Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 821 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

GARLAND KNITTING'MILLS 821
Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort , South Carolina,
Inc. and International Ladies ' Garment Workers'
Union , AFL-CIO. Cases I1-CA-3067,
I1-CA-3148, and 11-CA-3188
March 28, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On October 26, 1967, Trial Examiner Paul E.
Weil issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. He also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended dismissal of those
allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel. -
The Board has reviewed the- rulings of the Trial
Examiner made' at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following addi-
tions and modifications.
As described more fully in the Trial Examiner's
Decision, in February 1966, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the Union, commenced organizing activities
among Respondent's employees which culminated,
on March 7, with a demand for recognition which
was rejected by the Respondent.' Shortly
thereafter, the Respondent embarked upon a cam-
paign in opposition to the Union. Respondent's Pre-
sident Bernat and Personnel Manager Kublin made
frequent trips to Beaufort from the home office in
Massachusetts to establish personal contact with
the employees and to ascertain the causes of em-
ployee unrest. On President Bernat's early visits he
merely circulated throughout the plant and,acted
friendly towards the employees. Thereafter,- during
the final 2 weeks prior to the May 13 election,
Bernat made several speeches to and conducted a
series of question-and-answer sessions among em-
ployees.
The complaint alleges, and the Trial Examiner
-found that, in the course of these talks, Bernat
made certain promises to the employees of benefits
and improvements in wages and working conditions
if the Union lost the election, and that by such con-
duct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
1. We adopt the Trial Examiner's findings of
8(a)(1) violations based upon Bernat's promises to
increase piece rates and wages; his assurance that
"if the Union did not win the election the- em-
ployees would never want a union again because
they would be treated so good they would not want
one"; his statement that the employees would be
taken care of, that improvements -would be made;
and Respondent's grant of various benefits to em-
ployees following the election, but during the ex-
istence of the question concerning representation.2
Contrary to the Trial Examiner we do not limit
our 8(a)(t) finding to the incidents recited above.
Rather, we find that the Respondent also violated
8(a)( i) in the following respect:
The Garland Tag Incident: The General Counsel
contended that-the distribution of Garland tags by
supervisors, immediately, following - President
Bernat's reference in his May 12 speech to such -tag
as a symbol of "where he stood," had the intended
effect of coercing the assembled employees into
openly declaring themselves either for or against
the Union and thus constituted unlawful interroga-
tion. The Trial Examiner rejected this contention
on the grounds that it would unduly restrict an em-
ployer's right to engage in legitimate electioneering
in representation elections. We find merit in the
Charging Party's exception to the Trial Examiner's
finding herein. It is clear, in the circumstances of
this case, that Respondent's supervisors, by passing
out tags and observing who accepted or rejected
them, in effect forced each employee who was ap-
proached to manifest his choice. We find that such
exertion of pressure upon employees constitutes
coercive conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1).3
2. The Trial Examiner also found, and we agree,
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by the
z Subsequent thereto, the Union filed a representation petition, and a
Board-conducted election (in Case I1-RC-2331) was held on May 13,
which the Union lost On June 23, 1966, the Regional Director sustained
the Union's objections to that election and ordered that the election be set
aside
' We adopt the Trial Examiner's further finding that Respondent's uni-
lateral grant of wage increases and improvements in working conditions
also violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
' Kawneer Company, 164 NLRB 983
170 NLRB No. 39
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discriminatory discharges or permanent layoffs of
employees Julia Frazier, Rebecca Frazier, Alice
Ebbs, Dorothy Walker, Dorene Crumley, and Eve-
lyn Houston because of their activities on behalf of
the Union.
3. We further agree with the Trial Examiner's
finding that, on March 7, a majority of employees
in the appropriate unit designated the Union as
their bargaining representative," and that Respon-
dent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the
Union on and after March 7 was not made in good
faith, but rather was motivated by Respondent's
desire to gain time to dissipate the Union's majori-
ty, and that by such refusal, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Accordingly, in view of the' Union's majority
status on March 7, 1966, and the above-mentioned
serious unfair labor practices which prevented the
holding of a fair election, we find, in agreement
with the Trial Examiner, that Respondent should be
required to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Gar-
land Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South Carolina,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. Insert the following new subparagraph (e) in
paragraph 1 of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, and reletter present subparagraph (e) as (f):
"(e) Offering its employees antiunion insignia to
wear in order to ascertain their attitude toward
unions."
2. Delete the following phrase from the end of
newly relettered paragraph (f), and from the end of
the fifth indented paragraph of the notice attached
to the Trial Examiner's Decision.... "except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
' The Trial Examiner found that the Union's majority on March 7 con-
sisted of 167 authorizations out of a total of 321 employees in the unit The
Charging Party excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to count the
authorizations of lzella Simmons and Lucinda Simmons which, although
executed on March 7, were not in the possession of the union spokesmen at
the time of the demand But in view of the Union 's evident continuing de-
mand for recognition and bargaining, we find that these two authorizations,
whose authenticity is not disputed, should be counted towards the Union's
majority at all times after March 7 We find it unnecessary to pass upon the
authenticity of the card of Catherine Smalls
5 Joy Silk Mills, Inc, 85 NLRB 1263, enfd as modified 185 F 2d 732
(C A D C ), cert denied 341 U S 914
ment requiring membership in a'labor organization
as a condition of employment in conformity with
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act."
3. The notice is modified by inserting the follow-
ing between the fourth and fifth indented para-
graphs:
WE WILL NOT offer our employees antiunion
insignia to wear in order to ascertain their at-
titude toward unions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WEIL, Trial 'Examiner : Upon charges
filed on July 7, 1966, the Case I 1-CA-3067; on
October 14 , 1966, in Case 11-CA-3148;' and on
November 21, 1966 , in Case I1-CA-3188 by Inter-
national Ladies ' Garment Workers ' Union,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by
the Regional Director for Region 11 ( Winston-
Salem , North Carolina), issued a consolidated com-
plaint on December 19, 1966 , against Garland
Knitting Mills of Beaufort , South Carolina, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent, alleging that the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act by the discharge of one employee and
the layoff of five other employees and by threats to
employees of discharge because of their support
and activities on behalf of the Union. The
December 19 complaint was in the nature of an
amendment , and addition to a complaint issued
November 9, 1966 , on Case 11-CA-3067 alone,
which alleged violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act in that Respondent refused to recognize
the Union as the collective -bargaining representa-
tive of its Beaufort employees and engaged in a
course of conduct including interrogation , promises
of benefits , and the granting of such benefits in-
cluding wage increases to its employees. The
Respondent by separate answers denied all allega-
tions of unfair labor practices while admitting vari-
ous facts alleged , including jurisdictional facts and
the status of the Union as a labor organization.'
With all parties represented I heard the case in
Beaufort, South Carolina , on various dates between
March 27, 1967, and April 7, 1967. Briefs filed by
each of the parties have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following:'
' On motion by the General Counsel the hearing was reopened to take
additional testimony from Augustus Van Schyndel The reopened hearing
took place on September 14, 1967, with all parties represented by the same
counsel. All parties had the opportunity to present relevant and probative
evidence, argue orally, and file supplemental briefs
The unopposed motion of counsel for the General Counsel to correct
the transcript of record is hereby granted
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 823
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a South Carolina corporation
manufacturing ladies' sportswear at its plant in
Beaufort, South Carolina. Respondent annually im-
ports into the State of South Carolina goods valued
in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State
of South Carolina and annually ships its finished
products valued in excess of $50,000 to points out-
side the State of South Carolina from its Beaufort,
South Carolina, plant.
Respondent is now and has been at all times
material herein an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Refusal To Bargain
In early February3 the Union commenced prepar-
ing an organizing campaign at Respondent 's Beau-
fort plant. On March 22 a meeting was held at the
home of Dorene Crumley which was attended by
Crumley, Alice Ebbs, Caroline Johnson, lone Allen,
and Mary Gregory, all of whom became members
of the Garland Knitting Mills Organizing Commit-
tee, a committee of employees which later included
Lucy Bork, Dorothy Walker, Evelyn Houston, and
Rebecca and Julia Frazier. On Friday, February 25,
the union campaign became overt. About 15 union
agents, together with employee organizers, com-
menced a campaign, described by General Counsel
as a blitzkrieg, which lasted through Friday, Satur-
day, and Sunday, February 28. By Sunday night the
campaign had netted something in excess of 150
cards which the Union, believing that there were
approximately 300 employees, considered to be a
majority. Most of the union organizers returned to
other assignments. By March 7 Mary Cameron,
area director of the Union who was in charge of the
campaign, had in hand 177 cards.
Accompanied by two other organizers and five
members of the employee committee, Cameron
went to the plant where she spoke to the plant
manager and Garland's quality control man,
Capone, and requested bargaining on behalf of the
employees. Cameron testified that she offered to
display the cards which she had in her hand to the
plant manager and to Capone, but that Capone an-
swered, "we are not going to accept your cards."
Thereafter, on the same day, Cameron sent the
cards by messenger to the office of Attorney Han-
dler, who immediately forwarded them together
with a petition for an election to the Board's Re-
gional Office.
After the March 7 meeting the Employer com-
menced a vigorous campaign to counteract the
Union's organizational effort. The main actors in
the Respondent's campaign were Personnel
Manager Kublin and Respondent President Bernat,
both of whom came to the plant and delivered
speeches.
After a representation hearing on the Union's
petition, the Regional Director ordered an election
which was conducted on May 13; 103 votes were
cast for the Union, 174 against representation, and
3 votes were challenged. Timely objections to the
election were filed by the Union and after investiga-
tion and consideration, - the Regional Director
sustained one of the objections, ordered the elec-
tion set aside, and directed a second election.
General Counsel contends that on March 7, the
Union represented a majority of Respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate collective-bargaining unit
and that the Employer refused to bargain in order
to gain time to undermine the Union's organization.
He relies on the well known Joy Silk Mills and
Bernel Foam rules and seeks an order requiring the
Respondent to bargain with the Union. We shall
deal first with the claimed majority status of the
Union; thereafter with the other unfair labor prac-
tices charged.
The parties agree that all production and main-
tenance employees at Respondent's Beaufort,
South Carolina, plant, excluding the nurse, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act.'
The parties stipulated a list of employees contain-
ing 321 names as the total employee complement
on March 7, 1966, at the time of the Union's de-
mand.
During the hearing, General Counsel offered 169
cards purportedly bearing the signatures of em-
ployees. Twenty-one of the cards were received
without objection. Respondent objected to 144
cards on the ground that they were authenticated
either by employee-organizers, union agents, or fel-
low employees, in whose presence they were
signed, or by employee-organizers or union agents
to whom they were handed by the employees who
signed them.
An issue arose from the testimony of Mason Lon-
don that he had no present recollection of the occa-
All dates are in the year 1966 unless otherwise noted, stances and the manner in which the cards are signed and that cards are
This is the unit found appropriate by the Regional Director in his Deci- properly authenticated through witnesses who testified to receiving a
sion and Direction of Election signed card from the signatory employee Don The Beachcomber, 163
s The Board with court approval has held that witnesses to the signing of NLRB 275, and cases there cited, and Capitol-Varsity Cleaning Co , 163
authorization cards are competent to testify as to the attending circum- NLRB 1057
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sion or identity of any of the signers of the cards he
identified with the exception of the cards of Mary
McDuffie and Blondell Hagood, whom he recalled.
Respondent contends that the other seven cards in-
troduced through London's testimony have not
been properly authenticated and should not be
counted. One of those seven, that of Margie Allen,
was further authenticated by the signer, who was
called by Respondent as a witness. Accordingly,
Respondent's contention does not apply to her
card.
London testified that during the short period dur-
ing which he worked on this campaign, 3 days, he
wrote his name on the back of every card he so-
licited, and on the back of only those cards that he
solicited; he stated that he identified the cards by
the existence of his signature on the back.
