Fieldcrest Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1982

259 N.L.R.B. 914 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing "(d) Requesting employees to engage in surveil-
and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. lance of the union activities of others and report
Cases 10-CA-15300 and 10-RC-11929 such activities to it."
2. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and re-
J~anuary 7, 1982 letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION "(b) Expunge from its files and records any ref-
OF SECOND ELECTION erences to the discharge of Ray Hughey on No-
vember 28, 1979, and notify him in writing that this
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND has been done and that evidence of this unlawful
ZIMMERMAN discharge will not be used as a basis for future dis-
On June 29, 1981, Administrative Law Judge cipline agaist him."
Donald R. Holley issued the attached Decision in 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of theDonald R. Holley issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Administrative Law Judge
a t G r s s [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-Union, and the General Counsel filed exceptions
note omitted from publication.]and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the APPENDIX
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
The Board has considered the record and the at- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and An Agency of the United States Government
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law WE WILL NOT interrogate employees con-
Judge, to modify his remedy, 2 and to adopt his rec- cerning their union activities and sentiments or
ommended Order, 3 as modified herein.4 concerning the union activities and sentiments
of others.
ORDER WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Laborcharge or plant closure if they engage in union
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- activity.
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended WE WILL NOT n date employees because
they engage in union activity.Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- tey engage n nn a
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, WE WILL NOT request employees to engage
in surveillance of the union activities of others
Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., Scottsboro, Alabama, its offi-n surveillance of the union activities of others
and report such activities to us.
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the and report such activities to us
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified: activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing
so modified: and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,
1. Insert the following as paragraph l(d) and re- or any other labor organization of our employ-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: ees by discharging, transferring, or laying off
employees because of their membership in orThe Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by es b e of t m i
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to activities on behalf of the above-named Union
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- or any other labor organization.
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec-
2 See Isis Plumbing a Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), for rationale tion 7 of the Act.
on interest payments.on 7 e Act
s We adopt the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to issue a WE WILL offer Ray Hughey and William
broad cease-and-desist order requiring the Respondent to cease and desistDodson immediate reinstatement to their
from violating the Act "in any other manner" on the basis that the Re-
spondent had committed egregious and widespread unfair labor practices. former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to
See Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice
Member Zimmerman finds that the issuance of a broad order is inap- to their seniority or other rights and privileges
propriate under the standards set forth in Hickmott Foods, Inc., supra.
4 We have adopted the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them
Respondent unlawfully discharged employee Ray Hughey for engaging whole for any loss of earnings they may have
in union activities. Consequently, we shall modify the recommended s a a r o
Order to provide that the Respondent expunge from its files and records suffered as a result of the discrimination
any references to the unlawful discharge. against them, plus interest.
259 NLRB No. 98

January 7- 1982 . I s rt t f ll i as r r ( ) a re-

c ip l i n e a g a i st "
Donald R.
3 . Su b st u t e t h e t t ac h ed n o t c e o r t h at f
i f t i i i .
Union, and the General Counsel filed exception i r ec tio n o f l i l i
and supporting briefs..note itt li ti . ti g i .*
A n t t t
W E
'concerning
ti l or c ha rge c l o s
u r e i f i i
l l ti i
W E W I L L N O T in tim d at e l
„, r .1- A-i * * . ^ i T-J -.*they
l t W E I r t l t
la ffi i ill t i ti iti f t r
, .. „ ' , .~~and i
r , i ll t a r s a isc o s.
ti i W WILL N Ac agamatershipting
ifi : activities on behalf of Amalgamated Clothing
1. Insert the following as paragraph l~d) and re- and Textile orkers i , - I ,
1. I sert the f ll i as paragraph lad) and re- or any other labor organization of our employ-
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: ees by discharging, transferring, or laying off
-~ ---- ~~~~~~~~~~~employe s i * t t t i i ilit i i embership n, or
O O
Ot
ilit l ss t e clear re era ce of all of the relevant evidence con- ILL NOT in any other anner interfere
,
,
r fu l i t fi i f r r r i i fi i . r i Of t ri tS guaranteed the by Sec-
I ing 4 ing ., - r ,, *
ents.
t
i
o n 7 o f
te ct.
, ti ti
- n - i t i i t t t cease and desist odson i ediate reinstate ent tO their
"i i D i a in t te
t i i i . O f O
oan ).
e er i er an finds that the issuance of a broad order is inap- to their seniority Or Other rights and privileges. .
I ti i l j
t l f ll i for f r i
ti . ntl ll i rr _ i ,. ri j' **t-
t l rdsSuffered l i ti
arge,.against
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 915
WE WILL expunge from our files and re- 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
cords any references to the discharge of Ray
Hughey on November 28, 1979, and WE WILLound
notify him that this has been done and that Respondent utilizes approximately 200 employees at its
evidence of the unlawful discharge will not be Scottsboro plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture
used as a basis for future discipline against of bathroom accessories including commode tank covers,
him. commode lid covers, and bathroom carpets. At all times
material, such employees were supervised by: Joseph P.
Foster, vice president and general manager; Ronald
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. Blanton, personnel manager; Carl Cameron, superintend-
DECISION ent; Charles Graves, superintendent; Kenneth Potter,
manager of industrial engineering; and Line Supervisors
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Denton Layfield, Rufus Thompson, Tom Webb, Edward
Chambers, and Tommy Womack. 2
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge: While the record fails to reveal the full extent of Re-
Upon an original charge filed on December 17, 1979, and spondent's operations at places other than Scottsboro,
amended charges filed on January 10 and 31, 1980,' the Alabama, its regional personnel manager, Osmond
Regional Director for Region 10 of the National Labor Raines, indicated during his testimony that he and an-
Relations Board (herein called the Board) issued a corn- other person holding a like title provide personnel direc-
plaint on March 12 alleging that Fieldcrest Mills, Inc. tion at the corporate level. Raines is in charge of person-
(herein called Respondent), had, by specified conduct, nel matters at some 18 of Respondent's plants and serv-
violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor ice companies, and indicated that with exception of Re-
Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Re- spondent's Columbus towel mill complex, consisting of 3
spondent filed timely answer to the complaint denying plants, and its Salisbury, North Carolina, finishing plant,
that it had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged. the plants are nonunion.
On December 19, 1979, an election by secret ballot Commencing in April 1978, the Union sought to orga-
was conducted among employees of Respondent, and nize the employees who worked at the Scottsboro plant.
subsequently the petitioning Union, Amalgamated Cloth- It is undisputed that William Dodson and Wanda Will-
ing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (herein mon, alleged discriminatees in the instant case, were
called the Union), filed objections to the election. There- active on behalf of the Union during the campaign.
after, on March 26, 1980, the Regional Director issued During that campaign, Willmon served on the Union's
his Report on Objections, order directing hearing, con- in-plant organizing committee which consisted of some
solidating cases and notice of hearing, thereby consoli- 25 employees and she wore a union committee badge
dating Case 10-RC-11929 with the instant unfair labor and a prounion T-shirt in the plant on occasion. It is un-
practice case for hearing. disputed that Respondent's management officials were
The hearing was conducted in Scottsboro, Alabama, aware of her prounion sentiments during the 1978 cam-
on August 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1980. All parties appeared paign. It is likewise undisputed that Dodson was the
and were afforded full opportunity to participate. Upon chairman of the Union's in-plant organizing committee in
the entire record, my observation of the demeanor of the 1978, and that his position was well known to supervi-
witnesses during their testimony, and the post-hearing sors of Respondent, including then Supervisor Homer
briefs of the parties, I make the following: Morris whom Dodson voluntarily told of his union activ-
ity. In addition to wearing a union committee button and
FINDINGS OF FACT a prounion T-shirt during the 1978 campaign, Dodson
admittedly told Supervisor Morris at the outset of the
i~. .JURISDICTION campaign that he intended to do all he could to see that
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, maintains a place the plant was organized.
of business in Scottsboro, Alabama, where it is engaged Around July 1978, after Dodson's widespread and
in the manufacture of bath and carpet products. During open union activity, Morris called Dodson into his office
the calendar year preceding issuance of the complaint, it and told Dodson that his job, raw materials handler, was
purchased and received at its Scottsboro plant goods being eliminated as a result of a timestudy. As a result of
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers locat- this job elimination, Dodson suffered a pay cut of 19
ed outside the State of Alabama. Upon these admitted cents per hour and was given the job of service operator,
facts, I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in which combined the duties of bundle handler and the
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of serving duties of his old raw materials handler job (job
the Act. no. 8258). A charge alleging that Dodson was transferred
for discriminatory reasons was filed, but it was subse-
l. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION quently dismissed.
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor or-ganization itted, ahin aningd, tt the ion i2() of the Act. Respondent stipulated that Chambers and Womack have been super-
gazation ithin the mea ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. visors since September 1, 1979. It is admitted, and I find, that the named
individuals, as well as Osmond Raines, regional personnel manger, are,
All dates herein are 1980 unless otherwise indicated. and have been, supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
HL.
A "^Vound
FIELDrREST MILL S, INC. F os t e r , v ic e i t a n d l ; l
e n t ; ,
,
,
'
, 80,'t l , it r i l rs l a a er, s ond
t ti l r i , i i t ri is testi t at he and an-
m

'
)(l)
'

.

,
.
i i t t i , ill ser e t e i 's

,.disputed

.
itt l t l i i t t t t t
,

I
I R su
ganizti ., ,..i .h rtin o * S >/c\ r(5 .- *h . - e t ti uat t t ers n r-
ganization Within ^visor
l , ,
CREt
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A Board-supervised election was held at the Scotts- him anything he knew about people passing out union
boro plant at an undisclosed time in 1978. The Union lost cards, signing them, or saying anything to him about the
the election. Union. Smith testified that Cameron continued to ask
In early September 1979, the Union once again sought him to inform on others in October and he indicated that
to organize Respondent's Scottsboro plant employees. on November 8 he was summoned to the personnel
Employee Dodson was selected as the chairman of the office where Blanton and Cameron indicated they had
in-plant organizing committee and it is undisputed that learned he had signed a union card and they were dis-
he immediately informed Personnel Manager Blanton pleased with him. On that occasion, Smith recalled that
and Superintendent Charles Graves that they had a Blanton started the conversation by stating: "Frankly,
union campaign going and he was going to do every- I'm pissed! Do you think I'm doing my job right?" When
thing he could to see that the plant was organized. Smith said he thought Blanton was doing a pretty good
Respondent admittedly informed its Scottsboro plant job, Blanton replied: "Well you must not think so, you
employees at the outset of the 1979 organizational cam- signed one of those damned union cards." According to
paign that it was opposed to the Union and intended to Smith, Blanton then asked: "What do you think this
do what it could legally do to keep it out. Osmond damn son-of-a-bitching Union is going to do for you? I
(Ozzie) Raines, its regional personnel manager, was dis- gave you a job, they didn't. How would you feel if I
patched from Respondent's headquarters located in told you you didn't do your job right?" When Smith re-
Eden, North Carolina, to plan and implement Respond- sponded he would feel pretty bad about it, Blanton
ent's efforts to oppose the Union. stated: "It makes me mad when someone tells me I can't
As revealed by the complaint herein, the General do my job right. You must think so because you signed
Counsel contends that Respondent's managerial officials one of those union cards." At that point, Smith claims
and its supervisors repeatedly engaged in conduct which Cameron stated he felt the same way as Ron and com-
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees mented that the Union could do nothing for him, and ob-
during the union campaign. Additionally, he claims that served that he needed his job for his wife and baby.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by sus- When Smith agreed, Cameron stated that all the Union
pending and then discharging employee Wanda Willmon, "wants is your money." Finally, Smith asserted that Ca-
by transferring and then laying off William Dodson, and meron asked him several days before the election, which
by discharging employee Ray Hughey. was held on December 19, if he was still with them on
the Union.3
B. The Alleged 8(a)(l) Violations Employee Goins testified that Cameron discussed the
Paragraphs 7 through 16 of the complaint allege that union situation with him on several occasions during
at various times during the union campaign named Re- 1979. On one occasion, Goins claims Cameron asked him
spondent supervisors engaged in conduct which indepen- if he was for the Union and he replied "yeah," 100 per-
dently violates Section 8(a)(l). The conduct attributed to cent. On another occasion placed by Goins as being late
each of the named supervisors is discussed below. in September, he claims Cameron asked him, while he
was in the supervisor's office, if he would agree to go to
1. Conduct of Carl Cameron union meetings and report who attended and what they
said. Goins testified that he agreed to go to meetings and
Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that Respondent report who attended, but he told Cameron he did not
Superintendent Carl Cameron unlawfully interrogated know about reporting back what was said. According to
employees on June 19, July 2, August 1, September 3, Goins, Cameron told him at the conclusion of the latter
October 1, November 1, and December 19, 1979. Para- conversation that he would check with Foster and Ron
graph 8 of the cmmplaint alleges that Cameron, on or Blanton and get back to him to let him know whether he
about September 24, 1979, solicited employees to attend should go to the meetings.
