Sylacauga Garment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 501 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 501
Sylacauga Garment Company and International La-
dies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases
10-CA-10018 and 10-CA-10171
April 10, 1973, the day she agreed to return to work after Respondent's
original offer of recall The Remedy proposed by the Administrative Law
Judge is hereby modified to limit the computation of her backpay to April
10, 1973
May 9, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 25, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party also
filed exceptions and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings,' and conclusions 2 of the Administrative
Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Sylacauga Garment
Company, Sylacauga, Alabama, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 Chairman Miller would not base any violation findings on Respon-
dent's exhibition of the film titled "The Springfield Gun"-one chararter-
ized by the Administrative Law Judge as containing essentially the same
message as "And Women Must Weep " See Heckethorn Manufacturing Co,
208 NLRB No 46, wherein a showing of the latter film was found by a
unanimous panel not to constitute an 8(a)( 1) violation , even in a context of
other 8(a)(1) violations
3 We agree with the conclusion that Felicia Hudson was laid off on
March 8, 1973, because of her union activities The Administrative Law
Judge's Decision, however, fails to limit the computation of her backpay to
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge:
Upon a charge filed by International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the
Union, on February 27, 1973, an amended charge filed by
the Union on March 22, 1973, and a second amended
charge filed on May 21, 1973, in Case 10-CA-10018, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
by the Regional Director of the Board's Region 10, issued
a complaint against Sylacauga Garment Company, re-
ferred to herein as the Company, on June 6, 1973.
Thereafter, upon a further charge filed on May 21, 1973,
and an amended charge filed on June 20, 1973, a second
complaint was issued against the Company in Case
I0-CA-10171 on June 29, 1973,1 together with an order
consolidating Cases 10-CA-10018 and l0-CA-10171.
Both complaints alleged that the Company engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, referred to herein as the
Act. The Company filed a timely answer to each
complaint, denying the commission of any of the alleged
unfair labor practices. A hearing on these cases was held at
Sylacauga, Alabama, on July 31, August 1 and 2, and
September 4, 5, and 6.
Upon the entire record in the cases and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , and having
considered the briefs submitted by the General Counsel
and the Charging Party,2 I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sylacauga Garment Company, the Respondent, is an
Alabama corporation, with its office and place of business
located at Sylacauga, Alabama, where it is engaged in the
manufacture of clothing. The Company annually sells and
ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
customers located outside the State of Alabama. The
Company admitted in its answers, and I find, that the
Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Company admits, and I find, that International
I Hereinafter all dates will refer to the year 1973 unless otherwise
specified
2 Respondent did not file a brief.
210 NLRB No. 84
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ladies ' Garment Workers' Union, the Union, is a labor IV. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ISSUES
The Union began an organizing campaign among the
Company's 400 or 500 plant employees on January 15,
which eventuated in a Board-conducted election on August
23. The issues presented are whether the evidence shows
that in opposing the Union's efforts, the Company violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activity, membership, and sentiment, and the union
activity, membership, and sentiment of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees with plant closure and other
economic reprisals if the Union succeeded in organizing
them.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge if they
supported the Union.
(d) Granting a wage increase with the intention of
inducing the employees to reject the Union.
(e) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activities.
(f) Creating the impression among its employees that it
was keeping their union activities under surveillance.
(g) Soliciting employees to report the union activities of
fellow employees to the Company.
(h) Harassing employees concerning their work perform-
ance because they engaged in union activity.
(i) Showing its employees a motion picture film entitled
"The Springfield Gun" by which it threatened its employ-
ees' physical and economic security if the Union's
campaign succeeded.
(j) Threatening employees with more stringent enforce-
ment of company rules because they engaged in union
activity.
(k) Warning employees that it was futile to support the
Union;
and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by:
(a) Refusing to hire employees Ida Mae Harrison,
Brenda Oden, Geraldine Woodyard, and Katherine Oden
because of their union activity.
,b) Discharging employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy,
Lois Veleta McDaniel, and Annie D. Harvey because of
their union activity.
(c) Laying off the following employees because of their
union activity:
A. The Union's Campaign
On January 15, Union Organizer Mavous Speegle and
two other union representatives distributed leaflets to
company employees at the entrance of the Company's
Sylacauga plant. The front cover of the leaflet bore the
bold lettered inscription "IT'S YOUR RIGHT TO JOIN
THE UNION." The back cover contained a print of a
union authorization card which could be cut out. Thereaft-
er, on instructions from the Union, Speegle telephoned
company employee Carolyn King on January 28 and
arranged for a meeting with company employees to be held
on January 30 at the Coffee Pot Restaurant in Sylacauga.
Speegle appeared at the Coffee Pot on September 30,
where she was met by employees Carolyn King and Bettye
Dowdy. The two employees conducted Speegle to the
home of Bettye Dowdy's sister, where the meeting had
been relocated. Speegle told the 15 assembled company
employees about the benefits which could be expected
from union representation . She solicited their expressions
of interest in supporting a union organizing campaign at
the company plant . It was agreed that a similar meeting
would be held at 4 p.m. on February 2 at the Lloyd Oliver
Union Hall in Childersburg, Alabama, some 10 miles from
Sylacauga . Notice of the February 2 meeting was dissemi-
nated by telephone and at the plant by word of mouth.
Thirty to 35 employees attended the February 2 meeting
which began shortly after 4 p.m. Speegle again discussed
the benefits of union representation and distributed union
leaflets to the employees . Speegle held a similar meeting
with employees at a nearby restaurant on February 7, and
a second meeting 2 days later at the Lloyd Oliver Union
Hall. Thereafter, the Union held meetings with company
employees almost weekly, until about June 20.
At the February 9 meeting, the Union began soliciting
signed authorization cards. On March 1, the Union advised
the Company's plant manager, Collis Pridgen, by telegram,
of the names of the 22 employees constituting the Union's
plant organizing committee. Beginning on March 5,
members of the organizing committee began wearing
plastic badges inscribed "ILGWU Organizing Commit-
tee." The Union's campaign culminated in a Board-held
representation election on August 23 at the Company's
Sylacauga plant.3
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Surveillance
Sundae Roberts Felecia Hudson
Queen Ester Harvey Joyce W. Wood
Ardelia Harvey Annie Ruth Murphy
(d) Transferring employee Annie Faye Oden to more
onerous work because of her union adherence.
I find from the credited testimony of General Counsel's
witnesses Bettye Dowdy and Jeanette Butts that at
approximately 4:30 p.m. during the February 2 union
meeting, Plant Manager Pridgen drove along the highway
(U.S. Route 280) past the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall. I also
find from their testimony that Pridgen drove past the hall
at 10 to 15 miles per hour, looking in the direction of the
3 The election results were not revealed on the record of this proceeding.
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO.
hall and the dozen or so cars parked in the adjacent
parking lot.4 Plainly, Pridgen's conduct amounted to
surveillance. A further incident of company surveillance
occurred during the February 9 union meeting. According
to the credited testimony of General Counsel' s witnesses
Grover Parker and Sara Nell Bums, Company Supervisor
Ilene Wesson circled the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall in a
pickup truck while the meeting was in progress, and in the
process drove through the parking lot adjacent to the
building. Wesson corroborated their testimony and admit-
ted that she drove to the hall expecting to find the meeting.
By thus engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activity, the Company violated Section 8(axl) of the Act.
Lube Devices, Inc., 197 NLRB 770 (1972), enfd. 481 F.2d
1407 (C.A. 7, 1973).
2. Plant Manager Pridgen's meetings
On Monday, February 5, Plant Manager Pridgen
summoned employees in groups of 12 to meetings in his
office lasting about 15 minutes.5 Pridgen told at least two
of these groups that he knew of the February 2 union
meeting at the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall; that there would
be no union at the Company's plant; that 90 percent of the
employees were happy and that 10 percent were not, and
that these 10 percent weren't happy at home and wouldn't
be happy anywhere. He also announced the resumption of
employee "gripe sessions" with management.
At the conclusion of his remarks, Pndgen solicited
questions from the employees. Employee Bettye Dowdy
asked him: "[I If this union couldn't help us, why was he
fighting it [?]" Pridgen replied by asking how she would
"like a lady coming into your house and tell you how to
wash your dishes, how to make your beds and so on?"
Employee Sandra Hanna answered that she wouldn't mind
so long as it would do her any good."
Employee Lois Veleta McDaniel remarked to Pridgen
that "if a contract was made, if he signed it, he'd have to go
by it." Pridgen's response to this was that a union wasn't
going to tell him what to do and that "he would close the
doors before the union would come in."
Pridgen's remarks at the February 5 meetings violated
the Act in two respects. First, in light of employee
knowledge that he had in fact engaged in surveillance of
the February 2 meeting, his assertions that he knew of their
meeting were likely to bring home to listening employees
that the Company was keeping their union meetings under
surveillance. Accordingly, I find that by Pridgen's remarks
about the February 2 union meeting the Company gave the
4 Pridgen did not deny Dowdy's and Butts' testimony . Instead, he
answered "No," to the following leading question by company counsel:
"Did you on February 2 or at any other time drive down 280 toward
Birmingham knowing a union meeting was going on, for the purpose of
spying on that meeting9" Plainly, this dialogue leaves open the possibility
that Pridgen conducted the reconnaissance described by Dowdy and Butts.
S My findings of fact regarding this meeting are based upon a composite
of the credited testimony of employees Bettye Dowdy, Veleta McDaniel,
and Janette Butts In contrast to their attempts to provide a complete
statement of what was said at the meetings they attended , Pridgen's
testimony was somewhat vague as to details. Further , employees Ingram
and Helm , and Supervisor Machen, who were called by Respondent as
witnesses to the February 5 meetings , did not corroborate Pndgen's denials
that he threatened plant closure or remarked about the February 2 union
meeting . Thus, under cross-examination , employee Ingram conceded- "I
503
impression that it was engaged in surveillance of its
employees' union activity and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, a Division
of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 187 NLRB 661, 666,
enfd. 473 F.2d 374 (C.A. 5, 1973).
Similarly violative of Section 8(a)(l) was Pridgen's threat
to "close the doors" rather than bargain with a union.
Transway, Inc., 160 NLRB 838, 853 (1966), enfd. 410 F.2d
368, 370 (C.A. 5, 1969).
3. Interrogation
It is undisputed that on January 16, Company Supervisor
Bessie Machen approached employees Veleta McDaniel
and Sandra Hanna at the plant and, in an obvious
reference to the Union's leaflets , asked if they had
obtained "any of that good material that was handed out
the day before." McDaniel replied "No, but I wished I
did." I also credit McDaniel's testimony that Machen
asked McDaniel: "Well how do you feel about the
Union?" The latter replied that she thought it was the best
thing that could happen to the plant .6
At the end of the workday on January 16, the Company
distributed a leaflet to its employees which advised them:
"It is your right not to join the union." Employee Carolyn
King upon receiving a company leaflet looked at it and
said, "[T]hey could take those and ram them." With that,
she balled the leaflet up in her hand. All of King's
reactions to the Company's leaflet were witnessed by
Eugenia McLain, the wife of Company Personnel Manager
Boyce McLain. The following day, Boyce McLain sum-
moned King to his plant office and questioned her about
her reaction to the company leaflet. He asked if she had
made a statement about the leaflet and asked her to repeat
her remarks. King refused the requests.?
I credit Veleta McDaniel's testimony that on February 6,
the day after Pridgen's group meetings, McLain, in the
course of reprimanding employee McDaniel, asked her
"how far was [she] in this union business." McDaniel
replied that "it was [her] private right and [she] did not
have to tell him." 8
Supervisor Laverne Leonard approached employee Ada
Lawson on February 12, at the plant, and asked her if she
belonged to the Union. Lawson answered: "No, no one
belonged to it yet." When Leonard asked if Lawson had
attended any union meetings, Lawson admitted that she
don't remember everything that was said , no I don't remember everything."
