them will squeal on you . anybody that talks
to you, will be fired. They will fire anybody who talks about it."
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In her testimony Merritt admitted having the first conversation some 2 or 3 days
before Garland 's discharge . According to her version Garland had asked her what
she thought about the Union and she gave Garland her "own personal opinion
about a union"-which opinion she explained on the stand was that she "couldn't
see any advantage in it really ." When pressed for details as to what she actually
told Garland her answer was, "I don't remember what I told her. I don 't recall-I
can't recall what I told her. It wasn 't important to me, I didn 't think anything about
it. She just asked me and I just gave her my personal opinion ; and she made a
few remarks . I can 't even tell you what she said because I didn 't even think any-
thing about it." Nevertheless , she further testified with the aid of a leading question
about going into detail concerning another plant and its union which eventually
closed down because of strikes and which she pointed out could happen here.
She denied , however, having had the second conversation with Garland and when
she was specifically asked if she had told Garland to be careful who she talked to
about the Union her reply was , "I told Agnes not to cause us any trouble and that's
when I referred to the local plant and went into details about the trouble that they
had when the Union went in." Merritt further testified that she never told anybody
in management about this conversation . On cross-examination Merritt at first testi-
fied that she did not know the name of the plant to which she had referred in her
conversation with Garland. Pressed further for the name she replied, "I believe it
was Miller Brothers ; I am just not sure it was."
In view of Merritt's uncertainty and vagueness as to various details of her admitted
conversation with Garland and her admission that she could not remember what
she told Garland , I credit Garland here.
Wilma Presnell, an employee of some 15 years' tenure and a former forelady,
called by the General Counsel , testified as to a conversation she had with Phil
Scharfstein , Respondent 's president , on September 15 in the plant kitchen . Accord-
ing to Presnell, right after lunch Forelady Mildred Lewis told her that Scharfstein
said to bring a pair of pants to the kitchen , that he wanted to talk to her. There
Scharfstein told her that he had found out that she was a leader in the Union. Pres-
nell asked who had told him that . He said that a number of girls had told both him
and General Manager Wood. He further said that Wood "wanted to dismiss [her]
for the same reason he did Agnes and Genevieve ." But Scharfstein wanted to talk
to her because she had been with the Company so long and had never been for a
union before . He further told her that "Agnes and Genevieve had been dis-
missed-on account of the Union ." He further said that "he never had been under
a union, they had always closed down to get rid of them ." When he asked her to
cooperate with them she replied that "money couldn 't hire [her]" to do anything
against the others . He told her to think about it and "get a pair of pants and come
in there and talk it over with him ." She asked him if he wanted to fire her and he
told her that he did not, that it would look bad because she had been with the Com-
pany so many years . He also told her that he had the names of all the girls who
had signed union cards. In her testimony she denied that anything was said about
work except that Scharfstein mentioned that if the girls rejected the Union, there
would be plenty of work for all. Paradoxically she also testified that Scharfstein
told her that he wanted the Union held off until the Company had finished both of
its contracts and that after they were finished they would "close down."
Scharfstein had a stroke in 1955 which apparently resulted in considerable cur-
tailment of his physical activity . He appeared on the stand with the aid of a cane
and explained that when he finds it impossible to make a personal inspection in the
plant he gets the foreladies to "bring certain things" to him which he can inspect
while sitting . He admitted having had a conversation with Presnell on September
15, having asked Forelady Lewis to send Presnell to him "with a pair of pants."
According to his testimony he told Presnell that he had had complaints about her
work, that she had been careless "passing trousers with holes and damages and
things that need .repairing and you've got to be more careful and see that you please
do the right thing and be careful and do your work." According to Scharfstein's
direct testimony that was the entire conversation he had with Presnell. He spe-
cifically denied any reference to the Union or that he had accused her of being
a union leader. He also denied that he told her he would close down the plant
when the Government contracts were finished . He further denied that he ever men-
tioned Garland 's name to Presnell in this conversation or in any conversation.