union meetings and report to Respondent the identity While Goins testified on direct examination that he
and activities of employees attending those meetings. was asked to go to union meetings before he told Ca-
The General Counsel sought to prove the allegations meron he was 100 percent for the Union, Respondent's
through the testimony of employees George Smith and counsel directed the employee's attention to his pretrial
~~~Thomas Goins.~~ affidavit during cross-examination, and the witness
George Smith, who was hired as a bundle boy or serv- agreed he had truthfully indicated in the affidavit that he
ice handler on April 21, 1979, and who was still em- had told Cameron he was for the Union before he was
ployed at the time of the hearing, testified that in June asked to attend union meetings.
1979, while he was in Cameron's office, Cameron told When he appeared as a witness, Cameron generally
him they expected the Union to start campaigning pretty denied that he asked employee Smith to report union ac-
soon and that he, Cameron, would appreciate it if he tivity to him at any time. Significantly, Cameron did not
would tell him if he saw or heard anyone talking about deny Smiths version of the November 8 conversation in
the Union or saw anyone signing union cards. Smith Blanton's office. Similarly, Cameron denied that he asked
claims that in July and August Cameron repeated his re- employee Goins to attend union meetings and report
quest that the employee keep him informed of union ac-
tivity. When the union campaign did begin in September, 3 Respondent placed Smith's pretrial affidavit in the record as Resp.
Smith asserts that Cameron informed him the Union had Exh. i. Smith's testimony during the hearing is in accord with the state-
started up and he would appreciate it if he would tell ments made in the affidavit.
.

3
i l
r r s 7 t r f t l i t ll t t
un i it ti it i r l i i
t i ti i i
19 79 i ,
r t i i i
f h e w as f o r th e i he replied "yeah," 100 per-
tl ti )(l t
c en t . no t h e r i l i as i late
r l
n l i i , il
' t t

t
, , l tt
, . ti t t l it ster a on
t i t
, l t atte should go to the eetings.
i ti r rt t t t i tit hile oins testified on direct exa ination that he
ti i i l i t i i t
r l l l 0 t t'
t t ti l i i t t l ' ti i i l
affidavit i - x i ti t
r f ll f i
i l il , , till - had t l r he as for the nion before he as
i t ri , t tifi t t i June asked to attend union meetings.
' t r ll
i t t t i t t rt i i tt l it i
t t , , l i t i if i i tl ,
ll f l ^^ i r ti
i i i i r . it de t ' ffi . i il rl , r i t t sk
l Blanton' ofic.Sii i ti rt
. I .

t t
l nt s fice
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 917
who attended and what was said. Cameron did not deny such grievances will be favorably received and acted
that he had asked Goins if he was for the Union. While upon, I am unconvinced in the present situation that the
Cameron admitted discussing the Union "casually" with General Counsel has shown that Blanton engaged in
Foster, he testified Foster did not tell him to do anything such unlawful activity when he conversed with Dabbs in
in particular; that Foster told him they were going to do December. It is clear, however, that Blanton indirectly
everything they legally could to keep the Union out of interrogated the employee concerning her union senti-
the plant. Blanton was asked no questions concerning the ments while she was in his office. Thus, I find that, in
November 8 incident described by Smith when he ap- early December, Respondent, through Blanton's con-
peared as a witness. duct, interrogated employee Dabbs in violation of Sec-
While credibility resolutions pose problems at times, tion 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.
such is not the case here. Smith and Goins were impres-
sive witnesses, but I was unimpressed by Cameron's gen- 3. Conduct of Tom Webb
eral denial that he asked the employees in question to act Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that Tom Webb
as informers for the Company. I credit the testimony of engaged in unlawful interrogation of employees on No-
Smith and Goins and find that Respondent through the vember . The General Counsel sought to prove the alle-
described conduct of Cameron and Blanton violated Sec- g thr h the testimony of employee Bill Mitchell.
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) interrogating employees Employee Mitchell, whose testimony is uncontrovert-
concerning their union activities; (2) requesting that em- ed, testified that sometime in November, while he and
ployees engage in surveillance of the union activities of upervisor Webb were te end of the tagging line,
others and report such activities to Respondent; and (3) several women wearing union buttons passed by and
threatening and intimidating an employee because he en- Webb stated he did not see why they wanted the Union;
gaged in union activities. that the pay was pretty good. Mitchell replied it was not
2. Conduct of Ronald Blanton the pay, it was the treatment. Apparently, the General
Counsel contends that Webb sought indirectly to ascer-
Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that Ron Blanton tain Mitchell's union sentiments by making the above-dis-
unlawfully interrogated employees on December 12, and cussed comment about the women wearing the union
paragraph 15 of the complaint alleges that Blanton un- buttons. As I view the incident, Webb simply made a
lawfully solicited grievances from employees on the statement indicating his opinion and Mitchell treated the
same date. The General Counsel sought to prove the al- statement as if it had been a question directed to him. I
legations through the testimony of employee Olivia find that Webb's statement falls within the purview of
Dabbs. Section 8(c) of the Act and that Respondent did not vio-
Employee Dabbs testified that she was told to report late Section 8(a)(1) through Webb's conduct during the
to the personnel office during the first week in Decem- incident under consideration.
ber. When she reported, Blanton opened the conversa-
tion by saying they used to talk a lot, but did not seem to 4. Conduct of Edward Chambers
talk any more. Dabbs asserts she replied that they had
tried to solve some problems with Blanton, but he did Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that Supervisor
not seem interested. At that point, Blanton asked the em- Edward Chambers unlawfully interrogated employees on
ployee if she thought the Union would help solve her October 1. The General Counsel sought to prove the al-
problems, and she replied she thought it would help. legation through the testimony of employee Sam Sisk
Blanton then informed her that if the Union came in they Employee Sisk testified without contradiction that
would still have to come to Foster, Cameron, or himself Second-Shift Supervisor Edward Chambers asked him
with their problems. Dabbs claims she then commented around the last of October why did he want a union. I
that Blanton appeared to feel the Union was going to get find, as alleged, that Respondent violated Section
8(aXl)
in, and she asserts Blanton replied, "It is beat and they through Chambers' described conduct.
know it." Dabbs testified she then observed her machine f - e n
was not working properly and claims Blanton asked her
why she did not get one of her good mechanic friends Paragraph 7 of the complaint alleges that Supervisor
that was for the Union to fix her machine. At the time of Denton Layfield unlawfully interrogated employees on
the hearing, Dabbs no longer worked for Respondent. November 7 and 16. The General Counsel sought to
Blanton indirectly denied that he talked to Dabbs in prove the allegations through the testimony of employ-
December 1979 by testifying that he recalled talking to ees Walter Hicks and Ray Hughey.
her about her problems in his office in 1978, and he re- Employee Hicks testified that he went to Supervisor
called that in June 1979 she discussed the slowness of her Layfield's office around November I and Layfield asked
machine with him and requested that Potter, the times- him if he was still for the Union like he was in the other
tudy expert, time her machine. Dabbs appeared to be a election. Hicks asserts he then asked Layfield if that was
straightforward individual while giving her testimony all he had to talk to him about and the supervisor re-
and the outcome of the case will not affect her as she plied, "Well, I am concerned that you are still for the
now works elsewhere. I credit her testimony fully. Union." Layfield denies that he had the described con-
While an employer violates Section 8(a)(l) of the Act versation with Hicks. Hicks was an impressive witness
when its agents solicit grievances from employees during who was still employed by Respondent at the time of the
a union campaign and expressly or impliedly suggest that hearing. As indicated, infra, Layfield was admittedly in-

,
itnes ,.duct,
l)

.
r l i l t t t l i ti t t t l i ll
s i f r r f r t . 1 it t t ti i i l
i i i t 1. l
ri t t t ti f l ill it ll.
ti ( X ) f t t : ( ) i t rr ti l l i ll ti i t rt-
r i t ir i ti iti ; ( ) ti t t - , i
l i r ill f t i ti iti f s i at the t i li
t r r rt ti iti t t; ( )
t r t i i ti i ti l - t t
i ities.^ ~ ^ ^,gaged in union activities. ~~that t r tt . it ll r li it s t
t i ' ti t i t i
i t i
, i l
i i ti i i i it ll tr t t

' i

t ti i t t t l t r rt late ecti 8(a)(l) t r ebb's conduct during the
t i t i - incident under consideration.
t l r . rt li P 7 o th c ,1 ta Spvs
tri t l s r l it l t , t i E r r 7 f t l i t ll s t t upeevisor
t see i t r t . t t t i t, l t asked t e - OE d w ar d C h a m be r sGnlawfull interrogated e ployees on
l if s t t the i ould help solve her lO c to bi rn The eneral Counsel sought to prove the al-
r l , s r li she t t it l help. legation t r the testi ony f e ployee Sa isk.
f ^p 10 ^ S ls k tif t i ti
till lf d- hift r i i
i
ar o un d t e l as t o f O c t o b er d d h e w an t a u n o n .
l i t
f in d , as ll , t t t i l t ti 8( D)
r l It ' ri t.
." ti r -u T L

f
)(l) .
c
r ,
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terested in the union sentiments of employees. I credit intended to vote, and he replied he was going to vote for
Hicks. it. Thereupon, Thompson allegedly asked Mitchell why
Alleged discriminatee Hughey testified that when he he wanted a union and stated that "a union is no good;
was in Layfield's office in mid-November, Layfield asked all they do is cause problems; that we don't need no
him how he felt about the Union. He asserts he replied union." Corroborating Justice, Mitchell indicated
he was for it, and went on to tell Layfield he had Thompson came to the break area when Mitchell was
worked at a union plant 7 or 8 years before. Hughey there with three or four other employees, including Jus-
claims Layfield then remarked that his wife had worked tice, and told them that the Union was no good; that it
at a union plant and it did not do her any good. Accord- had already closed down a couple of plants and it would
ing to Hughey, Layfield then asked him what was wrong probably close down this plant; and asked them what
between him and Ronald [Blanton] and that he replied they were going to do for a job when it [plant] is closed
Layfield knew what was wrong between him and Ron. down.
Layfield allegedly replied, "Well, you've been wearing a Supervisor Thompson denied that he ever discussed
union committee button," and Hughey testified he re- the Union in employee Justice's presence in 1979. He ad-
sponded that Layfield knew he had because he had seen mitted he discussed the Union with Mitchell in his office
him wear it.4 but claimed he merely asked Mitchell what he thought
Layfield testified that while standing outside his office the Union could do for him if it came into the mill. Ac-
in early November he remarked to Hughey that Ron had cording to Thompson, Mitchell indicated he was not
told him he had been seen in the vending room wearing strongly for the Union as he had been the other time,
a union button. Layfield claims the employee replied, and he indicated he did not know how he would vote.
