S. H. Camp and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 263 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTH-
ING WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. 7-C-1197.-Decided January 30, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 11, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
affecting commerce,' and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. No request for oral
argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any of
the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the exceptions and additions noted below :
1. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that about 2 weeks
before the Union's organizational campaign began, Ruth Mae, Rich-
ardson informed Forelady Irene McDaniels that she wanted to quit
her employment, and that Branch Manager Carter induced Rich-
ardson to remain. That finding is based upon Richardson's testimony.
Carter admitted this incident but "believed" it occurred about a month
after Richardson first entered the respondent's employ. Richardson
impressed us, as she did the Trial Examiner, as a credible witness and
Carter as one not worthy of credit. Accordingly, we accept Richard-
son's testimony and reject Carter's as to the date of the attempted
resignation.
' On the basis of the facts found by the Trial Examiner under the heading "I The busi-
ness of the respondent ," the stipulation entered into between the parties at the hearing, as
well as the substantial nature of the operations at the respondent 's Marshall plant, we
find that the business conducted by the respondent at its Marshall plant affects commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
60 N. L. R. B., No. 56.
263
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. In connection with Richardson's discharge interview, Margaret
Dunham, the respondent's only office employee, corroborated Carter's
testimony to the effect that he did not accuse Richardson of engaging
in unladylike and disorderly conduct. Dunham further testified that
Richardson was not discharged but that she quit her employment. The
facts found by the Trial Examiner relating to the discharge interview
are based upon the credible testimony of Richardson, corroborated in
all essential details by the likewise credible testimony of McDaniels.
Upon the entire record, we credit Richardson's and McDaniels' testi-
mony as reflecting substantially_ the statements which were made in
the interview precipitating the discharge, rather than Carter's or
Dunham's versions thereof.
3. We concur in the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent
knew that- the employees harbored an understanding that Eloise
Randall and Jennie Carver, two production employees, were acting
,as informers for the respondent. The record discloses that Randall
and Carver informed Carter that they had been accused by the em-
ployees of being company "stooges." Also, Randall testified, with-
out contradiction, that she frequently spoke to Carter of union activ-
ities at the plant in the presence of other employees. Further, the
record discloses that the reports to Carter relating to union activity
were made in the office, in the presence of Dunham, who is a non-
supervisory employee.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, S. H. Camp and Company,
Marshall, Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or
refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of their employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 265
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Ruth Mae Richardson immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to her seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole Ruth Mae Richardson for any loss of pay she may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount which
she normally would have earned as wages front the date of her dis-
charge to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less her
net earnings during said period;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its plant
at Marshall, Michigan, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating : (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)
of this Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative ac-
tion set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3)
that the respondent's employees are free to become and remain mem-
bers of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and that the respondent
will not discriminate against any employee because of membership
or activity in that or in any other labor organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Sylvester J. Pheney, for the Board.
Messrs. Bisbee, McKone, Badgley & McInally, by Mr. M. F. Badgley, of Jackson,
Mich., for the respondent.
Mr. A. M. Paterson, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union,
'the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), issued its complaint, dated
July 22, 1944, against S. H. Camp and Company, herein called the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and notice of hearing were-duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent, at its Marshall plant, (1) engaged in a course of inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion relating to its employees' rights to self-organi-
zation, particularly by procuring supervisory and ordinary employees to attend
meetings of the Union for the purpose of disrupting such meetings and report-
ing to the respondent the number and identity of employees attending the meet-
ings, by requiring supervisory and other employees to interrogate employees
concerning their union affiliations, and by hiring and attempting to hire em-
ployees because they were known to be opposed to the Union; (2) on or about
June 16, 1943, discharged Ruth Mae Richardson, its employee, because of her
union and concerted activities; and (3) by the foregoing conduct engaged in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent in its answer, duly filed on August 2, 1944, denied that it was en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the act or that it had engaged in
the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 10, 11 and 12, 1944, at Marshall,
Michigan, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel
and the Union by a lay representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, the undersigned took under
advisement a motion of the respondent to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof.
