Minette Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1991

305 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

1032
305 NLRB No. 162
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
Because we adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(1) by Plant Manager Caldwell’s interrogation of employees
concerning their union activities, we find it unnecessary to pass on
the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s owner, Thomas Tang, also
interrogated employees, as the finding would be cumulative.
The judge found that Tang made an implied threat of unspecified
reprisals at an April 19, 1990 meeting with second-shift employees.
Tang told the employees that he viewed anyone supporting the
Union as someone who did not like the job. He also said that the
employees could transfer to one of the Respondent’s unionized
plants in Maine and that he wanted to remember all their faces. The
Respondent excepts in part that Tang’s reference to remembering
faces is ‘‘too vague’’ to support the finding of a threat of unspec-
ified reprisals. Remembering faces was only one element leading to
the judge’s finding, however. Moreover, on brief, in defending
against Tang’s alleged interrogation of employees at that meeting,
the Respondent states that the employees at the meeting identified
themselves as union supporters. The statement, that he would re-
member their faces, addressed to union supporters thus takes on ad-
ditional meaning. We adopt the judge’s finding that, through Tang’s
statements, the Respondent made an implied threat of unspecified re-
prisals against union supporters in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Minette Mills, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing and
Textile Workers Union, AFL–CIO. Cases 11–
CA–13862 and 11–RC–5684
December 31, 1991
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On April 4, 1991, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Minette Mills, Inc., Gro-
ver, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
[Direction of Second Election omitted from publica-
tion.]
Jasper C. Brown Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles P. Roberts, III, Esq. and Thomas T. Hodges, Esq.,
of Greenville, South Carolina, for the Respondent.
Melvin W. Luebke, of College Park, Georgia, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge. This
matter was heard in Shelby, North Carolina, on October 22
and 23 and on December 19, 1990. The complaint in Case
11–CA–13862 issued on July 5 and was amended on Octo-
ber 22, 1990. The charge was filed on May 25 and amended
on July 5, 1990. Following petition and a May 24, 1990
election, objections were filed by the Petitioner (the Union).
Cases 11–RC–5684 and 11–CA–13862 were consolidated on
July 31, 1990, by order of the National Labor Relations
Board.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act).
Respondent admitted the commerce allegations of the
complaint. Respondent admitted that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act; that it is engaged in the manufacturing of
home furnishing textile products at its facility in Grover,
North Carolina; and that, during the past 12 months, a rep-
resentative period, it received at its Grover facility goods and
raw materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the State of North Carolina.
Additionally, Respondent admitted that the Charging Party
(the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
In addition to the allegations of unfair labor practices, the
National Labor Relations Board’s order consolidating these
cases included an order to hear matters raised by the Union
in objections to an election dated May 31, 1990. On April
10, 1990, the Union filed its petition in Case 11–RC–5684.
A July 11, 1990 Report on Objections issued by the Regional
Director, shows that the parties agreed to a Stipulated Elec-
tion on May 7, 1990, and an election was held on May 24,
1990, with 91 votes being cast against the Union, 74 votes
were cast for the Union, and there was 1 void ballot. On
May 31, the Union filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election. The Regional Director recommended,
and the Board ordered, that the Union’s Objection 1 be over-
ruled and that a hearing be held to resolve the issues raised
by the Union’s Objections 2–7.
The Union in its objections alleged that Respondent threat-
ened employees with discharge; threatened its employees that
they would ‘‘pay for’’ their union activities; threatened its
employees with loss of benefits; threatened its employees
with plant closure; predicted the futility of collective bar-
gaining; and instituted a no-talking rule prohibiting its em-
ployees from talking about the Union except during
breaktimes.
Following the initial hearing in this matter, the parties
were advised that the court reporting service was unable to
transcribe a portion of the testimony. That portion of the evi-
dence included two witnesses called by the General Counsel.
In that regard, a reading of the transcript incorrectly shows
1033MINETTE MILLS
that Respondent presented its defense evidence beginning im-
mediately upon the hearing opening on the second day of the
hearing, October 23, 1990. In fact, the General Counsel had
called and examined two witnesses, Debra Wright and Doug-
las Wright, before Respondent called its first witness on that
date. The October 23 testimony of Debra and Douglas
Wright was lost.
On December 29, 1990, the hearing resumed. Debra
Wright and Douglas Wright were recalled and examined.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE 8(A)(1) ALLEGATIONS
A. General Counsel Alleged that Respondent
Threatened its Employees With Plant Closure if the
Employees Selected the Union
Employee Glenda Simpson testified that Personnel Direc-
tor Neal addressed about 20 to 25 employees at Respondent’s
conference room on May 3, 1990. Simpson recalled that Neal
showed the employees a list of some plants that were closing
according to Neal because of union inefficiency. Simpson
testified that Neal told the employees that their plant would
wind up like that if the Union came in.
Wanda Neal testified that she was involved in three sepa-
rate employee group meetings. In her talk in which she
spoke about the closing of some plants, Neal used an outline
of notes that she had reviewed the night before. According
to Neal those particular speeches actually occurred on May
10 and 11, 1990. Neal spoke to the employees and took
questions after her talk.
Neal testified that she covered a number of issues in addi-
tion to plant closings. As to closings she testified:
In talking about job security we were showing our
employees the number of plants that were closed that
were Union plants.
Wanda Neal used flip charts from an overhead projector.
Two charts were introduced, including the following:
Pacific Mills—Columbia—165
Levi Straus—N. Charleston—418
Fieldcrest—Forest City—400
Armitage Shanks—Mooresville—105
Reeves Bros.—Cornelius—200
Health-Tex—Cowpens—400
As to the above chart Neal testified:
I pointed out these particular places. Named them off
one by one with the number of employees that had lost
their jobs that these plants were all unionized and that
these plants had closed due to economic reasons.
The second flip chart read:
In 5 years—
600 Closed Plants
ACTWU!
53,000 Lost Jobs!
Neal testified about her comments regarding the above
chart:
It was also in the flip chart that we produced show-
ing that six hundred (600) plants had closed in the last
five (5) years that were all unionized by Act II and
fifty-three thousand (53,000) employees had lost their
jobs. This again due to economic reasons.
Neal denied that she said that any of the plants had closed
simply because they had a union and she denied saying that
Minette would close if the Union came in. She testified:
I explained to the employees that these plants had
closed due to Union inefficiency that right now Minette
could produce—we were very flexible in how we pro-
duced our product that if an employee needed to work
on another loom, then we could do so. If the Union
came in, possibly that would not happen and our flexi-
bility would be taken away and that we might not be
able to produce our product as we were at this time.
I am convinced that Glenda Simpson testified truthfully re-
garding this particular allegation. As shown below I am un-
able to fully credit Wanda Neal.
The evidence shows that Wanda Neal gave the same gen-
eral address to employees divided into several groups. Neal
indicated that Respondent strongly opposed the Union. Al-
though she covered a number of subjects, Neal emphasized
that a number of unionized plants had been forced to close
resulting in the loss of a great many jobs. Neal told the em-
ployees that 53,000 employees had lost their jobs because
ACTWU organized plants had closed. Neal admitted that she
did not say anything about nonunion plants closing. Glenda
Simpson credibly testified that Neal said Minette would wind
up like the closed union plants if the Union came in. I find
that by those comments, Neal threatened that the plant would
close if the employees selected the Union. That constitutes
a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Among the Union’s objections
was an objection that Respondent threatened its employees
with plant closure. The evidence here supports that objection.