"Yeah, I was playing with some women." Layfield While he denied discussing the Union with Justice,
denied that he had seen Hughey wear a union button, Thompson admitted he discussed possible plant closure
and he denied that he asked Hughey how he felt about with employee Mitchell, possibly in the break area.
the Union. When asked why he discussed the subject of Thompson's version of the conversation was that he told
the Union with Hughey on the occasion under discus- Thomas (Mitchell) that "if the union came in there and
sion, Layfield replied, "Well, to feel him out, how he felt they went out on strike, that it is possible the mill will
about it." close down because they have, we have to ship our
I credit Hughey's version of the mid-November con- orders out in from two to three weeks, you know, and if
versation between him and Layfield. As the supervisor we can't sell our goods, we can't operate."
admitted, he was motivated to discuss the union situation I gained the impression while hearing Thompson's tes-
with the employee to ascertain his feelings. I find his timony that he was reciting what he should have said,
denial that he asked the employee how he felt about the rather than what he actually said to employee Mitchell
Union to be unconvincing. on the two occasions discussed above. I credit the testi-
In sum, I find, as alleged, that Respondent, through mony of employees Justice and Mitchell and find that
Layfield's conduct, unlawfully interrogated employees Respondent, through Thompson's conduct, violated Sec-
concerning their union activities and sentiments in viola- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating an
tion of Section 8(a)() of the Act in early and mid-No- employee concerning his union sentiments in November
vember 1979. 1979, and unlawfully threatening employees in mid-De-
cember 1979 by informing them that if the Union got in
6. Conduct of Rufus Thompson the plant might be closed.
Paragraph 9 of the complaint alleges that Supervisor 7
Rufus Thompson threatened employees with reprisals on
November 1 if they selected the Union as their bargain- Paragraph 10 of the complaint alleges that Plant Man-
ing representative. The General Counsel sought to prove ager Joseph Foster informed employees on or about Oc-
the allegation through the t -s4 m. of employees J. B. tober 1, 1979, that if they selected the Union as their bar-
Justice and Thomas Mitchelf " ga;iFsMgtpIsentative there would be a strike and the
Employee Justice testified that 2 or 3 days before the employees would lose their jobs. The General Counsel
December 19 election he and four or five employees, in- sought to prove the allegation through the testimony of
eluding employee Mitchell, were in the lunch area when employee Mark Shelton.
Supervisor Thompson appeared and told them if the Shelton testified that, in late October at a first-shift
Company went union they would close it down. employee meeting, Foster informed employees that they
Thomas Mitchell indicated during his testimony that did not need the Union and, if it went union, the first
Supervisor Thompson discussed the Union with him on thing that would happen would be that they would call a
two occasions. Thus, he claims he was in Thompson's strike and everybody would be out of a job. Shelton
office sometime in November and Thompson asked him claims Foster told them during the meeting that if they
his opinion of the Union. He claims he replied he had had any kind of a problem to bring it to him and he
not really thought that much about it and Thompson would take care of it. While Shelton indicated seven or
told him it was something he should think about. Ac- eight employees attended the meeting, the only one he
cording to Mitchell, Thompson then asked him how he could remember attending was employee Walter Hicks.5
4 Hughey testified he wore the button every day commencing in late I The General Counsel did not adduce any testimony through Hicks
October. concerning the meeting.
-him u

(l
X1)
.
C of J F
es njonv
elir Iga~j Mn.tpsentati
.
I
.
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 919
When he appeared as a witness, Plant Manager Foster increase was limited to 7 percent in accordance with the
testified that he met with 8 to 10 different groups of em- President's wage and price guidelines. According to
ployees in late September. While he admits he stated Re- Raines, Respondent was the first major company in the
spondent's position on the Union at the meetings, he textile industry to give raises in 1979, and it was con-
claims he did so by reading a prepared speech to the em- cluded that employee dissatisfaction might result if the
ployees which was placed in the record as Respondent's average percentage of raise given in the textile industry
Exhibit 31. The written speech states, inter alia: exceeded 7 percent. Consequently, at his June meetings
with Scottsboro plant employees, Raines told them why
I'm also opposed to this Union because of strik- the May raise was limited to 7 percent and indicated to
ers. I'm sure everyone in this room remembers the them that if other companies granted larger raises Field-
strike this Union called at the Standard-Coosa- crest would review its position at the end of the year and
Thatcher plants in Chattanooga last year-the very would make any necessary adjustments. During the June
same union that is trying to get in here. Over 600 meetings, Raines also informed employees it was aware
employees called out on strike. There was violence of employee dissatisfaction with their group insurance,
on the picket line. People got hurt. Twenty-five was reviewing the policy, and there was a possibility im-
(25) employees were fired. Over 100 new employ- provements would be announced by the end of the year.
ees were hired to replace striking employees. Over While McCutcheon recalled that Raines informed em-
$700,000 in wages were lost. For what? For noth- ployees attending an early November meeting that they
ingl When the strike was over, the employees went would receive a small raise and better insurance benefits
back to work for the same thing the company had the first of the year, Raines credibly testified he informed
offered before the strike. employees in early November that the Company was still
I don't want these things to happen here-to you prepared to review its position on the need for a "catch-
or to our plant. And it's for these reasons that I will up" raise at the end of the year and it was still working
use every legal and proper means at our disposal to on the insurance plan.6
keep this Union out of our plant. On December 11, the Union distributed a handbill
which was placed in the record as Respondent's Exhibit
Respondent's personnel manager, Blanton, corroborat- 17. The document depicts a number of figures seated
ed Foster's testimony by indicating that Foster read a around a bargaining table and states inter alia:
prepared speech during the meetings in question.
I credit Foster's assertion that the comments made ASK FIELDCREST WHAT'S NEW TODAY
about the Union during the late September meetings
were read from Respondent's Exhibit 31. While I foundFieldcrest, why didn't you tell us that other
portions of Foster's testimony to be suspect, Shelton was Fieldcrest workers under ACTWU contracts will
not a particularly impressive witness. He indicated when begin negotiating today for better wages and
testifying that he could not recall who, other than Hicks, fringes?
attended the meeting he attended, and he stated he did Is it a secret that workers ust like us, elicited by
not recall Foster referring to replacement of employees their fellow union members, will start bargaining
in event a strike occurred. Significantly, the General today in Eden, N.C.7
Counsel did not seek to corroborate his testimony Don't you want us to know that union Fieldcrest
through Hicks. In sum, I find that the General Counsel workers have a voice in their wages and working
has failed to offer sufficient evidence to prove the allega- conditions?
tion set forth at paragraph 10 of the complaint, and I According to Raines, the above-described handbill
recommend it be dismissed. caused him to meet with Scottsboro employees on De-
8. Conduct by Ozzie Raines cember 13 to discuss what had occurred in bargaining at
Eden, North Carolina. He asserts that he informed the
Paragraph 11 of the complaint alleges that on or about employees that nothing was new; that Fieldcrest was
November 5 Respondent promised employees additional meeting with the Union to negotiate a "catch-up" wage
benefits if they refrained from joining or engaging in ac- increase he had discussed with them in June; and that
tivities on behalf of the Union. The General Counsel any increase given in one part of the Company would be
sought to prove the allegation through the testimony of given everywhere. Raines testified that his supervisor,
employee Leland McCutcheon. who was privy to the negotiations in Eden, had informed
McCutcheon testified that at an employee meeting him that an offer had been made to the Union and, as it
held in early November Raines informed employees that had been favorably received and agreed upon in princi-
at the beginning of the year they would receive a small pie, he could announce to Scottsboro employees that
raise and better insurance benefits. they would receive a special wage adjustment and that
Raines, whose testimony was corroborated to some the insurance changes would be effective the first of the
extent by Respondent employee witnesses Edith Reed year. Raines admittedly made such announcement to em-
and Bonnie Jarell, indicated he spoke with Scottsboro ployees at the December 13 meeting. Subsequently,
plant employees about a raise and/or improved insurance when final agreement was presumably reached with the
coverage in June, November, and December.
Raines testified that all Fieldcrest employees were As revealed, infra, it is apparent that McCutcheon described what
given a wage increase in May 1979. The amount of the Raines told employees during meetings held on December 13.
e
!
"
Respondent's personnel manager, Blanton, corroborat- l t' i it
l r l t- p ^ t i t a r f figures seated
ti i 17 e i i l t t , i t fli :
i i Fieldcrest, i 't t ll t t t r
ti t l i l t r tr t ill
rti l rl i t ti ti t f r tt r
t
I s a sec r e t t h at ju t li , li it
ll t
t h e i r f e l lo w u n io r , ill t rt r i i
n E d e n , . .?
l ti 't t t t t i i l r t
r l l i i t ir r i
ti t f t t t l i t, i i , - cri d ill
r it i i .^caused i t t it tt r l -
t i ; t t
I i fr ,
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union several days later, Scottsboro Plant Manager their bargaining agent. The General Counsel sought to
Foster admittedly informed employees their special in- prove the allegations through the testimony of employee
crease of 1-1/2 percent and the improved insurance Garland Morris.
benefits would become effective on January 6, 1980. Morris testified that Charles Graves approached him
During cross-examination, Raines indicated that other while he was with employees Wilkes and Brown in mid-
companies in the textile industry reached wage settle- November and informed them "that the union wouldn't
ments in late June, July, or August which were, on an be any good for us." and that "we were just talking and
average, greater than the 7 percent given by Respondent wasting our money as far as paying union dues."
to its employees in May. Pointing to such testimony, the I find that Graves' noncoercive remarks were state-
General Counsel contends in his brief that Respondent ments of opinion which are permissible by virtue of Sec-
waited almost 4 months after learning of the higher set-
tlements to give Scottsboro employees a "catch-up" raise on c o te Act.
because it desired to influence them in the exercise of10. Conduct of Tommy Womack
their Section 7 rights. I am unable to agree.
In American Sunroof Corporation; Automobile Specialty Paragraph 13 of the complaint alleges that Supervisor
Corporation; American Sunroof Manufacturing Co., 248 Tommy Womack threatened on or about November 10
NLRB 748 (1980), the Board recently stated: to discharge employees if they joined or engaged in ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union. The General Counsel
The Board has long held that the granting of sought to prove the allegation through the testimony of
benefits during an election campaign is not per se employee Garland Morris.
unlawful where the employer can show that its ac- Morris testified that Womack approached him while
tions were governed by factors other than the pend-tions ere governed by fact rs t r t t - he was at a creel rack in mid-November and asked him if
ing election. And the Board has further held that an h was bend e non as ki
employer can meet this burden by showing that the he kn e w w h o w a s b e h m d th e U n o n, w h o w a s w o rk nge ployer can eet this burden by sho ing that the for it. When Morris told the supervisor he had no idea,
benefits granted were part of an already established for h e n M o r s t o ld t h e supervisor he had no idea,
company policy and the employer did not deviate he claims Womack stated if he found out who they werecompany policy and the employer did not evliate
from that policy upon the advent of the Union. h e w o u ld s e e t h a t they w e re terminated.