The motion is hereby denied, except to the extent hereinafter indicated.. At the
close of the hearing the parties were advised that they might argue before and file
briefs with the undersigned. None of the parties availed themselves of the privi-
lege of oral argument. On August 26, 1944, the respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
S. H. Camp and Company is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manufac-
ture, distribution, and sale of surgical and orthopedic supports. Its main opera-
tions are located at Jackson, Michigan. It also operates plants at Marshall,
Michigan, Windsor, Canada, and in England. Only the Marshall plant is involved
in this proceeding. During an average year, the respondent purchases approxi-_
mately 94.5 percent of raw materials used in its Michigan plants from points
outside the State of Michigan, and ships approximately 97.7 percent of the prod-
ucts of its Michigan plants to points outside the State of Michigan. All raw
materials are received at the Jackson plant. The fabrication of certain products
is completed at the Marshall plant and then-returned to the Jackson plant.'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is a labor organization, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership em-
ployees of the respondent.
I The foregoing findings of fact concerning the business operations of the respondent are
based upon a stipulation entered into between the parties at the hearing. See S. H. Camp
and Company, 52 N. L. R. B. 644.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 267
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint and coercion ; the discriminatory discharge 2
1. Introduction
The respondent's Marshall plant employed during the period in question
approximately 40 production employees. M. R. Carter, branch factory manager,
was in charge of its operations. In addition to Carter, the supervisory staff
consisted of 2 foreladies, one of whom was Irene McDaniels e
Ruth Mae Richardson was employed by the respondent on March 29, 1943, as
a lacer. At the time Richardson was hired, she was told by Carter that a number
of months would elapse before she could expect to become sufficiently proficient
in her work to earn or exceed the day rate' Although Richardson up to the
time of her discharge, had not yet succeeded in making her day rate, it is undis-
puted that only one of the eight lacers who were then employed had ever been
able to equal or exceed-this quota. Prior to the commencement of the Union's
organizational drive, Richardson's work, except for a few isolated but not ab-
normal instances when garments were returned for rework, was not criticized,
and her general efficiency record never was made the subject of criticism. About
2 weeks before union organization began, Richardson, according to her testimony,
informed McDaniels that she wanted to quit her employment. Later that day,
Carter spoke to Richardson and induced her to change her mind' According to
Richardson's undenied testimony, Carter told her at that time that her work was
satisfactory. McDaniels also told Richardson at about that time that-her work
was as good as might be expected from an employee with her brief experience.
2. Commencement of union organization ; events leading up to the discharge of
Richardson
Organizational activities of the Union began about June 7, 1943. Richardsolf
was the first employee to sign an application card. Thereafter, Richardson
assisted the Union organizer in contacting other employees, distributed cards,
spoke to her fellow employees on behalf of the Union, and generally participated
actively in the organitizational campaign. Richardson was the only employee at
that time who took an especially active part in the campaign.
On June, 10, 1943, following the close of the work day, handbills announcing
the first union meeting were distributed outside the plant. A group of employees
congregated on the street near the place where the handbills were being dis-
tributed, and a heated argument ensued between Richardson and Eloise Randall,
employed by the respondent as a boxer or final inspector," in which the former
2 The following findings are based on admitted facts, or credible testimony which, except
where otherwise indicated, was not substantially contradicted
9 Irene McDaniels was no longer employed by the respondent at the time of the hearing.
In weighing McDaniel's testimony, the undersigned has considered evidence showing that
she quit the employment of the respondent because of her belief that Carter had failed
to support her supervisory authority.
' Work at the plant is performed on a piece -work basis . Employees are paid a guaranteed
basic wage of 40 cents an hour, but by exceeding their production quota, sometimes referred
to as the day rate, will earn more. When an employee ' s piece-rate earnings in any given
week do not equal the basic guaranteed earnings, the deficiency is called a "make up."