299 Lincoln Street, Inc., 292 NLRB 172 (1988); National
Micronetics, 277 NLRB 993 (1985). Southwire Co., 277
NLRB 377 (1985). Cf. UARCO, Inc., 286 NLRB 55 (1987);
Daniel Construction Co., 264 NLRB 569 (1983), enfd. 731
F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1984).
B. Respondent Allegedly Interrogated and Threatened
its Employees with Loss of Jobs if the Employees
Selected the Union and Respondent Allegedly Illegally
Instituted a No-Talking Rule Prohibiting
Union Activities
On May 17, 1990, at an employee meeting Company
President Bud Little read a letter from owner Thomas Tang.
Respondent also mailed that letter to its employees. The let-
ter read:
With your help, I have been able to follow the union
movement almost firsthand. I am not made happy by
what I am seeing. I have noticed changes in attitudes
of many of our employees. They are affected by the
confusion that is created by the outsiders. I worry that
they could be influenced to make a decision that many
could come to regret.
I also noticed that the operation in month of April
has already been affected as operation is not performing
1034 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to expectations. Bud, you know that Bates’ downturn is
result of inefficiency. I had meeting with union rep-
resentatives four weeks ago to say that operation will
close in six months if no improvement in Company. I
worry for Minette and employees and say to you that
union inefficiency could bring cloud on Minette future.
I have had great deal of experience dealing with
unions in industries throughout the world. I feel I must
use experience to forecast what will happen if Com-
pany is unionized and prepare to protect stockholders.
1. Purpose of negotiation will be to protect economic
interests of stockholders.
2. Financial burden of union interference in Com-
pany must be compensated out of the negotiations with
the union.
3. Meantime, our competitors will see opportunity to
reach into our market to exploit our weakness. Choices
must be considered including turning to imports as
means of protecting stockholders’ demands for returns.
I will need to do preparation on this now so don’t have
all ‘‘eggs in same basket.’’
Bud, I know the law keeps close watch and you
must use care in your words. However, you must find
way to be sure employees fully understand what is right
and what is wrong. I fear that minority may speak loud-
er than majority. I fear that my ‘‘family’’ at Minette
could fall victim to minority group experiment. A union
victory could be a defeat for employees.
I hope for all that Minette employees will make the
right decision.
There is no dispute regarding the above letter. It was dis-
tributed to employees through a reading by Respondent’s
president, Bud Little, and copies were mailed to unit employ-
ees. The letter does not directly threaten the employees with
loss of jobs. It does state that ‘‘union inefficiency could
bring cloud on Minette future.’’
Among other things Tang’s letter continues to emphasis
the possibility of closing because of the Union in line with
the talks by Personnel Manager Neal. The Bates plant men-
tioned by Tang is another of his textile plants. The second
paragraph of the above letter follows through on the theme
of plant closing brought out during Neal’s talks to employ-
ees:
I also noticed that the operation in month of April
has already been affected as operation is not performing
to expectations. Bud, you know that Bates’ downturn is
result of inefficiency. I had meeting with union rep-
resentatives four weeks ago to say that operation will
close in six months if no improvement in Company. I
worry for Minette and employees and say to you that
union inefficiency could bring cloud on Minette future.
Tang’s message is that Minette could face union ineffi-
ciency which could result in it following the path of the
Bates plant and that Bates may have to close. Tang’s letter
does present a vague threat of plant closure especially when
considered against the background of Personnel Director
Neal’s speeches of closure of 600 union plants. Nevertheless,
in light of the following cases and the vagueness of Tang’s
threat, I find that the evidence does not support the allegation
in regards the letter. (UARCO, Inc.; Daniel Construction Co.,
264 NLRB 569 (1982), enfd. 731 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1984).)
Former employee Devin Shawn Devine testified that he as-
sisted the Union pass out leaflets outside Respondent’s gate
on May 22, 1990. Devine reported for work on his shift, the
second shift, immediately after he finished distributing union
leaflets. Near the end of his shift on that day, John Caldwell
came over:
when he walked up to me he said that he seen me bring
those papers in that day and he said I would pay for
it when it’s over with.
Devine’s testimony on cross-examination included:
Q. You also had a package of stickers [when you
were distributing leaflets at the gate] that you brought
in with you.
A. Yes, sir. There was a bunch of us brought stick-
ers.
Q. These were Union stickers, pro-Union stickers.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did these stickers say? What type of things?
A. Benefits and vote yes, pension, clean bathrooms,
stuff like that.
Q. And, you and some other employees took these
stickers and pasted them all along the walls of the
plant.
A. Yes, sir.
. . . .
Q. This was not just a few stickers, there were as
many as a 100 stickers posted along the plant walls.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, as I understand, when you first came in be-
fore you had posted the stickers Mr. Caldwell didn’t
say anything to you, did he?
A. No, sir.
. . . .
Q. When did you put the stickers on the wall?
A. It was sometime during the work shift hours.
. . . .
Q. Mr. Caldwell came up and spoke to you about the
stickers, didn’t he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He told you that you’re not supposed to put stick-
ers all over the walls.
A. As I recall, yes.
. . . .
Q. And what he told you was that he was going to
have to investigate that matter and that something
would be done about it.
A. Yes, sir.
John Caldwell testified that he saw Devine come to work
with a handfull of stickers. When Caldwell came into the
plant the next morning the walls, windows, bathrooms, and
bulletin board were plastered with about 150 of the stickers.
Caldwell investigated the matter and was told that three em-
ployees were involved in placing the stickers including
Kevin Devine. Caldwell testified about his talk with Devine:
I asked Kevin, I said, Kevin, do you know anything
about these stickers that are on the wall and he said no,
1035MINETTE MILLS
I don’t, and I said, Kevin, I said, look me straight in
the eye and tell me that you don’t know anything about
these stickers being put on the wall. He said we all put
them up and that’s the words he said. He said, we all
put them up.
. . . .
I said did you know this is— you could get punished
for this in a way of maybe getting fired and I said, we
can’t tear up our company policy—I mean, the policy
of the company is you can’t tear up or mess up the
company’s property. I said you can be fired. I said,
you’ll pay for it. That’s the words I believe I said. I
said you can pay for it with your job.
Wanda Neal testified that Respondent posted and distrib-
uted the following notice to employees after over a hundred
stickers were placed throughout the plant. The stickers were
difficult to remove:
IMPORTANT NOTICE!
Any employee who tampers with the bulletin boards
or defaces Company property in any way will be sub-
ject to immediate termination. This includes the unau-
thorized posting of campaign propaganda on walls,
equipment, and other Company property.
Anyone who has information that may help identify
the person(s) responsible is encouraged to come for-
ward and report it. All information will be held in con-
fidence.