(Tr. 914) Employee Helm could only remember that Pridgen said "we did
not want a union " (Tr. 915) Supervisor Machen 's testimony regarding the
February 5 meeting was similar to Helm 's. (Tr 1014)
6 Machen denied questioning McDaniel and Hanna In contrast with
Machen, who appeared reluctant to testify , McDaniel impressed me as an
honest witness trying to give her full recollection Accordingly, I have
credited McDaniel's account of this conversation.
r My findings regarding this incident are based upon employee King's
uncontradicted testimony.
s McLain denied asking this question. However, he does not deny having
a conversation with McDaniel on this date . In light of this circumstance,
and my impression that McDaniel was a reliable witness, I have rejected
McLain's denial.
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had. Leonard also asked if Lawson believed the Union
could help the employees and Lawson answered, "yes. "9
On March 16, McLain came to Lawson's work station and
asked her "how was the program going." After she
answered "fine," McLain inquired as to whether she had
been to "any of the meetings lately." Lawson replied that
she had been unable to attend. Three days later, McLain
again asked Lawson "how was it going?" When she
responded, "[S]o far, so good," McLain asked if she was
"really serious about this." Finally, he asked Lawson, who
had been wearing a union organizing committee badge
since about March 5, "Ada, where is your badge?" Lawson
smiled and answered that she usually lost it on weekends,
but expected to find it that evening.10
Supervisor Bessie Machen brought employee Joyce
Wood to McLain's office on February 28, apparently to
discuss Wood's production. McLain joined the discussion
and asked Wood: "Where did we lose you to the
outsiders?" Wood responded: "What do you mean, the
union?" When McLain answered "yes," Wood explained
that she came from a union town, that her father was "a
union man ," and that she had "always been for the union
and always would be.""
Further incidents of interrogation included Supervisor
Machen's March 5 encounter with employee Annie Ruth
Murphy. In her testimony, Machen admitted that upon
seeing Murphy's union pin that day she asked Murphy
what it meant. Employee Wood's credited and undenied
testimony reveals that on the same day Machen upon
noticing Wood's union pin asked Wood the same question.
I also credit the testimony of employees Felecia Hudson
and Sundae Roberts which shows that on March 8
Supervisor Cliff Shelnutt asked Hudson and Roberts why
they had signed union cards.12 Four days later, Boyce
McLain asked job applicant Mrs. Willie Jo Palmer how did
she and her husband "feel about the union." Although her
husband was a union committeeman at nearby Georgia
Marble Co., she said: "We don't."13 A final incident of
interrogation occurred on April 18 while Boyce McLain
interviewed job applicant Katherine Oden. I credit Oden's
undisputed testimony that during the interview McLain
asked her if she knew any of the girls who worked at the
plant, if she knew any of them who were for the Union,
and whether she planned on joining the Union.
In determining whether the foregoing instances of
interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I have
looked to the Board's doctrine in Blue Flash, Inc., 109
NLRB 591, 593-594 (1954). Accordingly, I have consid-
9 1 do not credit Leonard's denials regarding this alleged incident Unlike
Lawson, Leonard did not impress me as a candid witness
i' McLain did not dispute Lawson's credited version of these two
incidents Further, McLain admitted asking her where her badge was on
one occasion
1i McLain substantially corroborated Wood's credited version of this
conversation
12 Shellnutt does not impress me as a reliable witness . Under cross-
examination , his flat denials were diminished by answers which reflected
considerable uncertainty He also appeared reluctant to provide details of
his admitted conversations with these two employees. In contrast , Hudson
and Roberts impressed me as conscientious and reliable witnesses
13 I have credited Palmer 's straightforward detailed version of her
interview with McLain . In contrast , McLain's account was vague and
reflected uncertainty as to what was said by the parties to this encounter.
14 McLain denies making these threats to Carolyn King, Ardelia Harvey,
ered the interrogation against the background of unlawful
surveillance , Pridgen's February 5 threat to close the plant
rather than bargain with the Union , and the numerous
other unfair labor practices found below , which include the
discharges and layoffs of union adherents . In light of such
manifestations of union animus , I find that the foregoing
instances of interrogation interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of the right to support
the Union's organizing effort , and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N. L R. B. v. Cameo, Incorporated
340 F.2d 803, 804-807 (C.A. 5), cert. denied 382 U.S. 926
(1965), enfg. 140 NLRB 361, 362 (1962).
4. Threats
I also find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) by
the following threats:
On January 17, and again on February 7, Personnel
Manager McLain warned employee Carolyn King that the
Company would close the plant before having a union.
McLain also warned on both occasions that "anybody
found participating in union activities or signing cards
would be discharged."
About 2 weeks later , Personnel Manager McLain told
employee Ardelia Harvey that McLain 's former employer
had responded to a union campaign by loading its
machines on a truck and hauling them "to another town."
McLain added "that would be what would happen here if
we tried to get a union in this plant." Again , in late
February, McLain warned employee Queen Ester Harvey
that the [C]ompany couldn't operate under a union and "if
a union came in it would close the doors."
McLain again threatened plant closure , when he called
Ardelia Harvey to his office on February 26. On that
occasion , he told her that the Company's owners were
Jews; that they had borrowed $ 2 million from Jewish
millionaires who would insist upon getting their money
back "if a union came in," and that "the garment factory
couldn't afford to pay it back and so they would have to
close." See N. L R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., supra at
616--620.14
Supervisor Ilene Wesson approached employee Annie D.
Harvey at the latter's work station on February 8 or 9 and
began discussing the Union. is Wesson's final comment in
the discussion was that "if the plant closed . . . because of
the union she would hate to see anybody go around
hungry...." I find Wesson's comment was intended as a
threat of plant closure in reprisal for employee support for
and Queen Ester Harvey He admits to conversation with King "around
January or February" and with employees "since the first of this year."
However, he cannot recall their exact dates His accounts of these
conversations are also vague . In light of my findings above that McLain
engaged in interrogation violative of Sec 8(aX1) dung this period, my
impression that McLain was not candid when testifying about these
incidents , and the honest and forthright demeanor of the three employee
witnesses, I reject his denial and credit the three employees.
is My findings as to this incident are based upon Harvey 's credited
testimony . In rejecting Wesson's denial that she made the threat, I have
considered her admission that she discussed the union with all the
employees under her supervision, including Harvey, her hostile attitude
toward employee support for the Union as shown by her admitted
surveillance of the February 9 union meeting, and, the comparative
demeanor of the two witnesses.
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO.
the Union. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S.
575,616-620(1969).
On February 12, Supervisor Laverne Leonard asked
employee Ada Lawson:
Do you know the union will take away your holiday
pay from you and that you will have to start the plant
over as if it was just built[?]
Leonard's remarks were designed to instill in Lawson's
mind "a fear of economic suffering and loss of benefits as a
result of selecting the Union." Louisiana Manufacturing
Company, 152 NLRB 1301, 1303 (1965), enfd. in pertinent
part 374 F.2d 696, 701-703 (C.A. 8, 1967). Accord:
Hickman Garment Company, 184 NLRB 864 (1970);
Carnation Company Distribution Center, 183 NLRB 1096,
fn. 1, (1970).16 As the Board declared in Louisiana
Manufacturing, supra, "This type of campaign propaganda
is not protected by Section 8(c) since it is at best a thinly
veiled threat of reprisal."
In the context of unlawfully interrogating employee
Felecia Hudson, as found above, Supervisor Shelnutt
showed her a book of company rules on March 8 and
warned "that he was going to take the Company rules and
go by them as though they were union rules...."
Shelnutt went on to warn Hudson that the Company had
"enough" to fire her "on quality." A bit later in their
discussion , Shelnutt repeated his threat to "go by" the
company rules "as though they were union rules," adding
"we're going to go by seniority and lay you off." Five days
later, Shelnutt warned employee Willie Jo Palmer that "if
anyone approaches you with the union, we will have to fire
both parties." 17
5. The no-talking rule and its enforcement
It is undisputed that on February 7 Supervisor Machen
brought employee King to Personnel Manager McLain's
office where she received a written reprimand for talking.
McLain also gave King a printed statement of company
rules which included the following prohibition:
(5) Talk,ng, chatting, or visiting during working time is
forbidden except where necessary in the performance
of such work or in matters relating thereto. Each
employee is required to stay at his or her work place'
during working hours.
According to King's uncontradicted and credited testimo-
ny, McLain revealed that his main purpose in calling her to
his office was to tell her "not to try to inform anybody
about the union." He warned that he would fill out a
reprimand slip each time he caught her talking. Finally,
McLain raised his hand and said, "If I have to fill out a
stack this high, I'm going to fill out one everytime I catch
you with your mouth open."
is My findings regarding Supervisor Leonard's conduct on February 12
are based upon Ada Lawson's credited testimony. As previously stated in
connection with my finding that Leonard unlawfully interrogated Lawson
on that date , Leonard did not impress me as a candid witness
17 I have previously indicated that, unlike witnesses Hudson and
Roberts, Shelnutt does not impress me as a reliable witness I also find
Wilke Jo Palmer a more straightforward witness and credit her testimony
505
According to employee Joyce Wood's credited testimo-
ny, on the same day, McLain issued a written reprimand to
her for leaving her work station and chatting during
working hours. In the course of this encounter, McLain
warned her to keep the Company's rules "handy." In what
I find is a reference to the Union's organizing campaign,
McLain stated that "since this other thing came up he had
to crack down on the rules, the men from Birmingham had
told him to crack down on the rules." He also warned
Woods that her talking to employee King "was going to
stop." When Wood asked if she could talk to King about
work, McLain told him "he wasn't being unreasonable." 18
McLain issued a reprimand for violation of the no-
talking rule to employee Janette Butts on February 19.
Butts complained that "everybody else talks, why did he
see me talking." McLain responded: "[B)ecause you was
the one we were looking at." He also referred to the Union
when he pointedly remarked that "some outsiders were
trying to tell our girls what to do." 19
From the foregoing, I find, as alleged by the General
Counsel, that by McLain's words and deeds the Company
threatened more stringent enforcement of its rules to
inhibit union activity and adherence among the employees.
By such conduct, the Company further violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. Unimasco, Inc., 196 NLRB 400 (1972).
6. The wage increase
It is conceded that on April 2 the Company announced a
30-cent hourly wage increase to its employees, effective
April 16. As a result of this announced increase, the
Company's minimum hourly wage rate was increased to
$1.90 and its piece rate rose to $2.23 per hour. Wallace P.
Dodson, a vice president of Simon and Mogilner, the firm
which owns the Company, conceded that this increase was
the largest single increase for the Company since 1960. He
also admitted that the April 16 increase was a departure
from Simon and Mogilner's policy of maintaining the
Company's hourly wage at the Federal minimum level.
According to Dodson, the Company's two most recent
increases prior to April 16 were granted in June 1972 and
June 1971, respectively. In each instance, the increases
were 5 cents for some job classifications and 10 cents for
the others. Dodson also testified that the April 16 wage
increase resulted from Simon and Mogilner's decision to
raise wages at all of its five plants including the Company's
Sylacauga plant; that the raise was motivated by a desire to
soften the blow of inflation on their employees and to
improve the competitive position of the five plants in their
respective labor markets; and that Simon and Mogilner
determined that the increase could be passed on to their
customers. However, the Company produced no evidence
to corroborate Dodson's testimony regarding motivation
for the raise.
The General Counsel contends that the April 16 wage
over Shelnutt's denial
18 McLain's recollection of this encounter was limited to a denial that he
warned of a crackdown on company rules In contrast, Wood appeared to
be recalling the encounter in detail as it occurred and she impressed me as a
reliable witness
19 My findings as to the February 19 incident are based upon Butts'
uncontradicted testimony
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increase was granted expressly to interfere with the
Union's organizing campaign, and therefore violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Company seeks to defend
the increase on the basis of the business considerations
proffered by Vice President Dodson. However, after
weighing the evidence on the record as a whole, I reject the
Company's defense as pretextual and find instead that the
unlawful design has been shown.20 The timing of the
increase and its announcement in the midst of the Union's
organizing campaign, the Company's demonstrated union
animus , and the admitted departure from an established
wage policy provide strong support for the General
Counsel's contention. In sharp contrast, the defense lacks
evidentiary substance. The Company has been content to
produce Dodson's bare testimony and nothing more. Nor
do the simultaneous wage increases at Simon and Mogil-
ner's four other plants disturb my finding. For, in light of
the record as a whole, I am convinced that Simon and
Mogilner utilized the four other wage increases to mask the
real purpose of the increase at the company plant.