Records are kept by the respondent showing the production, earnings and "make up"
of each employee.
5 Carter admitted this incident, except that he testified that he "believed" it occurred
about a month after Richardson first entered the respondent's employ. Richardson's
testimony concerning the date was In effect corroborated by McDanlels, and Is credited.
The record does not establish that Randall was a supervisory employee.
268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supported and the latter opposed unionization of the plant. Early the next
morning during working hours, Randall went to Carter's office and reported
to Carter the argument which she had had with Richardson. During the after-
noon of the same day, Richardson for the first time during her employment wa&
called into Carter's office and, in the presence of Forelady McDaniels, was
criticized for general inefficiency. Although Carter's purported reason for call-
ing in Richardson was to help her improve her work, Carter's manner during the
interview was rude, antagonistic, and condescending according to the credible
testimony of Richardson and McDaniels. McDaniels characterized her impres-
sion of Carter's attitude as that of "a little boy poking a stick at a turtle:-
or something, to see if it wouldn't bite.' When, in the course of the interview,
Richardson pointed out to Carter that only about 2 weeks before, when she had
wanted to quit he had asked her to stay on, and accused Carter of being pri-
marily interested in her union activities, Carter remarked that "that was beside
the point." At the conplusion of the interview Richardson was warned to
make production. Following the meeting, McDaniels, according to her testimony,
which the undersigned credits, for the first time was instructed by Carter to
watch Ricbardson's work closely to see if she could find anything wrong with it'
As announced by the handbills, the first union meeting was held on June 14,
1943. Before the meeting, Randall informed McDaniels that she would attend
the meeting, ask questions, and report to Carter what occurred. At the meeting
that evening, Randall questioned the good faith of the Union and its ability to
attain economic benefits for the employees, and was accused by the union or-
ganizer of being a representative of management. There, Randall also had a
further argument with Richardson concerning the Union. The following'morn-
ing, during working hours, Randall conferred with Carter for approximately
45 minutes and reported to him what had transpired at the meeting the preceding
evening, and also informed Carter of Richardson's participation at the meeting.
Randall also gave a report of the meeting to McDaniels, advising her who were
*present and what had occurred. Later that day, Randall singled out a bundle
of corsets which had been laced by Richardson and turned it over to McDaniels
who brought it into the office. The bundle was returned to Richardson with a
complaint that it had, been laced improperly. Only after Richardson proved
that it had been laced in accordance with a posted schedule, which without
the knowledge of the lacers had since been superseded, was it acknowledged
that Richardson was not at fault, and she was paid for relacing it in accordance
with the new schedule.
Shortly after Richardson came to work the following morning, July 16, 1943,
she was summoned to Carter's office. There, in the presence of McDaniels, Carter
told Richardson he had received a number of complaints from employees that
'Carter denied that his attitude was rude and antagonistic, and his testimony in this
respect was corrobordated by Margaret Dunham, the respondent's only office employee.
The over-all testimony of Richardson and McDaniels was supported by convincing detail
and corroborating circumstances in the record, and was marked by that degree of candor
which invites credence . They impressed the undersigned as forthright and credible
witnesses. Carter and Dunham did not similarly impress the undersigned. As noted
below, Carter's testimony in a number of respects was wholly implausible and at variance
with that of other witnesses called by the respondent, and was largely marked by vague
and unconvincing generalities Dunham's over-all testimony indicated her to be a thor-
oughly unreliable witness Concerning the incident in question, her recollection was
admittedly vague and confused , and in some respects at variance with other established
facts admitted by Carter. The undersigned does not credit Carter's denial, or Dunham's
corroboration thereof.
8 Carter admitted that after his interview with Richardson, lie requested McDaniels to
observe Richardson's work, but stated that his purpose was "to see if there wasn 't some-
thing possibly that we could do to help her along , and also to check the quality of
her work."