The evidence shows that John Caldwell did threaten Devin
Shawn Devine with discharge. The record shows that threat
was justified. Devine and at least two other employees stuck
some 150 prounion stickers throughout the plant while at
work on the second shift. There were no supervisors on that
shift. That action resulted in the littering of Respondent’s en-
tire plant and in Respondent spending substantial time and
effort to remove the stickers and clean the plant.
In instances where an employee is involved in protected
activity such as the posting of union stickers, an employer
may defend an unfair labor practice allegation on showing it
reasonably believed the employee was involved in mis-
conduct. Here Respondent illustrated that it had a reasonable
belief that its employees were engaged in misconduct by
sticking some 100 to 150 union stickers throughout the plant.
The General Counsel failed to prove that the employees did
not engage in misconduct. (Rubin Bros. Footwear, 99 NLRB
610 (1952); NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21 (1964);
Clear Pine Moldings, 268 NLRB 1044 (1984).)
Douglas Wright testified about two conversations he had
with John Caldwell on April 23, 1990:
[John Caldwell] came up to me, it was right at shift
changing time, and I was bent over working on a loom,
and he came up to me and he was saying something
and I couldn’t understand him and I stood up and I
said, ‘‘what did you say?’’ And, he said, ‘‘Doug, said
was you and Billy Count in that—and he called some
other guy’s name, and I said who, and he said that
black guy out there, said was you all talking about the
Union?’’ I said, yes, sir, I said we was. And, he didn’t
say nothing else at that moment, he just turned around
and walked off.
Douglas Wright testified that later that day he had a sec-
ond conversation. Debra Wright was also present during that
conversation. Douglas Wright’s testimony corroborated
Debra Wright who testified that she and her husband talked
with Plant Manager John Caldwell at the end of their shift
on April 23, 1990:
I asked John Caldwell if we could get fired for dis-
cussing the Union and he said yes. He said that the
only place we could discuss the Union was in the can-
teen. We couldn’t even discuss it in the bathrooms.
And, he asked if me and my husband was for the
Union and Doug and I both said yes. And, he asked us
why and we told him because we needed insurance and
the plant needed cleaned up.
. . . .
He said that if we wanted insurance, they had insur-
ance, that he would set up a meeting with us and
Wanda Nail so she could explain the insurance to us,
and my husband told him that we couldn’t afford
$350.00 a month for insurance.
John Caldwell testified that he did not recall the above
conversations but he denied telling the Wrights that talking
about the Union on the job could get them fired.
Despite John Caldwell’s inability to recall the above con-
versations, I am convinced that they occurred as recalled by
Douglas and Debra Wright. Both Wrights impressed me with
their demeanor. I am convinced that they testified truthfully.
On the other hand I was not as impressed with John
Caldwell. Caldwell demonstrated difficulty in recalling de-
tails. I was not impressed with Caldwell’s demeanor. To the
extent his testimony conflicts with credited evidence, I dis-
credit Caldwell.
The record shows that Respondent did not have a no talk-
ing rule in April 1990. I find that Respondent illegally insti-
tuted a no talking rule which discriminatorily prohibited pro-
tected activity. 299 Lincoln Street, Inc., 292 NLRB 172;
Orval Kent Food Co., 278 NLRB 402 (1986).
The credited evidence shows that John Caldwell did not
simply inquire into whether employees were talking to the
detriment of their or other employees’ work. What Caldwell
did was inquire into whether the employees were discussing
the Union. Such an inquiry made to an employee that was
not a known union supporter at that time, constitutes illegal
interrogation.
There was also some evidence that Thomas Tang interro-
gated employees during an April 19 speech to the second
shift. Douglas Wright’s testimony included the following:
[Thomas Tang] came out there and he asked us why
we were wanting a union and Charles Cooke spoke up
and said that we wanted a union because we needed in-
surance and cleaner restrooms and just a safer place to
work in. And, Thomas Tang told him, he said, ‘‘well,
you’re going about it the wrong way,’’ said, ‘‘the union
is not going to help you get all this,’’ said, ‘‘if you all
would have came to me and a talked to me, I could
have got all this done for you, but I can’t do it now
1036 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on account of if I try to help you now, I’d be buying
your votes from you.’’
I credit the testimony of Debra Wright. Thomas Tang did
not testify and no witness for Respondent held himself out
as recalling everything that Tang said in his speech to the
employees.
I find that the record proves that Respondent interrogated
its employees about union activities. At the time Caldwell in-
terrogated first Douglas then both Douglas and Debra
Wright, only Debra Wright had done anything to show that
she favored the Union. Debra Wright had persisted in ques-
tioning Thomas Tang during one of his April 19 meetings as
Tang walked up and stared at her. Debra Wright’s questions
to Tang demonstrated that she favored the Union. When
Caldwell questioned the Wrights on April 23, Douglas
Wright had done nothing to demonstrate that he favored the
Union. Although both Debra and Douglas Wright engaged in
prounion activities, the record failed to show that Respondent
was aware of any of those activities before April 23, other
than Debra Wright’s encounter with Thomas Tang.
When Thomas Tang addressed the employees on April 19
at least some, if not all, those employees were not known to
favor the Union. Tang opened his April 19 meeting with a
query to the employees. He asked why they wanted the
Union. That query constituted interrogation. In fact, as shown
by the record evidence, employees did respond to Tang’s
question. Southwire Co. v. NLRB, 820 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir.
1987); Kona 60 Minute Photo, 277 NLRB 867 (1985);
Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217 (1985); WXON-
TV, 289 NLRB 615, 619 (1988); NLRB v. Brookwood Fur-
niture, 701 F.2d 452 (5th Cir. 1983).
Additionally, the record shows that Plant Manager
Caldwell illegally threatened its employees with discharge or
loss of their jobs if they engaged in protected activities any-
where other than in the canteen area. The record illustrated
that Respondent had never enforced a similar rule regarding
talking about anything other than the Union. There was no
showing that Respondent would have enforced a no talking
rule in the absence of protected activities. As shown above,
the rule only applied to protected activities. Kona 60 Minute
Photo, supra; Southwire Co. v. NLRB, supra.
All of the above incidents fell within the critical period
and, in view of my 8(a)(1) findings, I find that the above
matters also constitute objectionable conduct.
C. Supervisor Leonard Robinson was Alleged to Have
Threatened Loss of Jobs
Vera Ellis testified about a conversation she had with Rob-
inson behind her loom on September 24 or 25, 1990:
[Robinson] said that the Company was trying to get
insurance, you know, we was talking about insurance
and he said the company was trying to get insurance for
the employees. I told him no, they wouldn’t because
there had been several companies done tried to come
and sell them insurance and they didn’t accept it. Then
I said I wished the Union had got in and he said that
that could get me fired.
Leonard Robinson admitted that he did talk with Vera
Ellis but he denied threatening her with discharge.
I was impressed with Vera Ellis’ demeanor. Moreover,
Ellis testified at length about several issues. As to almost all
her testimony there was substantial corroboration from wit-
nesses of Respondent. I credit the testimony of Ellis and, to
the extent there are conflicts, I discredit the testimony of
Robinson.
The credited evidence proved that Respondent threatened
that Ellis could be discharged because of her support of the
Union. I find that constitutes an 8(a)(1) violation. In view of
the fact that Robinson’s comments came after the election,
I find that those comments do not constitute objectionable
conduct. Krona 60 Minute Photo, supra; Southwire Co. v.