In sum, the April 16 wage increase was designed to
suggest to the Company's employees "that the source of
benefits now conferred is also the source from which future
benefits must flow and which may dry up if not obliged."
N. L. R. B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964).
Accordingly, I find the increase and its announcement
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Tidelands Marine Service, Inc., 339 F.2d 291, 293 (C.A. 5,
1964); N.L.R.B. v. Orleans Mfg. Co., Inc., 412 F.2d 94,97
(C.A. 2, 1969).
7. "The Springfield Gun"
Credited and uncontradicted testimony establishes that
in March, the Company showed its employees an antiun-
ion film entitled "The Springfield Gun." The General
Counsel alleges, and the Company denies, that by
exhibition of this film the Company threatened its
employees' "economic and physical security" and thereby
violated Section 8(a)(1). The film was not made available
for viewing by the Administrative Law Judge in this
proceeding. Instead, the General Counsel, without objec-
tion by the Company's counsel, presented the testimony of
employees who had viewed the film when the Company
showed it at the plant in March.
I have credited the following testimony of employee
Janice Barnes which provides the clearest and most
detailed version of the film:
A. Well, it started off, there was a car driving down
the road and you could just see the seat of the car and
there was a gun laying on the seat and the man reached
over and picked up the gun , loaded it and he drove up
to this house and you could ist see one window, the
light in the window and, he shot through the window
and there was a scream and he drove off real fast,
threw the gun out in the weeds and then the narrator
said this is where it all began, here in Springfield on
Divide Street . He said this is an appropriate name
because that's what had happened , the town had been
divided, it had put neighbor against neighbor and
friend against friend becuase of the strike at the Royal
Typewriter Company. And it showed this little boy
sitting in the backyard in a swing and he said that he
could no longer run and play with his friends because
he'd been left with an inoperable bullet in his brain,
and they flashed newspaper clippings on the screen
about strikes and things like that. And they had
different people telling about their experiences with the
union. There was a school teacher that had belonged to
a teacher's association and when it became like a union
she decided she didn't want to belong anymore so they
fired her from her job and she said it wasn't because
she wasn't qualified, it was just because she didn't want
to join a union, and there was a man that worked for
the aerospace industry that belonged to United Auto
Workers and they said that if one of the companies was
on strike that they had to pay into a strike fund every
week while they were on strike whether they wanted to
or not, they just took it out of their check. And grape
pickers, there was this man and a woman standing
there and they said that the union had tried to come in
but they didn't want it and their bosses didn't want it
but they told them if they didn' t go union they would
boycott the grapes and they would lose their jobs and
everything and since they had had to go union that they
weren't making as much money and they didn't like it
but they were forced to join anyway. There were other
examples of it but it was all pretty much the same,
people had lost their jobs because they didn't want to
loin the union and when it ended the narrator said that
the Boston Gun could be the Chicago Gun-the
Springfield Gun could be the Boston Gun, the Chicago
Gun, it could be you. He said support your national
right to work law.
The issue presented here is controlled by the Board's
consistent holdings that the exhibition of the antiunion
film "And Women Must Weep" to employees " against the
background of demonstrated union animus is a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." (Citations omitted) Spartus
Corporation, 195 NLRB 134, 135, fn. 5 (1972), enforcement
denied in pertinent part 471 F.2d 299, 300 (C.A. 5, 1973).
In the Board's view, the "real theme" of "And Women
Must Weep" is "that unions cause violence, hatred, distrust
and community upheaval and the real warning of the film
is that if you bring a union into a town, you subject it to
the possibility of just those things." Southwire Company,
164 NLRB 1018, 1021 (1967). The Board has also declared
that exhibition of "And Women Must Weep" in the
context of employer threats of plant closure and other
unfair labor practices constitutes "a clear threat of reprisal
or force against the employees if they [choose] the Union
as their bargaining representative." Spartus Corporation,
supra at 135. Here, against a similar backdrop of union
animus, "The Springfield Gun" carries the same messages,
particularly in its dramatization of the strike at the Royal
Typewriter Company. Accordingly, I find that the showing
of "The Springfield Gun" interfered with, coerced, and
20 "[T The Board may consider facts and incidents compositely and draw
inferences reasonably justified by their cumulative effects " Shattuck Denn
Mining Corp v. N G.R. B., 362 F .2d 466,469 (C.A. 9, 1966).
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO.
restrained employees in their Section 7 rights and thus
violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Southwire Company,
supra at 1021. Accord: Spartus Corporation, supra at 135,
fn. 5.
C. Discrimination
1. Discharges
a. Lois Veleta McDaniel
Lois Veleta McDaniel's credited and uncontradicted
testimony shows that, except for a 1-month break in July
1972, she was employed by the Company from April 1971
until her discharge on February 12, 1973. It is also
undisputed that at the time of her discharge McDaniel had
been a production employee under Bessie Machen's
supervision since July 1971.
As found above, McDaniel first revealed her union
sentiment to the Company in mid-January when she told
Machen she "thought [the Union] was the best thing that
could ever happen to the plant." It is undisputed that
during the same week McDaniel executed an authorization
card which she mailed to the Union, and that she attended
union meetings on January 30, February 2, February 9,
and, thereafter, attended most of the union meetings.
As found above, during one of Plant Manager Pridgen's
February 5 meetings, McDaniel spoke out, telling him that
"if a contract was made, if he signed it, he'd have to go by
it...." I have also found that on February 6 Personnel
Manager McLain asked McDaniel "how far was [she] in
this union business." Her reply was that "it was [her]
private right and [she ] did not have to tell him."
At this same February 6 confrontation, also attended by
Machen, McLain issued a written reprimand to McDaniel
for "getting up from [her] machine before 5 and getting
[her ] coat and also sewing before work time." 21 McDaniel
responded that her jacket was near her machine and that
she had put it on, gone for a drink of water and "turned
around and came back." As for "sewing before work
time," McDaniel had done just that "since the day [she]
was hired," and she complained that the reprimand was
..not right."
In her testimony, Machen, McDaniel's immediate
supervisor, conceded that prior to February 1973 McDan-
iel had received no reprimands. In her testimony, Machen
also conceded that McDaniel may have worked on
unrecorded time for a year and a half prior to her February
6 reprimand, but she, Machen, "had not noticed her" until
that day.
On February 8, the Company transferred McDaniel
from serging sleeves, which she had been doing for 7 or 8
months, to a straight-needle machine. The Company had
attempted to employ her as a straight-needle operator
when she was first hired in April 1971. On that occasion,
McDaniel could not do the work, and after 2 days the
Company transferred her to other work. On February 8, as
a straight-needle operator McDaniel made only 6.5 hours
21 Company rule I fixes 7 a.m. as the start of the workday Company rule
I(a) prohibits employees from entering the production area prior to 7 a.m.
"without special written permission signed by the plant manager "
507
of production. The Company's standard daily production
rate is 9.5 hours.
On the following Monday, February 12, Bessie Machen
directed McDaniel to accompany her to McLain's office.
When the two arrived at his office, McLain complained
that McDaniel "didn't make production Thursday (Febru-
ary 8)." McDaniel admitted that she had not and when
questioned as to why not, added that she had been "on a
new job, new operation for 1 day. She complained that she
couldn't make production in 1 day on a "new operation."
At this, McLain showed her the Company' s rules , pointing
out rule 12 which provided that "[inlability or failure to
cooperate in meeting production standards ..." was
ground for discharge. McLain admittedly issued a written
reprimand to McDaniel for poor production during this
meeting. He also asked McDaniel if she had "been
talking." When McDaniel denied that she had talked,
Machen reported, "Well, there's two girls saw you talking."
When McDaniel persisted in her denial, McLain said,
"Well, Bessie if she wasn't talking, she wasn't talking." He
then told McDaniel that on the previous Friday he had
visited the nearby nonunion Avondale textile mill at
Sylacauga, and "they said they were going to get rid of
some of their employees for participating in activities."
McDaniel said she had heard nothing about it and went
back to work.
At or about 4:45 p.m. on February 12, Supervisor
Machen again took McDaniel to McLain's office. McLain
again asked McDaniel why she hadn't "made production."
Her response was that she had been on her newjob only 2
days and "couldn't make it" in that time. She rejected his
suggestion that she had "other things on [her] mind."
Machen commented, "I have got to have production, Mr.
McLain." At this, McLain left his office and returned with
her personnel record. He announced:
Good production worker, good quality, good attend-
ance . . . . [w ]hat's happened to you?
McDaniel answered that "nothing happened to [her]" but
that she couldn't make production in 2 days on an entirely
different job. At this, McLain told her that the Company
had given her a 35-percent allowance towards the 9.5 hours
production standard.22 McDaniel again protested, "Well I
can't help it, I can't make it."
McLain gave McDaniel an opportunity to resign, and
McDaniel refused. When McLain instructed Machen to
put "terminated" on McDaniel's reprimand slip, Machen
objected saying, "This is one of my best girls, I hate to see
her go... "Machen finally stamped "terminated" on the
slip, but only after McLain suggested that if Machen
"couldn't do what she had to do" he would "get somebody
that can... .
McLain asked McDaniel if she wanted to talk to Plant
Manager Pridgen. When she said "yes," McLain left his
office briefly. When McLain returned, he announced that
Pridgen wasn't available and asked McDaniel for whatever
comment she wished to make. McDaniel complained that
she "hadn't been treated fair," adding, "I know one thing,
22 According to Machen , the Company's policy is to grant such an
allowance to employees who have been transferred to a new production job
until they achieve standard production of 9.5 hours.
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you have just fired one of the best workers you have ever
had." McLain answered, "I know it." Before McLain
asked her to leave his office , McDaniel told him, "It all
boils down to one thing, I believe one way and you
another ." As McDaniel was leaving, Machen said, "I am
so sorry," to which McDaniel replied, "I know you're
sorry." McDaniel went to her machine, got her belongings,
and left the plant 23
b. Bettye Dowdy
Bettye Dowdy's employment with the Company began
March 1971 and ended with her discharge on February 13.
Her first contact with the Union occurred on January 16,
when she received a union leaflet outside the Company's
plant. She attended the January 30 union meeting at her
sister's house and the February 2 and 9 union meetings at
the Lloyd Oliver Union Hall. Bettye Dowdy gave the
Union her signed authorization card at the February 9
meeting . Between February 7 and 9, she handed out union
meeting notices to employees in the plant cafeteria during
lunch. As I have found above, Dowdy attended Pndgen's
February meeting, during which she asked Pridgen why he
was against the Union. I also credit her testimony that she
also asked Pridgen, "[If ] he had ever stood at the place of
his business downtown ["Mens World"] and counted the
union dollars that come into his store...."
On February 8,24 the Company transferred Dowdy from
a serging machine on the knit shirt line to the embroidery
line, where she had never worked. Dowdy remained on the
embroidery line until her discharge.
Before getting into production, Dowdy received 30
minutes ' to 1 hour's instruction on her new job from Annie
Ruth Murphy. However, Dowdy was unable to "make
production" on the embroidery line.
On Monday, February 12, Supervisor Machen took
Bettye Dowdy to McLain's office, confronted her with the
fact that she had not made production on February 8, and
asked whether she could "make production." Dowdy
replied that she "couldn't on that job...." McLain asked
Machen "what she wanted to do...." and asked her to
read the Company's rule 12 which sets forth "[in]ability or
failure to cooperate in meeting production standards" as a
ground for discharge. Finally, Machen filled out a
reprimand slip and that ended this confrontation. This was
the first written reprimand Respondent had ever issued to
Dowdy.