While Womack admitted discussing the Union with
In my view, Respondent has made such a showing with Morris in mid-November, his version of the conversation
respect to the benefits under discussion. is entirely different. He testified that initially the conver-
Here, the record reveals that the Union represents em- sation was about work and Morris turned it to a discus-
ployees at several of Respondent's plants, but the em- sion of the Union by telling him someone in the ware-
ployees at most plants, including the Scottsboro plant, house had given him a union button and he wore it one
are unrepresented. In May, Respondent successfully day and then took it off and threw it away. Womack as-
caused the Union to agree to a 7-percent across-the- serts he then "just stated some facts to him about the
board increase for unionized employees. It then gave a union." 7 Womack categorically denied that he asked the
companywide across-the-board wage increase of 7 per- employee if he knew who was for the Union and he
cent. While Respondent's intention, as announced by denied he told him if he found out who was for the
Raines in both June and November, was apparently to Union he would see that they were fired. He claims
reconsider wages and insurance the first of the year, the Morris asked him on one occasion if a person could be
Union successfully caused Respondent to agree to a 1- discharged if they were for the Union, and that he re-
1/2-percent "catch-up" wage increase and improved
group insurance in mid-December. Thereupon, Raines
announced employees would receive a raise and im- At the time of the heing Morris who was an im-
proved insurance at the end of the year and, within sev- pressve wtness no longer worked for Respondent. I
eral days, Foster announced the amount of the raise. credit his assertion that Womack asked him if he knew
Again, the benefits were given companywide. who was behind the Union and threatened to see that
In sum, I conclude that Respondent has shown that, such person was fired if he discovered their identity. I
regardless of the presence or absence of union activity find that Respondent, through Womack's described con-
and/or a scheduled election, Scottsboro plant employees duct, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act as alleged.
would have been informed in mid-December 1979 that at
the end of the year they would receive a 1-1/2-percent C. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations
pay raise and improved group insurance which were As indicated, supra, the General Counsel claims that
being given companywide. Consequently, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act during
General Counsel has failed to prove that Respondent the 1979 union organizational campaign by suspending
promised the benefits in question to influence Scottsboro and then discharging Wanda Willmon, transferring and
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. then laying off William Dodson, and by discharging Ray
9. Conduct of Charles Graves Hughey. Such contentions are discussed individually
below.
Paragraph 12 of the complaint alleges that on or about
November 12 Supervisor Charles Graves informed em-
ployees it would be futile for them to select the Union as ' Womack did not elaborate,
i - x i ti i i i il i l il i i
il i t ttl i t t t t i l '
l l
, t t t i t ti i i
t it l i . i ti t t ti , t ' r i
eneral s l c t s i is ri f t t t r i si l i t f
i t i t-
c
.
,
l f l r t l t t
, ,, . , .tion wee gvernd b f torsothr tan te pnd- e as at a creel r in i - e er as e i if
i l ti . t r s f rt r l t t h e w a s ehin the-n , who hing
l t t i i t t t he ri . When or is t th e u n o n r h o as o r k ng
f t li r it . W r n r i r
li l r i t vi t he c l aim
s W m a k t t if f t t
l
l see that were

t. il t' i t ti , as a ce e ie he told hi if he found out ho as for the
i i t ,
r i r i r t i t t ,
i s ssf ll t t t i i
t p
r i r i i - r. , A t o the h ,M
i p A te t h e t nm e o f t h e hlongr orkesd i -
"^^ w lt n e ss, n o lo n e w o r k e d f o r
c r e d t h s
i , t it .
w h o w a s b e h th e o n a n d
su c h n w a s fir e d f h e i t i i tit . I
d
)(l) t t ll .
T h e
a, r l l
i i y i . ntl , t ti
r l l f il t t t t i i ti l i i
r i t fit i ti t i fl tt t i r i ill f rri
l i t i t i ti i t . , i r i
.
co
.WhenMor i bo
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 921
1. The Wanda Willmon situation daily basis for 4-5 weeks. At the end of that period,
Wanda Willmon was hired by Respondent to work as Murphy and Wilkins were making expected earnings, but
an elastic binder in June 1973.Hambrick and Willmon were not. Cameron testified hean elastic binder in June 1973.
During both the 1978 and the 1979 union organization- discussed the situation with both Hambrick and Willmon
al campaigns Willmon actively supported the Union. but neither was able to improve her performance suffi-
Thus, she testified that, in addition to signing an authori- ciently to meet the 4.54 expected earnings rate set for
zation card during the 1978 campaign, she wore a union the job.
button and T-shirt in the plant and passed out union lit- Apparently both Hambrick and Willmon realized by
erature. Similarly, when the 1979 campaign began, she late September that they were not going to be able con-
signed a card, became a member of the in-plant organiz- sistently to make expected earnings of $4.54 in the elastic
ing committee, and, from the third week in September binding job. Thus, Hambrick transferred to another job
on, wore a union button in the plant." Respondent con- at the end of the payroll period ending September 30.10
cedes management officials were aware of Willmon's At or about the same time, Willmon, on October 3, filled
prounion sentiments during the 1978 and 1979 cam- out two requests for transfer-one for a goods- handler
paigns. position in the laundry and one for a forklift operator's
Until July 1979, elastic binders accomplished their as- job in the shipping department." Willmon was offered
signed task of sewing elastic binders completely around the goods-handler position in the laundry on October 4
toilet lid covers by using a single needle sewing machine and she refused it."
which guided and secured the elastic binder completely During the payroll period ending September 30, 1979,
around the outside edge of the lid covers. In July, Re- employee Sue Stephens, who had previously worked as
spondent changed the procedure by cutting the lid an elastic binder employee, returned to the job classifica-
covers in such a manner as to make approximately three- tion from layoff. From that time until Willmon was ter-
fourths of the cover round and the remaining one-fourth minated during the payroll period ending November 25,
a straight cut which extended from the two points where 1979, both Stephens and Willmon failed during each
the circle and/or arc stopped. The sewing technique was week to make expected earnings of $4.54 per hour. I Ca-
then changed and the elastic was sewn on the outside meron testified that he gave employee Stephens an oral
edge of the circular portion of the lid cover only. When warning for poor production on October 15, but did not
sewing the newly designed lid cover, the elastic binders warn or discipline her further because she thereafter im-
continued to use a single needle machine to sew the proved her performance every week.binder from the starting point (beginning of the arc) to
the stopping point (end of the arc). However, when the Willmon received the first of several warnings for
stopping point was reached, the operator was required to poor production on October 10. On that date she was
remove the lid cover from the single needle machine and orally warned by Superintendent Cameron for failing to
use a so-called bar tack machine to place a securing make expected earnings." A second verbal warning was
stitch across the elastic at the stopping point or corner. issued on October 15.15 The oral warnings were followed
After the above-described lid change was made, Re- by a written warning on October 19. 16 She was then
spondent conducted a timestudy of the operation while warned verbally on November 12," and received a
Kerri Wilkins, one of its more proficient elastic binders, second written warning on November 14. 1 Upoh receiv-
was performing the new job. The timestudy led to estab-
lishment of a new piecework rate and a new expected See G.C. Exhs. 3(k)-().
earnings rate for the job. The new expected earnings rate ;F See R pe. Exhs. 6 and 7.
earnings rate for the job. The new expected earnings rate 12 Willmon stated during her testimony that she did not recall being
was $4.54 per hour. offered the job. Personnel Manager Blanton testified that he offered the
During the 10-week period extending from mid-July to employee the job and she refused it. I credit Blanton.
the end of the third week in September, the employees I" Their actual average hourly earnings during the weeks mentioned
working in the elastic binder job classification were are revealed by G.C. Exhs. 3(k)(s). Their average hourly earnings forwark. .. . .a .b . ...ck,.Betty.urphy, ,, .Wilkins.. n weeks ending September 9 through November 25 were:
Martha Hambrick, Betty Murphy, Kerri Wilkins, and
Wanda Willmon. According to Willmon, all the girls Willmon Stephens
complained about the new piecework rate set for the job S3.517 53.261
but nothing was done about it. Thus, during the 10-week 3.6281 3.521
period under discussion, Murphy and Wilkins regularly 3.646 3.801
made expected earnings of $4.54 per hour, but Hambrick 4.026 3.989
and Willmon, who each worked 9 of the 10 weeks, made 4.261 4.052
expected earnings of $4.54 per hour only during the 4.377 4.112
week ending August 10. 4189 4254
Respondent Superintendent Cameron testified that he 4.2 .
followed the work of the elastic binders carefully subse- 4. 4.
quent to the change in the job. After the change, he indi- ee G.C. Exh. 4(a). 4484
cated he informed the operators of their earnings on a , See G.C. Exh. 4(c).
"' See G.C. Exh. 4(e).
'The same type of union button was worn during both organizational " On November 12, Willmon refused an offer of a forklift job in the
campaigns. See G.C. Exh. 7. shipping department. See Resp. Exh. 7.
* See G.C. Exhs. 3(a)-C(). ' See G.C. Exhs. 4(b) and (d), respectively.

l
an d w er e e ar n in s, b u t
an elastic binder . Hambrick l ti
i ti i t it ti it t ri ill .
l i l ti l
b ut ne t h e r w as ab l t o anc ffi
ti i i t ri
to m ee t t h e $4 54 t r i r t t f r
ti i
10
,
.
,

l , t t j l i i
ti l . t t ti til ill t r-
t i t i t ll i i r ,
,
. . "
t l

p performance every week.
P '
'
i gs."
m
"
17
ri " fi
" C . E . ( 1).
earni gs te f t j . e ex ecte earnings rate ;: See Rep. Exhs. 6 and 7.earnins ratefor e . et ni l o t l
.
L" T h ei r
r i i t l ti i j l i i ti r r l . . s. ( H ). ir r l r i f r
Mart aH mbri , t y Murphy, Keri ilkins, a d .weeks
n y, em
ill
$ . $

. .t
.4gg.189 4.254
. 62 4.199
"1S .c 4 4 8 4
is . . . .
-' c
e
. f.
'Se )-(j "8 .

pe c t ed g
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing the second written warning, Willmon was suspended Willmon and Hambrick made expected earnings on only
for I day. 1' one occasion. At that point, Hambrick sensibly trans-
Willmon took her I-day suspension on November 15. ferred to another job and Willmon applied for transfer to
She returned to work on Friday, November 16, and two other positions. It was in the described context that
worked that day and the next, Saturday. On Tuesday, Stephens entered the job classification during the last
November 20, Cameron called her to his office and in- week in September. After working in the job classifica-
formed her, in the presence of Personnel Manager Blan- tion for 3 weeks, Stephens was orally warned for poor
ton, that he was suspending her pending discharge for production. 2 Cameron testified that, although Stephens
bad work and poor production. He produced a toilet lid did not immediately make expected earnings after the
cover which had the elastic sewn past the corner and in- October 15 oral warning, he did not warn her further be-
formed her she had sewn 115 lids in such a fashion.20 In cause she responded to the warning and her performance
addition, he showed her a ticket indicating the number of improved each week. His assertion is statistically veri-
menders, and she stated she did not think she had that fied. 23 On the other hand, Willmon did not receive her
many. Willmon testified she did not intentionally sew first oral warning for poor production until October 10,
elastic improperly on toilet lids under discussion. 2 at which point she had failed to make expected earnings
10 out of 12 weeks. 24 Further, after she was warned for
Discussion poor production on October 10, Willmon's average
While the General Counsel has adequately shown that hourly earnings per hour the next week dropped to 3.646
Willmon was an active union adherent and Respondent and they thereafter remained under $4.54 through the
was aware of her prounion sentiments, he has failed to payroll period ending November 25.25
prove that she was suspended or discharged because she In sum, Stephens worked 3 weeks as an elastic binder
engaged in protected conduct. and was reprimanded for low production. She improved
Lacking direct evidence which would prove that Re- her production and was not further warned or disci-
spondent suspended and discharged Willmon because she plined. Or the other hand, Willmon actually worked in
was active on behalf of the Union, the General Counsel the job classification for 11 weeks before she was given a
claims disparate treatment and contends that the employ- warning for poor production. She was offered jobs in
ee was falsely accused of producing 115 bad toilet lid other classifications on October 4 and November 12 but
covers. I conclude that the evidence fails to establish refused them. It is clear, and I find, that Respondent did
either contention. not treat Willmon disparately.