NLRB, supra.
D. General Counsel Alleged that Respondent
Threatened Employees with Unspecified Reprisals
Debra Wright testified that she attended a meeting of the
second-shift employees on April 19, 1990. Respondent’s
owner Thomas Tang and Plant Manager Caldwell conducted
the meeting. Debra Wright testified:
Well, Thomas Tang said that he want—well, he
wanted to know why we wanted a union and told us
that a union couldn’t help us. And, Charles Cooke
spoke a lot about insurance. And, Thomas Tang said
that if anybody didn’t like their job, said they knew
where the door was, and he said that if we wanted a
union that we could get transferred to Bates Plant in
Maine, but he wouldn’t have a union there.
. . . .
Thomas Tang said that he couldn’t promise us any-
thing with the Union trying to get in and he said that
he wanted to remember all of our faces. And, I asked
him why couldn’t he promise us anything before the
Union started trying to get in. And, he just moved
closed to me, asking me what, wanting to know what
I had said, and he got up close to me and I repeated
it, I asked him why couldn’t he have promised us any-
thing before. And, he never did answer my question, he
just backed up and him and Charles Cooke went on
about—they were kind of arguing back and forth about
insurance and the Union. And, Charles Cooke told him
that everybody there was for the Union and nobody de-
nied it.
. . . .
Well, Thomas Tang kept talking and we just—me
and Doug and Charles Cooke and Lillian Cooke walked
off. We got tired of listening to it and then the other
employees kind of just drifted out, following, you
know, just coming behind us out of there.
Plant Manager Caldwell admitted that Tang did say some-
thing to the employees about the Bates plant being unionized
and if they did not like their jobs, they could transfer to the
Bates plant.
As indicated above I credit the testimony of Debra Wright.
Her credited testimony shows the employees were encour-
aged to transfer to a unionized plant of Respondent in Maine,
if they wanted a union and that Respondent viewed anyone
supporting the union as someone that did not like their job.
Moreover, Thomas Tang implied that he would remember
the employees’ faces. By that action Respondent made an
1037MINETTE MILLS
implied threat of unspecified detrimental action against union
supporters in violation of Section 8(a)(1). Those comments
occurred during the critical period and constitute objection-
able conduct. Groves Truck & Trailer, 281 NLRB 1194
(1986).
E. John Caldwell was Alleged to Have Created the
Impression that Respondent was Engaged in
Surveillance of the Employees’ Union Activities
Employee Vera Ellis testified to a conversation with
Caldwell on May 3, 1990, at her work:
John Caldwell spoke to me and told me that he had
heard that I was a strong Union supporter and he said
that he didn’t want me at today’s Company meeting. I
told him that I wanted to go to the meeting and he told
me that he didn’t want me at this meeting or any of
the other series of meetings that’s supposed to come up.
Then, I told him yes, I was a strong Union member and
I didn’t care who knew it.
. . . .
Q. Were you wearing any type of Union buttons or
any type of insignia at the time?
A. No, sir.
According to Ellis, she had not engaged in overt union ac-
tivities under the observation of supervision, before the May
3 conversation with Caldwell.
John Caldwell testified there were disturbances during the
first employee meetings and that Ellis was one of the em-
ployees causing a disturbance. According to Caldwell he
knew Ellis supported the Union because of her actions during
that meeting. Caldwell admitted talking to Ellis:
Well, yes, I said that according to the—we feel like
that you’re working for the Union and we just don’t
feel like you need to be in it. She had already ex-
pressed her feelings toward us.
Personnel Director Neal testified that several employees
including Ellis, were excluded from the employee meetings
because the employees were disruptive in earlier meetings.
Neal testified that the decision to exclude Ellis was based on
her observation of Ellis in one of a series of employee meet-
ings. Neal testified that she observed Ellis in the early meet-
ing and:
In the meeting she sat there and continuously shook
her head no to every statement that was made and
snickered out loud and it took attention away from the
meeting.
I credit the testimony of Vera Ellis and Wanda Neal re-
garding this matter. I find that Respondent did tell Ellis that
she was excluded from an employee meeting. I find in agree-
ment with Neal and Caldwell, that Ellis was excluded be-
cause of what Respondent observed of Ellis during an earlier
meeting. Neal’s testimony illustrates that Ellis did nothing
improper during that earlier meeting. Nevertheless the record
shows that Respondent determined on the basis of her ac-
tions, to exclude her from future antiunion employee meet-
ings. I find that the evidence does not support a finding of
a violation of Section 8(a)(1) or objectionable conduct.
F. The General Counsel Alleged That Respondent
Threatened its Employees With Loss of Benefits if
They Selected the Union
Employee Glenda Simpson testified about a conversation
she had with Plant Manager Caldwell at her work on April
20, 1990:
I told him [I was] fine, how about him and he said
the Union—the situation was about to run him crazy.
I said well, how long will this be going on. He said
about a month. He said now you know I can’t say too
much about it, but they’ll fix your wages if you vote
the Union in to $3.75 an hour. I said they can’t because
the Labor Board won’t let them. We had a power fail-
ure and he walked off. Before I walked off he said—
when I said they can’t, the Labor Board won’t let them
he said you don’t know the Chinese.
The record illustrated that Respondent’s employees fre-
quently referred to Respondent’s owner as a ‘‘Chinese.’’
John Caldwell admitted having the above conversation
with Glenda Simpson. On direct examination Caldwell de-
nied threatening that wages would be cut to $3.75. On cross-
examination, Caldwell admitted that he said the Company
could cut back to $3.75 and hour. Caldwell testified that he
was not aware that Simpson supported the Union but that she
told him that she did support the Union during this conversa-
tion.
I was impressed with the demeanor of Glenda Simpson.
Her testimony shows that Caldwell threatened that employ-
ees’ wages would be reduced to $3.75 per hour if they se-
lected the Union as their bargaining representative.
Caldwell’s comments constitute 8(a)(1) violations and objec-
tionable conduct. See discussion in 299 Lincoln Street, Inc.,
292 NLRB 172.
II. THE 8(A)(3) ALLEGATIONS
The complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Debra
and Douglas Wright because of their union activities.
As shown below I find that the General Counsel proved
that Respondent discharged the Wrights because of their pro-
tected activities and I find that Respondent failed to prove
that the Wrights would have been discharged in the absence
of protected activities.
The record evidence shows that Debra and Douglas
Wright worked on Respondent’s second shift.
Debra Wright was a weaver. Douglas Wright was a fixer.
He was responsible for repairing or fixing looms. Douglas
and Debra Wright started working for Respondent in Sep-
tember 1989. Their supervisor was James Evans. James
Evans worked during the first shift. Evans usually left the
plant around 2 p.m. Another supervisor, Don Sellers, usually
left around 5 p.m. Neither Evans nor any other supervisor
was not at the plant during the second shift after 5 p.m.
Debra and Douglas Wright supported the Union during its
1990 campaign. She handed out authorization cards and dis-
cussed the Union with other employees. Douglas Wright
passed out union leaflets.