I reject Respondent's contention. It is my opinion
that London's testimony, which was delivered can-
didly and forthrightly, establishes a textbook exam-
ple of the use of past recollection recorded. In this
regard Wigmore states: "Is it enough that the wit-
ness ... merely recognizes his handwriting and
knows that he would not have written or signed
without believing the record to be correct? Here
the witness is really calling to his aid, not his
specific business custom, but his general moral at-
titude; but as a rule, the indication should be and is
treated as sufficient." 3 Wigmore, Evidence §747.
Wigmore cites the language of the Court in Pear-
son v. Wightman, I Mills Const. Ct. 344: "1 hold it
not to be necessary that a subscribing witness
should recollect the time and occasion when he
subscribed the instrument as a witness. It is enough
if,he recognize his handwriting and is perfectly as-
sured in his own mind that he never subscribed an
instrument as a witness without having seen it ex-
ecuted or acknowledged as the nature of the act
requires." Wigmore concludes: "In general, it is
conceded that when the witness' certainty rests on
his usual habit or course of business in making
memoranda or records it is sufficient [to verify the
record]."
I consider that London's testimony, which I
credit, satisfies the General Counsel's burden of
authenticating the cards of Rebecca Black, Ethel
Booker, Annie Lee Glover, Redell Hampton,
Reatter Thompson, and Sarah Hamilton. Respon-
dent was given adequate time to interview the em-
ployees whose cards were thereby identified, and in
fact presented one of the employees solicited by
London, Margie Allen, considered elsewhere, but
Respondent mounted no attack, other than that set
forth above, on the authenticity of these six cards. I
consider them valid and I shall count them.
In addition, Respondent objected to the receipt
of the card of Bernice Saunders on the ground that
' Counsel stated that he had been inducted into the Armed Services and
was presently unavailable as a witness
7 See Northwest Engineering Company, 158 NLRB 624.
no evidence supports the date, March 1, which ap-
pears thereon. Bernice Saunders obviously had no
recollection of when she signed the card and she
testified that the date which appears thereon was
not put on it by her. Mary Cameron testified that
Bernice Saunders' card was in her possession at the
time she made the demand on March-7, however,
for reasons set forth below, I am not inclined to rely
upon this testimony. The card bears on the back
the notation "Signed for Dorene Crumley. Recd by
Burl Robinson & Jerry Tucker-3-1-66." Burl
Robinson, although he testified, was not asked
about Bernice Saunders' card. Jerry Tucker did not
testify.6 However, Lorene Crumley was called and
testified that the card was given her by Mary
Gregory before the employee committee went, to
the office to ask for recognition on March 7. She
was not cross-examined I credit Dorene Crumley,
especially in view of the fact that Bernice Saunders
testified that she signed the card for Mary Gregory,
and Dorene Crumley testified that Mary Gregory
gave her the card. It is clear from the record that
Mary Gregory's participation as a member of the
Union's organizing committee ceased before March
7 as signaled by the fact that she did not go to the
Company's office on March 7 when recognition
was requested. Accordingly, I consider the circum-
stances corroborative of Crumley's testimony that
the card was handed to her before March 7 and I
consider it authenticated as to date.
Evelyn Houston's card was objected to by the
Respondent on the ground that she did not sign it.
However, Evelyn - Houston testified that she
authorized her sister, Dorothy Walker, to sign the
card for her and Dorothy Walker testified that she
signed it on her sister's authorization. The card is
valid.'
Mary V. Kloz testified that she signed and dated
the card which bears her name at the instance of
lone Allen and a man from the Union whose name
she did not know. The card on the reverse side
bears the name M. P. Whitt and Mr. and Mrs.
Charles Allen. Respondent objected, to the receipt
of the card presumably on Mrs. - Kloz' failure to
i entify the union agent. I- consider the card
roperly y authenticated and I shall count it .8
Mary Lee Bowers testified that her daughter,
Elizabeth Bowers, signed a, union card in her
presence on the night of February 25, the same
night on which Mary Lee, Bowers signed a union
card. She identified the handwriting on a card
dated February 24, bearing the name Elizabeth
Bowers as that,of her daughter. She stated that she
did not know that her daughter had signed a card
on February 24 and that the card displayed to her
was not the one that her daughter signed. I consider
both Mrs. Bowers testimony identifying her
8 See Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 84 NLRB 744, enforce-
ment denied on other grounds 184 F 2d 98 (C A.D C.), affd 341 U S 322
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 825
daughter's signature and her testimony that her
daughter signed a card, albeit not the card in
evidence, to evidence a valid authorization of the
Union by Elizabeth Bowers. Accordingly, I shall
count Elizabeth Bowers among the employees who
authorized the Union to represent her before the
critical date, March 7.9
In addition to the specific objections dealt with
above, Respondent in its brief attacks the validity
of a number of the-cards received in evidence.
Respondent contends that the cards of Izella Sim-
mons and Lucinda Simmons were not in existence
when the union demand was made because they
were signed after the demand. Spurgeon Griggs, the
union organizer, who identified the Simmons girls'
cards, testified that he signed up employees only on
weekends and evenings. The cards in issue were
both signed on March 7. Mary Cameron, the
Union's area director, testified that when she de-
manded recognition on March 7, she did so at the
close of business, approximately 4:30 p.m., and was
accompanied by, among others, Spurgeon Griggs.
She testified that at that time she had all of the 177
cards that the Union had collected and that
thereafter she sent the cards to the Union's regional
office on the following day. Neither of the Simmons
girls was called to testify. Clearly both union
agents cannot be credited. On balance, I am
inclined to believe Mr. Griggs' testimony that the
cards were signed in the evening. It appears im-
probable to me that he would not have recalled
contacting the Simmons girls during the working
day when presumably they were at the plant. There
is no evidence anywhere in the record that union
agents were permitted in the plant for the purpose
of organizing or attempted to go into the plant for
that purpose. Similarly, while he could have ob-
tained the signatures during the lunch period, this,
too, would have been such an unusual circum-
stance, that I would think that he would remember
it, since he testified he received no other cards ex-
cept on weekends and evenings. He also testified
that both cards were dated by the signers and was
not asked to give any particulars concerning the
place at which the cards were signed, the hour at
which they were signed, or whether he talked to the
two girls together. It appears to me that the two
cards must have been signed after the demand for
recognition was made and the refusal of recognition
took place. Accordingly, I shall not count either
card.
Respondent contends that the cards of Thelma
Crosby, Earline Young, and Jesse Crapse should not
be counted because on that date "they had no in-
terest in the wages, hours and working conditions
of employees." Respondent relies on O'Hara Metal
Products Co., 155 NLRB 236. Respondent stipu-
lated that each of these employees was on the
payroll on March 7. The record reveals that each of
these employees quit shortly thereafter. Thelma
Crosby testified that she quit on account of illness
after working 1 week in February and 2 in March.
Earline Young testified that she quit about a week
after she signed the card, which is dated March 1,
and Jesse Crapse testified in response to a leading
question that she quit about March 1. I accept
Respondent' s stipulation , which was apparently
based on records which Respondent provided, that
all three employees were employed on March 7.
Respondent's reliance on the O'Hara Metal
Products case is misplaced in my opinion. The per-
tinent portion of that case deals with temporary
employees hired for a summer vacation job and for
a particular short-term job. The Board excluded
both from the unit because of the temporary nature
of their employment. On the other hand, all three
of the ladies with whom we are here concerned
were regular full-time employees as far as the
record reveals and there is nothing to indicate that
any of them, either at the time they signed the card,
or on March 7, were considering leaving Respon-
dent's employ. Thelma Crosby, in fact, quit because
of illness a week thereafter. I can conceive of no
reason why the cards should be invalid and I shall
count them.
Respondent contends that the card of Rebecca
Frazier should not be counted, apparently on the
basis of the fact that the back of the card contains,
in printing, the words "S. W. Griggs." Spurgeon
Griggs testified that he solicited the signature of
Rebecca Frazier and that she signed and dated the
card in his presence. Spurgeon Griggs testified that
while he signed his name to the back of most of the
cards he solicited, he did not sign them all and in
fact there appeared to be some cards in which
Griggs' name appears on the back in writing other
than his own. Griggs testified that the words "S W.
Griggs," on the back of Rebecca Frazier's card,
were not written by him and he does not know who
did write them. Respondent complains that pursuit
of information on cross-examination of Rebecca
Frazier was not available to Respondent, but,
although Rebecca Frazier took the witness stand
for other purposes,i0 Respondent made no attempt
to interrogate her about the signature on her card.
Regardless of who put the words "S. W. Griggs" on
the back of the card, I cannot see that it in any way
impairs the validity of the card, nor does it affect in
any way the credit to be given to Spurgeon Griggs'
testimony that it was signed in his presence. I shall
count the card.
Respondent contends that the-card of Catherine
Smalls should not be counted. Asked whether she
dated the card, she stated that she did not re-
member. Asked whether the date was in her hand-
writing she continued to state that she did not re-
' Dubois Fence & Garden Co, Inc, 156 NLRB 1003, 1004 (card of Ed-
ward Jones)
11 Rebecca Frazier was a member of the employee committee
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
member , and finally stated that she wasn 't sure that
the date was in her handwriting but that she knew
that the signature was. She obviously had no
present memory of when she signed the card. The
card was identified originally by Brenda Hoover,
who identified the card as "the card that Catherine
Smalls signed in my presence" and testified that it
was dated at the same time it was signed. Catherine
Smalls on the other hand testified that she signed
the card in the presence of a man from the Union
and her husband. Mrs. Hoover was recalled in
rebuttal and substantially altered her testimony,
stating that she remained in the automobile because
of a large dog which frightened her and that Jesse
Riddle secured Mrs. Smalls' signature. I cannot
credit Mrs. Hoover's original testimony and I credit
her rebuttal testimony only to the extent that it is
corroborated by Mrs. Smalls that a man from the
Union secured her signature to the card. Jesse Rid-
dle, although he testified immediately before Mrs.
Hoover, was not asked about Mrs. Smalls' card and
he was not recalled in rebuttal. Mrs. Smalls did not
testify that the date was not her handwriting. She
testified "Well, I'm not sure. . . . I know the signa-
ture is." She testified also that the address was in
her writing. I have examined the card closely and I
am convinced that the date is written in the same
handwriting as the signature and the address.
Respondent has adduced no evidence that the card
was signed on any but the date it bears. I consider
that the card is valid and I shall count it.
June Inabinett testified that she signed her card at
the request of Rebecca Frazier and that the next
time she saw Rebecca Frazier she asked for the
card back. She testified that Rebecca Frazier said
that she couldn't give the card back to her and
nothing else. This conversation with Rebecca Frazi-
er, to her best recollection, took place the following
Monday after she signed the card on Friday. On
cross-examination by the General Counsel Inabinett
testified that she had not discussed her attempt to
get her union card back with anyone prior to talk-
ing to Respondent's counsel other than the people
who work with her, she had not said anything to
anyone else. She testified she had not told the Com-
pany about this and asked "Did you ever seek out
any union official and ask for your card back." She
answered, "No. I asked her and she told me she
couldn't give it back to me, and so if she couldn't
give it back to me, I didn't figure anybody else
could." Further on her cross-examination it ap-
peared that she could not place the time when she
asked for her card back closer than within a couple
weeks of her signing of it on February 25. She also
testified that she asked for her card back while she
was sitting at her work place and that Rebecca Fra-
zier sat either directly in front of her or directly be-
hind her at the time, but she could not remember
where Rebecca Frazier sat in relation to her. She
admitted that she was taken to a union meeting in
May by Mason London, a union agent. General
Counsel asked "Did you talk to Mason about
getting your card back?" She answered, "I told him
that I had asked about getting it back, but he told
me that I couldn't. . . . He discussed it at my house
and on the way to the meeting." She testified she
did not ask at the meeting to get her card back. Re-
becca Frazier testified in rebuttal that Inabinett had
never asked her for her card back. Mason London
testified in rebuttal that he took Miss Inabinett to
the union meeting the night before the election and
that nothing was said between him and her at that
time about her getting her union card back. I do
not credit Inabinett based upon her demeanor and
on the contradictions in her testimony. While she
appeared on direct examination to have a fair
recollection both as to the incidents set forth above
and as to speeches by Respondent's President
Bernat, on cross-examination her memory was very
poor. In addition, she appeared resentful of the
cross-examination and lost her temper when she
was pressed to attempt to remember, dates and oc-
currences. She directly contradicted herself with re-
gard to her conversation with London when he
took her to the union meeting. On the other hand, I
credit London and I credit Rebecca Frazier. Lon-
don in this and other testimony answered questions
frankly and with candor although he must have
realized that some of the answers he gave were not
helpful to the cause of the union which he
represents. I find that, contrary to her testimony,
June Inabinett did not ask for her card back and
that it was at all times relevant a valid authorization
to the Union to represent her. I shall count, it.