With respect to the claim of disparate treatment, the Similarly, I find that I am unable to credit Willmon's
General Counsel specifically contends that Stephens and assertion that she did not deliberately sew the elastic on
Willmon both failed to make expected earnings during 115 toilet lids incorrectly. Respondent had approximately
October and November, but only Willmon was punished 115 such lids at the hearing and Cameron testified that
for it. In making such a contention, the General Counsel when they arrived at the inspection department they had
ignores some relevant record facts. Thus, as indicated dye tickets on them which contained Willmon's initials.
above, Willmon and Hambrick were working in the elas- When she was terminated, Willmon was shown the dye
tic binder job classification in mid-July when the expect- tickets and admittedly commented she did not think she
ed earnings rate for the job was changed from $4.25 per had that many menders. Moreover, the General Counsel
hour to $4.54. During the following 10-week period offered no evidence which would show that one of the
other elastic binders produced the imperfect lids. In the
" A copy of Respondent's work rules, which are posted on bulletin circumstances, I find that Respondent justifiably decided
boards in the plant and which appear on the back of the disciplinary that Willmon had deliberately sewed the elastic on ap-
action form used by Respondent, was placed in the record as Reap. Exh.
23. The rules are divided into four groups, groups A, B, C, and D. Viola- proximately 115 toilet lid covers in an improper manner.
tion of group A, B, and C rules leads to immediate suspension and possi- In sum, I find that the General Counsel has failed to
ble discharge. In this case, Respondent contends that employees Willmon establish, prima facie, that Respondent suspended or dis-
and Hughey violated group D rules. The applicable rules and the penal- charged Willmon for discriminatory reasons. I fd in-
GROUP D-WRITTEN WARNING (In case of a second viola- stead that the record reveals she was suspended and dis-
tion of a Group D rule within six months, the employee will be sus- charged for cause.
pended for from one to ten days without pay. In case of a third vio-
lation within six months, the employee will be discharged. A Group 2. The Ray Hughey situation
C violation within six months of a suspension under Group D will
result in discharge. A Group D offense within six months of suspen- Ray Hughey was hired by Respondent as a janitor in
sion under Group C will result in suspension.) July 1978. In September 1979, he was promoted to the
19. Irregular attendance; absence without permission; repeated tar-
diness. position of tub operator. The record reveals that tub op-
20. Inefficiency or negligence in the performance of duties. erators are the employees that dye the rugs and fabrics
21. Permitting avoidable waste of material or supplies. utilized at the Scottsboro plant. During the short period
"0 Willmon recalled the number as 150. She incorrectly recalled the
date of the occasion as being Monday, November 19. Cameron claimed
there were 115 bad lid covers and they were made available for inspec-
tion by the General Counsel. I credit Cameron. " She received such oral warning on October 15. See G.C. Exh. 4(z).
" As the General Counsel failed to show that some other elastic binder " See fn. 13.
may have sewn the lids improperly and the batch of lids was accompa- " She made expected earnings only during the week ending August 10,
nied by Willmon's dye ticket which was initialed by her, I do not credit but she was absent a week.
her denial that she sewed the defective lids. See G.C. Exhs. 3(l)-3(s), and see fn. 13.
1 ."'one
1-

" 2

"
, '
2
1

boards in the plant and which appear on the back of the disciplinary
t t i l l l i r a t e l y t -
tion f r s s t, s l in t r r s ea . . prxmtlII5oieldcvrsnanmrprmne.
, c, . viola-proximately i o er .
,
i . t i , t t s t at e ployees ill on esta lis , ri facie, that espondent suspended Or dis-
ties for violation ar e: char
g ed i l l o n f o r discriminatory reasons. I find in-
s t e a d t h a t t h e r e c o r d e v e l s

.

i
c lt i i . l . I t . r t t t
ties,.erators
t ri l r li . tili at t e c tts r plant. uring the short period
1 h okda u prtr uhyidctdh e
od a a tub operator, Hughey indicated he re-
"

"
deliberately sewed the elastic on ap
m
had
: c ged l
s
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 923
ceived a raise which was given to him in two steps. He When he appeared as a witness, Layfield described the
further claims that both Supervisor Chambers and his im- tub operator's job in detail and indicated he felt that
mediate supervisor, Denton Layfield, told him he was Hughey's negligence caused the spotting of 17 rugs.
doing a "damned" good job; that they had not seen Thus, Layfield testified the tub operator begins the dying
anyone do a job like that before in 4 weeks. operation by filling a large tub with water. He then puts
In mid-November, Hughey claims Chambers instruct- certain chemicals in the water and goes to the dye room
ed him to go to Layfield's office. According to Hughey, to get the dye(s) needed to obtain the color desired. The
when he got to the office Layfield asked, "How do you dye is then placed in a 3-gallon bucket, water is added,
feel about the Union?" Hughey claims he told Layfield and the mixture is placed under a nozzle which heats the
he was for the Union and had worked for 7 or 8 years at water to a boil. The operator then stirs the mixture and
a unionized plant. He testified that Layfield commented pours it through a strainer into a second bucket. The tub
that his wife worked at a union plant and it did not do operator then uses two dippers to put the dye mixture in
her any good. At that point in the conversation, Hughey the tub, which has the carpets to be dyed in it. Accord-
claims Layfield asked him what was wrong between him ing to Layfield, the operator half fills one dipper with
and Ronald (Blanton). Hughey stated he replied, "You water and the second with the dye mixture. Then, he
know what is wrong between me and Ron," and Lay- adds dye mixture to the dipper holding water and simul-
field responded, "Well, you've been wearing a union taneously spills the diluted dye mixture into the tub as he
committee button." Hughey testified the conversation moves the dipper across it
ended with him saying, "You know I have, because es t n
you've seen me wear it." Respondent produced the rug shown to Hughey on
~you've seen me wear it." November 28. It was a dark brown rug which measured
On November 28, Hughey arrived at the plant at ap- approximately 1/2 by 5 feet and had a large red spot
proximately 2:30 p.m. He testified that he accepted some appy i i
union literature from an organizer who was standing 7 nches the center and severalunion literature from an organizer who was standing smaller red spots. Layfield testified that such spots were
some 30 to 40 feet from the guard shack and talked toso e 30 to 40 feet fro the guard s ac a tal e t caused when the operator failed to properly mix and
the organizer for about 5 minutes before he entered the caused when the operator failed to properly mix and
plant. Hughey indicated that Superintendent Chambers strain the dye in the bucket before putting it in the tub.26
was at the guard shack looking directly at him at the He indicated there was no doubt in his mind that Hugh-
time. When he punched in to go to work at 3 p.m., ey's negligence was the cause of the spotting.
Chambers told him that Denton wanted to see him in his Layfield denied that he refused to show Hughey the
office. other 16 rugs which had been spotted. He indicated he
Hughey described what happened when he went to took the one rug shown to the employee on November
Layfield's office as follows: 28 to the office for safekeeping and directed that the re-
maining 16 be stripped and redyed, but claims the spots
A. He said he was going to have to give me four could not be removed and they were sold for 10 cents a
days off and I said, for what? He said for spotting a pound as seconds." Layfield testified the dye ticket
load of rugs, and I said, where is the rugs? He says which accompanied the load of rugs which had been
right there is one of them and I said, where is the spotted had been lost prior to the hearing.
rest of them and he never did say and I asked him Layfield indicated during his testimony that he had
for the ticket they was run on and he said "I don't been on sick leave for 3 weeks prior to returning to
have to show you the ticket," he said, "There's one work on November 5. He claims that when he returned
rug, that's good enough for me" and then I said, to work Ron Blanton told him he had seen Hughey
"You mean you are giving me four days off for wearing a union button in the vending room. According
that" and he says, "Yeah." I says, "You are not to Layfield, he later spoke to Hughey outside his office
giving me four days off, you are firing me, ain't and informed him, "Ray, Ron told me that you was seen
you?" He said, "It looks that way." wearing a union button." He claims the employee re-
Q. Okay, did Mr. Layfield tell you how many plied, "Yeah, I was playing around with some women-
rugs you had spotted? joking with some women." Asked why he made the
A. He said seventeen. comment, Layfield stated, "Well, to feel him out, how he
Q. Did you spot seventeen rugs? felt about it." 2'
A. I didn't, no, because he didn't show me the
ticket on them, or show me the rest of the rugs." Employee John Anderson, who had been a tub operator for 2-1/2
years, was shown the rug in question and testified he was of the opinion
Hughey admitted on cross-examination that he told Lay- that undissolved dye caused the spots in the rug.
field at the time he was terminated that if he were not " The rugs under discussion are made exclusively for Sears and are
such an old man he would "haul his ass across the desk sold to them for 40 apiece. Layfield denied that Hughey asked to see
the rest of the rugs and claims they were in a buggy outside his office at
and whip him." the time. I credit his denial.
According to Hughey, a fellow tub operator, " Layfield neither admitted nor denied that his wife's experience work-
Leland McCutcheon, had spotted four to five loads ing under union conditions was discussed. I am convinced Layfield did
of rugs (140 to 150 per load) several nights before not fully describe the mid-November conversation with Hughey. As indi-cated, supr, Layfield denied he asked employee Hicks if he was still for
November 28, and Layfield simply told him the the Union like he was the last time and I have credited Hicks. I credit
next day to strip them and redye them. Hughey's version of the mid-November conversation.
t
,.operation
i l

. t

, , t t i it.
l i i t
l . ,

. .
it i i , , o the ru s t g
vou've seen me wear it"~~Respondent
you've seen me ,. .November t
r 28, rri t t l t t - xi t ly 6- / f t l
r i t l : . . t tifi t t t r imately 7 i l in t ct a
t i r t i BPâ„¢"^
7 ' c e " "tecne n eea
i n ite ni di field
k e e n t t l ed t pe mi r
t r i r f r t i t f r t r t t r t r f il t r rl i
plant. ughey indicated that uperintendent ha bers Hs t r a n t h eii a th e bucket before putting it in the tub.'g
tl H e "
l t tti .
l f t t
to o k t h e o n e sh o w n t o t h e l
t o t e

I

.

en-

,2

O .„ l r , t r t r f r - /
ti tif i i

so ld t o th em fo r $O fi ld d e ni d t t
se c
t i i i t
and hip hi ." ti e. i l
Oper t M
S
l r l i t f r not fully describe the id- ove ber conversation ith Hughey. As indi-t , m, feld
Si
St
1ome ih
apxmaey n
s * te nradsvrl
t t
f lt t it."" a
unio litratre f a oranizr wh wa stadin approximately 7 inches long in the center and s veral
r
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Layfield's version of the discharge conversation was to motivating factor in his discharge. Consequently, pursu-
the effect that he told Hughey he had two previous ant to the causation test spelled out in Wright Line, a Di-
warnings and this-spotting of goods came up-and he vision of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), I turn
would have to suspend him pending discharge. Layfield to an examination of the evidence offered by Respondent
recalled Hughey replied, "You know G- d- well that to demonstrate that it would have terminated the em-
ain't the reason I am being fired"; that Hughey then ployee even in the absence of the protected conduct.
called him foul names; and then said "if he wasn't such Respondent's principal defense to the allegation that it
an old man he'd snatch him over the desk and beat his discharged Hughey because he supported the Union is
ass." that it has a company policy which dictates that an em-
Layfield denied knowing anything about McCutcheon ployee be terminated if he or she violates its group D
spotting 500 to 600 rugs and denied he ever told McCut- rules three times within a 6-month period. To support its
cheon, who worked the third shift while he worked the contention that Hughey had violated group D rules three
second shift, to strip down that number of rugs and times within a 6-month period, Respondent placed in evi-
redye them. dence as Respondent's Exhibits 19 and 20 disciplinary
According to Layfield, Hughey's union activities had action forms revealing that Hughey received written
nothing to do with his decision to discharge the employ- warnings on June 26, 1979, and August 7, 1979, for ab-
ee. Respondent placed in the record as Respondent's Ex- sence without permission which violated Rule 19. In-
hibits 19, 20, and 21 two forms entitled "Disciplinary spection of the form dated June 26 reveals that that in-
Warning Form" and a copy of a memorandum to fraction of the rules occurred on June 25. Having placed
Hughey from Layfield dated August 6, 1979. The disci- the above-described disciplinary forms in evidence, Re-
plinary forms reveal Hughey received an oral warning spondent caused Layfield to testify that Hughey's negli-
for being absent without permission on May 18, 1979, gent failure to completely dissolve dye before putting it
and written warnings for the same rule violation on June in the tub on November 27 caused the spotting of 17 of
26, 1979, and August 6, 1979. The August 6 memoran- 20 rugs and this action amounted to "[i]nefficiency or
dum states, inter alia: negligence in the performance of duties" within the
Having reviewed your att ndance with your su- meaning of group D Rule 20.29 Viewing the documents
discussed and considering Layfield's testimony, I notepervisor, it is my responsibility to advise you of the cussed and considering Layields testimony, I note
seriousness of your absentee problem. Your .super that Hughey did not violate group D rules three times in
sor has talked with you about your attendance a 6-month period. Instead, accepting Respondent's con-
ord ien you a written warnin and ha u tention that the rules were violated at the time indicated,
e ended you without pay for your failure to improve it appears Hughey's last violation occurred 6 months and
our attpended you without pay for yor faire to i ve 2 days after the June 25 violation. In the circumstances, Iyour attendance.