On April 27, 1990, Douglas Wright was one of the ‘‘fix-
ers,’’ and it was his job to keep a portion of the operating
looms working. Another fixer, Alfred Causby, was assigned
1038 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some of the remaining looms which included some of the
looms assigned to Debra Wright.
During the shift Debra Wright flagged one of her looms
for repair. Alfred Causby checked the loom but left. Debra
Wright again tried unsuccessfully to operate that loom and
she flagged the loom again. On that occasion Causby told
Wright that ‘‘if I would leave the god damn thing flagged
that maybe he could fix the damn thing.’’
Debra Wright told her husband that Alfred Causby had
been cussing toward her.
Douglas Wright testified that his wife was crying when
she told him that Alfred Causby had cussed her.
Subsequently, Douglas Wright told his wife that they
should leave after he was told that Alfred Causby said to an-
other fixer that if Douglas Wright wanted his wife’s looms
fixed he could fix them himself. Douglas Wright suggested
to Debra that they should leave and talk with Supervisor
James Evans the next day.
Wright and his wife left because he was afraid of some-
thing happening like 2 weeks earlier when two fixers had
gotten into a fight.
Alfred Causby denied that he cursed in Debra Wright’s
presence and Causby denied that he told another fixer that
Douglas Wright could fix his wife’s looms. However,
Causby testified that no supervisor talked to him about the
April 27 events.
On the following day Douglas and Debra Wright came in
one-half hour early. Their supervisor, James Evans, was not
at the plant. Plant Manager John Caldwell was phoned and
he came in and talked with the Wrights. Debra Wright testi-
fied that among other things the meeting included the fol-
lowing:
Well, Doug and I both were telling John what had
happened with Alfred cussing me, and John said that he
could settle this problem but he didn’t want to go over
James Evans’ head, and he told us that none of this
started until the Union started trying to get in. And, I
said—me and Doug both said that the Union didn’t
have anything to do with this.
The record showed without dispute that Alfred Causby op-
posed the Union. Debra and Douglas Wright supported the
Union.
John Caldwell admitted talking with the Wrights on April
28 about their walking off the job the night before. He re-
called that Debra Wright said that the fixer had used pro-
fanity but Caldwell testified that she did not use the term
‘‘god damn.’’ Caldwell recalled saying something about their
having more problems since the union activity.
John Caldwell admitted that the Wrights told him that they
had told Charles Cooke that they were leaving work on the
night of April 27.
When the Wrights returned on Monday, April 30, James
Evans directed them into Personnel Director Wanda Neal’s
office where the four of them met. Wanda Neal told the
Wrights that Respondent considered that they had quit when
they left their job. Douglas Wright said that they had told
employee Charles Cooke that they were leaving. Debra
Wright’s testimony from that point in their conversation fol-
lows:
And, Doug told them that he had told Charles Cooke
that we were going home and James [Evans] seemed
shock—I mean, he looked at Doug and said, you told
Charles Cooke? And, Doug said, yes. And, Wanda Nail
[sic] just kept repeating that we automatically quit. She
said anytime that you walk off of a production job, you
automatically quit.
James Evans admitted that Debra Wright said that she and
her husband had not quit their jobs.
A. Credibility
The evidence does show without dispute that Debra and
Douglas Wright walked off their jobs on April 27. The evi-
dence also shows that Debra and Douglas Wright talked with
Plant Manager Caldwell when they returned to work on April
28. Caldwell was informed by them, among other things, that
they had told employee Charles Cooke that they were leaving
work on that night, that they had not quit and that they left
because of their concern over a possible fight with Alfred
Causby. I find that the evidence also shows that John
Caldwell told the Wrights that none of the problems started
until the Union tried to get in.
I make the above findings on the basis of admissions and
credited evidence.
I find that Debra and Douglas Wright testified truthfully.
I was impressed with the demeanor of each of them. There
was little dispute in the evidence regarding what Respondent
learned. To the extent there are conflicts I credit the Wrights’
testimony over that of John Caldwell. Caldwell demonstrated
some confusion and he admittedly did not recall the full
April 28 conversation with the Wrights.
As to the testimony of Alfred Causby, his testimony was
not material to the question of Respondent’s knowledge of
the events of April 27 in view of the undisputed evidence
that no supervisor talked with Causby about those events.
Moreover, I did not find Causby to be a fully credible wit-
ness. To the extent there were conflicts I credit the Wrights’
testimony over that of Causby.
As to the testimony of Wanda Neal, I find that the cred-
ited record raised issues of credibility. Neal’s testimony that
Respondent had a past practice of automatic termination of
employees that walked off the job was not supported by the
record. On the basis of credited evidence it was apparent that
employees were routinely permitted to continue working
after they walked off the job after telling another employee
they were leaving. I find that the record illustrated that
Neal’s testimony to the effect that Respondent had a firm
rule of considering employees that walked off the job to have
quit, was untrue. To the extent her testimony conflicts with
credited evidence, I do not credit Neal’s testimony.
On the basis of the full record including the evidence men-
tioned below, I find that the evidence supports a prima facie
case of discrimination in Respondent’s termination of Debra
and Douglas Wright. That evidence includes proof of the ele-
ments of animus, timing, knowledge and disparity. Addition-
ally the record revealed that Respondent advanced a
pretextuous reason for the Wrights’ discharges.
1039MINETTE MILLS
B. As to Animus, the Evidence Cited Above Under
Section 8(a)(1) Established Proof of Union Animus
1. As to knowledge and timing the record proved that
Respondent knew of the union feelings of the Wrights
and that their discharges followed shortly after
Respondent gained knowledge
Respondent’s owner confronted Debra Wright in an April
19, 1990 meeting. Owner Tang said he wanted to remember
the employees’ faces and he walked up and looked at Debra
Wright while she was questioning Tang as to why he had not
make promises to the employees before the union campaign.
Subsequently, the Wrights along with Charles Cooke and his
wife, walked out of that meeting before they had been dis-
missed by Thomas Tang. On April 20, in a conversation with
employee Glenda Simpson, Plant Manager Caldwell threat-
ened that employees’ wages would be reduced if they se-
lected the Union. On April 23, Plant Manager Caldwell ques-
tioned Douglas and Debra Wright and he was told they sup-
ported the Union. Caldwell threatened the Wrights with dis-
charge if they discussed the union during work. Four days
later the Wrights walked off the job in order to avoid a con-
frontation with employee Alfred Causby. The following day
they talked with Plant Manager Caldwell. During that con-
versation Caldwell associated their problem with Alfed
Causby with the advent of the Union. Causby opposed the
Union while the Wrights supported the Union. On the fol-
lowing workday, Monday, April 30, the Wrights were termi-
nated.
Both Douglas and Debra Wright attended a meeting of the
second-shift employees on April 19, 1990. Respondent’s
owner Thomas Tang and Plant Manager Caldwell conducted
the meeting. Debra Wright testified:
Thomas Tang said that he couldn’t promise us any-
thing with the Union trying to get in and he said that
he wanted to remember all of our faces. And, I asked
him why couldn’t he promise us anything before the
Union started trying to get in. And, he just moved
closed to me, asking me what, wanting to know what
I had said, and he got up close to me and I repeated
it, I asked him why couldn’t he have promised us any-
thing before. And, he never did answer my question, he
just backed up and him and Charles Cooke went on
about—they were kind of arguing back and forth about
insurance and the Union. And, Charles Cooke told him
that everybody there was for the Union and nobody de-
nied it.