Late in the morning on February 12, Quality Control
Supervisor Gary Hays, and an inspector, Clams Gnce,
checked Dowdy's work. Hays complained that her stitches
were bad, that her work "had raw edges and the machine
was chewing the end of it...... At this, Grice advised
Hays that another employee's bundle was worse and that
Hays "should look at it."
After lunch, that same day, Machen conducted Dowdy
23 My findings as to the conversation and events of February 6, 8, 12
which concerned McDamel's discharge are based upon her largely
undisputed testimony. Where issues of credibility have been raised by
conflicting testimony, I have credited McDaniel, who of the three impressed
me as the most reliable witness. Her full forthright testimony in detail
contrasts sharply with the vague, uncertain, and, at times, reluctant
testimony presented by McLain and Machen regarding details of events and
conversations with McDaniel.
to McLain's office where they were met by Hays and
McLain . McLain asked Dowdy to identify a bundle of
shirts on McLain's desk . She looked at it and stated that
she was uncertain because it didn 't have a ticket on it.
Hays then said it was her bundle and asked her if she
couldn't "do better than that. " McLain asked Dowdy if she
"had any comment " At this, Gary Hays remarked , "[Y ]ou
can't tell me that if she was sitting out there with her mind
on her work that she would be doing this kind of
work.... " Machen then filled out a second reprimand
form and the meeting ended.
Toward the end of the workday, on February 13,
Machen took Dowdy to McLain's office . McLain told
Dowdy that she had not achieved satisfactory production
on the previous day. He asked her if she could make
production . After Dowdy answered that she could not
make production , McLain asked Machen what she
intended to do. Machen replied: "If Bettye can't make
production , I've got to let her go...." Finally, Machen
told Dowdy "they would have to let [her] go. McLain then
filled out a form and asked Dowdy to sign it. She refused,
whereupon McLain invited her to talk to Plant Manager
Pridgen . Dowdy responded that she had nothing to say to
Pridgen, and then walked out of McLain 's office, picked
up her belongings near her machine , and left the plant.
c. Annie D. Harvey
The Company employed production employee Annie D.
Harvey from July 1971 until February 26, 1973, when she
was discharged . Throughout her employment , Harvey was
under Ilene Wesson's supervision.
Harvey's participation in union activity began with
attendance at the January 30 meeting . Thereafter, she
attended the union meetings of February 2 and 9. On
February 8, Harvey handed out notices of the February 9
meeting at the plant, in the bathroom and on the line at the
breaktime.25 As found earlier in this Decision, on February
9, Ilene Wesson , in the course of some antiunion remarks
to Harvey threatened that the plant would close in reprisal
for a successful union campaign.
On February 20, Personnel Manager McLain gave Annie
Harvey a reprimand for failing to make production.26
When he asked Harvey why she hadn't made production,
she told him "that [she] could make production when [she]
got up enough speed but that morning [she] didn 't get up
enough speed." She also remarked that she "would rather
make $ 1.93 an hour than $ 1.63 an hour." McLain warned
her that if she received a third reprimand , she would be
discharged . It is undisputed that on previous occasions,
when Harvey's production was below the Company's
standard , she was neither called to McLain 's office nor
reprimanded.
On the morning of February 26, shortly after the 9;30
a.m. breaktime , Harvey's job assignment was changed
24 My findings regarding Dowdy's February 8 transfer and the ensuing
events preceding her discharge are based upon her credited and uncontrad-
icted testimony.
25 This chronology of Harvey's employment and union activity is based
upon her credited and uncontradicted testimony.
26 My findings of fact regarding the events and conversations of
February 20 and 26 regarding Annie Harvey are based upon her
uncontradicted and credited testimony.
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 509
from binding to sewing down lace, work she had never
performed. As Ilene Wesson showed Harvey how to
perform her new task, on two of three garments, the necks
on the garments were stretching. Wesson assured Harvey
that she, Wesson, would ask the quality inspector to press
one of the garments to see if the defect could be
eliminated. Wesson added that she would inform Harvey
of the results. After waiting for some time, Harvey became
impatient, and called Inspector Louise Patton to her
machine. Patton checked Harvey's work, said "she didn't
think anything could be done about stretching the necks
... and did not complain to Harvey about the prod-
uction.
Shortly thereafter, Harvey noticed Patton and Personnel
Manager McLain looking at her and talking. Patton
returned to Harvey's work station, looked through Har-
vey's bundle of garments twice, and instructed Harvey to
redo "whatever needed to be redone...." Harvey
complied with Patton's instruction.
After lunch, that same day, Patton picked up Harvey's
bundle and took it away. Later in the afternoon, Ilene
Wesson came back to Harvey with the bundle and directed
Harvey to accompany her to McLain's office. There,
McLain and Wesson told Harvey that her quality was bad
and remarked that she was a good operator. Wesson stated
that she was sure that Harvey could do better work.
Inspector Patton was also present and remarked that
Harvey's quality had been good theretofore and expressed
dismay at the poor quality of Harvey's work that day.
Wesson and McLain instructed Harvey to go back to work
and redo all of her bundles. Wesson complained that she
was losing money because of Harvey's faulty work.
That same afternoon, after reworking her bundles,
Harvey called Inspector Patton over to check the last
bundle. Patton checked and announced that she hadn't
found any flaws. Harvey "told Patton she had to find
something wrong with that one because she had found
something wrong with all the rest of them." After Patton
repeated her favorable appraisal, Harvey replied "that
there were a lot of snakes in the grass" in the plant, but
that Harvey "didn't know she was one of them." To this
Patton replied, "Annie, I got a boss," and terminated the
encounter.
Late in the day, about 4:40 p.m., Supervisor Wesson
took Annie Harvey to McLain's office. There, in the
presence of Inspector Patton, Wesson complained to
McLain that Harvey had called Patton "a snake in the
grass" and that she Wesson would not tolerate such
conduct on her production line. McLain told Harvey,
"You know this means your termination," recounting that
this was her third reprimand.
McLain gave Harvey an opportunity to resign. She
refused to resign and he terminated her.
d. Carolyn King
Carolyn King began working for the Company in June
1968 and was discharged on February 27, 1973. At the time
of her discharge, King was under Bessie Machen's
supervision. King's involvement with the Union began on
January 16, when she received a union leaflet. On the same
day, she received the Company's leaflet which stated "it is
your right not to join the Union." As found above, King's
adverse remarks regarding the company pamphlet were the
subject of her interrogation by Personnel Manager McLain
on January 17. During that same confrontation, I have also
found that McLain warned "that the plant would close
before having a union" and that "anybody . . . found
having a card or participating in the union' s activities
would be discharged." It is undisputed that 2 days later
King telephoned the Union's Birmingham office and
requested that a union representative be sent to Sylacauga.
And that, on January 28, Union Representative Mavous
Speegle contacted King and arranged for the January 30
union meeting.
In the meantime, on January 18, Supervisor Machen told
King that Plant Manager Pridgen had asked Machen "did
she suppose that [King] would go to the union" and that
she, Machen, had replied that "she didn't think so.....
At this, King complained that Machen "had no business
telling [Pndgen] that, because [Machen] didn't know what
[King] was going to do...." Machen then added that she
had told Pridgen that King "could be pushed into doing
it." After a further exchange, Machen asked King "to trust
her to help [King]."27
King's union activity continued in February. She
attended the union meeting of February 2 at the Lloyd
Oliver Union Hall. On February 5, she attended one of
Plant Manager Pridgen's meetings. Four days later, she
signed a union authorization card.
As I have found above, on February 7, McLain
summoned King to his office where he told her "that
talking was to be cut out," gave her a copy of the
Company's rules, and directed her "not to try to inform
anybody about the union." McLain also warned her "that
the Company would close before having a union and that
anybody found participating in union activities or signing
cards would be discharged." McLain gave King a written
reprimand and warned her that she would receive a
reprimand every time he saw her talking. Prior to February
7, King had received one reprimand in her 4-1/2 years with
the Company. I also credit King's testimony that at the
February 7 meeting with McLain King asked him "if he
was trying . . . to tell [her] how to think. . . ." McLain's
reply was that he wasn't speaking for himself but only for
the Company.
It is undisputed that on February 13 McLain summoned
King to his office and issued another reprimand to her for
talking. King complained that there were over 400 other
employees in the plant and McLain wasn't cracking down
on the rules with the rest of the people. McLain replied
that "he only saw what he wanted to see.
It is also undisputed that when King arrived at work on
February 26 she found her serging machine had been
"pushed back" and replaced by a straight-needle machine.
Prior to this event, King had worked as a serger on the
woven shirt line for about 4-1/2 years . King also noticed
that the serging machines previously assigned to employees
21 My findings as to King 's January 18 conversation with Machen is witness.
based upon King's testimony. King impressed me as the more candid
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Janette Butts, Joyce Wood, and Ardeha Harvey had been
pushed off the line and replaced by straight-needle
machines. That morning King, Butts, Wood, and Ardelia
Harvey were assigned to straight -needle machines under
an instructor , Nellie Sallas . After Sallas had given the four
employees about 1 hour of instruction, Bessie Machen
directed that the instruction cease, and stated that McLain
"had said to put the girls on the machines then." Salas gave
the four employees scraps to sew on their machines and
stayed with them "about an hour or so." Then the four
were put on regular production.
Later that same day, McLain told Salas that "these four
girls were troublemakers, they worked for the union and
that he wanted them out of the plant." McLain also
instructed Sallas "to go back where they were and sit them
down to the machines, make it rough on them and-let them
alone." 2s
Sallas usually took at least 1 week to complete the
training of straight-needle operators . However , in the face
of McLain's order, she gave the four employees only "a
half a [sic I day." 29
It is undisputed that on the morning of February 26,
after King had begun production on the straight-needle
machine , Quality Inspector Clams Grice and Quality
Control Supervisor Gary Hay checked King's bundle of
shirts. It is also undisputed that Grice told King to redo the
bundle because of defective work. King's uncontradicted
testimony also shows that Gnce repeatedly checked King's
bundle during the day and each time found some defective
work. After each inspection, Grice required King to redo
the defective production. Finally, during the afternoon,
Supervisor Machen inspected King's bundle of shirts and
told her that "except for the coming out too far on some of
the collars, that the bundle looked good." Machen
instructed King to go through the bundle again and correct
the collars. At the end of the day, King "was in the process
of redoing the bundle." Thus, instead of her usual quantity
of production in excess of the Company's 9.5 hour daily
production standard, which she made as a serger, she was
credited with only .3 hours of production on the straight-
needle machine. On the morning of February 27, King
arrived at work and found her bundle gone. She obtained
another bundle and began working at her straight-needle
machine.
During that morning, Supervisor Machen conducted
King to McLain's office. There, McLain confronted King
with a bundle of shirts and accused her of ruining 16 shirts.
After a discussion about the shirts, McLain asked Machen
"what did she intend to do with an operator that didn't
seem to have her mind on what she was doing." McLain
suggested that "maybe she's got her mind on her church
activities or something...." King asked: "Who said I go
25 McLain denied that he named the four employees as troublemakers or
told Sallas he wanted to get nd of them However, he did not deny meeting
with Sallas on February 26. Nor did he provide his own version of their
conversation . I have also considered my previous findings showing
McLain's propensity for threatening employees with discharge in the course
of his antiunion campaign Finally, by her demeanor , Sallas, who was a
company employee at the time she testified, impressed me as a more
objective and reliable witness Accordingly, I credit her account of
McLain's remarks to her on February 26
zs Supervisor Machen testified that she knew that Sallas took "more than
a day" to train the four employees However, Machen's testimony contains
to church[?]" McLain retorted with "well you're right, she's
got her mind on some outside activity , I don 't know what it
is." After further discussion with King about her alleged
faulty work, and this her third reprimand , McLain offered
her the choice of resignation or discharge . When King
refused to resign, McLain discharged her. 30
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the discharges of
employees Lois Veleta McDaniel , Bettye Dowdy, Carolyn
King, and Annie Harvey were motivated by antiunion
considerations , rather than the lawful reasons urged by the
Company. From my analysis of the record as a whole, I
find that the Company terminated the four employees as
part of its campaign to defeat the Union's organizing
campaign.