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 269
she was causing disturbances in the plant, that her conduct was disorderly and
unladylike and had caused one employee to suffer a nervous breakdown, and
that she was an undesirable person to have in the plant. Carter refused to tell
Richardson who the complainants were, and refused also to specify the exact
nature of her alleged improper conduct except to say that she had been whistling
in an annoying manner. Richardson became agitated at the charges leveled
against her, denied that they were true, stated that she did not like being
humiliated, and otherwise indicated her resentment. Richardson told Carter
that if he intended to discharge her he should do so in a fortright manner and
not humiliate her. Carter asked Richardson what she intended to do about it,'
and Richardson said "plenty." ° Carter asked Richardson what she meant by
that remark, and Richardson said "just that." At that point Carter said, "You
will take your things and go home."
The respondent in its answer alleged merely that Richardson was discharged
"for good and sufficient cause," unconnected with her union activities. At the
opening of the hearing, in response to a request for a more specific statement,
the respondent, through its counsel, amplified the general allegation in its
answer by the following statement :
Ruth Richardson was discharged because she was not able to progress in
the work satisfactorily. Her make-up pay was greater than that of any
other employee, and when she was interviewed in connection with her
failure to progress, in accordance with the custom of the Company which
attempted to help its employees who were not progressing satisfactorily,
she resented it and took a position of antagonism. On two occasions she
requested that she be discharged, and on at least one occasion she gave
as a reason for this that she was frozen in her job at Camp's and if she
were discharged she had another job that she much preferred. She made
disturbances in the plant after she had been interviewed and again when
she was called in and asked to conduct herself properly , that her conduct had
been annoying-other employees and that complaints had been received from
other employees, she again demonstrated a completely uncooperative atti-
tude and continued resentment and evidenced a complete disregard of
proper cooperation with the management.
During the course of the hearing, however, the respondent modified its posi-
tion. Apart from some vague and general testimony of Carter, the respondent
adduced no evidence in substantiation of its earlier position that the discharge
was motiviated in part by Richardson's alleged inefficiency and lack of progress.
When in the course of the respondent's case, the undersigned asked whether the
6 Richardson testified that by that she meant that she would do her utmost to have the
plant organized.
10 The facts set forth above relating to the discharge interview are based upon the credible
testimony of Richardson , corroborated in all essential details by the likewise credible testi-
mony of McDaniels . Carter's account of the interview was not substantially at variance
with that set forth above , except that he denied that he accused Richardson of engaging
in unladylike and disorderly conduct ( although he admitted that he accused her of whistling
in any annoying manner), and except further that he testified that he did not recall
charging Richardson with having caused an employee to suffer a nervous breakdown.
Elsewhere in his testimony , Carter, however , indicated that he considered Richardson's
conduct disorderly and also implied that a nervous breakdown suffered by an employee
named Fish was attributable to Richardson 's whistling. Under all the circumstances,
the undersigned credits Richardson ' s and McDaniels ' testimony , which is found to reflect
substantially the statements made in the interview precipitating the discharge.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent intended to produce the production records of its lacing department
employees, which it admittedly kept, so that a comparative analysis might be
made of Richardson's efficiency record in relationship t6 that of the other em-
ployees in the department, counsel for the respondent stated on the record that
the respondent did not defend the discharge in whole or in part on the ground
that Richardson's efficiency was not up to standard, and expressly disclaimed
that it was relying on this as a reason for the discharge. Nor did the respondent
adduce evidence to support its position that Richardson was guilty of disturbing
and annoying conduct other than the testimony of Carter that Richardson had
whistled in the plant. The respondent's position, as modified, is reflected by
the following testimony of Carter :
Trial Examiner LEFF. Her [Richardson's] only improper conduct, Intake
it, was whistling; was there anything else? I would like to get it all down
now. I mean apart from her attitude during the interview.
The WITNESS. That was the main factor.
Trial Examiner LEFF. I mean the only thing that you were complaining
about was this whistling; she hadn't been guilty of any improper or unlady-
like conduct at all, had she?