The tenor of Scharfstein 's cross-examination was that the pants brought to him
by Presnell had been passed by her even though they contained defects. It seems
incredible to me that an experienced employee would voluntarily carry her own
STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. 137
negligent work to her superior for his inspection . For this and other reasons i
I am inclined to and do credit Presnell here.
Presnell further testified about a conversation she had with Forelady Mildred
Lewis on August 26, a few hours after the discharge of Agnes Garland . According
to Presnell , Lewis came up to her and told her , "Wilma, I want to tell you some-
thing. Joe [Wood , Respondent's general manager ] . .. is going to have the police
search all the girls at quitting time for union cards."
In her testimony Lewis flatly denied making the statement to Presnell . She also
denied any knowledge of union activity in the plant until after Garland 's discharge.
She did admit , however, that sometime between the discharge and the time Re-
spondent began preparation for the hearing herein , she talked to Wood regarding
some "rumors" about the Union . As she put it, she "mentioned something about
it one time but I can't recall . . . some little old something about it but I don't
know what it was . it wasn 't anything that amounted to anything and not
enough to even remember . . There wasn 't anything that concerned her because
we didn 't know anything definitely . I hadn't seen any cards , it was just a rumor."
There are two significant aspects of Lewis' testimony about her "some little old
something" that she claimed did not amount to anything : ( 1) It was important
enough for her to go to Wood about ; ( 2) it is interesting to note that in the con-
text of testimony concerning the discharge of Garland she maintained that her re-
marks did not concern a "her" (who can only be interpreted as being Garland)
because Respondent did not "know anything definitely"-that they had not "seen
any cards , it was just a rumor." In view of Lewis' obvious attempt to mitigate the
effect of her having talked to Wood about the Union , together with my comparative
reaction to the two witnesses as they testified , I credit Presnell here.
The foregoing reveals the following acts of interference , restraint , and coercion
by Respondent against its employees which I find violate Section 8 ( a)(1) of the
Act:
Merritt's statements to Garland that Respondent would close the plant before it
would have a union and that Respondent would discharge anyone who talked about
the Union.
Scharfstein 's remarks to Presnell that Respondent had never been under a union
and "had always closed down to get out of them ," and that he had the names of
all the girls who had signed union cards, thus giving the impression that employees'
union activities were under Respondent 's surveillance.
Lewis' remarks to Presnell that Wood was going to have police search the girls at
quitting time for union cards.
C. Discrimination
Agnes Garland began working for Respondent October 9, 1952. During this
time she clipped bands , pressed, inspected a little , top pressed pants; but her essential
work was as a presser. At the time of her discharge on August 26, 1960, she was
making $11.20 per day which was production ceiling There were seven pressers
besides herself, some were leg pressers and others top pressers as was she. Most
of them also made production most of the time Garland testified that she had
never been criticized about her work and that she had been complimented more
than once, the last time being a week before her discharge when General Manager
Joe Wood came by and told her that her work "was looking good, to keep it up "
About 2 weeks before her discharge Garland became interested in the Union and
signed a union card. Sometime during this 2-week period she attended a union
meeting at which three others from the plant were present. At the plant she talked
to the girls about the Union and got them to sign cards. In all she passed out about
50 to 60 cards several at a time to different girls . She herself got 12 cards signed.
On the morning of August 26, when she went to punch in, her card was not in
the rack as usual She asked the office girl if she knew anything about it. The
latter tried to find it but could not and told Garland to come back to the office at
8 o'clock. Garland went to the office and was sitting there when General Manager
Wood appeared at the door and said, "Agnes, come out here." She went out and
Wood said, "Agnes, I found some bad work of yours We'll have to let you go."
Garland said, "That suits me. Just give me my separation slip. I want to tell you
it's not my work. I have not had no complaints about my work and you've not
showed me any bad work and I know it's not that Why don't you be honest for
one time and tell me what it's about " Wood wheeled around and said. "Well,
what else is it?" When Garland told the office girl she was going into the plant to
i Schnrfstein's denial of recognition up to the time of the hearing of union activity in
the plant is patently incredible as was his claim that he had talked to no one about his
testimony.