Respondent apparently contends that the card of
Edna Carter should not be counted because she
changed her mind after she signed the card. She
testified that after a discussion about sick pay and
better wages with Dorene Crumley and another
woman she signed the card. Thereafter she talked
to her brother-in-law about the card, whereupon
she changed her mind. She also testified that she
went to two union meetings after she signed the
card. The mere subjective experience of changing
her mind in the absence of any notification thereof
to the Union or any attempt to revoke or secure
back the card, especially in view of the fact that
Carter attended union meetings thereafter, does not
in my opinion constitute sufficient basis to in-
validate her card." Accordingly, I shall count her
card
Respondent contends that the authorization of
Dorothy McLeod should not be counted because it
was obtained through misrepresentation. Dorothy
McLeod testified that the employee solicitor "said
it was an organization, and that we would get more
money, and we probably wouldn't get laid off.... If
you did get laid off, you'd get your job back, it was
11 See Kawneer Company, 164 NLRB 983
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 827
something like that." Respondent makes a similar
contention as to the authorization of Bernice Saun-
ders who testified in response to a leading question
that she was told that if she signed the card she
couldn't get fired. Asked on redirect "Were you
told that you couldn't be fired for joining the
Union." She answered, "Well not in the exact
words, but I was told, you know, that by joining the
Union you couldn't be fired."
I do not view the representations made to either
McLeod or Saunders to be in any way impermissi-
ble. Surely, one of the considerations for any em-
ployee to, join the Union is the hope that by doing
so she would get more money and would get her
job back in the event of a layoff. Equally surely, an
assurance to an employee that she couldn't be fired
for joining the Union is no more than a correct
statement of the law. I reject Respondent's conten-
tion and', I shall count the cards.
Alvena Parker testified that she was told by the
solicitor "if they got enough names , you know, got
enough,, so we could get a union in there; if we got
enough people to sign up for this, with these cards,
that we Would be able to get, you know ... an elec-
tion." Asked to repeat what was said to her she
testified, "She said that if we got enough to sign
this, that we would be able to get enough members
so we could have this union, and go about, you
know, go about joining this union." She also
testified that she went to a union meeting after she
signed the card and, in response to a leading
question, that if she had known that she could have
gotten the card back she would have asked for it.
Maryanne Noe testified that she signed her card at
the solicitation of a union agent who came to her
home. She stated that she had "worked for a
Union"; i.e., she had worked for Bethlehem Steel
and had been a member of the Steelworkers. The
union agent asked what she thought of the Union
and she said "Well, that Union was terrific so I
signed the card to more or less say that I had been
contacted." She testified further that she said to the
union agent that if the Union was going to come in
there would have to be an election, but she did not
request that an election be held. Respondent con-
tends that the cards of Alvena Parker and
Maryanne Noe should not be counted since they
were signed for the purpose of getting an election.
There is no evidence that either of these card
signers was told that the only purpose for the cards
was to get an election or even that the solicitors
said that a purpose of the card was to get an elec-
tion. I consider that both cards are valid. The word-
ing on the cards was a clear and unambiguous
authorization to the Union to represent the em-
ployee. "An employee's thoughts (or afterthoughts)
as to why he signed the union card, and what he
thought that card meant, cannot negative the overt
action of having signed the card designating a union
as bargaining agent."12 Nor can I find anything in
these statements "that can reasonably be inter-
preted as an assurance that the cards would be
used only for an election and not for any other pur-
pose, nor is there anything in the record to indicate
that these above-named employees were told
anything which conflicted with the language of the
cards themselves. I conclude that there was here
neither fraud nor misrepresentation nor deceit. Ac-
cordingly, these cards constitute[d] valid union
designations.... " 13
Catherine Heck testified that "it was one of my
girl friends that came around, and she said that all
the ones that we were together with had signed any-
way, so I might as well, so I did." Nora V. Powell
testified that she was contacted by a union agent
and by Mary Parker. Mary Parker told her that she
had worked under the Union and it was a good
union and "They just said the majority had already
signed.""
Mable Benton testified in response to the
question "Did he tell you that everyone else had al-
ready signed one?" That the union agents said:
... the ones he had been to before he came
to me had signed it.
Q. All of them.
A. He didn't say whether they all had or
not.
Helen Naomi Patterson testified that the union
agent who came to her house "talked to me about
the Union and he asked me would I be interested in
joining the Union, and I told him at first that I
would have to think about it. And he went and he
came back the next day and asked me was I ready
to sign this little card, and he handed me-the card,
and I looked at the card and I thought about it
quite sometime, so I just went down and I signed
the card." On cross-examination, in response to the
leading question, "He told you everyone else had
signed?" she answered, "Yes." On redirect she
testified that she couldn't remember anything else
she said on that occasion. Asked by counsel for the
Union about her statement, she said:
He told me like this, he said, "Mrs. Patter-
son," and I said "Yes," and he said, "You are
the only one that is holding us."
And I said "What?"
And he said, "Holding us up."
I said, "Do you mean to tell me out of
everybody-everybody at the plant has signed
but me?"
And he said "Yes."
She testified that people talked to her about the
Union and when they started talking she would
walk away because she would think "I think that
12 Joy Silk Mills, Inc v. N L R B., 185 F.2d 732, 743 (C.A D.C ), cert
denied 341 U S 914; N.L R B v. Cactus Petroleum Inc., 355 F 2d 755,
at fn 8 on p 760 (C.A. 5), Southbridge Sheet Metal Works, Inc , 158
NLRB 819; and KawneerCompany, supra
33 Kawneer Company, supra , TXD, section 1, C, 1, N L R B v Cumber-
land Shoe Corp , 351 F 2d 917 (C A 6)
14 Nora Powell signed her card on February 26 Of the 169 cards
received, 132 were signed on or prior to that date.
828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was my own judgment and their own too " She
stated that she exercised her own judgment when
she signed the card.
Ruthie Mae Chisholm testified that a union agent
talked to her for quite a while. She stated on direct
that he came to her "and told me that they were
sent to me by some individual from Garland, and
was I interested in the Union-well, with their
brainwashing and my thinking, since I was working
under a union before, I thought maybe the best way
was to sign the card." Asked on direct "They told
you everyone else had signed the card?" She an-
swered, "Yes sir. They told me everyone else had
signed the card. In other words, I was brain washed
by them." Asked where she learned the word
"brainwashed" that she had been using, she an-
swered, "Well it is just a word that people use, I
guess when, they are persuaded by someone else."
Asked again to explain what she meant she an-
swered, "Well, when they brought the card out to
me and explained to me about the union, like I say,
I thought it was that you have to sign the card." I
asked her to tell what was said and she answered, "I
don't think I can remember anything now that they
said. Well, the things that they told me, I couldn't
remember, I just couldn't."t'
Arthur Smalls, called by Respondent, testified on
direct examination "Well, before I signed this card
I was told that most of my fellow employees had
signed the card, and I was the only one that didn't
sign, and I was asked to sign. So I signed the card
and in return I said, `Am I going to get into any
trouble about this?' I said, `I hate to sign the thing.'
And they said, `No, you won't get into any trouble
about it.' So I just went on and signed it." On cross-
examination he testified, "there wasn't anything
that prevented me [from reading the card], but this
guy approached me and said all my co-workers had
signed, he said nearly all of my co-workers had
signed and he said I was the only one left to sign, so
I just went on and signed it without reading it."
Asked how the conversation started he testified
"Well, first of all I asked him what benefit would the
Union give me." And he said "Well, the Union
would help you get better increases." At another
time he testified as follows:
. I said I asked him [the union agent]-"I
hope I don't get into no trouble from doing
this "
And he said, "No, most of your co-workers
have signed already." He said, "You won't get
into any trouble from doing it."
* * * * *
He said "Quite a few of your co-workers
have already signed the cards."
* * *
Q. Well, let's see if I understand the con-
versation correctly. You asked him If you
could get into any trouble -
A. I asked him if I was going to get into any
trouble by signing this card.
Q. And he said, "No. Most of your co-work-
ers have already signed.
A. He said that most of my co-workers had
already signed the card and he wanted me to
sign, asked me if I would sign.
Spurgeon Griggs testified that he solicited Arthur
Smalls' signature. He stated, "Arthur Smalls had a
previous union experience, and he readily signed
the card with me, and a lot of the conversation was
centered around his previous experience in the
union, in some part of New Jersey, and it was just
about the gist of the whole thing, because he readi-
ly signed the card and he was for the thing, he knew
about unions." He denied that he told Smalls that
all of his coworkers had signed the card or that
most of his coworkers had signed the card. I credit
Griggs. From Smalls' demeanor and from his an-
swers I received the impression that he was ap-
prehensive in testifying that he would get in trouble
with Respondent foi whom he still works and with
whom he has a job in the cutting room which works
more regularly with fewer layoffs than other sec-
tions of the plant. If, in fact, Griggs made any state-
ment about other employees having signed the card
I believe it was in the context of reassurance that
Smalls would not get into trouble and that it was
the concept of the dilution of the danger of em-
ployer retaliation rather than a belief that he should
sign because everyone else had signed that was
communicated to Mr. Smalls.
Frances Cottle, testifying for Respondent,
testified as follows:
Q. Will you please tell me what occurred
during that conversation, what he said to you?
A. I don't remember all of it I don't re-
member all of what he said
Q. Well, tell what you do remember.
A. I remember him saying that if I signed a
card, I could vote anyway I wanted to in the
election.
Q Did you ask him whether or not you
could?
*
A. No, sir, he told me.
Q. Did he make a statement to you with
respect to other employees who might have
signed a card?
A. He said the majority had already signed.
Q. About how long did he talk with you?
A. I don't know. I was going to fix supper
when he come to the house and he kept right
" rhe Board has frequently ruled that employees' subjective states of Chisholm's testimony that she thought she had to sign the card invalidates
mind at the time of signing the union card do not not operate to overcome her card Merrill Axle and Wheel Service, 158 NLRB 1113, Joy Silk Mills,
the effect of their overt action in signing 1 do not consider that Mrs supra
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 829
on staying, so I decided to go ahead and sign it,
so that I could get rid of him.
Q. Now, did he talk to you about benefits,
wages, working conditions, anything of that
nature?
A. Yes, sir, he said something about-I
don't know what all he said.
Q. Did he say how many employees had al-
ready signed?
A. No, sir, he just said the majority of them
had already signed it.16
On cross-examination Cottle quoted, the union
agent, Sam Shirah, as follows: "He just said that if it
came to an election, I wouldn't have to vote for the
union." She testified that she talked to Shirah for
45 minutes to an hour and that the only two things
she remembered were that if she signed the card
she could vote anyway she wanted in the election
and that the majority had already signed. Shirah
testified that, "We discussed the benefits of union,
the health and welfare fund as well as other benefits
of unionism and she [Cottle] was very worried
about whether the company would see the card or
not. And I told her that was a very remote possibili-
ty, and We talked for a long time. I don't remember
everything that was said." Shirah denied having any
discussion with her on the subject of how many
people had signed a card up to that time, or that he
told her or any employee that the majority of her
fellow employees had signed a union card.