. . . .
Well, Thomas Tang kept talking and we just—me
and Doug and Charles Cooke and Lillian Cooke walked
off. We got tired of listening to it and then the other
employees kind of just drifted out, following, you
know, just coming behind us out of there.
The Wrights talked with Plant Manager Caldwell about the
Union on April 23, 1990. There were two conversations, the
first involved Douglas Wright and Plant Manager Caldwell:
[John Caldwell] came up to me, . . . . he said,
‘‘Doug, said was you and Billy Count in that—and he
called some other guy’s name, and I said who, and he
said that black guy out there, said was you all talking
about the Union?’’ I said, yes, sir, I said we was. And,
he didn’t say nothing else at that moment, he just
turned around and walked off.
Douglas Wright testified that later that day he had a sec-
ond conversation. Debra Wright was also present during that
conversation. Douglas Wright’s testimony corroborated
Debra Wright who testified that she and Douglas talked with
Plant Manager John Caldwell at the end of their shift on
April 23, 1990:
I asked John Caldwell if we could get fired for dis-
cussing the Union and he said yes. He said that the
only place we could discuss the Union was in the can-
teen. We couldn’t even discuss it in the bathrooms.
And, he asked if me and my husband was for the
Union and Doug and I both said yes. And, he asked us
why and we told him because we needed insurance and
the plant needed cleaned up.
. . . .
He said that if we wanted insurance, they had insur-
ance, that he would set up a meeting with us and
Wanda Nail so she could explain the insurance to us,
and my husband told him that we couldn’t afford
$350.00 a month for insurance.
As mentioned above, Douglas and Debra Wright came in
early on April 28 and talked with Plant Manager Caldwell.
After the Wrights explained what occurred between them and
Alfred Causby the night before,
and [Caldwell] told us that none of this started until the
Union started trying to get in. And, I said—me and
Doug both said that the Union didn’t have anything to
do with this.
2. As to disparity the record illustrated that no other
employees have been discharged under
similar circumstances
The evidence was disputed regarding Respondent’s treat-
ment of employees that walked off the job. On one hand
there was evidence that numerous employees frequently
walked off the job and were not disciplined. On the other
hand Respondent showed that 14 employees were considered
to have voluntarily quit by walking off the job.
It was undisputed that Respondent did not have a pub-
lished rule regarding treatment of employees that walked off
the job. Respondent contended that even though it did not
have a published rule, it was its practice to treat employees
that walked off the job as having quit. The General Counsel
disputed that contention and offered evidence to the effect
that the normal practice was for employees to advise another
employee at times when there were no assigned supervisors
at the plant, and that Respondent did not discipline employ-
ees that followed that practice.
The record included the following regarding Respondent’s
practice.
The evidence indicated that employees clock out when
leaving the job. Donald Patterson testified about that prac-
tice. In view of that evidence it is obvious that Respondent
knew whenever employees left work early.
1040 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Douglas and Debra Wright testified that it was normal
practice for second-shift employees to simply tell employee
Charles Cooke when they left before the end of the shift. Up
until 2 weeks before the Wrights’ discharge other employees
including Alfred Causby, Don Patterson, and Randy Atkins
had left work without telling anyone other than another em-
ployee, they were leaving. None of those other employees
were disciplined because they left early.
Alfred Causby, who was called by Respondent, admitted
that the practice on the night shift was for employees to tell
another employee if they left before the end of the shift.
Causby testified that he was never given the supervisor’s
phone number and, to his knowledge, the office was locked.
When Debra and Douglas Wright started working the sec-
ond shift in January 1990, Debra Wright asked Supervisor
Evans what they should do if they needed to leave work
early. Evans told her that she should tell her husband and
that he should tell her.
James Evans did not deny Debra Wright’s testimony that
he said they should tell each other if they needed to leave
work before the end of a shift. Evans did not deny that it
was the practice for second-shift employees to tell another
employee before leaving.
Don Sellers, a supervisor, testified that employees on the
night shift occasionally left him a note when they had to
leave during the shift. Sellers admitted that he did not expect
employees to phone him after 11 p.m. During the time when
there was no supervisor on the night shift, employees left oc-
casionally because they were sick or, according to Sellers,
‘‘because of personal reasons or there was an emergency of
some sort.’’ Those employees were not disciplined.
Former employee Donald Patterson testified that he
worked for Respondent as a weaver on the second shift until
March 26, 1990. Patterson testified that it was the practice
for employees to tell another employee working the second
shift on those occasion when that employee left work before
the end of the shift. Patterson recalled that employee Jimmy
Bowen left early on several occasions around January and
March 1990, and that Bowen only told Patterson that Bowen
was leaving. Patterson reminded Bowen to punch out. On
one of the occasions when Bowen left early, Patterson told
Supervisor James Evans the next day, that Bowen had left
early.
Patterson worked 10-hour shifts and, on two occasions, he
left early at the end of 8 hours because he was too tired to
continue. Patterson told another employee, loom fixer Alfred
Causby, that he was leaving and he clocked out. Respondent
did not discipline Patterson for leaving early without telling
supervision.
The record also shows that some employees walked off the
job without telling other employees they were leaving or
under circumstances which illustrated they were leaving be-
cause of anger over their work.
Employee Vera Ellis testified that she has left her work on
occasions when she could not get anyone to repair her
looms. Ellis walked off her job on three occasions from the
fall 1989 through April 1, 1990.
John Caldwell agreed that on one occasion he went out to
the parking lot and talked to Ellis after she became upset and
walked off the job:
Mr. Don Sellers told me that she was going home
and I said what’s the problem and he said she said she
was upset and going home so I said let me go talk to
her and I’ve always been able to talk to her and console
her and I went out to meet her right there at the edge
of the road and I said what’s the problem. She said she
couldn’t get the loom fixer to fix the looms and I said
well, you just come on and go with me and let’s go get
us a cup of coffee and let’s sit down and talk a few
minutes, so we went back to the canteen and got a cup
of coffee and she got to feeling better, so she went
back to work.
Don Sellers, Ellis’ supervisor, testified about Ellis:
Well, there have been several occasions where Ann
has gotten upset, crying on the job. The last two (2)
years it hasn’t been as frequent, maybe three (3) times
in the last couple years, but before that it was real fre-
quent. Sometimes I would ask her, did she want to go
home, which she would and other times she would
come and tell me she was going home and other times
I’ve let her sit in the bathroom and just cry for maybe
an hour and she would go on and go back to work. It
has happened on several occasions.
Subsequently Sellers testified:
Well, there was an—I don’t know if that was all that
was involved about it. All I know is that [Ann Ellis]
just gets upset quite often and cries and she goes home.
I don’t know what all the circumstances are.
Sellers admitted that Ann Ellis complained on occasion
that she was upset because her fixer would not fix her looms.
Ellis was not disciplined for leaving work on any occa-
sion.