As you are aware, a third violation of our rules find that Respondent's defense that it discharged the em-
for absenteeism within six months is cause for your ployee pursuant to normal company policy because he
termination. It is the hope of the management of violated group D rules three times in a 6-month period
this company and my personal hope that you will does not withstand scrutiny. Accordingly, as I view the
improve your attendance so that you can continue situation, Hughey was terminated when, viewing the evi-
your employment in this mill. dence in a light most favorable to Respondent, he had
violated Respondent's rules only twice in a 6-month
Thank you, period. I find he was not terminated in accordance with
/s/ D. E. Layfield normal company policy, and conclude that Respondent
has failed to rebut the prima facie case of discriminatory
Layfield claims the sole reason for Hughey's termination discharge established by the General Counsel. It follows,
was the fact that he had three violations of group D and I find, that Respondent terminated Hughey in viola-
rules within a 6-month period and termination was auto- tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) as alleged.
matic under the rules. He denied that the employee's
union activity had anything to do with the decision to 3. The William Dodson situation
discharge him. William Dodson was hired by Respondent as a materi-
.~Discussion .als handler in July 1969. He was in layoff status at the
time of the hearing. When he was laid off on January 7,
The Hughey discharge presents a situation in which an 1980, Dodson had more plantwide seniority than all but
employee who was apparently progressing well in a new some 15 of Respondent's approximately 200 Scottsboro
job was discharged within a short time after Plant Per- plant employees.
sonnel Manager Blanton discovered he supported the When the Union conducted its 1978 organizational
Union and shortly after his immediate supervisor interro- campaign at the Scottsboro plant, Dodson was the chair-
gated him concerning his union sentiments, indicating at
the time that something was wrong between Blanton and See also G.C. Exh. 5(c). I note that such exhibit contains a notation
him. Moreover, the employee was apparently terminated that Hughey "Put Wrong Dye in a dye Run-11/16/79." Layfield gave
the first time he erred in the performance of his assigned no "vember 16, 1,cncnin an lleged violation of the rules by Hughey onNovember 16, 1979, and the record fails to reveal he was warned orally
duties. I find that these factors compel an inference that or in writing at that time. As Respondent failed to offer proof that he
the employee's participation in protected activities as a violated the rules on that date, I attach no importance to the notation.

.

i
t . i l
i i li i i , -
t tti
i t ti it i t
Having reviewed u-"meanin t
onsibilit i t dcus e i ri Layfield's testi ony, I note
seriousness of your absentee proble . Your supervi-
t h at Hge d id n o v io l
at e gopD r u les t r ee
t im es in
sor has talked it y t r tt c
a - t ri . I t , ti t' -
record, given ritt r i g s s s-
t en t o n t t l ,
pended you without pay for your failure to improve i
t appears ughey' s la s t v iol
a t io n o c c u r r e d 6 m o n t h s
a n d
your attendance. - *' 2 s after t J i l ti . I t ir t ,
r r , t i i l ti l
n d t h at
t i i r t t r l li because he
t i ti . It i
o la ted ri
this co pany and y personal t t ill
d o es no t it t r ti . i l , I i t
i r r tt t t ti si
t u at io n , w as t i t , i i t i
your l y t i t is ill.
d e nc e in a li t m os t f r l t t,
l
/ / . .

. T h e
t t i
Discussion als handler in July 1969. e as in layoff status at the
,

th at
i t f f is assigned "
no tsi ony concerning an alleged violation of the rules by Hughey on
the first time he erred in the performance of his assigned
i . il t ff r t t
.
a
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 925
man of the in-plant organizing committee. At the outset three options: (1) he could take a layoff; (2) he could bid
of the campaign, he informed his supervisor, Homer other jobs that would hopefully become open; and (3) he
Morris, about the second week in April that they had a could bump the youngest creeler mender on the yardage
union campaign going and he was going to do every- machine on the second shift. Dodson was given 2 days
thing he possibly could to see that the plant was orga- to make up his mind. According to Graves, he called
nized. During that campaign, he wore a union committee Dodson to his office 2 days later and Dodson, in the
button and a union T-shirt in the plant. presence of Graves, Blanton, and Supervisor Womack,
At the time the 1978 union campaign started, Dodson indicated he would take the creeler mender's job on the
was one of two raw materials handlers in the recently re- second shift. The job was in a new department and was
located Scottsboro plant. In July of that year Plant Man- open because the employee who had previously occu-
ager Foster requested that the industrial engineering de- pied the position, James Scott, had moved to the number
partment conduct a timestudy of the raw materials han- two tufting machine when the regular operator, Leonard
dler job classification. The manager of the department, Robinson, went to the hospital for a back operation on
Kenneth Potter, conducted the study and recommended Ootober 8. The creeler mender's job paid 19 cents less
that the department head operate with one raw materials
handler and reassign some of the duties to others. Subse- per h t
quently, Dodson was called to Morris' office where the e n d e le
supervisor informed him that his job as raw materials 7 1980 the number two machne
handler was being deleted. Prior to that time, Dodson operator, Robinson, returned to work. As Dodson had
testified he and the other raw materials handler unloaded only approximately 1 month on the creeler mender's job,
raw materials from trucks, stored the materials in a ware- he had no seniority rghts in the department and Scott
house, took raw materials to the area where they were to bumped back into his old job.31 Dodson was laid off and
be used, kept a record of all materials used each day, and was still in layoff status at the time of the hearing.
performed other miscellaneous tasks. When Dodson's Robinson testified that Plant Manager Foster tele-
raw materials handler position was deleted, he was told phoned him at the hospital on October 9, the day after
he could work as a bundle handler or as a materials han- his operation, and told him when he returned to work
dler. He chose the bundle handler position which paid 19 they would have someone do lifting that might be neces-
cents less per hour than his prior job. As a bundle han- sary in his job. Robinson indicated Graves also tele-
dler, he did not participate in unloading trucks or per- phoned him while he was in the hospital to see how he
form work in the warehouse. He moved bundles to and was getting along. He told neither when he intended to
from machines in the tufting area. While Dodson was return to work. On December 19, Robinson appeared at
senior to the second raw materials handler at the time, the plant to vote in the election. He then told Graves
one Steve Bynum, he was not informed why Bynum was and Supervisor Tommy Womack he would return to
retained to perform the raw materials handling work that work on January 7, 1980.
remained after the one position was deleted. Charges Since the raw materials handler job classification was
were filed with the Board alleging that Dodson was deleted on December 3, a probationary employee, Pete
transferred for discriminatory reasons, but they were dis- Bates, has unloaded trucks and stored raw materials in
missed. The Union lost the Board-conducted election the warehouse. When asked to describe other work
held at the plant in 1978. which Bates now performs, Potter indicated he did not
In June 1978, Dodson filed a request for transfer back know what else he did since his job was a sales job.
to the raw materials handler Job classification. In early Superintendent Graves testified that in August or Sep-
1979, Steve Bynum was promoted to supervisor and tember he observed that Dodson was idle a considerable
Dodson was transferred back to the raw materials han- portion of the time while performing the raw materials
portion of the time while performing the raw materials
T 0dler uj noob at his ld rate. capag handler job functions and this caused him to bring the
The Union commenced its 1979 organization campaign
matter to Foster's attention. Potter testified that Fosterat the Scottsboro plant the first week of September 1979. ae te o esrtion for te ha er
At that time, Dodson was again selected as the chairman ha n t e d sc p t o t a t e s
of the in-plant organizing committee. He testified with- osition to him on October 22 and asked thathe look it
out contradiction that he immediately spoke to Plant over, indicating he would get back to him. The job de-
Personnel Manager Blanton and Superintendent Charles scription in question was placed in the record as General
Graves and informed them they had a union campaign Counsel's Exhibit 6. It is a two-page document dated
going and he was going to do everything he could to see June 12, 1978, which superseded an earlier job descrip-
the plant was organized. During the 1979 campaign, tion dated November 13, 1972.32 The job description sets
Dodson again wore a union committee button and a
union T-shirt in the plant. He was the Union's observer " Respondent utilizes a system of departmental seniority. After 3
Board supervised election held on December 19. months in a job, an employee is accorded his full plantwide seniority in
at a Board supervised election held on December 19. the department. If an employee transfers to a new department, he or she
Or December 3, Graves informed Dodson his job was has no seniority until they have worked in the new department 3 months.
being deleted and the main tasks would be reassigned to When transferring to a new job in a new department, an employee has
others. 30 Graves further informed the employee he had the right to transfer back to his or her former job during the 3-month
probation period.
-" As the record reveals the 1978 timestudy of the job classification
10 The record reveals no other jobs were abolished at the Scottsboro was performed in June 1978, it is apparent the job description was updat-
plant during the 1979 organizational campaign. ed at that time.

nt, presence
i i i i l t t l r ' j
i l l i tl if i r
l t tt r l t. I l t t l t t l i l -
r t r t t t t i tri l i ri - i t iti , t
rt t t ti t f t t ri l - i l t
i r j l sifi ti n. t rt t, , i l ti
Kenneth Potter, c o n d u c t ed t h e s t ud y and recommended otober 8. The creeler ender's job paid 19 cents less
t t t rt t r t it t i l p h t the r m
f t ti t others. Subse- been deleted.
tl , ll t rri ' ffi r t O January 7,.198, t ng
^ "B^ 7 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e n u m l e r t w o ^'"B m a c h l n e
t .
I '
h e h a d ig tt
i l j b."3 l i ff
w a s s
i
,
,
, t t r is- t s, as l a e trucks and stored ra aterials in
.