Rose Wahlfeldt testified that a man came to see
her and that she did not remember any part of the
conversation. Asked, "During the conversation do
you recall 'this man's mentioning how many others
had signed the cards?" she testified, "Yes, sir, I do.
. He said that everyone had signed a card." She
testified that he read certain parts of the card to her
but she did not read the card herself. On cross-ex-
amination she testified that he was there 10 minutes
and that he didn't say anything else except every-
one has signed the card, and that's the only thing he
said in 10 minutes. Asked, "He just stood there and
inside of ten minutes he repeated this same sen-
tence three times?" she answered, "Yes, sir."17 I
deem Wahlfeldt's testimony incredible, especially
in view' of the fact that she placed her telephone
number on the card in response to a request
therefor by Jessie Riddle, who solicited her card. It
is `inconceivable to me that a union agent would
have entered' her home, stood there for 10 minutes,
during the course of which he repeated three times
"everyone has signed a card," whereupon she
signed a card and he left. In my opinion there is no
evidence that she was induced to sign the card by
any misrepresentation.
Margie Allen, who signed her, card on February
26, testified that Mason London came to her home
and: -
Well, I can't remember what everything he
said was, but you know, he was saying that the
union was a good thing to be with, and he said
that the union was a good thing to be with and
if the union would come in the plant, the plant
would be better than it is now, and we would
have more paid holidays than we were having
now.
Q. Did he say anything with respect to the
number of people that had already signed the
cards?
A. He said with all the workers, you know,
together-he said they had probably-it would
probably be about 150, he said, already signed.
Q. He said about 150 had already signed?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he use the word "majority" when he
talked with you?
A. Yes. -
0. That a majority of the employees had al-
ready signed?
A. Yes.
On cross-examination she testified that London
talked with her over an hour and when asked, "Did
he say that if the union had a majority sign up [sic],
that they were going to request the company to bar-
gain with them or recognize them?" she answered
"Yes...
Q. Is that how this discussion of a majority
started? Is that how that came about, in that
statement?
A. Yes, sir.
Clara R. Jones testified that when a man whom
she could not identify came to her home the follow-
ing colloquy took place:
Q. What did he talk about? What did he say
to you?
A. Well, we talked about, you know, that
the union wanted to come into Garland-that's
what we talked about.
Q. Did he say anything with respect to how
many other people had signed?
A. Well, I asked him did he have a majority
and he told me yes.
Q. He told you he already had it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you asked him?
A. Yes, I asked him.
0. Did he say anything else with respect to
what might happen if you didn't sign that card?
A. Well, he just said, if they come in, that
we could be sorry if I hadn't signed.
Q. And then you signed it?
A. Yes, then I signed it.
fi Frances Cottle's card is dated February 26
" Wahlfeldt also testified that she was under doctor's care for a nervous
condition
830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On cross-examination the following colloquy took
place after Jones testified that the union agent was
in her home close to 45 minutes.
0. Now, tell us again what he had to say to
you about the union?
A. Well, as I said before, I can't remember
everything that he said about it.
Q. Yes, ma'am. Tell us what you do re-
member.
A. About the union, what he-well, he said
the union was trying to get organized at Gar-
land, so do you want me to say what I have just
said to Mr. Smith?
Q. I want you to tell us everything that you
remember that this gentleman told you now.
A. Well, he told me that-I asked him did
they have a majority of the girls had signed
those cards, and he told me yes. And he told
me that if we didn't sign , and the union got in,
we could be sorry. What he meant, I don't
know.
Q. Do you remember anything else he said
to you about the union?
A. No, I couldn't be exact.
Q. All you remember is those two or three
sentences?
A. Yes, I remember those because I asked
him those questions. I mean , we talked about
that quite a bit.
0. Well, what did you ask him about
whether you would be sorry if you didn't sign a
card?
A. Well, I didn't ask him about, you know,
about being sorry.
After Jones signed the card she went to a union
meeting . Robert Whitt testified that he was the
union agent who called on Jones and that he told
her whom he was representing and asked her if she
knew about the campaign that they were having.
She answered yes. He told her of the benefits of the
Union and asked her if she wanted to sign a card
and stated that they would need a majority of the
people in order to get a union. He denied saying
anything in the nature of "something might happen
to Mrs. Jones if the Union got in and she did not
sign a card" and denied further stating that the
majority of her fellow employees had already
signed a card.
Diana Delaney testified that a union agent came
to her home and said he was trying to get a union in
and it was necessary for her to sign the card. He
said this would help make working conditions
better. Asked, "Did he tell you or mention to you
how many others had signed the card?" she an-
swered, "He just said most of them had signed al-
ready." Robert Whitt, who identified her card,
although he testified on rebuttal with regard to
Clara Jones, was not asked about Diana Delaney;
however, he testified that he never told anyone that
a majority of her fellow employees had already
signed a card.
Jerry Simmons testified that he talked to a union
agent for 10 or 15 , minutes and read and signed a
card, but he could not identify the agent. Asked on
direct examination by Respondent's counsel to re-
peat the conversation, he said, "Well, I don't really
remember today. He told me my fellow employees
had signed cards." Asked, "How many did he say
had signed?" he answered, "Well, he said most of
them." On cross-examination he reiterated that he
could remember nothing else but denied that the
union organizer had said that he might better his
wages and working conditions at the plant if he
signed a card.''
Freddie Wearrien testified that two union agents
came to his home and that "they asked me for a lit-
tle of my attention, and I told them yes, and they
said they was union mans [sic]. And so they said
could they come in and I tell them yes, come on in.
So they said-well they had these cards, so they ap-
proached me. They said, `We are union mans [sic]
trying to get, going to get up a union for Garland
Mills' or something like that. And I said `Well,
yeh?' And they said, `Most everybody else done
signed but you,' so I said `Well, yeah.' So I, wouldn't
want to be the only one that didn't sign, so I go
ahead and sign my name on it.X19 On cross-ex-
amination Wearrien testified that he did not read
the card and it is apparent that he could not read.
Spurgeon Griggs testified that he was one of the
union agents who called on Mr. Wearrien and that
he did most of the talking. He said he asked Wear-
rien was he aware that there was a union campaign
going on among his fellow employees and he said
that he was "... [A]nd then he began to ask me
some questions about the union, and I proceeded to
answer the questions that he asked, and his
questions were mostly relative to benefits of the
union, and what the union could actually do in
representing the employees at Garland; and I
proceeded to tell him something about the history
of the ILGWU, and he readily signed the card."
Griggs denied that he said anything about how
many people at Garland had already signed the
cards.
In all of the cases above, the employees testified
that the solicitors told them that most or a majority
of the employees had already signed cards. In most
of the cases the employees could remember nothing
else, which General Counsel quite correctly points
out militates against their credibility. In most cases
union agents called in rebuttal testified that they
did not make such statements and in some cases on
cross-examination the employees themselves gave
testimony which seriously impairs the probability
that such statements were in fact made to them.
" About a month before the hearing Simmons had been transferred to
the cutting room from the maintenance department where he had previ-
ously worked He testified that he had never been laid off
" An objection was taken to the subjective testimony and a motion to
strike was made I agreed to strike it Under all the circumstances 1 believe
my ruling was incorrect and I hereby withdraw it
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 831
However, without considering the relative credibili-
ty of the various witnesses who testified, I believe
that, accepting the testimony of each employee as
first offered, no invalidating circumstances appear.
The Board and the courts over the years have
dealt variously with misrepresentations that a
majority had already signed.2 It appears to me that
the Board has resolved this problem in Merrill Axle
and Wheel Service, 158 NLRB 1113, in which
the Board stated:
In essence, it is the Respondent's position that
the signatures of those four employees were
obtained on a representation by those soliciting
their signatures that "most" or a "majority" of
the employees in the "shop" or unit had al-
ready signed authorization cards, that the
representation was untrue, and that the named
employees would not have signed except for
the misrepresentation. Our conclusion, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the
Respondent's position is not well taken, may
be stated in the language of the court in
N.L.R.B. v. Cactus Petroleum, Inc., 355 F.2d
755 (C.A. 5), decided February 2, 1966:
[The Respondent's] position is premised
on the testimony of five (5) employees
that they would not have signed cards ex-
cept that the Union told them that all or a
majority of the employees had signed
authorization cards. We agree with the
Board's rejection of this testimony on the
basis that the testimony of the signers as to
their subjective state of mind at the time
of signing did not here operate to over-
come the effect of their overt action in
signing.
We believe, in agreement with the court's
statement, that the same representations of the
type here considered are immaterial in deter-
mining a union's majority status on the basis of
signed authorization cards, and there appears
no reason even for receiving any testimony
concerning such matter. Accordingly, we find
that the Union represented a valid majority of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
I believe the rule in Merrill is applicable to the
situation herein, and in accordance therewith, I find
that each of the above cards is a valid designation
and that the statements of the solicitors, if made,
and there is question in my mind whether such
statements were made, are not such misrepresenta-
tions as to invalidate the cards. It is not clear in
many of the circumstances set forth above that the
employees would not have signed the cards except
for the alleged misrepresentation, or that there was
any coercion inherent in the alleged misrepresenta-
tions. Accordingly the conditional provisos to the
Merrill rule in ITT Semi-Conductors, Inc., 165
NLRB 716, do not apply. I shall count the cards.
Respondent contends that the card of Shirley
Greene should not be counted because she did not
know what it was when she signed it. Greene
testified that she was given the card by Rebecca
Frazier while she was riding in Frazier's car, and
that Frazier just said to sign the card and she signed
it. However, she testified that she glanced over the
card although she didn't read it, and that she knew
it was a union card. She also testified that she was
aware of the fact that there was a union campaign
among the ladies at the plant. I do not consider that
her failure to read the card in its entirety should in-
validate the card, and it is certainly not shown that
she did not know what it was as Respondent con-
tends. I do not consider that the point is well taken
and I shall count the card.
Of the 169 cards produced by General Counsel, I
have found that two were not signed at the time of
the Union's demand and the Employer's refusal to
recognize the Union. Accordingly, 167 cards have
been found to be valid. Inasmuch as the parties
agreed that there were 321 persons in the unit on
the critical date, it is clear that a majority of the
employees had at that time authorized the Union to
represent them.
Having found that the Union at the appropriate
time represented a majority of the employees, we
must look to see whether its demand for bargaining
raised a duty on Respondent's part to recognize it.
Mary Cameron, the Union's organizer-in-charge,
testified that on March 7 at 4:30 in the afternoon
she, the employee committee, and two staff mem-
bers, Spurgeon Griggs and Sam Shirah, met with
the manager, Carter, and a man whom he in-
troduced as Mr. Capone whom she believed was ti-
tled general manager,21 at the plant. She said the
Union represented the majority of the employees at
Garland Knitting Mills in Beaufort and asked for
recognition. She had the application cards in her
hand, and suggested a card count by an impartial
person. Capone said, "We are not going to accept
your cards." Neither Carter nor Capone was called
as a witness. Respondent contends in its answer
that by March 7 there was substantial reason to be-
lieve that the claimed majority did not exist and
that cards which the Union might possess did not
then represent the employees' choice. This ap-
parently is based on a statement of Personnel
Director Kublin that, in talks to employees, several
employees asked how they could secure the return
of their cards. Respondent argues that under the
circumstances the Respondent had more than a
20 H. McLachlan and Company , incorporated, 45 NLRB 1 i 13, E H Sar-
gent and Co , 99 NLRB 1318 , Ottenheimer and Company , Inc, 144 NLRB
38; Indiana Rayon Corp , 151 NLRB 130 , enfd 355 F .2d 535 (C.A 7),
Gafner Automotive & Machine, Inc., 156 NLRB 577, John Kinkel &
Son, 157 NLRB 744; / T T . Semi-Conductors , Inc, 165 NLRB 716,
N L R.B v Philainon Lahoiatorres, Inc , 298 F 2d 176 (C A 2), cert
denied 370 U.S. 919 Contra N L R.B v H Rohtstein & Co , Inc
266 F 2d 407 (C A 1)
d1 President Bernat testified that Capone is Respondent's quality control
man
832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lawful right but, in fact, a duty to refuse recognition
pending an election.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent
had no good-faith reason to believe that the Union
did not in fact represent a majority but rather
refused to recognize the Union in order to gain
time to undermine the Union's majority, and relies
on the Board's rule in Joy Silk Mills, 85 NLRB
1263.