Respondent offered documents showing that from October
17, 1988, through July 18, 1990, it has terminated 14 em-
ployees that walked off the job without notice. Wanda Neal
testified that a few of those 14 employees phoned looking for
work. Her policy was to initially tell the former employee
that she did not have work available. If the former employee
continued to call, Neal told them that it was Respondent’s
policy not to rehire anyone that was a voluntary quit because
of walking off the job. Neal recalled telling three of those
former employees that Respondent’s policy made them ineli-
gible for rehire. According to Neal’s testimony, all the occa-
sions of her telling employees of Respondent’s policy to not
rehire people that quit by walking off the job, occurred after
the termination of Debra and Douglas Wright.
Personnel Director Neal testified that employees are per-
mitted to leave work without being disciplined when they
have worked a full shift before leaving and when they are
sick. According to Neal, Don Patterson was permitted to
leave on occasion when he was set to work 10 hours but he
left after working only 8 because that fell within the full-shift
exception. Nevertheless, as was the case with Respondent’s
rule, the record failed to show that employees were told of
the policy or practice which permitted employees to leave
after a full shift.
1041MINETTE MILLS
The general practice was never published and there was no
showing that employees were told of the practice or its ex-
ceptions.
The record is convincing that Respondent observed the
practice of permitting employees to walk off their jobs in in-
stances where no supervisors were on duty, whenever the
employee told another employee prior to leaving. There was
no showing that anyone was discharged after following that
practice. As to the 14 employees that were considered vol-
untary quits, the record failed to show that any of those em-
ployees followed the regular practice of notfiying another
employee before leaving and the record failed to show that
any of those employees had not actually intended to quit.
There was also a question of whether Respondent required
its employees to stay on the job absent the existence of a
specific reason or reasons for leaving.
In that regard Personnel Director Neal tesified that em-
ployees could leave if sick and after having worked a full
shift even though the employee had been assigned overtime
in addition to a full shift. Neal also testified that an emer-
gency would exist if Respondent felt a situation existed in
which an employee needed to leave in order to avoid a fight
with another employee.
Here, as shown above, Respondent learned that the
Wrights had left out of fear that there could be a fight in-
volving fixer Alfred Causby. There was no evidence offered
to show that Respondent had any basis on which to feel that
the situation did not involve a possible fight. Respondent ad-
mittedly did not check into the Wrights’ story that they
feared a fight may occur similar to what had happened with
two fixers a few weeks earlier.
Wanda Neal admitted that none of the ‘‘voluntary quits’’
other than the Wrights, involved employees that left work
because they feared physical confrontation with another em-
ployee.
As to Debra and Douglas Wright, Wanda Neal testified
that before their discharge she had been told by Plant Man-
ager Caldwell that the Wrights left work after they got mad
because Alfred (Causby) cursed them. She testified that they
were considered as ‘‘voluntary quit’’ because:
That they had walked off their job during the middle
of their shift. They were not sick. They did not have
sufficient reason to do so. It was considered a voluntary
quit and we would not rehire them.
On cross-examination, Wanda Neal admitted that she had
been told by Plant Manager Caldwell that the Wrights had
left work during their shift because they were trying to avoid
a confrontation with Alfred Causby who had cursed Debra
Wright. Neal admitted that she did not investigate the cir-
cumstances of the Wrights leaving by talking with Alfred
Causby.
As to this question the record shows that the evidence
available to Respondent before April 30 showed that the
Wrights had walked off the job out of fear that a fight could
develop between Douglas Wright and Alfred Causby. Re-
spondent did nothing to question the Wrights’ contention in
that regard. Employees were permitted to leave in emer-
gencies. Wanda Neal indicated that an emergency would
exist if Respondent felt employees feared a fight.
The record showed that the Wrights’ justification for walk-
ing off their jobs was in line with what Respondent custom-
arily permitted before April 30.
The record illustrated that other employees that walked off
the job for reasons acceptable to Respondent, after notice,
were not discharged.
Personnel Director Neal admitted that employees that have
quit without walking off during the middle of a shift, have
been allowed to return to work.
For example Neal admitted that during early April 1990,
employee Keith Springs who walked off the job for approxi-
mately 40 minutes over a pay dispute, was allowed to return
to work. Neal testified as follows regarding Springs:
Q. Why did you return Mr. Springs to work?
A. He was angry and had walked out angry. He
didn’t intend to quit according to him and when he
came back and said he was calmed down and cooled
off and he was ready to work as long as he understood
he would have to work with the same pay and same
conditions that was fine for him to return to work.
On the Sunday before Neal’s testimony, a weaver, Robin
Bowin, walked off during a shift after she told her supervisor
that she was leaving because there was no fixer available.
The above as well as other incidents mentioned herein and
the full record, proved that Respondent did not discharge
other employees that walked off the job under circumstances
similar to those involving the Wrights.
As to other voluntary quits, James Evans testified about
the incident involving Don Patterson. Evans testified that
Patterson told him that he was quitting before Patterson
walked off the job. According to Evans, Patterson told him
‘‘I’ll just work you a week’s notice.’’
On March 26, 1990, Supervisor James Evans complained
to Patterson about Patterson’s production on Saturday, March
24. Patterson told Evans that he had been unable to get the
fixer, Alfred Causby, to fix his looms. After a few minutes,
Patterson walked off. He told employee Doug Wright that he
was quitting.
Later that week Patterson came back to the plant and told
Company President Bud Little and John Caldwell the reason
why he had left. Caldwell said that he would like to have
Patterson return to work. Patterson was told that he would
have to talk with James Evans before he could return to
work.
The following Monday Patterson met with Personnel Di-
rector Wanda Neal and James Evans. Evans told Patterson
that if he returned to work, he would return to the same job
with the same loom fixer. Patterson declined to return to
work.
Subsequently, after the discharge of the Wrights, some 4
or 5 weeks before the October 22 hearing, Patterson phoned
Wanda Neal and asked about a job that was vacant in an-
other department. Neal told Patterson that Respondent had a
policy against rehiring any former employee that walked off
the job. Neal told Patterson that Respondent viewed that as
a voluntary quit.
Neal’s testimony agrees with that of Patterson as to the
substance of their conversation. According to Neal, she told
Patterson of Respondent’s practice of not rehiring people that
voluntarily quit by walking off their job, some 7 or 8 weeks
after he quit. That would place that particular conversation
1042 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a few weeks after, rather than several months after, the
Wright’s termination.
Neal’s testimony regarding her conversations with employ-
ees that had quit, showed that all her comments that Re-
spondent had a policy of not rehiring people that quit by
walking off the job, occurred after the Wrights’ termination.
The above evidence and the entire record, shows that Re-
spondent did not have a published rule regarding walking off
the job at the time of the Wrights’ termination. I find that
credited evidence proved that before the Wrights were termi-
nated Respondent’s practice was that it did not discipline
employees that walked off the night shift after telling another
employee they were leaving.
The record proved that other employees walked off the job
before April 30 after telling another employee in the absence
of supervision, and were not discharged.
The record shows that Debra and Douglas Wright fol-
lowed the established practice of telling another employee
before leaving on April 27. The next day the Wrights re-
turned to work. They talked to the plant manager about the
April 27 incident and explained they had left due to the inci-
dent involving Alfred Causby and in order to avoid a pos-
sible fight.