The WITNESS. That is true
Trial Examiner LEFF. Then that, I take it, coupled with her attitude
toward you during her interview motivated the discharge.
The WITNESS. Yes
Trial Examiner LEFF. And that is all that motivated the discharge?
The WITNESS. Yes.
The record is free from dispute that the respondent had no rule and had never
issued instructions prohibiting whistling in the plant, and that many employees
were in the habit of whistling and singing while they worked. Until Richardson
was called into Carter's office, no employee had ever been criticized for whistling
Richardson herself had been whistling at work almost since the beginning of
her employment, but had never been reprimanded or warned to stop. According
to Carter, Richardson's whistling first became annoying to other employees on
June 11, 1943, the very day on which Randall had reported to Carter her argu-
ment with Richardson which had been precipitated by the distribution of union
handbills. Between that day and the clay of Richardson's discharge, there were
only 2 working days." Carter testified that although during that period Richard-
son continued whistling melodies as she had done before, her whistling had become
louder and more shrill, and that it interfered with the production of other
employees. Carter, while testifying, named 7 employees who had complained
to him about Richardson's whistling in that period. Two of them, Cunningham
and Rundle, were not called as witnesses. Two others 'called as witnesses by '
the respondent, Randall and Dunham, were not questioned about Richardson's
whistling. Of the remaining three, all called by the respondent, one Neufer
testified that Richardson's whistling did not annoy her, and another Thompson.
testified that she never complained about Richardson whistling, and the third,
Ludy, who could not sing or whistle herself, "imagined," according'to her tes-
timony, that she once made a remark to several girls while Carter was near that
Richardson's whistling was annoying but she fixed the time of that remark
as about 3 or 4 weeks before Richardson's discharge.
Under all the circumstances, the undersigned does not credit Carter's testi-
mony and finds, in accordance with the credible testimony of Richardson,
McDaniel's, and Grace Prattley that Richardson's whistling was neither louder
11 June 11, 1943, fell on a Friday. The plant was closed*on Saturday and Sunday.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 271
nor more annoying that that of other employees who customarily and without
criticism whistled while at work, that there was no charge in her whistling
after June 11, that her whistling was not annoying to others, and that it did
not interfere with production.
4. Conclusions with respect to the discharge of Richardson
It is clear from the record that the respondent's change of attitude toward
Richardson coincided with the commencement of her open union activities.
Prior to June 10, 1943, the respondent had regarded her as a satisfactory em-
ployee and had encouraged her to remain in its employ when she had sought
voluntarily to quit. However, on the very day the respondent learned of her
prominent union role, she was called into Carter's office and in an antagonistic
manner charged with inefficiency, under circumstances reasonably leading to the
inference, found by the undersigned, that- the respondent was seeking to pio-
voke her resignation. When this failed of accomplishment, Richardson's fore-
lady was instructed to watch her work carefully to see if she could find anything
wrong with it, and not long after an attempt was made to single out a bundle
of her work for special criticism, an attempt that proved abortive when she
was able to establish that her work was performed in accordance with an estab-
lished schedule. On the day of her discharge, she was unjustifiably charged with
conducting herself improperly, annoying others, and otherwise being an unde-
sirable employee. It was, however, clear to her, as it is to the undersigned, that
the real reason she was called into Carter's office was to humiliate her and
provoke her resignation. Under the circumstances her showing of resentment
to Carter was understandable; having been, as the undersigned finds, deliberately
induced by Carter's provocative conduct, which was designed to make her quit
or, failing that, to provide a pretext for the. respondent's discharge action.
.Upon the entire record and in the light of all the circumstances, including the
timing of the discharge, the events leading up to it, the respondent's provocative
conduct and exaggeration of Richardson's alleged offense of whistling, the_re-
spondent's shifting reasons in explanation of its action, and the respondent's
general anti-union animus, as more fully reflected by its conduct narrated below,
the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Richardson was not discharged
for the reasons asserted by the respondent, but that she was discharged and
denied reinstatement because of her membership in and activities on behalf of
the Union and to discourage membership in the Union.