While Respondent's reaction to the Union's de-
mand for bargaining could scarcely be called
artistic, its refusal to consider the alternatives of the
card count or to place reliance on the Union's
showing of authorization cards places it in approxi-
mately the same position as if it had demanded a
Board-conducted election. The General Counsel re-
lies on Respondent's contemporaneous and sub-
sequent conduct to sustain his burden of showing
that Respondent refused to recognize the Union in
bad faith.22 Accordingly my conclusion with regard
to the refusal to bargain must depend on the con-
clusions reached below with regard to the 8(a)(1)
allegations.
B. Allegations of Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion
The General Counsel contends that the speeches
of President Edward Bernat to the employees in the
latter part of April and in May prior to the election
so beguiled the employees with unlawful promises
of improvements in wages and working conditions
that the employees were led to reject the Union in
the May 13 election.
It appears that Respondent first learned of the
Union's organizing campaign when Plant Manager
Carter, on February 28, obtained a copy of a union
handbill and telephoned Arnold Kublin who was
then Respondent's personnel director. Kublin ar-
rived at the plant the next day. He discussed the
situation with the plant manager, called the super-
visors together, and cautioned them to refrain from
interfering in the union campaign, and then called
the employees together and addressed them, an-
swering some of the assertions which appeared in
the Union's handbill, discussing the Union's
authorization card with them, and pointing out that
the Employer felt that there was no need for a
union. He opened the meeting to questions from
the employees and in his answers to the questions
pointed out the benefits which-the Garland or-
ganization had given the employees in recent years.
He informed the employees that there would have
to be an election because the Employer felt that the
employees should have an opportunity to vote on
whether there was to be a union or not. Two weeks
later, about March 1, Kublin returned to the plant
and again addressed the employees, stating that a
21 Aaron Brothers Coin pan y of California, 158 NLRB 1077
11 Two tags were placed in evidence, one is approximately 2 inches by 5
inches bearing on one side in large letters the name Garland The other is
petition had been filed for an election at the Com-
pany's New York plant and that the Respondent
believed that the election at the Beaufort plant
would be held after the New York election. He also
pointed out again that the Respondent thought that
no union was necessary at the Beaufort plant and
assured the employees that the home office of the
Company was aware of their problems and that
they had set up a personnel department in order to
provide a conduit for information between the em-
ployees and the Respondent's headquarters. No al-
legation is made by the General Counsel that
Kublin, in his speeches to the employees, violated
the Act.
On or about April 20, Edward Bernat, president
of Respondent, came to the Beaufort plant and
commenced a personal campaign to win the allegi-
ance of his employees. On the 20th and 21st he cir-
culated through the plant speaking individually to
the employees, and on the 22d held a meeting at
which, he testified, he stated that he regretted that
it had been such a long time since he had been to
the plant, and regretted the circumstances that
brought him down but he wanted the people to get
to know him and ask any questions that they might
have. He announced the presentation of two sewing
machines to two high schools.
Thereafter, Bernat spoke to employee meetings
on the morning of May 3, the afternoon of May 6,
and the morning of May 12. In addition, he had
meetings with all the employees in groups of 20 or
25 on May 10 and 11, at which he called for
questions from the employees and attempted to
answer them. In the May 3 meeting he merely in-
troduced the new plant manager, Levin, and the
new personnel manager, Van Schyndel. In the May
6 meeting he pointed out that the election would
take place 1 week later, and urged everyone to vote
as they saw fit. He also made the statement that the
Union will always be around and we may have to
have others (elections) in the future. He stated in
this meeting that starting on May 16, "We were
going to start a campaign to make this the most
profitable and efficient plant that Garland had."
The election was May 13. On May 12 Bernat
made a final speech to the employees during the
course of which he said, "I just want you to know
where I stand," and took a tag such as Respondent
affixes to all garments which it manufactures,23 and
clipped it to his lapel. After some further remarks
which appeared to be unexceptionable he closed
the meeting urging the employees to vote "no" in
the election.
Bernat testified that at various times while he was
circulating through the plant, at some of the
meetings, and at some of the question-and-answer
discussions, he was asked why Respondent did not
approximately 2-1/2 inches by 3-1/2 inches and bears the name Garland
against a background in various colors of stylized pictures of Garland's
products and bears the legend "made for each other "
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS
have any Negro supervisors.24 He testified that in
every case he answered that Respondent would al-
ways select supervisors based upon their ability.21
After the ballots were tallied on May 13, Bernat
called the employees together again, hailed the vote
as a great victory and stated, "All of the time rates
will be increased within the next three weeks and
the piece rate structure will be reviewed and
changed within the next six weeks." He promised
that all rates would exceed those in union shops in
neighboring towns. He also informed the employees
that they would be eligible for the Company's pen-
sion fund and stock option program. Sometime in
June a book was circulated to all the employees
setting forth the rules and benefits connected with
employment at Garland's Beaufort Plant. In this
book various improvements in holiday and vacation
pay were recited as well as a pension plan and par-
ticipation in the stock option plan. Respondent ad-
mits that the piece rates and minimum rates had
been improved shortly after the election.
Although President Bernat claimed an almost
perfect recollection of the May 12 speech, which
by and large is corroborated by all the witnesses
who testified to it, he clearly did not have such re-
call for the other speeches. He spoke, "off the cuff"
in each instance, made no notes, and no record was
kept of his remarks. The recollection of General
Counsel's witnesses was scarcely better, particularly
with regard to what was said at each of these
speeches and indeed how many speeches he made.
I do not discredit anyone solely on the basis that
their recollection was faulty in view of the fact that
the employees were addressed twice by Kublin,
four times by Bernat, and once each briefly by
Levin and Van Schyndel, in addition to the
question-and-answer periods conducted jointly by
Bernat and Kublin. This multiplicity of speeches
together with an interval of about 10 months
between the election and the hearing renders it a
practical impossibility in my opinion for anyone to
recall precisely what was said by whom or when.
Nevertheless, certain factors appeared and reap-
peared in the testimony of the various witnesses
who testified.
Hazel Hogan testified that she could not recall
what Bernat said or even summarize, but remem-
bered the gist of it. She testified, "Naturally, he was
against, or telling us rather that the Union wouldn't
be good for us... [H]e did say that he hadn't given
us a great deal of attention and in the future he
would.... [H]e did say that if we would bear with
him, that things would be better in the future."
With regard to the question-and-answer period,
Hogan, after refreshing her recollection, testified,
"one of the girls asked if she was working as hard
as she could all day and she couldn't snake either
just production or maybe just a couple of dollars
" Approximately 40 to 45 percent of the employee complement at the
Beaufort plant is of Negro origin
" On May 6, an employee of Japanese origin was promoted to superviso-
833
over, or under, if this was fair-it went something
like that. And he said that if that was the case it was
not fair and should be looked into." After further
refreshing she added, "He assured us that all the
piece rates would be looked into and changed if
they were not right. Now, that isn't worded just like
that there, but that's what he said, or approximate-
ly, the best I can remember."
Dorothy Walker testified that in one of Bernat's
speeches
... he said that the management of Garland
was bad, and that if we give him another
chance, you know, to make the conditions of
the plant better, that he would, you know, try
to do better in the future.
And he also said that we always could get
the union if he didn't do better, and he said
that if we gave him another chance to do
better, he said he would treat us so good that
we wouldn't want a union.
That he was going to get colored supervisors and
colored girls out there.
* * * * *
He said about May 16th he was going to start
his own campaign, change things and all, you
know.
With regard to the question-and-answer period
Walker testified that she asked why colored girls
get off on maternity leave and have a hard time
getting their job back and he said he would try to
straighten that out too. Walker also testified that
she was called into Bernat's office on May 12, after
his speech and he asked her how she liked his
speech. She said it was okay whereupon he said,
"So you wouldn't change your mind, huh?" She an-
swered "Well, no. I told you once that-I was for the
union, and I'm still for the union, and I can't be a
hypocrite." He also said he was a little bit disap-
pointed in her for not changing her mind and stated
that he was "doing his damndest-best to prove to
people that he was trying to do better. He said that.
He said that he was doing his damndest to prove to
people that he was going to do better, by you know,
talking with them."
Bernat testified that he called Walker into his of-
fice to tell her that Respondent had rehired her
sister, Emily Ferguson, at Walker's request. She an-
swered, "I know," and he was shocked by the
abruptness of the reply. He then asked how she
liked the speech and she answered, "Well, what do
you care, I'm just one person." He said, "Well, that
is the difference." She answered, "Well, you
couldn't lose, because you could gather all the peo-
ple together and talk to them. . . . You're going to
win, I've spoken to a lot of girls, and they're going
ry ranks, and shortly after the election Queen Brown, a Negro employee,
was made a supervisor
350-999 0 - 71 - 54
834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to give you another chance." He said, "Oh really?"
She said "Sure, can't you see all those Garland tags
out there, and all those Garland buttons and hats
and all?" She asked when he was going to have the
victory party, and he answered that he couldn't
make any promises, and that was about the end of
the conversation.
Rebecca Frazier testified that in a meeting near
the end of April Bernat introduced himself and
Kublin and stated that apparently the women were
unhappy, "and then he talked about the supervision
and said that we could plainly see that he was going
to start a clean up campaign or something or other
and he was going to start from the office.... He
said he was going to have changes made in the su-
pervision and that things was going to be better and
he knew the supervision was lousy. He said that he
was going to hire new Negro supervisors and ser-
vice girls, and they were going to run things here
just like they did up home in Boston." Concerning
the question-and-answer meeting which she at-
tended, Frazier testified that Bernat showed the
girls some figures on a piece of paper which she
didn't understand.26 She further testified that
someone asked a question about piece rates, why
they were so low, and Bernat answered that "at that
time he couldn't make any promise on the prices
because it was against the law, I think because the
election was so close.... He said that any changes
that was going to be made was going to be made for
the better."
Dorene Crumley testified that at the question-
and-answer period that she attended Bernat "threw
it open for questions and answers and one lady
asked him about rates, and he said he couldn't
promise how much but that the rates would be
changed on the 16th of May, starting on the 16th of
May, because he knew that many of them were not
right." Mrs. Crumley asked him about overtime on
Saturdays and she testified that Bernat answered,
"if we were laid off for lack of work or something
of the Company's fault, that we would receive time
and a half for Saturdays whether we put in over 40
hours or not. "27
Julia Dortch, called by the Respondent, testified
that President Bernat made three speeches and one
question-and-answer period which she attended. In
the first speech, she testified, Bernat "expressed his
regret in learning of the unrest that was among the
employees, and he said that he knew that he had
neglected not coming down and looking after the
plant. He had assumed that everything was going on
just all right, and he was sorry about the employees
being discontented ... he said that in the near fu-
ture that he would have the plant supervised as the
plants in Brockton, in Massachusetts ... [and] that
he would have a plant manager and a personnel
manager,"' and would bring Mr. Levin and Mr. Van
Schyndel down.
With regard to the second meeting Dortch
testified that, "Seemingly, the employees were un-
happy about the supervision and about the super-
visors, so at that meeting he said that he would
select people who were qualified that they would be
given the proper training in order to have proper
supervision." She testified that at the question-and-
answer-period Julia Frazier asked why there were
no colored supervisors or service girls, and Bernat
answered that he would select people who were
qualified and that they would be trained, and that
anybody that was qualified or that was eligible
would be selected. Someone asked whether there
will be a raise in the percentages paid for piece
work and "He said he couldn't tell them anything,
he just couldn't say anything as of that time."