Other employees that engaged in conduct similar to that of
the Wrights, were not discharged. I find that the record
shows that the Wrights were treated differently than other
employees.
C. Finally, in Regard the Question of Whether the
General Counsel has Proved a Prima Facie Case, I
Find that the Record Shows that Respondent’s Asserted
Grounds for the Discharges Were Pretextual
In addition to the above, I am convinced that Respondent
advanced reasons for the Wrights’ discharges which it knew
were false.
Respondent contended that it had a firm unwritten rule that
employees that walked off their job without notice were con-
sidered to have voluntarily quit. The evidence illustrated that
Respondent had never published such a rule and it had never
enforced such a practice under circumstances similar to the
one involving the Wrights.
Respondent’s officials contended that the Wrights had vol-
untarily quit; that they did not have justification to walk off
their job; and that they did not inform a supervisor before
leaving. The record shows that Respondent knew that the
facts underlying all three of those factors did not support its
determination to discharge the Wrights.
Before Respondent notified the Wrights of their termi-
nation on April 30, it knew that the Wrights had not quit.
Plant Manager Caldwell knew the Wrights returned to work
on April 28 and he learned from talking with the Wrights
that they had not quit.
As to justification for leaving, Wanda Neal admitted that
employees would be justified in walking off the job in order
to avoid a fight. Nevertheless, the record including admis-
sions by Respondent’s supervisors, shows that Respondent
knew that was the reason Douglas and Debra Wright walked
off the job on April 27.
As to Respondent’s contention that the Wrights failed to
tell a supervisor they were leaving, the record illustrated that
it was the practice of night-shift employees to tell another
employee when leaving at times when there were no super-
visors present. The record showed without dispute that there
were no supervisors at the plant after 5 p.m. and the record
showed without dispute, that the Wrights followed the ac-
cepted practice of telling employee Charles Cooke they were
leaving on April 27. As shown above, Respondent knew
from at least April 28 when the Wrights talked with the plant
manager, they had told Charles Cooke before leaving work
the night before.
In view of the above, and the full record, it is apparent
that Respondent knew that it did not have a factual basis for
the termination of the Wrights. The reasons advanced were
pretextuous. (Jack August Enterprises, 232 NLRB 881
(1977), enfd. 583 F2d 575 (1st Cir. 1978); Frigid Storage,
294 NLRB 660 (1989); Chopp & Co., 295 NLRB 1058
(1989).
On the basis of the record, I find that the General Counsel
has proven a prima facie case. Respondent did not show that
it would have discharged the Wrights in the absence of pro-
tected activities.
Respondent in its brief argued that the Wrights’ justifica-
tion for leaving the plant was contrived and unbelievable.
I am not persuaded by that argument because the record
shows that was not a concern of Respondent at the time of
the Wrights’ termination.
On April 28 the Wrights told Plant Manager Caldwell why
they had walked out the night before. Respondent did noth-
ing to question the Wrights’ story. None of Respondent’s su-
pervisors questioned anyone from the second shift regarding
the events on the night of April 27. If, as Respondent now
argues, it felt the Wrights’ story was contrived and unbeliev-
able, why did not it talk to some of the employees such as
Charles Cooke and Alfred Causby, to check into the credi-
bility of the Wrights’ story?
In view of the absence of an investigation, I am convinced
that the Respondent was not concerned with whether the
Wrights were truthful. Therefore, I find that the Respondent
did not view the Wrights’ story as contrived and unbeliev-
able.
I find that Respondent failed to prove that it would have
terminated Debra and Douglas Wright in the absence of their
protected activities. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980),
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982); NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393 (1983); Delta Gas, Inc., 283 NLRB 391 (1987),
enfd. 840 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1988); Southwire Co. v. NLRB,
820 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Yaohan of California, 280
NLRB 268 (1986).
D. Findings as to the Union’s Objections
In view of my findings above, I find that the record sup-
ports the Union’s objections. In addition to my finding of
8(a)(1) violations, the record shows that Respondent dis-
charged two unit employees during the critical period. There-
fore, this is not a case where the misconduct of Respondent
may have escaped the notice of fellow employees. I rec-
ommend that the election be set aside and a new election or-
dered.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Minette Mills, Inc. is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1043MINETTE MILLS
1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
2. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent by threatening to close its facility if its em-
ployees selected Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL–CIO as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive; by promulgating and attempting to enforce a no-talking
rule which prohibited employees from engaging in union dis-
cussions at any time other than times when the employees
were actually in the canteen; by interrogating its employees
about their union activities; by threatening its employees
with discharge and loss of jobs because of their support of
the Union; by threatening its employees with unspecified re-
prisals if they selected the Union as their bargaining rep-
resentative; and by threatening its employees with reduced
wages if they selected the Union engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by discharging employees Debra and
Douglas Wright, because of its employees’ activities on be-
half of Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL–CIO, has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has illegally discharged its
employees in violation of certain sections of the Act, I shall
order Respondent to offer Debra and Douglas Wright, imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if
those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges. I further order Respondent to make Debra and
Douglas Wright whole for any loss of earnings they suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them and that Re-
spondent remove from its records any reference to the unlaw-
ful actions against its employees and notify Debra and Doug-
las Wright in writing that Respondent’s unlawful conduct
will not be used as a basis for further personnel action.
Backpay shal be computed as described in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as described in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The Respondent, Minette Mills, Inc., Grover, North Caro-
lina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Engaging in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by threatening to close its facility if its employees
selected Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL–CIO, or any other labor organization, as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative; by promulgating and attempt-
ing to enforce a no talking rule which prohibited employees
from engaging in union discussions at any time other than
times when the employees were actually in the canteen; by
interrogating its employees about their union activities; by
threatening its employees with discharge and loss of jobs be-
cause of their support of the Union; by threatening its em-
ployees with unspecified reprisals if they selected the Union
as their bargaining representative and by threatening its em-
ployees with reduced wages if they selected the Union.
(b) Discharging its employees because of their protected
activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Debra and Douglas Wright immediate and full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and make Debra and Douglas Wright whole for any
loss of earnings plus interest, they suffered by reason of its
illegal actions.
(b) Rescind its discharges issued to Debra and Douglas
Wright and remove from its files any reference to its dis-
charges of Debra and Douglas Wright, and notify each of
them in writing that this has been done and that evidence of
its unlawful actions will not be used against them in any
way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, and timecards, personnel
records, reports, and all other records necessary to analyze
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Grover, North Carolina, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’2 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
11, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
1044 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our facility if our employ-
ees select Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL–CIO, or any other labor organization, as their
collective bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and attempt to enforce a no
talking rule which prohibits employees from engaging in
union discussions at any time other than times when the em-
ployees are actually in the canteen.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge and
loss of jobs because of their support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with unspecified re-
prisals if they select the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reduced wages
if they select the Union as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because they en-
gage in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Debra
and Douglas Wright to their former jobs, or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make Debra and Douglas Wright, whole for any
loss of earnings they suffered by reason of our discrimination
against them with interest.
WE WILL notify Debra and Douglas Wright, in writing,
that we have rescinded the actions found illegal herein and
that we will not use those actions against them in any man-
ner.
MINETTE MILLS, INC.