I , fil t t
r aw j sifi ti n. rl ri t ti
r i r r t t i l i r bl
rino ewiepromn eil
Ser~~b a~~lns old'SS r a w~~p 0 1'110 o f t h e t im e w h i l e r i'^ ri l
dler job 'comm'enced ias 1979 organization campaign
h an d le r jo b f u nc t io n s an d t h i s c a us ed h i t o b
r i n g th e
The Uion ommeced ts 179 oganiatio camaign atter t ster's attention. tter testifie t at ster
t t tt r l t t fir t k f t r 1979. hande d t o des cr iption fother matials handler
t t t ti , i l t t ir p d ed t h hi es c tbt r 2o a t h e ara w tt m ls he al do l e r
t i i . ti P iti r
i ti i t l o v e
r ,
l l ri t ri ti
i i i t
r t i l e i rli j ri -
i ,' , .11 j cri ti t
i t
i W ' Ob erv r iz t l
»t n BoArd «upervised , lection *„ld A1^.1 **c r t. 10months i j , a l i ccor d i ll i ni rit i
S r i r . t rt t. If l tr f r t rt t, r s
.
t he to tr ansfer bac to h s or h fo
t he 3 mo nt
-
,
di a~~lns old'SS p "
e a
e
b n o

926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forth some 22 numbered job tasks to be performed by showed that on the day of the study Dodson had 420.69
the raw materials handler. Asterisks appear before job minutes of working time with 36.18 minutes personal,
tasks numbered 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 21 and lines are idle and fatigue time, after Potter deleted the 24 job tasks
drawn over the words spelling out the job tasks. The fol- which Graves felt should be deleted from the study, the
lowing notation appears at the bottom of page 2 of the time required to accomplish the remaining 10 tasks was
document: "These are the duties that we could remove computed to be about 2-1/2 hours. According to Potter,
with ease": 33 The notation was initialed by Charles it appeared to him, at that stage, that the raw materials
Graves on October 22, the date Foster gave the docu- handler job was not a full job and he recommended to
ment to Potter. Foster that the classification be abolished and that the
The record reveals that Foster directed Potter to con- duties be assigned to others.
duct a timestudy of the raw materials handler job on No- When he appeared as a witness, Potter described the
vember 7. According to Potter, the purpose of the times- jobs which had been deleted for various reasons in
tudy was to ascertain whether the raw materials handler recent years. Going back to 1975, Potter testified that
job was a full job. Potter, in turn, assigned the task to his during that year four job classifications were deleted.
assistant, Carolyn Williams. The basic study she conduct- First, a fixer job and a fixer helper job were eliminated
ed was placed in the record as Respondent's Exhibit 11. because machinery the employees fixed was moved to a
That document contains a description of the tasks per- different department and Respondent had fixers in the
formed by Dodson on the day of the timestudy, indicat- new department who could perform the duties involved.
ing the amount of time spent at each task. Utilizing the A third job designated as a grading inspector job and a
basic timestudy as a source document, Williams prepared fourth designated as a service operator's job were abol-
a summary of the job study which was placed in the ished in 1975, but Potter gave no reason for the action.
record as Respondent's Exhibit 13. According to both Asked if other jobs had been eliminated before 1978,
Potter and Graves, they got together after the prepara-
tion of the summary, which lists some 34 different job "E. Duck roll to tufting machine." Graves testified creeler menders
tasks performed by Dodson on the day of the study and should obtain it for the same reason they should obtain yarn.
the time it took him to perform them, and reviewed it. "5. Transfer skids to yardage area and skids aside and stocks side by
During that review, Graves indicated that 24 of the tasks side." Graves testified the creeler menders should perform the function.
"6. Aside skids in storage area." Graves testified the work should be
performed on the day of the study were either unneces- performed by the man who moved the yarn and the creeler mender
sary or were tasks that could more appropriately be per- should do it.
formed by supervision, quality control personnel, creeler "7. Clear yardage area-Pick up boxes etc." Graves testified creeler
menders, or others. 3 4 Thus, while the raw timestudy menders should perform the work."9. Transport yarn in storage." Graves testified the work was unneces-
sary-it was "make-up" work.
" The job functions lined out by Graves and his reasons for deleting "12. Weight check-fringe." Graves testified he felt the job should be
them are: performed by someone in supervision or responsible for quality. He then
"5 ... sign bill as acceptance for shipment." Graves testified Dodson testified Bryan Wright, a supply room clerk, was performing the function
was not an authorized agent of the Company. at the time of the hearing.
"8. Obtain sample covers on each new 'lot' and then send to Quality "13. Take fringe to be checked-Sample area." Graves simply testified
Control." Graves testified the samples should be obtained by quality con- the supply room clerk, who also unloaded trucks and stored raw materi-
trol personnel but failed to explain why. als in the storage area, performed the functions at the time of the hearing.
"9. Keep supervisor informed of inventory on different types of raw "14. Put unused cones of yarn in carton." Graves said it was creeler
materials." Graves testified Respondent has some kind of weekly report menders' work.
which keeps them advised. The report was not described. Additionally, "15. Get key from truck." Graves said there was no reason to take the
he testified the creeler menders were close to the situation and would be key from the truck.
aware of any deficiencies. "16. Get empty box to put cones of yarn in." Graves testified the
"10 ... assist to thread up tufting machines as instructed." Graves creeler menders took the yarn out and should put the cones in boxes.
testified the raw materials handler has never performed the job, that "17. Help get yarn for yardage machine." Graves testified creeler
yardage machine operators and creeler menders do it. menders are responsible for getting the yard for the tufting machines.
"12. Cut square yard of material from each machine to insure correct "18. Put sodium Pertonate on greasy floor." Graves testified it is the
weight. Inform supervisor of weight from each machine daily." Graves janitor's job.
testified the work could be performed by creeler menders who were "19. Transfer Yarn-Place on skid in yardage area." Graves testified it
right at the machine, while the raw materials handler's work area was is part of the creeler menders' job.
100-125 feet away (the location of the storage area). He claimed creeler "20. Pick up yarn off floor-storage area." Graves testified creeler
menders make other cuts and they could make one more. menders are responsible for getting yarn from the storage area and if they
"13. Cut piece of goods from each machine daily to be dyed for qual- drop some it is their responsibility to pick it up.
ity check." Graves testified the job could be done by the creeler mender. "21. Straighten boxes of yarn-Storage." Graves testified once yarn is
"16. Transport barrels of spray latex to assigned storage area in Laun- placed in the storage area it need not be moved until used.
dry." Graves testified the truckdriver delivering the product takes it to "23. Clear area near tufting machine." Graves testified it was work
the storage area. which should be performed by men at each tufting machine.
"17. Make up barrel of aluminum sulfate to be put in latex pit." Graves "27. Stock duck rolls in storage." Graves testified that once duck rolls
testified the function has long since been discontinued. are placed in storage area further handling was not necessary until it was
"21. Spot check vendors weights of raw materials." Graves testified used.
the task should be performed by a supervisor and that Tommy Womack "30. Write on Box-Note." No reason for deletion given.
was performing it at the time of the hearing. "31. Stock skids in storage area." Graves testified creeler menders
" The items deleted by Graves from Reap. Exh. 13 and the reasons he should do the work.
gave for deleting them are (items "D" and "E" appear on p. 1I The num- "32. Aside waste, boxes, cones." No reason for deletion given.
bered items appear on p. 2 and 3): "33. Get truck and return to stock boards." No reason for deletion
"D. Yar to tufting machine." Graves testified creeler menders should given.
move yarn from the storage area to the machines as they were at the ma- "34. Help work on fork-lift truck." Graves testified it was mechanics'
chines and knew when they needed yarn. work.
, , e

i
t . i t , tt r testifie t at
t, li i t

t
r t ti i . t tifi r l r r
St
S.
tif l
.
rf r t f t St i - m l
t.
`" .
` .
3 .
. .
.
m
l
. m
0. m
7. m cc
. . n
.
m
.
6.
.
7. .
ntinued,.are
.
.
11 s
. .
.
m
'
m
m
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 927
Potter replied that he recalled that a yard handler classi- before the job study was conducted to abolish Dodson's
fication and a dust handler classification had been abol- job.
ished. He did not provide the reason they were abolished Moving to the timestudy itself, I note that the job de-
or the date on which they were abolished. Asked what scription indicates a major duty of the raw materials han-
jobs other than the raw materials handler position held dler was to unload trucks and store the raw materials in
by Dodson were abolished in 1978, Potter indicated that a storage area. Or the day the study was conducted,
four truckdriver jobs were eliminated after Respondent Dodson did not perform those functions. He apparently
completed its move from its old plant to the present was simply occupied, in main, in moving needed raw
plant. Additionally, he recalled that a ticket printer clas- materials from the storage area to the machines and
sification in the packaging department was deleted at keeping both areas clean and uncluttered. When the raw
some unspecified time. He gave no reason for the dele- timestudy revealed that Dodson did not have a particu-
tion of that job. Asked what job classifications other larly large amount of idle time the day of the study,
than the raw materials handler classification were deleted Graves got together with Potter and told him supervi-
in 1979, he stated a beveling operator job classification sion should perform some of the tasks, quality control
which involved three employ0S Was eliminated as a employees should perform others, and creeler menden
reult of an operaFinally, Potter testified should perform others. Significantly, the raw materials
that int r classification in the pack- handler job description had caused the incumbent in that
[Ijob-lin" eliminated. No reason for t.d-, ,jb classification to perform most of the listed functions
f e job was given. .s& since at least June 1978, when the latest job description
Discussion was issued. I attach little weight to the job study, and
--- less weight to Graves' self-serving subjective testimony
Clearly, the pivotal issue presented by A Ddon sit- to the effect that many o the jobs deleted by him should
dtin ist ' ' -' .'' erjinbclassifi- properly be performed by others.
. S.. remons or whether the Finally, I note that Graves, Potter, and Foster decided
reasons advanced are mere pretext as contended by the to eliminate Dodson's job and cause him to take a demo-
General Counsel. A secondary issue, which need not tion at the height of the Union's organization campaign
-. ..sriy e res o ved if the pivotal issue is resolved inhe resolved f th iv t l issue is resolved in and at the height of Respondent's own antiunion cam-
Nue, 1 SlW Qounl' I favor, is whether Respondent P, . -.- . .ri.umerous
caused Dodson to transfer to a creeler mender job know- m__ 0 w, F v tolative of Section
ing Robinson would return, SCQtt w '"'" ' .4a o"Tf'he Act. While Respondent sought to show
the job, and Dodsona ,,i ... ns that other jobs were eliminated as a result of timestudies
set forth bl"--' ..*I union activities during 1979, the only other job dc slsdM'Weiinated
.tr -- a . . .-umeits rather than valid . NW it wasduring that year wai a be ad it was
usmess considerations motivated Respondent to abolish eliminated because the wor ecessa
the raw materials handler job classification. Ddsos
According to the scenario advanced by Respondent, ather thanas a resu a timestudy in 1979.
Graves noticed thn t rg'-.- . . .. *.- 2 ' .'it a timestudy in 1979.
s - _..... ,ctors cause me to conclude and
....-- uuci irn .t..ey prepare'a times. -"" ' tnat me reasons assigned by Respondent for the
tudy on the job to see if it was a full 8-hour-a-day job. elimination of the raw materials handler job classification
Graves failed to indicate how often or exactly when he on December 3, 1979, are pretextual. As elimination of
observed Dodson when he was idle and he failed to indi- his job classification led to Dodson's transfer to thecreeler mender job and subsequently to his layof
cate why, if he first observed an inactive Dodson in creeer mener b and bsequently to h y
August or even September, he waited until October to as alleged, that the transfer and the subsn E
discuss the matter with Foster. As Dodson testified with- were accomplished in violation of Section (
out contradiction that he informed both Graves and of the Act as alleged.