There is ample circumstantial evidence of the Company's
illegal motive. First, the four discharges occurred during
the Union's organizing campaign . Further, by the time of
their discharges, employees McDaniel , Dowdy, and King
had made clear to the Company that they supported the
Union. As for Harvey, little more than 2 weeks before her
discharge , Supervisor Wesson singled her out for an
antiunion discourse and confronted her with a threat of
plant closure if the Union 's organizing campaign succeed-
ed. From Wesson's conduct , I find that the Company at
least suspected Harvey of prounion sentiments . I have also
considered significant in this respect the timing of
Wesson's conversation with Harvey which occurred at
about the time Harvey was openly engaged in handing out
notices of the union meeting of February 9 at the plant.
That the Company was likely to view union adherents
with hostility is shown by its rampant antiunion campaign,
much of which was directed at these four employees. I have
found that the Company coercively interrogated employ-
ees, threatened them with termination and economic
reprisal, engaged in surveillance and conveyed the impres-
sion of surveillance , threatened to make their working
conditions more onerous by strict enforcement of company
rules, and later granted an unlawful wage increase. Such
"anti-union bias and demonstrated unlawful hostility are
proper and highly significant factors for Board evaluation
in determining motive" (N.L.RB. v. Dan River Mills, Inc.,
274 F.2d 381, 384 (C.A. 5, 1960)), particularly where, as
here , the Company's "coercive conduct . . . broke every
rule in the books." N. L. R. B. v. Durant Sportswear, 358 F.2d
729, 730 (C.A. 5, 1966). Finally, the Company's inclination
to resort to unlawful discharge in its antiunion campaign
was made clear by McLain's statement to employee Sallas
on February 26, identifying King and three other employ-
ees as "troublemakers" inasmuch as they worked for the
no explanation of how she obtained the knowledge. Also, Sallas, the
instructor, was better able to know how much time she spent with the
employees . Finally, of the two, Sallas for reasons already stated , impressed
me as the more reliable witness. Accordingly , I credit Sallas ' account of the
training provided the four employees on February 26. My remaining
findings regarding the four employees ' reassignments and training on
February 26 , are based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
employees King and Sallas.
30 Except as previously noted, my findings regarding the events of
February 26 and 27 , including King's discharge, are based upon her
uncontradicted and credited testimony.
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO.
Union, and declaring that he wanted them "out of the
plant." 31
In defense of its conduct, the Company points to the
three reprimands it issued to each of the four employees as
the true motivation of their discharges. However, examina-
tion of the proffered reasons for the reprimands reveals
them as pretextual.
The evidence strongly suggests that the Company issued
the reprimands in support of a plan to get rid of four union
adherents. Thus, the Company issued two reprimands to
McDaniel on February 12 for low production. On the same
day, the Company issued one reprimand for low prod-
uction and another for poor quality to Dowdy. The four
reprimands came but 2 working days after the two
employees had been transferred to single-needle machines
and only 1 week after both had voiced prounion sentiments
at one of Plant Manager Pridgen's antiumon meetings.
Added to these incriminating circumstances are other facts
which reveal the Company's plan. The Company was well
aware that McDaniel, who was a good producer, and one
of Machen's "best girls" on her current work, could not do
single-needle work. Dowdy, who had never previously
been reprimanded for low production, had not worked on
a single-needle machine for the past year, and had no
experience on the embroidery line to which she was now
assigned. Nevertheless, 2 working days after their respec-
tive reassignments, both were summoned to McLain's
office, apprised of the Company's production rule, and
reprimanded for not making production on February 8.
The Company made no effort to help these employees
achieve competence in their new jobs, but seemed more
interested in creating reasons to get rid of them. Similarly,
King and Harvey were transferred to single-needle
machines on February 26 and were given only scant
training. On the same day, Harvey was reprimanded twice
for defective quality. One day later, the Company
reprimanded King for defective quality. In sum, I find that
the Company transferred these four employees to unfamil-
iar work and afforded them a minimum of training to
satisfy its announced policy that upon receipt of a third
reprimand an employee was to be discharged. I also find,
as alleged by the General Counsel, that Dowdy's transfer
to single-needle work on February 8, and the reprimand
for low production which the Company issued to her on
February 12, constituted harassment violative of Section
8(a)(1). Sarkes Tarzian Inc., 149 NLRB 147, 153 (1964).32
Analysis of the remaining reprimands shows that in its
anxiety to be rid of these four union activists, petty
infractions which would otherwise have gone unnoticed
were seized upon and treated as serious misconduct. Thus,
for almost a year and a half, Veleta McDaniel had broken
the Company's rules by beginning work 15 minutes early.
It is indeed noteworthy that her immediate supervisor,
Machen, did not take note of this phenomenon until
February 6, the day after McDaniel's encounter with
Pridgen over the Union, when that day's 15-minute
31 As found below, the Company violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by laying off Joyce Woods on March 5, and Ardelia Harvey 9 days later.
The fact that the Company did not discharge or lay off Butts does not aid
the Company 's defense . For, "a discriminatory motive otherwise estab-
lished, is not disproved by an employer's proof that it did not weed out all
union adherents " Nachman Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 421 (C A. 7,
511
violation was embodied in a written reprimand. In that
same reprimand, the Company accused McDaniel of
getting up from her machine before 5 p.m. and getting her
coat, when in truth she had left her work only to get a
drink of water and return.
That the Company was paying special attention to union
adherents is clearly shown by Carolyn King's exchanges
with McLain when he reprimanded her on February 7 and
13 for talking. In the first incident, McLain counseled her
against talking to other employees about the Union,
adding that he would fill out reprimands against her
whenever he caught her talking. Six days later, McLain
again reprimanded King for talking. King asked him why
she had been singled out among those of the Company's
400 employees who were talking during work. McLain
made clear his attitude, when he responded that he wasn't
looking at the others and saw only what he wanted to see.
Finally, the Company's compulsion to rid itself of Annie
Harvey is shown by her minor clash with Inspector Louise
Patton, the final ground for her third and final reprimand.
Even if Harvey's conduct might otherwise be acceptable
ground for her discharge, it cannot help the Company's
defense. Harvey's verbal attack on Inspector Louise Patton
was a direct consequence of the Company's unlawful
scheme to rid itself of a union adherent. This factor
combined with the minor nature of the infraction per-
suades me that the Company seized upon the "snake-in-
the-grass" incident as a fortuitous event which could be
used to mask the real reason for Harvey's discharge.
In sum, I find that the Company's proffered defense
leaves undisturbed the strong evidence supporting the
General Counsel's contention that the four terminations
were motivated by union animus. Accordingly, I find that
the Company violated Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act
when it discharged employees Lois Veleta McDaniel,
Bettye Dowdy, Carolyn King, and Annie Harvey.
2. Layoffs
a. The facts
(1) Joyce Wood
The Company hired employee Joyce Wood on February
3, 1970. She was employed initially on Bessie Machen's
knit shirt line, and except for brief periods of layoff
remained in that job until her last layoff on March 5 .33 By
the time of the hearing in this matter, the Company had
recalled Wood.
Wood's union activity began when she attended the
Union's February 2 meeting. Thereafter, she attended all
of the union meetings, and was listed as a member of the
organizing committee in the Union's March 1 telegram to
the Company. On March 5, the day of her last layoff, she
wore a union pin at work. On at least one occasion in late
January or early February, employees Wood, Carolyn
King, Ardelia Harvey, and Nadine Middleton talked about
1964).
32 As the complaint did not allege that the treatment of other employees
constituted harassment, I have made no other findings in this regard.
33 Except as noted hereafter, my findings regarding Wood's March 5
layoff are based upon her uncontradicted testimony.
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union and looked at union pamphlets during lunch in
the plant lunchroom, about 10 feet from where Supervisors
Bessie Machen and Ilene Wesson sat.
On February 7, Machen came to where Wood and
Carolyn King were working, held up a company rule book,
and showed them rule 5 which prohibits employees from
chatting during worktime. When Wood asked for a copy of
the company rules, Machen directed her to the office,
where Wood obtained a copy.
Later the same morning, after Wood went to the
cafeteria, Machen took her to McLain's office. Machen
reported Wood for leaving her work station without asking
permission. As I have found earlier, McLain then asked
Wood if she was aware of the company rule in that regard
and if she had a copy of the Company's table of rules.
When she said "yes," he warned her to "keep them handy."
As found above, McLain warned Wood of more stringent
enforcement of company rules to combat union activity
among the employees. I also credit Wood's testimony that
McLain "went on to say he didn't know which way I was
and Bessie said she didn't think I was involved." McLain
remarked that Wood was "an intelligent person and he
couldn't change [her] mind anyway." As found above,
McLain showed Wood the Company's rule 5, proscription
against talk during working time, and warned her that "this
talking to Carolyn King was going to stop." Finally, under
McLain's instruction, Machen drew up Wood's first
written reprimand, citing Wood "for leaving [her] work
station without permission." On February 26, the Compa-
ny transferred Wood and Carolyn King from serging
operators to single-needle work. After about 1 hour's
instruction from Nellie Sallas, Wood was assigned to sew
down collars, work she had never done before. Later that
same day, McLain referred to Wood as one of the four
"troublemakers" working for the Union whom he wanted
"out of the plant."
Wood admittedly failed to make satisfactory quantities
of production on February 26, 27, or 28. On the afternoon
of February 28 Bessie Machen brought Wood to Personnel
Manager McLain's office. When McLain inquired as to the
reason Wood was there, Machen produced time sheets.
McLain, after studying the sheets counted "eight people
not making production" and sought Machen's explanation.
He also observed that Wood had not made production
since February 26. McLain discussed Wood's low prod-
uction and suggested that she step up her production soon
and showed her the rules. He issued a reprimand to her
and asked her how many times had she been to his office.
She answered "two."
At the same meeting, McLain told Wood that he
"understood when the outsiders came in that he was going
to be the first one to go...... Wood said she didn't know,
and that she hadn't heard that. At this, McLain remarked,
"Well it was about to die down this weekend would
34 I have based my findings of fact on Wood's testimony, which has in
considerable portion been corroborated by McLain Where McLain
contradicted Wood, I have credited her For, of the two, Wood impressed
me as a more reliable witness because of her full forthright presentation
35 I do not credit Machen's testimony to the effect that Wood asked to
be laid off on March 5 Instead, I credit Wood's denial that she requested
the layoff Machen's testimony was generally uncertain on the subject of
Wood's March 5 layoff. On the other hand, Wood testified with conviction.
probably be the last meeting." He added his expectation
that "everybody would leave town and go back where they
came from...: . McLain went on to ask Wood about her
husband's work, how well he was doing, where she and her
husband lived, and, whether she wanted her job. He told
her "they were hiring people in Talladega" and offered to
help her obtain employment there. Finally, as found above,
he asked: "Where did we lose you to the outsiders[?]"
When Wood asked if he meant the Union, McLain said
"yes." At this, Wood told him that she came from a
prounion family and a "union town," and that she was
prounion.34
On March 5, when Wood arrived at work, she was
reassigned to her old serging machine. That day she made
about 11.5 hours production. As I have found, prior to the
start of work that morning, Supervisor Machen noticed
Wood's "ILGWU" button and asked what the letters
meant. Employee Janette Butts who was standing nearby
answered "International Ladies Garment Workers Union."
About 15 minutes before the end of the workday, Machen
laid Wood off, effective March 6. When Wood asked about
returning to work on March 7, Machen replied, "No, I'll
call you when I want you to come back in, we don't have
any work." The Company recalled Wood on March 20.