The undersigned finds that Ruth Mae Richardson was discharged on June 16,
1943, because of her activities on behalf of the Union, and that the respondent.
by thus discharging Richardson, discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering-
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
5. Activities of Randall and Carver
Reference has been made above to the reports rendered by Randall to Branch
Manager Carter and to Forelady McDaniels relating to Richardson's attitude
toward the Union and to the proceedings at the first Union meeting. Randall's
reports to the respondent concerning union activities of its employees were not
limited to these two occasions. As appears from her undisputed testimony, on
numerous occasions thereafter she continued to report to Carter and McDaniels
whatever information she gathered in the plant concerning union organizational
activity, including remarks made by other employees Randall, who at the
first Union meeting had been-accused of acting in the interest of management,
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not attend any further meetings. However, Jennie Carver," who, like
Randall, had always been opposed to unions, attended the second and third union
meetings, which were held at weekly intervals, and there, like Randall, heckled
the Union organizer with numerous questions designed to discredit the Union.
When accused at one of these meetings of being a "stooge" for the respondent,
Carver did not deny the charge." On the morning following each meeting,
Carver, again like Randall, conferred with Carter at the respondent's office and
advised him what had occurred at the meeting the previous evening. On other
occasions as well, Carver, according to her testimony, reported to Carter her
observations concerning union activities in the plant."
The reports made `by Randall and Carver to Carter were made during working
hours, and at least those which followed the first three Union meetings admit-
tedly consumed from 30 to 45 minutes each.
That Randall and Carver made it a practice of reporting to Carter matters
relating to the union activities of the respondent's employees was not disputed,
nor was it disputed that Carter never attempted to discourage Randall and
Carver from making such reports and always listened attentively to what they
had to say. However, it was the testimony of Carter, as well as that of Randall
and Carver, that neither the reports nor the attendance of these employees at
the meetings had ever been solicited by management. According to Carter,
when the reports were rendered to him he remained absolutely mute except to
state at the conclusion of the interview that the respondent's policy was one of
-neutrality. On the other hand, it was the testimony of both Randall and Carver
that Carter did participate in the conversations, but that they had no recollection
of what he said. Considering the length of the conferences, Carter's testimony in
this respect is on its face inherently improbable, and is not credited.
During the course of the Union's organizational drive, Carter, according to his
own admission, kept a check list, which he revised from time to time, on which
he classified the employees who favored the Union, those who were opposed, and
those of a doubtful category. When asked to explain his source of information
for this list, Carter testified that it was prepared solely on the basis of his
intuition and that his intuition likewise guided him in making periodic revisions
of the list. Carter's explanation is patently implausible and unworthy of credit.
In the absence of any other explanation-concerning the,source of Carter's infor-
mation, it is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned finds, that Carter in pre-
paring his check list utilized the information furnished him by Randall and
Carver.
The record shows that no effort was made to conceal from the employees in
the plant, and that it was common knowledge among them, that management
was receiving reports from Randall and Carver concerning union activities.16
"Carver , a production employee , is a cousin of Margaret Dunham, the only office
employee
"According to the testimony of Union Organizer Cubeta, corroborated by Richardson,
Carver, when accused of having been sent down to the meeting by Carter, had replied, "so
what." Carver denied that she made this statement, but admitted that Cubeta "might have
asked me where I got the information " and that she had said "wouldn't you like to know'"
Carver was a recalcitrant witness whose testimony in other respects proved to be unreliable.
Richardson particularly impressed the undersigned as a credible witness. The undersigned
does not credit Carver's denial.
14 The record shows that on one occasion , Carver turned over to Carter photographs
taken liy her husband of striking employees picketing the plant.
15 Thus , Randall testified that everyone in the plant knew she was talking to Carter about
union activities in the plant , and that she "didn't keep it.a secret like the girls who were for
the C. I. 0 " and who "kept everything hush-hush like it was something underhanded."