35
Blanton in early September that they had a union cam- ar'-c
paign underway and he intended to do everything he IV. THE REPRESENTAT' -
could to see that the plant was organized, I strongly sus- Or October 19, 1979. - -I he petition in
pect the employee's candid discussion with Graves and Case 10-RC-l19m -. autiation for Certifi-
Blanton triggered the decision to abolish his job. That cation UpC='. . , an election was held
suspicion is bolstered by the fact that General Counsel's among andent in an appropriate unit
Exhibit 6, the job description for the raw materials han- on r nion failed to win the election
dler job, reveals that, before Graves gave it to Foster, ' *ions to the election. Or March 26,
who gave it to Potter, Graves lined out a number of job i , ng Regional Director issued a Report on
Ti 'xca^C% t i on the bottom of the document, "Thee - - *
are the duties that we could remove with ease." If While he job classficaon wa eliminated, I note that the new em-
Graves wanted the job studied to ascertain whether it ploy dcifed a a supply clerk now pparently unloads trucksl stor
was a tfull-tim job, why the notation. The conclusion I w materals in a torae e, and tas sasmples of materials to qualityreach full thatime jobves, hand presumably notation. hel, contrusi on perI ionnel. Potter's unfamiliaty with the other functions per-
reach is that Graves, and presumably Foster as wll, formed by the supply clerk, as they are suppoedly sales related, suggets
since he had sucesslly utilized a timestudy to eliminate the poibility that the supply clerk is employed full time in the perform-
Dodson's raw materials handler job in 1978, decided ance of tasks previouly performed by the raw materia handler.
byI do eeaoi di 98 otridct ta trg ra rtedytesuywscn td
, t t t
r li in 1978, tter i icate t at a storage area. r the day the study was conducted,
t t i t t f ti . r tl
l t its fr its l l t t t e present as si ply occupied, in ain, in oving needed raw
l t. iti ll , r ll t at a ticket printer clas- aterials fro the storage area to the machines and
i i ti i t i t t l t t i
i i ti . reas f r t e ele- ti estudy revealed that odson did not have a particu-
ti t t j . t j classificati s t er larly large a ount of idle ti e the day of the study,

npoyoSt as li i l l rf t r , r l r r
su Fin lly. tt st fiedragul rf r t rs. i ifi ntly, t r aterials
t t i \W^I~f|II~ t M O l ifi ti n acs- l cri ti
^^^-s li i t . r ta^Bte-, , ifi ti i
lfejo ;a l t t j cri ti
iscussion as iss . I tt c littl i t t t j t , and
--- less eight t raves' s lfs rivi s j ctiv testi ony
w odo a
irtim -1-** *** ** - rja cla siti-
.. -eans
-C viy%--.v * f h pvtal issue is ~~ - treslve insncc~lr~y hereslvd te i oalisue i i i -
e, en46AS unbMl' f r, i Whet e S t eiiriamru
t sf r l r r j - T9F-M6-WMa tvolati e of Section
, cot w^ 1 Xq ' .- ^ ^Tro
dson ..r"' *"**~ n s l l i
p-" , * .. Is ti cu ifltfkini ilinate
____ · ·-* . . * -a etts rather than valid *", N 1 it was
o i r ti i t li rLk, ry
l l ifi ti . Dodson's
ri t, n rjnanas nui *« y
Graves noti~~~~~~~~d that T%--'--~~J'~~t a ti est y i 1979.
rae pfri.»*W , tJ "rB l
.. jumuunr r ia iney c r -i ~es-"""t 11netirathe i t
f t l l
tl . tion
s r i l f il t i i- i j l ifi ti l ' sfe
O^ D^ : ^ "oi~~~~~ed'Tn ^ ^ ^-,ceele ender job and s sq l t hit s la yree drjbad lsqety i
a S a l le e d , t h a t '
. li i i l ti f ti (
1
0 Uni ir'",',ttu-
.
0 #ihe t
l ' i i i it r s O- -l 19 -. c pitation for ertifi-
p #W, l ti l
i i is l t r t fact t t r l sel's a a ,<»ndent in an appropriate unit
AkO il t i t l ti
it t t r, ',,*.ons to the election. r arch 26,
. i
tl~'\~a^VaVtfa iv ' " - l ··
. » il t j l suscati i li i t . te t t t e e c -
(raves j t i t rt i t r it ployn dmoifd as a supply clerk now apparently unloads trucks. stores
n l ion m teci h i wwle sm d tae sampltes f aterials to qualityreach irthat C~rves, presuably Paer y wd, contr personnel. p tter's unfamiliarity it t t f tions r-
os el l l , * t wsl l l t , t
es fu t sibilit that the supply clerk it e ployed full time in the perform-
ials , i f t sks r i l perfor ed by the ra atcriab handler.
s
ma& -
t t _ - - vtolativ
w/- *Trorfhe
r'ne jna
1 um iiai
r
i ~ ed'T v~~~son~creeler
t ti
t ti l ti (
t l .

e i ls
t tifi ra
\ I f|II t i i i -
-FI9W
,y
sil oniM il d
n
lt
1nc h t
T
ojfn
lkINIMf'ile nat
"e
j ubsqety to his l
B"^^. ^
cument,' ce"Mf-t ·
cti
i r ajfl
s
li i e
lo
-
fi
r
i
e
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objections, in which he recommended that Objections 5, The section of this Decision entitled "The Alleged
6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 be overruled and ordered that Ob- 8(a)(3) Violations" treats the unfair labor practice allega-
jections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, II11, and 14 be resolved by an ad- tions which are coextensive with Objections 10 and l I.
ministrative law judge after hearing The objections As there revealed, I have found that Ray Hughey was
discharged by Respondent on November 28, 1979, in
~OBJECTION 1~~I-~: ~violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. I further
*~OBJECTION I: found that employee Wanda Willmon was not suspended
Interrogation of its employees about their union or discharged by Respondent in violation of the Act. Ac-
sympathies and/or activities as well as the union cordingly, I conclude Objection 10 is without merit and
sympathies and/or activities of their fellow employ- recommend it be overruled. I conclude that Objection 11
ees; is meritorious and recommend that it be sustained.
Remaining is Objection 14. Consideration of the evi-
OBJECTION 2: dence offered in support of Objections 1, 3, 4, and 11
Solicitation of employee grievancescauses me to find that such conduct interfered with the
n of e g employees' exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in
OBJECTION 3: the election. Accordingly, I find that Obection 14 is
meritorious and recommend that it be sustained.
Threats of plant closure; Having concluded that Respondent engaged in con-
OBJECTION 4: duct during the period October 19-December 19, 1979,
which interfered with the employees' exercise of a free
Threats of loss of jobs; and untrammeled choice in the election, I recommend
that the results of the election held on December 19,
OBJECTION 10: 1979, be set aside and that a second election be conduct-
Discriminatory treatment of pro-union employee ed.
Wanda Williams [sic];
(1) By suspending her for one day on November CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14, 1979. 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
(2) By suspending her for four days on Novem- within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ber 19, 1979; and 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
(3) By discharging her on November 23, 1979. ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by:
OBJECTION 11: Interrogating employees concerning their union activities
Discriminatory discharge on November 28, 1979 and/or the union activities and sentiments of others; re-
of prounion employee Ray Hughey; questing that employees report to it the union activities
of other employees; threatening plant closure if employ-
OBJECTION 14: ees selected the Union as their bargaining agent; threat-
ening to discharge the person responsible for the Union;
Interference with and destruction of the labora- and intimidating an employee because he engaged in
tory conditions required for the conduct of a repre- union activity.
sentation election.t ti l ti . 4. Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) of the Act by
The section of this Decision entitled "The Alleged discharging employee Ray Hughey and by transferring
8(a)(l) Violations" sets forth the evidence relating to Ob- and subsequently laying off William Dodson because
jections 1, 2, 3, and 4. As indicated there, I have found such employees joined and supported the Union.
that during the period October 19-December 19, 1979, 5. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
Supervisors Cameron, Blanton, Chambers, Layfield, practices not specifically found.
Thompson, and Womack interrogated employees in vio- THE REMEDY
lation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act. Accordingly, I rec-
ommend that Objection 1 be sustained. In the same sec- Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
tion of this Decision, I have found that Respondent did engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
not, through the conduct of Blanton, unlawfully solicit Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend
employee grievances. As no other evidence was offered that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
in support of Objection 2, I find it to be without merit ative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
and recommend it be overruled. With respect to Objec- Act.
tion 3, I have found that Supervisor Rufus Thompson Respondent will be required to offer Ray Hughey and
unlawfully threatened employees with plant closure 2-3 William Dodson reinstatement to their former positions
days before the election. Accordingly, I recommend that of employment or, if those positions no longer exist, to
Objection 3 be sustained. In section III,B,10, supra, I substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
have found that Supervisor Tommy Womack unlawfully their seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing,
threatened in mid-November to fire the person behind if necessary, anyone who may have been hired to per-
the Union. Accordingly, I find Objection 4 is meritorious form the work which they had been performing. Addi-
and recommend that it be sustained. tionally, Respondent will be ordered to make these em-
928
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objections, in which he recommended that Objections 5, The section of this Decision entitled "The Alleged
6, 7, 8, 9. 12. and 13 be overruled and ordered that Ob- 8(a)(3) Violations" treat the unfair labor practice all ga-
jections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 14 be resolved by an ad- tions which are coextensive with Objections 10 nd II-
sraie l judge after hearing. The objections As there revealed, I have found that Ray Hughey was
t on ove ber 28, 1979. in
OBJECTION : violation ti . tn d
ill on as not suspended
I t rr ti f its l s a t t eir union or discharged by espondent in violation of the ct. c-
t i / r acti ities as ell as the union cordingly, I conclude bjection 10 is ithout erit and
t i / ti iti f t ir -fello l - rec e it be err le . I conclude that bjection 11e e s ; is rit ri s a reco end that it be sustained.
e aining is bjection 14. onsideration of the evi-
: e ce ffere in s rt of bjections 1, 3, 4, and II
Solicitation of s; causes
tr l choice in
,
OBJECTION 3: erit ri s a r t t it s st i .
d u c t d u r i n
t h e P , ,
' i fr
l ti t
e d .
ndi n
( ) )
( ) i i
i i i t a d / o r t h e n io n t ;
i ti iti
e e s
i t
t t f a repre- union activity.
t ti l ti t ti
ti i i i ti lle r i tr f rri
l) l a nd quentl l i ff illi odson because
, , uc h l j i and supported the nion.
r , , 5. t s t engaged in any unfair labor
r l , i t cifi ll f .
l in vio- THE REMEDY
)
t li i t
,
t
IO, t

i t t s
FIELDCREST MILLS, INC. 929
ployees whole for any loss of earnings they may have (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
suffered by reason of the unlawful terminations, with or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis, making de- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
ductions for interim earnings, and with interest to be 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
paid in accordance with the Board's Decisions in F W. fectuate the policies of the Act:
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida (a) Offer Ray Hughey and William Dodson immediate
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respond- positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
ent, particularly the acts of discrimination, strike at the tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
heart of the Act, a broad cease-and-desist order shall be previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of
recommended, precluding Respondent from "in any pay due to the violation against them in accordance with
other manner" interfering with, coercing, or restraining the manner set forth in "The Remedy."
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Section 7 of the Act. Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of payroll records, social security payment records, time-
law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, and cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
following recommended: under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Scottsboro, Ala-
ORDER3 6 bama, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 3 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
The Respondent, Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., Scottsboro, Al- Regional Director for Region 10, after being duly signed
abama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: Respondent's representative, shall be posted by it imme-
1. Cease and desist from: diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac- 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
tivities and sentiments or concerning the union activities cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
and sentiments of others. tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or plant clo- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
sure if they engage in union activity. faced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Intimidating employees because they engage in (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
union activity. writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
(d) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf steps it has taken to comply herewith.
of Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the consolidated com-
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its em- plaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges
ployees, by discharging, transferring, or laying off em- unfair labor practices not specifically found herein.
ployees because of their membership in or activities on IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held in Case
behalf of the above-named or any other union. 10-RC-11929 be set aside and that a second election be
directed.
" 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 " In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
.
,
.

i r ll i l curit t
i d s , l ll
ti i
d s ry t l t t f
un d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h is e r.
36
. '
, t l i
'

e

I T
u n fa

M
f

y