The full complement of employees under Machen's
supervision is between 60 and 70. At the time of Wood's
layoff, the Company laid off "several" other employees on
Machen's line.35
(2) Felicia Hudson
The Company hired Felicia Hudson late in 1971. At the
time of her layoff on March 8, she was employed in Cliff
Shelnutt's pressing department. On February 21, Felicia
Hudson was directed to go to Plant Manager Pridgen's
office. There, Pridgen told Hudson that he had been
informed that she had been handing out union cards.
Hudson denied that she had engaged in such activity.
Hudson also denied Pridgen's further assertion that she
had been reportedly attending union meetings. Pridgen
then asked if Hudson had heard or knew of the girls who
had been "fired" for participating in union activities.
Hudson said she knew of one, Veleta McDaniel. Pridgen
then asked Hudson where she had heard about McDaniel.
Hudson answered to the effect that she had heard it in
discussion in a plant restroom. At this, Pridgen asked,
"Well you have had nothing to do with it whatsoever at
this point?" After Hudson said, "No, sir, nothing," Pridgen
sent her back to work.36
As I have found above, on March 8, Cliff Shellnutt asked
Hudson why she had signed a union card, warned that the
Company had enough to fire her on poor quality, and
threatened stricter enforcement of company rules in
reprisal for the employees' union activity. I have also found
from Hudson's credited testimony that Shellnutt told her
Further, on the basis of comparative demeanor, I am convinced that Wood
is a more reliable witness.
36 Pndgen testified that he had no recollection of any conversation with
Hudson He also denied making the remarks attributed to him by Hudson.
However , in light of Pndgen 's other attempts to kill union activity among
his employees by engaging in unlawful surveillance , giving the impression of
such surveillance, and making a threat to close the plant , I discredit his
denial.
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 513
"we're going to take these union rules and . . . we're going
to go by seniority and lay you off . . . and call someone in
with more seniority than you have...: . At this, Hudson
remarked that she probably would not be recalled and
asked, "Why don't you go ahead and fire me...."
Shelnutt said he wouldn't fire her adding, "I'll let you
resign ...." With that, Shelnutt laid Hudson off.
The Company attempted to recall Hudson by telephone
on April 2. However, she was not at home. About I week
later, Hudson returned the Company's call and agreed to
return to work the following day. However, Hudson did
not report for work as agreed. She did not get in touch with
the Company until about 4 or 5 days later. At that point,
the Company told Hudson that it had obtained a
replacement for her and not to report to work.
(3) Queen Ester Harvey
The Company laid off employee Queen Ester Harvey
from Supervisor Wesson's production line on February 22
for 2 days and again on March 7 for 15 days.
The evidence of Queen Ester Harvey's union activity is
undisputed. She attended all of the Union' s meetings,
handed out meeting notices in February, and was listed as
a member of the plant organizing committee in the Union's
March 1 telegram to Plant Manager Pridgen. Finally, on
March 5, Queen Ester began wearing a union button at the
plant.
It is also undisputed that in later February, following
Harvey's return from her February 22 layoff, Supervisor
Wesson approached her with a coupon booklet bearing the
following caption on its cover:
Union Promises
WARRANTY COUPONS
(Get Them In Writing)
Each of the six coupons inside the booklet contained a
guarantee with a signature line at the bottom for a union
organizer and a line for the date of the signature. The
guarantees included a wage increase in the Union's first
contract with the Company, strike compensation from the
Union, no union fines or assessments, no special job
security for stewards or union officials in the event of a
layoff, reinstatement rights following a strike against the
Company, and no layoffs or terminations by the Company
because of a lack of work. On the inside of the booklet's
back cover was the following:
UNLESS A UNION ORGANIZER HAS
SIGNED each coupon, you should-
VOTE NO37
Harvey did not answer Wesson's suggestion that if a union
representative signed all six coupons Queen Ester should
join the Union.
Later, on the same day, Wesson took Queen Ester to
Personnel Director McLain's office. There, in Wesson's
presence, McLain began telling Queen Ester that he was
not attempting to persuade her not to join the Union, but
wanted her to make up her mind without "any outsiders"
influencing her. Harvey assured him that if she joined the
Union it would be her independent decision. In the course
of this same conversation, as I have found above, McLain
twice threatened closure of the plant if the Union
organized the Company's employees.
On March 7, Supervisor Wesson came to Harvey, laid
her off without giving any reason, and assured her that she,
Wesson, would recall her. At the time of her layoff, Harvey
had just begun work on a bundle of garments and had a
two-bundle backlog, all of which amounted to about I
hour's work. Fifteen days later, the Company recalled
Queen Ester Harvey. I find from Wesson's uncontradicted
testimony that her usual production line force ranged
"from 30 to 38" and that by the time of Queen Ester
Harvey's layoff Wesson had laid off 10 to 15 operators for
lack of work. I also find from Supervisor Wesson's,
testimony as corroborated by Queen Ester, that since prior
to February 22 Queen Ester had on occasions requested
layoffs when she learned that her production line was
running out of work.
(4) Sundae Roberts
The Company hired Sundae Roberts in August 1972 as a
presser. Clifford Shelnutt was Roberts' supervisor at the
time of her layoff on March 8. According to Shelnutt's
undisputed and credited testimony, his department's
maximum strength was 54 employees. As of March 8,
about 7 employees in addition to Roberts were laid off and
only 35 employees were employed in Shelnutt's depart-
ment.
Roberts attended union meetings on February 2 and
February 22. On March 8, Shelnutt called Roberts into a
room at the plant where he first asked her "why [she] had
left the Company and where they had failed [her]." He also
asked why she had signed a union card. Shelnutt began the
discussion with some antiunion and racist comments and
then asked Roberts how long she had been employed.
When Roberts answered, Shelnutt declared his intention of
laying her off instead of another employee with greater
seniority. At this, Roberts protested that there were other
company employees with less seniority than she had who
were still working. Shelnutt responded that he let her work
because she needed the job. He added that the employees
with less seniority than she had also needed theirjobs, "but
were loyal to the Company." Shelnutt went on, stating
that:
[H]e'd waited a week for [Roberts] to come to him and
say [she] had made a mistake and that [she ] was sorry
and [she] wanted to be for the Company as it stands
and he'd give [her] more than a chance to work and be
fair about it and said he was disgusted with [her] and
he'd given her a chance to be fair about it and that he
was going to lay [her] off... .
37 Wesson testified that she discussed the coupon book with all
employees under her supervision.
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By early April, Roberts had obtained another job and at
that time declined the Company's offer of reinstatement.38
(5) Ardelia Harvey
The Company hired Ardelia Harvey in January 1969.
Three months later, Harvey was laid off for 6 or 7 weeks.
She then returned to the Company and quit after about 2
weeks. In June 1970, Harvey returned to the Company's
employ. Thereafter, except for a layoff from February 21
to February 26, a 1-1/2-day layoff in 1972 and I week's
absence in 1970, Harvey worked for the Company until her
layoff on March 14. From late 1970 until her layoff,
Harvey was under Bessie Machen's supervision.
Ardelia Harvey's union activity began about January 16,
when she asked Carolyn King to call the Union and
request more of the pamphlets which union representative
had distributed near the plant on January 15. On February
7, she attended an employees' meeting called to organize
the February 9 union meeting. On February 8, Harvey
distributed union meeting notices in the Company's
cafeteria during lunch hour . Bessie Machen saw the notices
in Harvey's hands but did not see her passing them out.
Harvey's name appeared on the union organizing commit-
tee list sent to Plant Manager Pridgen on March 1.39
As previously found, on February 22, and again on
February 26, Personnel Manager McLain singled out
Ardelia Harvey for threats of plant closure if the Union
succeeded in organizing the Company's employees. I have
also found above that Ardelia Harvey was also one of the
four "troublemakers" working for the Union whom
McLain wanted "out of the plant."
On March 12, Harvey told McLain that she planned to
go on maternity leave commencing March 19. McLain
asked her to sign a blank leave form which he said would
not be completed until she brought in a "doctor' s excuse."
The leave form shows, however, that McLain authorized
maternity leave from March 26 until July 24, notwithstand-
ing Harvey's failure to furnish the Company with a
supporting statement from a doctor. Just before the work
bell sounded, on the morning of March 14, Supervisor
Machen came to Ardelia Harvey's work station and laid
her off without giving her any reason 40 However, Harvey's
maternity leave began on March 26 and was extended
from July 24 to July 30, at her request. She returned to
work at the Company on July 31.
(6) Annie Ruth Murphy
The facts regarding Annie Ruth Murphy are undisputed.
Annie Ruth Murphy, a company employee since 1964 or
38 My findings as to Roberts' layoff, except as specifically noted, are
based upon her testimony. Shelnutt admitted talking to Roberts on March 8
and larag her off that same day. When examined as to his conversation
with k 'bents, Shelnutt began his testimony with . "The best I recollect at
this time .. " And then testified only that he "called her in to explain to
her that she could sign up for her unemployment or partial benefits." On
direct examination by company counsel , Shelnutt did not contradict
Roberts' detailed version of the incident but only denied the incriminatory
portions of her account Later, on cross-examination, referring to the same
incident, Shelnutt conceded . "I don't recall the full conversation that was
carried on that afternoon .. " (Tr. 974) In the face of Shelnutt's
concession , and my assessment of the demeanor of the two witnesses, I have
concluded that Roberts is the more reliable witness
1965, was laid off on March 19. At the time of her layoff,
Murphy was under Bessie Machen 's supervision . Murphy's
union activity began on January 30, when she attended the
first union meeting . Her name appeared on the list of
union organizing committee members sent by the Union to
Plant Manager Pridgen on March 1 . On March 5, Murphy
began wearing a union pin to work.
Supervisor Machen noticed Murphy's union pin on
March 5 and asked her what it meant. In a second incident
in March , Machen disclosed to Murphy that Machen's
sister-in-law, who worked in Talladega , Alabama, and was
a union member, "had a wreck in Talladega and . . . they
charged her up with it because of her being in the union at
Talladega."
Shortly after the Company 's workday began on Monday,
March 19, Supervisor Bessie Machen escorted Murphy to
McLain's office . After asking about Murphy's daughter,
McLain told her: "Well , I'm going to send you back home
... you might be a case of having the mumps ." Murphy
sought to correct McLain by assuring him that it was her
"little girl" who had the mumps and that she, Murphy, was
"ready to come to work." At this McLain said, "Well we're
going to have to let you go home cause there's not any
work on the line." The Company recalled Murphy little
more than 2 weeks later.
b. Analysis and conclusions
Between March 5 and March 19, the Company laid off
union supporters Joyce Wood , Felicia Hudson, Queen
Ester Harvey, Sundae Roberts , Ardelia Harvey, and Annie
Ruth Murphy. The complaint alleges that the five layoffs
were motivated by union animus and therefore violated
Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. The Company argues
that these five layoffs were part of a larger temporary
seasonal reduction-in-force dictated by a lack of work.
However, I find from the record as a whole that , while the
reduction in force may have been warranted by a lack of
work , the selection of these six employees was part and
parcel of the Company's effort to eradicate employee
support for the Union.
All six employees were known to Respondent as leading
union adherents well before March 5, the date of the first
alleged unlawful layoff. Thus, about 4 weeks before her
layoff, Wood discussed the Union with other employees
and looked at a union pamphlet 10 feet from where
Supervisors Wesson and Machen were seated . At about the
same time , Machen and Personnel Manager McLain
sought to restrict Wood from communicating with other
employees during working hours by more stringent
enforcement of company rules. In this context, McLain
39 My findings as to Ardelia Harvey's employment history are based
upon a composite of Supervisor Machen 's and Harvey 's testimony My
findings regarding Harvey's union activity is based upon her credited and
uncontradicted testimony.