Since it appears that Randall and Carver informed Carter that they had been accused
of being company "stooges," it is reasonable to infer , and the undersigned finds, that the
respondent knew that Randall and Carver were regarded as informers by the employees.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 273'
6. Conclusions as to interference, restraint, and coercion .
It cannot be questioned that ordinary employees who entertain an anti-union
bias are free to express their views before fellow employees and at union' meet-
iugs, and that management cannot be charged with responsibility for theii conduit
simply because their expressed views happen to coincide with that of manage-
ment. In this case, however, it is the Board's contention that the attendance
of Randall and- Carver at the union meetings, their heckling conduct at such'
meetings, and their reports to management concerning union activities, were
expressly solicited" by the respondent and that the employees in question' were
acting at its request and as its agents. The. record is bare of direct evidence' of
express agency. While, it is recognized that the employment and use of in-
formers is usually the result of a secret understanding known only to the principals
and thus seldom capable of direct proof, the undersigned considers it unnecessary
to determine whether in this case the combination of objective facts surrounding
the activities of Randall and Carver constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence
from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that Randall and Carver acted
at the express request and procurement of the respondent, as alleged in the
complaint Therefore, although regarding the respondent's denial with suspicion,
the undersigned makes no finding in this respect.
Assuming, however, that the respondent gave Randall and Carver no expliciE
instructions, its encouragement, approval, and adoption of their activities was
nevertheless implicit in its readiness and willingness to listen repeatedly to their
accounts of union organization and activities, matters which should not concern
it, as well as in its utilization of the information thus received. The respondent's
utilization of this information is shown not only by its preparation of the check
list. The discharge of Richardson followed closely on the heels of Randall's
reports to Carter. As found above, the fact that these reports were being made
was not concealed from the employees. Thus, the discharge forcefully brought
home to the employees that knowledge of this character in the hands of their
employer might be fraught with danger to their economic security. Although
the respondent knew that the employees generally regarded Randall and Carver
as tale bearers of union activities, it nevertheless did nothing to restrain or dis-
avow their activities ; on the contrary by tacitly encouraging and acquiescing
in their repeated conduct, it helped foster the impression among the employees
that they were in fact authorized informers for the respondent. It is clear that
the employment of informers has an intimidating effect on employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, and it has frequently been held that
attempts of employers to persuade and urge upon employees that they report the
organization activities of their fellow workers violates Section 8 (1).10 The
effect on employees is none the less intimidatory where the action of the informers
is encouraged and approved, rather than expressly authorized, by the employer.
Nor is the employer absolved from liability under the Act because the conduct
found to be an unfair labor practice was initiated or suggested by employees
for whose conduct he would not otherwise be 'responsible. 17 Upon the entire
record, the undersigned concludes that the respondent's conduct in encouraging
the reports made to it by Randall and Carver concerning union organization and
activities, in failing to disabuse its employees of their understanding that Randall
and Carver were thus acting as informers for the respondent after the respondent
19 See Matter of Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 25 N. L. R B. 193 , 205, and
cases there cited.
17 Cf Medo Photo Supply Corporation v N. L R. B, 321 U S 678.
628563-45-vol. 60-19
- 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clearly knew that the employees harbored such an understanding, and the utiliza-
tion by the respondent of the information so obtained, particularly when viewed
in relationship to the discharge of Richardson, constituted interference, restraint,
and coercion within the proscription of the Act.