Dortch denied that she heard Bernat say at any
time that the piece rates would be increased, that
there would be wage increases, that overtime pay
or method of computing it was mentioned, that he
would appoint Negro supervisors, or that he'd said
that people would be treated so well that they
would never want a union again, if they voted this
one down.29
Julia Williams was called by Respondent and
testified that she had attended various talks by
Bernat and one by Kublin. All she could recall was
that in the first talk Bernat introduced himself to
the Garland employees. In the second talk he told
them that they were going to have an election and
it was the employee's privilege to vote yes or no. At
a question-and-answer period he was asked if the
rates on some of the work were going to be
changed and his answer was that he would look into
it. Also he was asked if there were going to be
colored supervisors and he said that the choosing of
the supervisors would depend upon the ability and
the qualifications. In the last speech it was brought
up that the employees could vote yes or no and
they should do it without any influence. She specifi-
cally denied that Bernat had ever said that the pay
rates would be increased, that there would be a new
method of computing overtime, that he mentioned
overtime pay, that he would appoint Negro super-
visors or service girls, or that the employees would
never want a union again because they would be
treated so well if the Union lost the election or that
a lot of things would be straightened out if the
Union lost the election. On cross-examination she
specifically denied every question that was put to
her about statements made at any of the speeches
including statements admittedly made by Bernat.
She specifically denied that in the last speech he
2' Bernat testified that in each of the question-and-answer periods he
made a written demonstration of how the piece rate system worked, which
apparently no one understood The testimony of various witnesses with re-
gard to the demonstration corroborates his belief that no one understood
him
xr Prior to the institution of the new work rules after the election, em-
ployees were not paid overtime for Saturdays unless they worked 40 hours
or more during the following week
t" Theretofore there was no personnel manager at the plant.
zs As to the latter her answer was, "I didn't hear him say that " She also
testified that he didn't mention the Union nor did he say that he would start
his own campaign of improvements on May 16
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS
wore a Garland label or referred to it and specifi-
cally denied that he asked the employees concern-
ing the password for the following day or that there
was any shouting or commotion.3
C. Conclusions With Regard to the Speeches
It is clear that the thrust of Respondent's cam-
paign was to reassure the employees that they were
better off without the Union than they would be
with it and that the Respondent was interested in
their well being. To this end Respondent took steps
first to establish a personal contact between the top
corporate officials and the employees by the visits
of President Bernat and Personnel Manager Kublin
and by the appointment of Van Schyndel as the
local personnel man, a job that had not theretofore
been deemed necessary at the Beaufort plant. The
second step was to ascertain what dissatisfactions
among employees led to the quick success of the
Union's organizing campaign and the third step was
to get across to the employees the information that
their complaints would be remedied by the Com-
pany without the intervention of the Union. Ascer-
taining the complaints of the employees was not
difficult. Both Kublin and Bernat simply asked the
employees and they both circulated among the em-
ployees during the workday, striking up conversa-
tions with them and giving them an opportunity to
voice their grievances. The third step was accom-
plished by the speeches of President Bernat. Bernat
testified that he made no promises to the employees
nor statements that could be construed as promises.
The employees testified that he made direct
promises that wage increases would be granted;
piece rates would be increased; new methods of
computing overtime pay would be introduced;
Negro supervisors and service girls would be ap-
pointed and that these improvements would take
place immediately after the election if the Union
were rejected, It is clear that no one clearly recalls
what was said by Bernat but it is equally clear and I
find that from what Bernat said the employees
honestly reached the conclusion that the promises
set forth above had been made. General Counsel
contends that the employees are corroborated by
the fact that immediately after the election, in fact
on the same day, Bernat in a speech made his
promises definite and that shortly thereafter, within
4 to 6 weeks, as Bernat testified, the changes were
put into effect. I agree this testimony has some cor-
roborative value but it does not nor need it carry
the whole burden of proving General Counsel's
position.
President Bernat is an accomplished public
speaker as he himself acknowledges. His final
speech by which in 5 or 6 minutes he whipped up
the enthusiasm of the majority of his employees so
.lP I give no credit to Williams' denial of the specific statements by Bernat
asked her by her Respondent's counsel Her pattern of dental regarding any
specific statement attributed to Bernat reveals either a willingness to falsify
835
that they were shouting "vote no" at the tops of
their voices is an excellent example of his capabili-
ties in this regard. I believe and I find that in his
earlier speeches Bernat made no overt promises but
rather dealt with the questions and with the issues
in such a way that his employees believed that he
had made these promises. An example is a matter
of Negro supervision. He testified that he answered
the call for the appointment of Negro supervisors
with the statement that the appointment of super-
visors would be based upon their ability. To the
Negro employees, who believed that supervisors
were appointed in part because of their race, this
statement might very well have been considered an
assurance that this would no longer be the case and
they would then believe that Negro supervisors
would be appointed. I believe and I find that in
response to the employees' request for information
about increasing piece rates and wages Bernat as-
sured the employees that they would be taken care
of, that the Company would investigate the
problem and observed that he could not at that
time promise the increases. These assurances
capped with that statement amount to nothing less
than a promise that improvements would be made.
As to the employees' testimony that he stated that
"if the Union did not win the election the em-
ployees would never want a union again because
they would be treated so good they wouldn't want
one," I believe that this statement was made, per-
haps not in the exact words alleged, but in sub-
stance. President Bernat admitted that he discussed
the probability that if the Union lost the election it
would not go away but would continue to seek bar-
gaining rights. I credit the employees who recalled
this statement which they attributed to him and
which I find to have been made."Ft is a somewhat
unusual statement that would remain in the em-
ployee's memory.
The General Counsel contends that Bernat's
questioning of Dorothy Walker after his speech on
May 12 was a violative interrogation as to her
union membership, activities, and desires. I see no
vice in the conversation either as reported by
Dorothy Walker or by President Bernat. Walker
was one of the outstanding union supporters as
Bernat well knew. I cannot conceive that Bernat
would have believed that his impassioned speech
earlier that day would have changed her mind in
that regard. I do not find it to be violative.
D. The Incident of the Garland Tag
The General Counsel contends that by his
reference to wearing a Garland tag to show where
he stood and by the subsequent activities of the su-
pervisors in handing out tags to the employees,
Respondent, by President Bernat and Supervisors
her testimony or a lack of attention so complete that it renders her negative
answers unworthy of any credence
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL.
Estelle Rutledge and June Martin, interrogated em-
ployees by creating a situation where employees
were called on to declare themselves publicly as
being for or against the Union by accepting or re-
jecting a proffered tag. Counsel cites Lyon, Incor-
poration, 145 NLRB 54, 72, and The Chas. Weise
Co , 133 NLRB 765 at 766, both objections cases,
and Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, 156
NLRB 840, 852. In the first two cases the Board
considered the distribution of "vote no" badges as
placing the employees in the position of declaring
themselves as to union preference just as if they
had been interrogated as to such preference and
found it to have interfered with the conduct of the
elections therein. In the Murray Ohio case, on the
other hand, the distribution of "vote no" cards was
considered only from the standpoint of the dis-
criminatory imposition of a no-solicitation rule,
since in that case solicitation by union-oriented em-
ployees of union cards was forbidden. I do not view
Murray Ohio as apposite in any regard to the
problem here. While it is clear in the instant case
that the actions and speech of President Bernat
made the wearing of the garment tag concomitant
to an identification with the Respondent's position,
I do not believe that under the circumstances
herein where apparently large numbers of em-
ployees were wearing union insignia, the wholesale
distribution by the supervisors of the garment tags,
to any employee who wanted them, amounted to
anything in the nature of interrogation; nor would it
probably have the effect of interference, restraint,
or coercion. The Board and the courts have long
recognized that an employer has a stake in the
Board's election process and has the right to engage
in electioneering without violating Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act as long as its electioneering does not
have the effect of interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights.
The wearing of badges may have the effect of con-
vincing a potential voter and it is my observation
that not only in union elections but in political elec-
tions candidates and parties seem to feel that
badges have such an effect. I see no reason why the
employer should be deprived of this right. One
might as well say that an employer should require
all employees to wear union badges, if any do,
otherwise the failure to wear a union badge might
be considered an expression of an employee
declaration with regard to the Union This is of
course carrying the argument to its ridiculous end
but in my opinion illustrates the defect in the
General Counsel's argument. I do not find that the
business with the garment tags amounted to viola-
tive conduct and I shall recommend that the allega-
tion with regard thereto be dismissed.
General Counsel contends that, by granting wage
increases and announcing additional benefits after
the election and during the period of time when the
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
r,bjections were being investigated, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act It is certainly
clear now that the granting of benefits by an em-
ployer during the existence of a question concern-
ing representation is violative of Section 8(a)(1) It
is equally clear that the question concerning
representation exists during the period of time
between the filing of a petition and the conclusion
of a validly conducted election. The election in the
instant case was set aside by the Regional Director
and on appeal to the Board he was sustained. Ac-
cordingly no valid election has been conducted, the
petition remains outstanding; a question concerning
representation exists within the meaning of the Act
and the granting of the wage increases and other
benefits violates Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.3'
Finally the General Counsel contends that Super-
visor Helen Smith engaged in interrogation of em-
ployees and promises of benefit to employees The
evidence relied upon by the General Counsel con-
sists of statements allegedly overheard by em-
ployee Sarah Hamilton. Sarah Hamilton identified
the statements as having been made to Jesse Mae
Saunders and Bertha Miller on May 4. According
to her, Saunders and Miller were sitting at their
machines and Helen Smith came up to them and
said, without any preliminary, "Whether you vote
for the Union or not you will get a raise anyway."
Supervisor Smith and employees Miller and Saun-
ders each testified that no such conversation took
place. I credit them. I do not credit Sarah Hamilton
and I shall recommend that the allegation be
dismissed
E. Conclusion With Regard to the 8(a)(5)
Allegation
Whether Respondent is guilty of a violative
refusal to bargain depenc' ; upon its contemporane-
ous and subsequent conduct If that conduct reveals
that Respondent refused to recognize the Union in
order to gain time to subvert the Union's majority
or if the Respondent's refusal to recognize the
Union was based on a bad-faith claim that Respon-
dent did not believe the Union's majority claim, a
violation is made out. I have found above that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
promising employees various benefits; by indicating
to employees that improvements in wages and
working conditions would be achieved without the
benefit of the Union; and by subsequently granting
such benefits, all during the existence of the
question concerning representation. In my opinion
these actions by Respondent adequately demon-
strate that its refusal to recognize the Union was
not made in good faith but rather was made in an
attempt to gain time to destroy the Union's majori-
ty Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing and refusing
" See Triangle Plastics, Inc , 166 NLRB 768
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 837
to recognize the Union as a majority representative
of its employees 32
Having found that the Respondent had a duty to
recognize the Union on its demand, I find that the
wage increases and improvements in working con-
ditions granted unilaterally by Respondent further
violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
F. The 8(a)(3) Allegations
The General Counsel contends that by the
discharge of Julia Frazier and the layoff of Rebecca
Frazier, Alice Ebbs, Dorothy Walker, Dorene
Crumley, and Evelyn Houston, Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act . Respondent ad-
mits the discharge of Julia Frazier and alleges that
she was discharged for cause and admits the layoff
of Rebecca Frazier , Alice Ebbs, Dorene Crumley,
and Evelyn Houston , alleges that such layoffs were
in fact job terminations because of lack of work,
and further alleges that Dorothy Walker was
discharged for cause on or about September 19,
1966, rather than laid off.
Julia Frazier was first employed by Respondent
on May 25, 1965, in the pressing department where
she worked for about 8 weeks, after which she was
assigned , apparently on the day shift, as a sewing
machine operator in which job she worked until
May 27, 1966, when she went on maternity leave
pursuant to arrangements that she had made with
Personnel Manager Van Schyndel prior to that
time. Her baby was born July 20, 1966.
On August 26 Frazier went to the plant and
spoke with June Martin , a clerical employee, about
coming back to work. June Martin gave her an ap-
plication blank which she filled out and returned.