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
get her pocketbook, the office girl said, "honey, I don't think Joe will let you. I've
got to go after it."
Wood had told the other office girl to make out Garland 's time and give her her
slip. While she was doing this Garland went out the front door and into the back
of the plant. There Garland got in a fight with Virginia Bailey. According to
Garland 's cross-examination Bailey "was always snitching , and she blamed [Gar-
land] for all the pranks and jokes that had been pulled.. . " Garland started the
fight with Bailey "because [Garland] thought she had told on [Garland] getting the
union card signed and because she knew about it." 2 Ted Odom separated the
two women and took them to the office from where Garland was taken "to town
and let . out, and that was it." Garland further testified that Wood did not
tell her when he had found this bad work and did not offer to show her what bad
work it was that he claimed to have found. According to Garland's further testi-
mony that afternoon she called the plant and asked to talk to Wood. When Wood
got on the telephone she told him that she knew why she had been fired that morn-
ing. He asked her why and she said that it was because she was trying to get a union
in the plant. She further said, "You've not got the leader yet because they are still
down there." He said, "Well, tell me who it is, then." She said, "You don't think
I'd tell you that, do you?" and he said, "I appreciate your calling."
The Respondent's evidence regarding Garland's discharge is as follows: General
Manager Wood testified that prior to Garland's discharge he had "an overall abund-
ance" of complaints from the Government inspector about poor workmanship. Al-
though he admitted that he may have on occasion complimented Garland about her
work he claimed to have "talked" to her a week or two before her discharge about
work that was "not up to par." On cross-examination he was not able to recall the
exact nature of the complaint against Garland at this time . His specific reason for
discharging Garland was "for bad work." This bad work he described as "the pressing
around the tops of the waistbands, the pockets not being smoothed out, the fly not
being properly pressed, just around the top part of the trousers, which was her
operation ." According to his testimony they were not pressed in an acceptable man-
ner for the Government . Although no details as to the exact mechanics of the dis-
charge were given by him on direct examination he testified on cross-examination that
after quitting time on August 25, he found the bad work by Garland-some six or
eight pairs of pants with just the tops pressed. Although he claimed to have told
Garland at the time he discharged her that he found the bad work the night before,
he admits that he did not show them to her and in effect admitted that he did not
tell her what was bad , his complaint to her being that it was "just in general bad
pressing." He further admitted on cross-examination that he possibly found some
other pressers' work that was bad at the same time. He also admitted that he did
not discuss the discharge with either Odom or Garland's forelady and he could not
say that he had had any complaints from those sources about Garland 's work.
As to other discharges Wood testified that if he continually gets bad work and
after warning sees that there is no improvement with the help being furnished by
Odom and the foreladies, then he will discharge people "on the spot " Even in
such cases, however, he testified that later and presumably when he has calmed
down, he often gives the people he discharged a chance to come back to work
again . In this vein he testified that he would have considered giving Garland her
job back but that he had decided against this course because of the fight which
occurred after she was discharged. Garland's separation notice on the Tennessee
Department of Employment Security form had indicated the reason for her dis-
charge as "bad work, misconduct on job." Wood testified that misconduct on the
job was not one of the causes of her discharge. He explained the addition of that
reason thereon because he "felt like that was to preclude taking her back at all . .
and it also precluded her right to go and get compensation."
According to Foreman Ted Odom's testimony, Wood was the impetuous type who
fires or discharges people on the spur of the moment. Odom named two people
who were thus fired by Wood and both rehired. He testified that not only do they
generally give girls "a second chance," they give them several warnings. Odom
further testified that he did not have to warn Garland individually about her work
and more than any of the other pressers. Forelady Mildred Lewis testified that she
had had bad work by Garland brought to her attention but added "they all had bad
work. .
Wood denied knowledge of any union activity whatsoever in the plant prior to
Garland's discharge. He claimed to have first learned of it when Garland called him
2 Bailey testified that she had no knowledge of Garland's union activity. Whether she
knew or not of course is immaterial.
STEIN-WAY CLOTHING COMPANY, INC. 139
that afternoon on the telephone .' Respondent's president , Scharfstein , also denied
on cross-examination knowledge of any union activity in the plant "at any time" up
to the time of the hearing.