40 Machen testified that she laid Harvey off on March 14 because "we
were out of work" and Harvey wanted to draw some unemployment relief
before her maternity leave began Harvey denied requesting a layoff
Machen's narrowly drawn testimony lacks detail as to the circumstances in
which the asserted request was made . This factor and my overall impression
of her pursuade me that she is not a reliable witness . In contrast Ardelia
Harvey impressed me as a conscientious witness trying to remember the
conversations and events in which she participated . I have therefore
credited Harvey's denial
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO.
and Machen's professions of uncertainty about Wood's
union sentiment on February 7 reflected their suspicions.
Finally, on February 26, McLain revealed that he was no
longer in doubt as to Wood's union activities, when he
counted Wood among the four "troublemakers" working
for the Union whom he wanted out of the plant and whom
he suddenly transferred to straight-needle work to fulfill
that desire. On February 28, McLain by his unlawful
interrogation confirmed what he already knew when Wood
declared her allegiance to the Union. McLain also revealed
that he was thinking in terms of Wood's job when he asked
her whether she wanted her job and then offered his help in
finding employment for her elsewhere. The next day,
March 1, the Company received the Union's telegram
announcing the names of its organizing committee, one of
whom was Wood. Finally, on the very day of her layoff,
Wood appeared at work wearing a union pin, which was
noticed by Supervisor Machen.
Similarly, pnor to laying off Ardelia Harvey, Queen
Ester Harvey, and Annie R. Murphy, the Company was
well aware of their union activity. It knew from the
Union's telegram that all were on the Union's organizing
committee . Further, on March 5, prior to their layoffs,
Queen Ester Harvey and Murphy wore union buttons at
the plant. On that day, Machen asked Murphy what the
button meant. Ardelia Harvey was one of the four
"troublemakers" mentioned by McLain on February 26.
Further, during February and early March, the Company
directed antiunion remarks at the four, individually, and
unlawfully threatened the Harveys with plant closure if the
union campaign succeeded.
Company knowledge of Roberts' union sentiment is
shown by Supervisor Shelnutt's interrogation of Sundae
Roberts immediately pnor to her layoff on March 8, in
which he asked why she had "left the Company" and why
she had signed a union card. It is also clear from the same
conversation that Respondent selected Roberts for layoff
because she was prounion. For, when Shelnutt informed
Roberts of his intention of laying her off, and she protested
that there were others with less seniority available for
layoff, Shelnutt revealed the Company's motive. He
pointed out that they had permitted her to work because
she needed the job, and then remarked that those with less
seniority than she also needed their jobs, "but were loyal to
the Company." He also complained that he had waited 1
week for Roberts to renounce her allegiance to the Union
and "be for the Company"; that "he was disgusted with
[her] and he'd given her a chance to be fair about it and
that he was going to lay [her] off. ..." In short, Shelnutt's
remarks convince me that Roberts' layoff violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Shelnutt's remarks to employee Felicia Hudson on
March 8 revealed the Company's motive in laying her off.
On that occasion, immediately after asking Hudson why
she had signed a union card, Shelnutt warned that the
Company had enough ground for firing her for poor
quality and threatened stricter enforcement of the Compa-
ny's rule to thwart union activity at the plant. Shelnutt then
+' I also find Plant Manager Pridgen's remarks to Hudson on February
21 that he had been informed of her union activity at the plant and her
attendance at union meetings were designed to give the impression that the
515
told Hudson "we're going to take these union rules and
... we're going to go by seniority and lay you off . . . and
call someone in with more seniority than you have...."
After a further exchange, Shelnutt laid Hudson off. Here,
as in the case of Sundae Roberts, I find the Company
punished Hudson for her union adherence by selecting her
for layoff, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act 4i
I am also pursuaded that the Company was hostile
toward the union activity and sentiments of Ardelia
Harvey, Joyce Wood, Annie Ruth Murphy, and Queen
Ester Harvey. I have previously found the Company's
animus revealed by the discharges of four leading union
advocates in February, the March 8 layoffs of Roberts and
Hudson, and numerous violations of Section 8(axl)
between mid-January and April. More particularly, Per-
sonnel Manager McLain made plain the Company's
attitude toward Ardelia Harvey and Joyce Wood on
February 26, when he voiced his desire to rid the plant of
them and two other employees because of their union
activity. About the same time, Personnel Manager McLain
sought unsuccessfully to persuade Queen Ester Harvey to
desert the Union by addressing antiunion remarks includ-
ing unlawful threats of plant closure to her individually.
Supervisor Machen also attempted to discourage Annie
Ruth Murphy from supporting the Union in early March.
The timing of Wood's layoff on the day she began wearing
her union pin and the close timing of Queen Ester Harvey's
layoff only 2 days after she began wearing a similar pin are
circumstances which lend further support to my finding of
unlawful motivation as to the selection of Ardelia Harvey,
Joyce Wood, Annie Ruth Murphy, and Queen Ester
Harvey for layoff.
The credited testimony showing that when Supervisor
Wesson's production line ran out of work Queen Ester
Harvey requested layoff does not provide the Company
with an excuse for Queen Ester's March 7 layoff. First, this
proffered reason is rendered suspect by Wesson's failure to
mention it at the time she laid Queen Ester off. More
important there is no showing that Queen Ester requested
the March 7 layoff.
Ardelia Harvey' s request for maternity leave does not
provide an excuse for her layoff on March 14. First,
Ardelia's request was not given as the reason at the time of
her layoff by Supervisor Machen. Further, Machen
testified that lack of work was the reason for Ardelia's
layoff. Finally, the Company's grant of maternity leave to
Ardelia Harvey was not to be effective until March 26.
In sum, I find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by selecting Ardelia Harvey, Joyce
Wood, Annie Ruth Murphy, and Queen Ester Harvey for
layoff in reprisal for their prounion activity and sentiment.
I further find with respect to Ardelia Harvey that her
unlawful layoff ended on March 25, the day before her
maternity leave began.
Company was keeping her union activity under surveillance Accordingly, I
find that by these remarks the Company violated Sec. 8(aXl) of the Act
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Annie Faye Oden' s transfer
a. The facts
It is undisputed that Annie Faye Oden has been a
company employee since September 9, 1969, and that prior
to Oden's transfer on February 20 she had worked for
Supervisor Wesson.
Oden first learned of the union activity at the plant on
February 7, when employee Carolyn King told her about a
union meeting . On February 8, Personnel Manager
McLain warned Oden "not to take any papers from
anyone talking about the union and not to discuss the
union .... "42 It is undenied that in the same encounter,
McLain asked Oden to let him know if anybody talked to
her about the Union.
Supervisor Thompson's uncontradicted and credited
testimony reveals that on the evening of Saturday,
February 10, she received a telephone call from a person
she believed was Oden. The caller threatened Thompson
with physical punishment for engaging in surveillance of
the Union's meeting. When Thompson protested that she
did not know what the caller was referring to, the caller
scoffed and renewed her threat. Thompson admittedly
reported the incident to Supervisor Wesson.
On the morning of February 15, Supervisor Wesson
escorted Oden to McLain's office. There, Wesson com-
plained to McLain that it had been reported to her that
Oden had been making threatening phone calls. Oden
protested that she didn't have a telephone. Wesson
insisted, however, that "the girls were telling her that
[Oden] was the one that was calling because they
recognized [her] voice...." Oden warned that if she
found out who was lying about her "[she] would kill 'em
'cause I know I hadn't been making any kind of threats."
Following this exchange, McLain asked Oden what she
had been doing. When Oden asked him what he meant, he
said "your church activities." Oden replied "What?"
McLain smiled and said nothing.
Later in the morning, Oden was again summoned to
McLain's office. This time, Wesson complained to McLain
that Oden's production and quality were "bad." After
Oden conceded that her bundle of halters, then being
examined by McLam, was defective, Wesson remarked:
"She should be doing better than she's doing `cause her
mind is other places not on her work" Wesson declared
that she "didn't need [Oden] on her line" and that she
wanted "to get rid" of her. McLain asked Wesson if she
had enough work to occupy Oden for the remainder of the
day. When Wesson said she could provide Oden with work
until noon, McLain directed that Wesson do so and send
Oden home at noon. McLain also told Oden to come back
to see him on Monday.
When Oden returned to work on Monday, McLain could
not find work for her and sent Oden home until the
42 1 do not credit McLain's denial that he warned Oden against
accepting "union material" and discussing the Union with others He
admitted having "three to four" conversations with Oden "[s lince the first
of the year." However, as usual , his testimony does not provide details of
these conversations.
43 My findings of fact regarding the events of February 15 and thereafter
following day. When Oden came to the plant on Tuesday,
McLain told her that Wesson didn't want her "for personal
reasons" and transferred Oden to the pants line, under
another supervisor. Oden worked on the pants line for 2 or
3 weeks where she suffered a loss in pay.43
b. Analysis and conclusion
The issue presented here is whether Annie Faye Oden's
transfer was motivated by the Company's belief that she
was for the Union. The Company introduced testimony to
show that union considerations played no part in the
decision to send Oden to the pants line . After considering
all of the circumstances surrounding Oden 's transfer, I find
the transfer to be in reprisal for Oden's apparent alignment
with the Union.
The first glint of company concern about Annie Faye
Oden's allegiance occurred on February 8. For, on that
date, McLain singled Oden out for a warning against
taking union literature or discussing the Union, and sought
to enlist her as an informer against fellow employees who
might voice support for the Union.44
However, I have little doubt that Supervisor Thompson's
report of the February 10 phone call convinced the
Company that Oden was an active union adherent. That
factor taken, together with the Company's frequently
demonstrated union animus and the quick timing of
Oden's removal from Wesson's line, provides strong
evidence of unlawful motive . Also significant in this regard
are McLain's facetious questions on the morning of
February 15 about Oden's outside activities, and Wesson's
remarks that afternoon that Oden's "mind is other places,
not on her work." Against the backdrop of the Company's
identification of Oden as a union activist, as reported by
Supervisor Thompson, McLain's questions and Wesson's
comment reveal a preoccupation with Oden's union
activity.
The Company claims that Oden's transfer was in
response to her own request. McLain and Wesson testified
that Oden made such a request on the afternoon of
February 15. Oden's testimony is that Wesson demanded
Oden's removal from the production line. As I have
previously stated, neither Wesson nor McLain impressed
me as reliable a witness. In contrast , Oden appeared to be a
more forthright and candid witness. Further, Oden would
be more likely to remember the detail of this incident
which seriously affected her employment than would the
two supervisors whose personal concerns were not in-
volved. I therefore reject the Company's defense as being
without evidentiary support . In sum, I find that the
Company transferred Oden to the pants line where she
suffered a loss in pay because it believed she was engaged
in union activity. By such conduct, I find the Company
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Varo, Inc., 425 F.2d 293, 301-302 (C.A. 5, I970) 45
are largely based upon a composite of Oden 's and McLain 's testimony.
Where there were conflicts, I have credited Oden
44 I find that by this solicitation the Company violated Sec . 8(aXl) of the
Act N L R B. v The Borden Company, 392 F 2d 412,413-414, fn. 2 (C A. 5,
1968)
45 1 also find Oden's transfer was unlawful , without regard to the relative
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 517
4. The refusals to hire
a. The facts
(1) Ida Mae Harrison and Brenda Oden
No evidence was presented regarding the Company's
alleged refusal to hire Ida Mae Harrison on March 8, or its
alleged refusal to hire Brenda Oden on March 29.
(2) Geraldine Woodyard46
Geraldine Woodyard applied for a job at the Company
in August or September 1972. After passing the State
Employment Service test, she presented herself at the plant
and was advised that Company was not hiring, but would
call if they needed her. Woodyard sought employment at
the Company again in November 1972 on employee
Carolyn King's advice that the Company was interested in
hiring her. On this occasion, McLain told Woodyard that
the Company's training personnel were busy, but that he
would send for her later through King. However, the
Company did not send for Woodyard.