The undersigned finds that by its discharge and refusal to reinstate Ruth Mae
Richardson, the respondent discriminated in regard to her hire and tenure of
employment, and thereby, and by its encouragement, approval, and adoption of
the activities of Randall and Carver in reporting to it matters concerning union
activities and organization, and by the totality of such conduct, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint alleges that the respondent hired and attempted to hire em-
ployees who it was informed and believed would vote against representation by
the Union in an election scheduled to be held pursuant to the direction of the
Board. The record discloses that during the period preceding the election, the
respondent hired two employees, one a sister of Eloise Randall, who were known
to be opposed to the Union.18 The record also shows that on one occasion Mc-
Daniels was asked by Carter if she could suggest the names of any prospective em-
ployee who she knew would vote against the Union,' and that on another occasion,
Carter, while discussing the possible return of a former employee, told McDaniels
that he believed this employee to be opposed to the Union and that her return
would mean one more vote against the Union. However, the record fails to
establish that the two anti-union employees referred to above would not have
been hired'but for their union animus , nor does it otherwise establish that the
respondent in fact discriminated in the hire of employees. While Carter's state-
ments to Forelady McDaniels, referred to above, constitute, as the undersigned
finds, a further reflection of the respondent's anti-union attitude, it is, nevertheless
found that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegation of the
complaint here in question and it will be recommended that said allegation be
dismissed. -
The complaint also alleges that the respondent requested and required super-
visory employees to attend Union meetings, to report to it upon the number and
identity of employees attending such meetings, and to interrogate employees
concerning their union activities and affiliations. The undersigned finds no sub-
stantial evidence to support these allegations of the complaint, and will recommend
that they be dismissed. -
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and to the extent that they are found to have
been in contravention of Section 7 and 8 of the Act, tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
18 It is not clear from the record, however, whether any other employees were hired in
the pre-election period.
18 This finding is based on the testimony of McDaniels, credited by the undersigned.
Although denied by Carter, the undersigned does not credit his denial.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 275
The undersigned has found that on June 16, 1943, the respondent discharged
Ruth Mae Richardson because of her union affiliation and activities. The under-
signed will recommend that the respondent offer Ruth Mae Richardson immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and that the
respondent make Ruth Mae Richardson whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum
of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from
June 16, 1943, the date of her discriminatory discharge, to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less her net earnings 20 during said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2
(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ruth
Mae Richardson and thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid labor
organization, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not, as alleged in the complaint, engaged in unfair labor
practices by hiring and attempting to hire employees who would vote against
representation by the Union, by requesting and requiring supervisory employees
to attend union meetings and to report to it upon the number and identity of
employees attending such meetings, and by interrogating employees concerning -
their union activities and affiliations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that the respondent, S. H. Camp and Company, Marshall,
Michigan, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor
organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in
any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of their employment ;
1013y "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employnin connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere. See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
Amesoca, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2.590, 8 N L. R. B 440 Monies
received for work performed upon Federal, Slate, county, municipal, or other work- relief
projects shall be considered as earnings. See Republic Steel Coipoiation v. N. L. R. B,
311 U S. 7.
276 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
' (b) In any, other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its emplbyo s
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with The
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid
or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Ruth Mae Richardson immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority
and other rights and privileges ;
(b) Make-whole Ruth Mae Richardson for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against her by payment to
her of a -sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as
wages from the date of her discharge to the date of the respondent's offer of
reinstatement, less her net earnings 21 during said period :
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout the respondent's plant
at Marshall, Michigan, and maintain fora period of at least sixty (60) consecu-
tive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that it
cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; (2)
that the respondent will take -the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2
(a) and (b) of these recommendations; and (3) that the respondent's employees
are free to become and remain members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress on Industrial Organizations, and that it
will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in
that or any other labor organization ;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventh Region within ten (10)
days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint insofar as it alleges that the
respondent engaged in unfair labor practices by hiring and attempting to hire
employees who would vote against representation by the Union, by requesting
and requiring supervisory employees to attend union meetings, and to report to
it on the number and identity of employees attending such meetings, and by
interrogating employees concerning their union activities and, affiliations, be
dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 26,
1943, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from'the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to
Section 32 of Article II of the said Rules and ItIegulations, file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
21 See footnote 20, supra.
S. H. CAMP AND COMPANY 277
motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such
statement of exceptions and/or brief , the party or counsel for the Board filing
the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the bother parties and shall
file a copy with the Regional Director . As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) days from the
date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
ARTHUR LEFF,
Trial Examiner.
Dated September 11, 1944.