She was then told that Van Schyndel said he didn't
have anything for her to do. The following day she
called the plant and asked for the floorlady, Anita
Webster. When she ultimately contacted Webster
she was told that Webster didn't do any hiring or
firing anymore and that she should contact Van
Schyndel. She telephoned Van Schyndel who told
her that he didn 't expect her to fill out an applica-
tion but he did expect her to come in and talk with
him, and gave her an appointment for August 31.
On that date she went to Van Schyndel's office
where she met with him alone. He immediately in-
formed her that she no longer had a job and when
she asked , why he answered , according to her
testimony , "Well, you made a gamble; you tried to
use the union as a bargaining agent, and you lost,
and now we don't need you anymore . . . . All the
money that you cost the company during the time
of the campaign, you caused production to go down
in the plant , you even caused us to lose some good
workers who didn't want to be bothered with the
fight that the union was going to put up."
Van Schyndel gave a substantially different ac-
count of the conversation . He testified that he
received ' a telephone call from Mrs . Frazier, asking
whether she could come back to work, and told her
"wait until your maternity leave is up and come and
see me next Wednesday." The following Wed-
nesday she came in. In the meantime he had found
out what work she did . 33 He apologized for the in-
convenience she had suffered in filling out a new
application and she asked whether she got her
machine back or not. Van Schyndel answered "I'm
sorry Mrs . Frazier, but we don 't have a machine for
you." She said , "When I went on leave I was
promised my machine back as soon as my leave was
over . You promised it to me." He denied that he
had made any such promise and said when there
was an opening she could come back, but there
were no openings at the present time , whereupon
she answered " Well if I haven 't got a job, you are
firing me ," and accused him of firing her because
she was with the Union. Van Schyndel insisted that
he was not firing her and then testified ' "At that
point we both , I guess, were excited by the dispute
which was developing. I stood up . I thought there
was no more point in continuing the conversation.
She insisted I was firing her because she 'was with
the union ." He then walked out of his office and
told his secretary to terminate her.
Van Schyndel specifically denied each statement
attributed to him by Frazier with reference to the
Union and stated that he did not mention union at
all during the conversation.
Van Schyndel testified that he filled out Frazier's
termination slip himself to indicate that she had
quit for family reasons, with the explanation "Has
other interests-not interested in future with Com-
pany." He testified that he found the form confus-
ing since it appears to pertain to quits, discharges,
and layoffs and he does not use it for purposes of
layoff, and he testified that in the case of Julia Fra-
zier there was nothing under the term "discharged"
to suggest the reason for discharge. "[I]t didn't say
any kind of dispute or anything [and he] didn't
know what to say on the bottom." He thought per-
haps he would be kind and say that she had another
interest.
I note that the form has boxes to be checked to
indicate discharge , and to indicate as reasons
therefor "misconduct,". "incompetence," "dis-
cipline," or "uncooperative," each of which
would appear to fit the reason which he alleges
caused her discharge . It is difficult to credit Van
Schyndel's account of the discharge in the light of
the entries he made on the discharge form. Respon-
dent argues that Van Schyndel discharged Julia
Frazier because of "the heat of the personal discus-
sion and reiterated accusations which he con-
sidered insubordination," and explains the inaccu-
Triangle Plastics Inc, supra
" He testified that he thought she was a pinker
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
racy of the termination slip by stating that Van
Schyndel's background is not in personnel but is in
advertising and public relations. Van Schyndel
testified that he was recording secretary for a union
in 1937 and was a shop steward in Los Angeles in
1942. I do not believe that he could not understand
the termination slip, which would appear to be ad-
mirably suited for correctly recording the discharge
if it had occurred as he testified. If anything, his-, -
union experience would have shown him the neces-
sity of care in filling out the form and his admitted
ire militates against a belief that he filled out the
form as he did in order to be kind to a woman
whom he had just discharged in a flash of anger. I
do not credit his account of the discharge interview
and I find that it took place substantially as testified
to by Julia Frazier .14
Dorothy Walker had been employed by Respon-
dent since 1963. She had had much varied ex-
perience in most of the sewing operations and was
particularly experienced on the serging machine. It
appears that her work was excellent. She testified
without contradiction that she was called on to
make samples which, as she explained, "have got to
be made perfect, you know, you have got to be real
good at it when you make it because they want it
done real nice."
Dorothy Walker went on maternity leave on June
17, after the Employer gave her a slip directing her
to leave on June 17 and return September 19. On
September 16 she called and spoke to Van Schyn-
del and asked if she was supposed to come back to
work the following Monday, the 19th. He asked if
her leave had ended, and she said that it would not
be ended until Monday. He advised her to call back
on Monday and he would tell her. She said "Mr.
Van Schyndel, I was a member of the Union. That's
why I want to know if I have still got a job or not."
He repeated his instruction to call back Monday.
On the following Monday she called Van Schyndel
again, and pointed out that she was supposed to
come to work that morning. He answered "Well,
Dorothy, I'll tell you like this, we're pushing a lot of
people back. We are having to cut down our
production and I have already laid off a lot already,
and I won't be able to take you back right now."
She asked if that was a temporary layoff and he said
"Well, the best thing I could tell you is to find work
elsewhere." She said "okay" and hung up the
telephone.
Van Schyndel's account of the telephone conver-
sation is somewhat similar. He stated that Dorothy
Walker called and asked him "Do I have my
" Respondent also argues that it is not conceivable that Van Schyndel,
having experience as a union member, would or could have sat in a closed
session with a person known to be an active union organver and have made
the statements attributed to him by Julia Framer I do not find it incon-
ceivable People of greater experience than Van Schyndel have engaged in
similar conduct all too frequently, apparently in the belief that in the
absence of a third person their denials could be credited if the matter came
to issue I do not find the argument convincing
machine back?" Since they were laying off people
at that time he said "No, I'm sorry, I'm afraid not
right now.' She asked "Am I being fired?" He said
"No." She asked "Are you firing me on account of
the Union?" He answered "no" and pointed out
that she was still covered with the company in-
surance and was still on the company payroll. She
insisted that because she was not getting her
machine back she was being fired, and asked again
if she was being fired because she was with the
Union. "She began shouting it to me and I lost pa-
tience with the woman and I hung up on her." He
told his secretary to terminate Dorothy Walker.
Respondent does not contend that there was
anything wrong with Dorothy Walker's work, or
that she would have been discharged but for her
"insubordination" during the telephone conversa-
tion.36
As we have seen above in the discussion of the
8(a)(I) allegations, both Julia Frazier and Dorothy
Walker were members of the Union's organizing
committee and were known as such to the Respon-
dent. Each of them had specifically come to the
notice of Respondent's highest officers prior to the
election, as a result of their organizing activities. I
have credited the testimony of Julia Frazier that
Van Schyndel admitted that she was discharged
because of her attempt to use the Union as a bar-
gaining agent, which is clearly violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. In addition, Van Schyndel pre-
dicted to Frazier that others would go and not
come back for the same reason. I credit her ac-
count of her telephonic discharge interview with
Van Schyndel. I am convinced that Respondent
seized upon the pretext that both Frazier and Walker
had committed insubordination in their conversa-
tions with Van Schyndel in order to rid itself of
these known staunch union advocates precisely as
Van Schyndel had threatened in his conversation
with Julia Frazier. I find therefore that their
discharges are violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
A careful consideration of the testimony of Van
Schyndel in the original hearing and a careful com-
parison of that testimony with his testimony in the
reopened hearing are very enlightening. While
Respondent contends that Julia Frazier and
Dorothy Walker were discharged by Van Schyndel
because they had falsely accused him of discrimina-
tion, thereby rousing him to anger, he did not so
testify. He testified that he became angry, and that
he discharged them, but he was never asked, nor
did he volunteer, why he discharged them. In the
" The Employer, apparently in the year 1966, instituted a rule that
pregnant women employees must take off for a period of 3 months, ap-
parently 2 months before the expectant birth date and I month thereafter
'fi Apparently no termination-of-employment slip was made out for
Dorothy Walker Van Schnydel testified that his secretary put the name
and date of discharged employees on termination slips and put them on his
desk and he filled them out He had no explanation for the fact that none
was filled out for her
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS
reopened hearing he testified that he had been in-
structed both by Kublin and by Bernat not to take
them back after their maternity leave, because of
their activities on behalf of the Union. Neither
Kublin nor Bernat was called to testify, nor was
Plant Manager Levin who according to Van Schyn-
del's testimony was party to the scheme of getting
rid of the chief union adherents. Thus, Van Schyn-
del's testimony is uncontradicted on the record.
Respondent vigorously contends that the testimony
is so incredible that it is unnecessary to rebut it. It
does not appear all that easy to me. The earlier
testimony raises an inference that the discharges
resulted from alleged insubordination, but provides
no direct evidence to that effect, although it would
appear to have been a simple matter at that time to
ask the one additional question that would have
raised the factual issue. In my opinion the answers
given by Van Schyndel in the earlier proceeding
constitute an evasion of the issue; while they might
well contain the truth, I do not believe that they
contain the whole truth. In the reopened hearing
Van Schyndel testified that in his whole term as
personnel manager at the Beaufort plant no em-
ployee was denied reinstatement after pregnancy
leave other than Frazier and Walker. Respondent
took no steps to refute this testimony, which would
have been clearly within its capability if the state-
ment were not true. No explanation appears for this
apparent disparity in treatment, other than the al-
leged insubordination, and I reject that inference.
Respondent contends that the record should have
been kept open to take the testimony of one Auther
Michel, a friend and correspondent of Van Schyn-
del. The record contains an offer of proof, in the
form of a document prepared by counsel after a
telephone conversation with Michel. I rejected the
offer because it was apparent that the document
has no probative value. At the same time I sug-
gested to Respondent's counsel that if, in the inter-
val between the close of the reopened hearing and
the filing of briefs, September 14 and October 16,
respectively, Michel were interviewed and found to
have evidence worthy of consideration, I would
consider a motion to reopen the hearing. Respon-
dent in its brief again moves to take Michel's
testimony, but without any indication that Michel
would have any information other than that con-
tained in the offer of proof. I do not deem Respon-
dent's showing adequate to warrant any additional
delay in this already ancient matter. Accordingly, I
shall not reopen the record for this purpose.
Even if I were to reach Respondent's contention
that Van Schyndel discharged both of them in the
heat of anger- because of their reiterated accusa-
tion, which he considered insubordination, I would
"' Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company , 109 NLRB 1314 ; Rugcrofters of Puerto
Rico , Inc, 107 NLRB 256, Mac Smith Company, Inc , 107 NLRB 84, Stan-
dard Coil Products Co, Inc, 110 NLRB 412, Oregon Teamsters' Security
Plan Office, 119 NLRB 207 , 2'09, fn 7
^ I consider the testimony of Van Schyndel to be unreliable, both in the
839
find the discharges to be violative. Respondent in
its brief admits that but for the telephone conversa-
tions and the conversations in the office, both
would have remained employees and contends that
they were properly discharged for insubordination.
However, the insubordination charged against both
was that they accused Van Schyndel and Respon-
dent of discharging them because of their union ac-
tivity. According to Van Schyndel's testimony, it
was his reaction to this accusation that caused his
heightened anger which led in both cases to his
discharge of the individual employees. It appears to
me that the voicing of such an accusation directly
to Van Schyndel, the personnel manager, by the af-
fected employee is concomitant to the voicing of a
grievance which the Board has long held to be a
protected activity.37 Surely a right to grieve, when
the Employer had refused to bargain with the
Union, must include the right of employees to voice
their grievances to the appropriate person, in this
case the personnel manager, even though he may
become enraged at what he considers to be their
unjust accusations. Both employees, acting in ac-
cordance with the Employer's rules, completed
their 3-month maternity period and returned as in-
structed to resume their employment, with every
reason to believe that their jobs were awaiting
them. Neither of them could help being aware of
the Respondent's antiunion feelings. Their reaction
on finding that their jobs were not available to them
upon their return, in believing that they were being
discriminated against because of their strong' union
advocacy, was not unreasonable. Viewed as retalia-
tion for stating their grievances, the discharges are
violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The General Counsel contends that the layoff of
Rebecca Frazier, Alice Ebbs, Dorene Crumley, and
Evelyn Houston violated the Act. These 4 ladies
were members of the employee organizing commit-
tee and each of them was permanately laid off by
the Employer on September 9 in a reduction in
force of 29 employees. The General Counsel con-
tends that the selection of the 4 members of the or-
ganizing committee, among the 29 discharged on
that day, was attributable to their union activity.