Thereafter, Woodyard assisted the Union's campaign on
three occasions. At the end of a workday in late February,
Woodyard helped Union Organizer Speegle and employees
Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and
Anme D. Harvey distribute union leaflets to employees as
they left the plant. Again in March, and on one other
unspecified occasion, Woodyard distributed union leaflets
near the plant entrance, along with Speegle and the same
four employees. On one occasion, Woodyard noticed
Boyce McLain standing at a plant door, looking in her
direction. He remained at the doorway for 5 or 10 minutes.
Woodyard again sought employment at the company
plant during the first week of April. However, her effort
failed again. While holding her earlier application in his
hand, a company representative told her that the Company
wasn't hiring, that if the Company needed her it would call
her, and that she should not come to the plant until she
received such a call. According to employee Joyce Wood's
uncontradicted and credited testimony, in mid-April, when
Plant Manager Pridgen announced the new wage increase,
he asked employees to help the Company recruit 100 new
employees.
(3) Katharine Oden47
Katharine Oden applied for employment at the Compa-
ny on April 13, on the advice of employee Willie Mae
Shepard that the Company was hiring new employees.
Training Supervisor Alice Thompson met Oden in Person-
nel Director McLain's office and told her to obtain a form
showing that she had passed a test administered by the
Alabama State Employment Service. Oden had passed the
test in 1971 and obtained the requested form which she
brought to Thompson on April 17. Thompson instructed
Oden to return on the following day for an interview with
Boyce McLain. As previously found, in the course of the
April 18 interview, McLain asked Oden if she knew any of
the girls who worked at the plant; if any of them were for
the Union; and, whether she planned to join the Union. It
is undenied that Oden replied that she knew nothing about
the union sentiment of any company employees, and that
she refused to divulge her own attitude toward the Union.
McLain closed the interview by directing Oden to return
the following day, April 19, for a test to be administered by
Training Supervisor Thompson.
The following day, Thompson administered a dexterity
test to Oden. After telling Oden that she had passed the
test, Thompson advised Oden not to wait for a call from
the Company because "they need to get in some new
machines." The Company never called Katharine Oden.
b. Analysis and conclusions
The record is bare of any evidence regarding Ida Mae
Harrison and Brenda Oden. Therefore, I shall dismiss the
allegations that the Company unlawfully refused to hire
them.
With respect to the remaining allegations, I find that the
General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof.
Thus, the record evidence does not establish that the
Company was aware of Woodyard's union activity when it
refused to hire her in early April. The credited evidence
shows only that Woodyard engaged in union activity near
the plant in February, March, and on one other occasion
not fixed in time , and that on one of these occasions
McLain looked at her for a few minutes. Finally , nothing
occurred when she sought employment at the plant in
April which showed company knowledge of her union
activity. In short, the General Counsel has not shown that
McLain identified Woodyard as a union activist prior to
her quest for employment in early April.
As for Katharine Oden, there is no evidence of her
participation in union activity or any expression of union
sentiment. Instead, the record shows only an equivocal
response to McLain's question as to her attitude toward
union membership. While that answer may have aroused
McLain's suspicions, his request on April 17 that she
return for a test on the following day and the treatment she
received from Supervisor Thompson on April 18 rebut that
inference.
In any event, the record does not establish that the
Company withheld job opportunities from either Geraldine
Woodyard or Katharine Oden when they applied for work
in April. Joyce Wood's undenied testimony shows the
Company's intent to hire additional employees in April.
However, there is no probative evidence to show that the
Company hired additional employees at or about that time.
The General Counsel attempts to sustain his contentions
through the testimony of Katharine Oden and Geraldine
Woodyard. However, their testimony is wholly inadequate.
Katharine Oden's testimony that Willie Mae Shephard told
her the Company was hiring suffers from the fatal infirmity
of being hearsay. Similarly, without probative force is
Woodyard's hearsay testimony that "some friends" told
her at an unspecified time that a girl identified only as
"Geraldine" was working at the Company's plant. Wood-
desirability of the new job. N L.RB v. J W Mays, Inc, 356 F.2d 693, undented testimony.
697-698 (C A 2, 1966). 47 The facts regarding Oden's application are undisputed
46 Except as noted , my findings regarding Woodyard are based upon her
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
yard also testified that once while handing out union
pamphlets she saw another girl identified as "Connie"
leaving the plant. Woodyard also testified that this incident
occurred 3 weeks after "Connie" and she had conversed
about getting jobs there, but before Woodyard's first visit
to the plant in April. However, the evidence does not
establish that the Company employed "Connie." Finally,
there is no evidence showing that "Connie" was in fact
working at the plant on that occasion, or that she was
observed leaving or entering the plant on more than the
single occasion described in Woodyard's testimony. In
summary, I find no showing that Woodyard or Oden
suffered disparate treatment at the Company's hands.
After considering the record as a whole, I find the
evidence inadequate to sustain the allegations that the
Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to
hire Katharine Oden or Geraldine Woodyard in April.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss those allegations. Big Y
Supermarkets, 173 NLRB 405, 406 (1968).
V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record, I make the following conclusions of law:
1. Sylacauga Garment Company is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging and refusing to reinstate employees
Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and
Annie D. Harvey because of their union activities or
support for the Union and thereby discouraging employees
from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
4. By laying off employees Sundae Roberts, Felicia
Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia
Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy and refusing to recall
employee Felicia Hudson because of their union activity or
support for the Union and thereby discouraging employees
from supporting the Union, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
5. By transferring Annie Faye Oden to a less desirable
job, because of her suspected union activity and thereby
discouraging employees from supporting the Union,
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By interrogating employees concerning their own
and other employees' union activities and sympathies;
threatening employees with discharge, plant closure, and
other economic reprisals if they supported the Union;
granting a wage increase for the express purpose of
inducing employees to reject the Union; engaging in
surveillance of employees' union activity and creating the
impression that it was engaged in surveillance of its
employees' union activity; threatening its employees with
more stringent enforcement of Respondent's rules because
they supported the Union; exhibiting the film "The
Springfield Gun" to its employees; asking employees to
report the union activities or sentiment of fellow employees
to Respondent ; and by harassing employees to discourage
their union activity, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging
in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(aXl) of the
Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. Respondent has not, in violation of Section 8(aX3)
and (1) of the Act, discriminated against Ida Mae
Harrison, Brenda Oden, Geraldine Woodyard, and Katha-
rine Oden.
9. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order
the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged
employees Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta
McDaniel, and Annie D. Harvey, I find it necessary to
order the Respondent to offer them full reinstatement, with
backpay computed on a quarterly basis plus interest at 6
percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from the date of
discharge to the date reinstatement is offered.
I have also concluded that the Respondent unlawfully
discriminated against employees Sundae Roberts, Felicia
Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia
Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy by laying them off. My
conclusion regarding Ardelia Harvey's layoff was that her
unlawful layoff began on March 14 and ended with the
inception of her maternity leave on March 26. Further,
Respondent has recalled Sundae Roberts, Queen Ester
Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth
Murphy. Accordingly, I shall order the Respondent to
offer reinstatement to Felicia Hudson . I shall also order the
Respondent to make whole Sundae Roberts, Felicia
Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia
Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's
discrimination against them. Such backpay shall be
computed as described earlier in this section.
Since I have found that on February 20, 1973, the
Respondent unlawfully transferred Annie Faye Oden, I
find it necessary to order the Respondent to offer her
reinstatement to the job from which she was transferred on
that date, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered by reason of the unlawful transfer, with
backpay computed in the manner prescribed in Woolworth,
supra and Isis Plumbing, supra, from the date of her
unlawful transfer to the date reinstatement is offered.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices in
which the Respondent has engaged, I shall recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act. See N.LR.B. v.
SYLACAUGA GARMENT CO. 519
Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). I shall
also recommend that Respondent forthwith cease and
desist from exhibiting to employees or prospective employ-
ees the film entitled "The Springfield Gun."
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 48
Respondent Sylacauga Garment Company , Sylacauga,
Alabama , its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf
of, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO , or any other labor organization, by discharg-
ing, laying off, transferring , or otherwise discriminating
against employees in any manner with regard to their hire,
tenure , or any term or condition of employment because of
their support for, or activity on behalf of , a union.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership , activities, or sympathies, or those of
other employees.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge , plant closure,
or other economic reprisals if they support a union.
(d) Granting wage increases or other benefits to dissuade
employees from supporting or joining a union.
(e) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union
activities.
(f) Giving employees the impression that their union
activities are being kept under surveillance.
(g) Threatening employees with more stringent enforce-
ment of plant rules because of their support for, or
activities on behalf of , a union.
(h) Showing employees or prospective employees the film
entitled "The Springfield Gun."
(i) Asking employees to report the union activity or
union sentiments of fellow employees.
(j) Harassing employees in reprisal for their union
activity or sentiment by issuing written or oral reprimands
concerning their work performance.
(k) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to form , join, or assist the above-named labor
organization , or any other labor organization , to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer employees Carolyn King , Bettye Dowdy, Lois
Veleta McDaniel, Annie D. Harvey , and Felicia Hudson
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
or, if these positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions , without prejudice to seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(b) Offer employee Annie Faye Oden reinstatement to
the job from which she was transferred on February 20,
1973, or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or
other rights and privileges.
(c) Make the following named employees whole for any
loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them , in the manner set forth in the section herein
entitled "Remedy":
Carolyn King Joyce Wood
Annie D . Harvey Annie Faye Oden
Queen Ester Harvey Lois Veleta McDaniel
Annie Ruth Murphy Felicia Hudson
Bettye Dowdy Ardelia Harvey
Sundae Roberts
(d) 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 records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Post at its Sylacauga , Alabama, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 49 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative , shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained
for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated complaint
be dismissed in all other respects.
48 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
49 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence , the National Labor Relations Board found that
we, Sylacauga Garment Company , violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and ordered us to post this notice
and to keep our word about what we say in this notice.
The law gives you the right
To form , join, or help unions
To choose a union to represent you in
bargaining with us
To act together for your common interest or
protection
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To refuse to participate in any or all of these
things.
The Board has ordered us to promise you that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with your rights.
WE WILL NOT ask you whether you are a union
member, or are helping the International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (ILGWA), or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT ask you whether other employees are
members of, or are helping, the ILGWU or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT ask you about your union sentiments.
WE WILL NOT keep your union activity under
surveillance.
WE WILL NOT create the appearance that your union
activity is under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge, plant
closure, or stricter enforcement of plant rules because
you are a member of ILGWU of any other union or
because you are helping ILGWU or any other union.
WE WILL NOT show the film entitled "The Springfield
Gun" to you or prospective employees.
WE WILL NOT use job assignments and reprimands to
harass you because you are a member of ILGWU or
any other union or because you are helping ILGWU or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT increase your wages or grant other
benefits to you for the purpose of persuading you to
stop supporting ILGWU or any other union.
WE WILL NOT discharge you, lay you off, transfer
you to other jobs, or otherwise discriminate against you
because you are a member of ILGWU or any other
union , or because you have supported ILGWU of any
other union.
WE WILL NOT in any other way interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in exercising the rights guaran-
teed to you by the National Labor Relations Act.
The National Labor Relations Board found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging
Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, and
Annie D. Harvey; by laying off Sundae Roberts, Felicia
Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood, Ardelia
Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy; and by transferring
Annie Faye Oden to a less desirable job. We have recalled
Sundae Roberts, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce Wood,
Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Carolyn King, Bettye
Dowdy, Lois Veleta McDaniel, Annie Harvey, and
Felicia Hudson to their former jobs without any loss of
seniority or other rights.
WE WILL reimburse Carolyn King, Bettye Dowdy,
Lois Veleta McDaniel, Annie D. Harvey, Sundae
Roberts, Felicia Hudson, Queen Ester Harvey, Joyce
Wood, Ardelia Harvey, and Annie Ruth Murphy for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered because of
our discrimination against them, together with 6-
percent interest.
WE WILL reinstate Annie Faye Oden to the job from
which the Board found she was unlawfully transferred.
WE WILL reimburse her for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered as a result of our discrimination
against her, together with 6-percent interest.
Dated By
SYLACAUGA GARMENT
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.