As is apparent, there is no substantial conflict between the General Counsel's and
Respondent's evidence as to the discharge with the possible exception of whether or
not she had been "talked to" regarding below-par work. In view of Wood's vague-
ness regarding the time and nature of his complaint to her, I find that if he did in
fact talk to her about her work it was no more than routine and passing observation
with no adverse significance regarding the overall caliber of her work.
I do not believe Respondent 's explanation of the discharge ., Wood may be im-
petuous as Respondent claims, but the circumstances here in my opinion are not
such as would have triggered one of his on -the-spot discharges . His alleged reason
for the discharge conflicts with Respondent 's self-described method of giving re-
peated warnings and several chances to marginal employees . And Garland was no
marginal employee but an efficient operator of long tenure. Considering these facts
and the additional facts that Garland 's coworker testified without denial that she was
was not called upon to repress any faulty work and that Respondent offered no evi-
dence as to having Garland's alleged faulty work redone, I conclude and find that
Garland was discharged not for faulty work but because Respondent knew of her
union activity and inclinations or•surmised it.
In this connection there remains to be disposed of Respondent 's contention that
it had no knowledge of Garland 's union activities prior to her discharge . I believe
that the overall circumstances reflected in the record as a whole show this contention
to be without merit and require a finding that Respondent had knowledge of Gar-
land's union activity or believed or suspected her to be so engaged . In reaching this
conclusion , I rely in part on the following : (1) The nature of that activity itself
(in a relatively small plant) with its apex the solicition of 12 union authorization
cards; (2) the two conversations with Forelady Merritt about the Union culminating
in the warning Merritt gave her 2 days before her discharge about discussing the
Union ; ( 3) Forelady Lewis ' comment to Presnell a few hours after the discharge
about the police search for union cards; (4) Scharfstein 's statement to Presnell that
Garland had been dismissed because of union activity ; ( 5) Lewis ' testimony putting
union cards and Garland in the same context together with the implication that Re-
spondent had information about Garland 's union activity but that it had not yet
been "definitely" verified.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with its operations 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent on August 26, 1960, discriminatorily discharged
employee Agnes Garland and has since failed to reinstate her, I shall recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to offer -her 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 for any loss she may have suffered
because of the discrimination against her by payment of a sum of money equal to
the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the dis-
crimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement , less net earnings during said
period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth, 90 NLRB 289. The Respondent shall, upon re-
quest, make available to the Board or its agents payroll and other records to facili-
tate the checking of the amount of backpay.
In recommending the customary remedy of reinstatement and backpay here I am
cognizant that there is some evidence of reluctance on Respondent 's part to reinstate
Garland because of the fight in which she engaged immediately after her discharge.
While I do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to deny her
reinstatement here, I do not want to be understood as condoning her conduct or as
being unmindful of it . Certainly no one need retain an employee who engages in
physical aggression against his fellow employees and Respondent should feel free to
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge or otherwise discipline Garland should there be any repetition of the type
of conduct she engaged in against Bailey.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed , the commission of
similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated . I shall
therefore recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
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 Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Agnes Garland the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent 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 affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Anchor Manufacturing Company, a division of Basic Products
Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 12-CA-1563 and 12-CA-1647.
April 19, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the
Twelfth Region, on October 7, 1960, issued a complaint alleging that
Anchor Manufacturing Company, a division of Basic Products Corpo-
ration, herein called the Respondent,' had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. Copies of the charges, complaint, and notice of hear-
ing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in
substance, that the Union was and is the exclusive representative of
all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent in an
appropriate unit, and that the Respondent unlawfully refused to bar-
gain collectively with the Union.
The Respondent's answer admits certain jurisdictional and factual
allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission of unfair labor
practices.
1 The name of the Respondent has been amended in accordance with the stipulation of
facts entered into by all the parties.
The parties agreed in this stipulation to the dismissal of the allegations of the com-
plaint in Case No. 12-CA-1563.
131 NLRB No. 22.