The Respondent contends that the decisions, which
were those alone of the plant manager, Marvin
Levin, were required to be made in haste on the af-
ternoon of September 9 and were done to his best
judgment in the short time allowed him.38
Levin testified that he received orders about 11
o'clock the morning of September 9 to discharge
30 persons immediately. He called together Van
Schyndel, Anita Webster, who is the floorlady, and
Wayne Usry, who was in charge of the cutting
room, took the personnel records of the approxi-
earlier and the reopened hearings Accordingly, the discussion of these
four discharges makes no reference to nor is the conclusion based to any
extent on his testimony, although it is consistent with the conclusions
reached
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
mately 300 employees then working, and decided
which persons to terminate He testified that the
factors considered in making the determinations in-
cluded productivity, absentee record, basic at-
titude, versatility, and seniority. He testified that
employees were laid off in every category, although
not necessarily evenly For instance, style changes
in the new line, which was about to commence,
required fewer dart girls and accordingly a higher.
percentage of dart girls were terminated. With re-
gard to Alice Ebbs, a service girl, no records are
kept of the production in that category, and he
asked Floorlady Webster regarding her production.
Levin testified that he based his decisions, to the
extent that they were based on production records
or absentee records, on the performance of the em-
ployees since May 30, 1966, when he had instituted
a record book covering all production employees
After consultation with Floorlady Webster, he
determined the number of employees of each
category that he desired to terminate and thereu-
pon compared the records of each of the workers in
the various categories only against those other work-
ers in the category He identified the production
records from his book of the 1 1 zipper hangers with
whom he compared Evelyn Houston, and of 19 dart
setters with whom he compared Rebecca Frazier
and Dorene Crumley. As to Alice Ebbs he testified
that she was one of three service girls who were ter-
minated after consultation with Mrs. Webster.
Floorlady Webster testified that Ebbs was com-
pared with the other service girls working in the
same area of the plant and named them as Irene
Ferguson, Eleanor Sutphin, Geraldine Smith, and
Annie Lee Milledge. She testified also that from the
standpoint of their capabilities, attitudes, and ab-
sentee records, there was little or nothing to choose
between the five girls and that accordingly the deci
Sion to discharge Ebbs was based solely on seniori-
ty.
Floorlady Webster testified that three service
girls were laid off. Manager Levin testified that
three or four service girls were laid off. However, of
the five girls named by Webster as being in the area
in which the service girls were being cut out none
appear on the list of employees laid off except
Alice Ebbs. Nor do any of the employees listed on
the March 7 employee list as service girls appear
among the employees laid off except Alice Ebbs.39
Mrs Webster testified that Ebbs was chosen
because she was the least senior service girl in that
particular section However, it appears that of the
five service girls she named, Geraldine Smith and
Annie Lee Milledge were not employed as of
March 7, 1966, inasmuch as they did not appear on
the March 7 employee list to which all parties stipu-
lated and of the five only Irene Ferguson and Alice
Ebbs were service girls at that time.
"'We hstci identified (,eialdme Smith is one of the service gnIs Plant
Manager Levin on the other hand identified Geraldine Smith as an em-
ployee in the cutting room She does not appear in either capacity on the
March 7 list Indeed of the 25 persons discharged on September 9 other
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If, in fact, Respondent cut out three of the five
service girls as Webster testified, two of them must
have been transferred to other work in the plant.
However, no information in that regard is to be
found on the record In short Respondent's position
with regard to the decision to discharge Ebbs is
contradicted by the documentary evidence in the
record. It appears that there were at least two of
the five service girls who were junior to Alice Ebbs
in plant seniority and three of the five junior to her
in job seniority Inasmuch as Webster could draw
no distinction between them as to their capabilities,
attitudes, or absentee records, I ant forced to the
conclusion that the alleged rationale for the
discharge of Ebbs is specious.
Manager Levin testified that 5 dart setters were
laid off and that 12 to 15 remained. He testified
further that he compared the records of Rebecca
Frazier and Dorene Crumley only with the records
of the other dart setters. Each of the records with
which he compared Crumley and Rebecca Frazier
were received in evidence There were 21 of them.
Again a comparison of the names on the records
with the names of the employees who were laid off
on September 9 reveals that of the dart setters
identified by Levin only two were laid off and a
third, Mary Lee Jackson, quit and was included in
the list of employees laid off Once again the ra-
tionale recited by Levin for choosing these two em-
ployees is unsupported by the record. Applying the
four factors recited by Levin, it appears that Re-
becca Frazier was among the most senior and
Dorene Crumley the next most senior group, there
were at least 8 employees junior to Dorene Crum-
ley and at least 13 junior to Rebecca Frazier. Ap-
plying the test of absenteeism, Rebecca Frazier was
absent 1 day and Dorene Crumley 7. However, five
of Crumley's absences were due to an excused
leave of absence In any event three employees,
Maxine Turpin, Blondell Hagood, and Ruby Mae
Jones had 8, 10, and 21 days absent respectively
during the same period of time. Finally with regard
to productivity it is clear that of the 21 dart setters
Rebecca Frazier had the third highest productivity,
with only Maxine Turpin and Evelyn Spencer
higher and Dorene Crumley was fifth highest under
June Inabinette He did not discuss the attitude of
either Rebecca Frazier or Dorene Crumley with
Floorlady Webster, according to her testimony,
with which he disagreed.
Levin's testimony with regard to Evelyn Houston
appears to indicate that she was selected among the
zipper hangers because of her productivity The
documentary evidence belies this indication. Of the
11 zipper hangers whose records he identified as
those with which he compared Houston's none of
whom were laid off on September 9, 5 were less
productive, 3 of them earning 20 cents or more per
than the alleged discriminatees, only 6 appeared on the March 7 em-
ployees' list and one of them was Mary Lee Jackson who was a quit rather
than a dischargee
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS
hour less than Evelyn Houston during the relevant
period . All five of the less productive employees
had less seniority than Houston and two of them
had substantially worse absentee records.40
The alleged rationale for the selection of Ebbs,
Houston, Crumley , and Rebecca Frazier is
completely rebutted by the documentary evidence.
The factors which Plant Manager Levin allegedly
relied ' upon would seem to indicate that these were
employees who would normally be retained rather
than discharged . I discredit Levin's testimony that
these four employees were chosen for discharge for
the reasons named. On the other hand I note that
these were the only four members of the Union Or-
ganizing Committee who were then employed in
the unit with the exception of Iona Allen. Lucy
Bock apparently quit 2 weeks before the election.
Julia Frazier and Dorothy Walker were out on
maternity leave and as we have seen were
discharged upon their return. There is no question
that Respondent knew that these ladies were mem-
bers of the Union Organizing Committee, quite
aside from the fact that their names were signed to
the various leaflets distributed by the Union. Each
of them had been singled out at some time during
the campaign as a result of their organizing activi-
ties.
The destruction of the alleged reasons for the
discharge of the four employees leaves a vacuum to
be filled. If in fact a reason existed for the selection
of the four members of the Organizing Committee
for discharge other than the unlawful reason
charged it would appear that Respondent would
have adduced evidence to that effect. In my
opinion the inference that they were discharged
because of their activities on behalf of the Union is
inescapable , especially against the background of
the employer 's demonstrated animosity to the
Union's organization . I conclude that the discharge
or the permanent layoff of the four is violative of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
the entire record in these cases I make the follow-
ing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South
Carolina, Inc., is and at all material times has been
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, is and at all material times has
been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent 's Beaufort , South Carolina, plant, ex-
cluding the nurse , office clerical employees, guards,
841
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the
Act.
4. The above-named labor organization was on
March 7, 1966, and at all times since has been the
exclusive representative of all employees in the unit
described above for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing , on and after March7, 1966, to
bargain collectively with the above-named labor or-
ganization as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the unit described above and by
thereafter unilaterally increasing the wages and im-
proving the working conditions of employees-in the
above-described unit without first having notified
and upon demand bargained about the matter with
the above-named labor organization , the Respon-
dent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) of
the Act.
6. By discriminatorily, permanently laying off
Rebecca Frazier, Alice Ebbs, Dorene Crumley, and
Evelyn Houston and discharging Dorothy Walker
and Julia Frazier and thereafter failing and refusing
to reinstate them to their former positions , thereby
discouraging membership in the above -named labor
organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By the above-described conduct and by other
conduct interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
8. The above-described unfair labor practices
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce
and constitute unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies to the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent
be ordered to recognize the Union and, upon
request, bargain with it concerning rates of pay,
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
their employment and if an understanding is
reached embody such understanding in a signed
agreement . I shall further recommend that the
Respondent offer to the employees named in the
Appendix hereto immediate and full reinstatement
a° Evelyn Houston was absent only 1 day during the relevant period
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to rights or privileges to which
they are entitled and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them by paying to each of
them a sum of money equal to the amount she
would normally have earned from the date of dis-
crimination against her to the date of offer of rein-
statement, less her net earnings during said period,
to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, including the payment of 6
percent interest as set forth by the Board in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. I shall
further recommend that the complaints be
dismissed insofar as they allege violations not found
above.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law it is recommended that Respon-
dent, Garland Knitting Mills of Beaufort, South
Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Inter-
national Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
production and maintenance employees at its Beau-
fort, South Carolina, plant, excluding the nurse, of-
fice clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Announcing or putting into effect any
changes in wages, rates, or any other terms or con-
ditions of employment of any employees in the ap-
propriate unit described above without prior notifi-
cation to and, upon demand, bargaining about the
matter with the above-named labor organization.
(c) Discouraging membership in the above-
named labor organization or any other labor or-
ganization by discharging or refusing to reinstate
any of its employees or otherwise discriminating in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(d) Promising benefits to employees to dissuade
them from supporting, or engaging in activities on
behalf of, International Ladies' Garment Workers'
Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, or to engage in other concerted activities for
the purposes of mutual bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to
refrain from any and all such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment in con-
formity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it
is found will effectuate the policies of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit
described above with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is
reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Offer to Julia Frazier, Rebecca Frazier,
Alice Ebbs, Dorothy Walker, Dorene Crumley, and
Evelyn Houston immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed and make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them in the
manner set forth above in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records and reports, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to
compute the amount of backpay due hereunder.
(d) Post at its plant in Beaufort, South Carolina,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 11, after being
duly signed by a representative of the Respondent,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.42
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaints
herein be dismissed insofar as they allege interroga-
tion of employees by Estelle Rutledge, June Martin,
Edward Bernat, and Helen Smith and a promise of
wage increase by Helen Smith.
^' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order "
at In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon-
dent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
GARLAND KNITTING MILLS 843
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bar-
gain with International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of all production and main-
tenance employees at our Beaufort, South
Carolina, plant, excluding the nurse, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT announce or put into effect
any changes in wages, rates, or any other terms
or conditions of employment of any employees
in the appropriate unit described above
without prior notification to and, upon de-
mand, bargain about the matter with the
above-named labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
above-named labor organization or any other
labor organization by discharging or refusing to
reinstate any of our employees or otherwise
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to employees
to dissuade them from supporting, or engaging
in activities on behalf of, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purposes of mutual
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from
any and all such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as
the exclusive representative of the employees
in the unit described above with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment
and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL offer to Julia Frazier, Rebecca Fra-
zier, Alice Ebbs, Dorothy Walker, Dorene
Crumley, and Evelyn Houston immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority and other rights and privileges
previously enjoyed and make them whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them.
GARLAND KNITTING
MILLS OF BEAUFORT,
SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.,
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 16th Floor, Wachovia Building, 301 North
Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
27101, Telephone 723-2911.