Coats & Clark, Inc., 146 (1962)

representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the Decision and Direction of Election herein.] MEMBER LEEr o1Vr took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.

Coats & Clark, Inc. (Acworth Plant) and Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1941. April 14, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER

On September 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom 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 and a supporting brief.

The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following addition.' We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Walker Glover. The Respondent contends that it discharged Glover because it had received numerous complaints concerning his frequent and inordinately long absences from his place of work, and because on the day of his discharge he disregarded his instructions to stay on a specifically assigned job until it was completed.

The record shows that Glover, a twister cleaner, had been a 'pretty good hand,' and that the Respondent had made no complaints about his work for a period of 6 years. Then, on August 20, 1953, he signed a union card and became active in the organization of the Respondent's employees. The Respondent knew of and disapproved Glover's union activities,2 and, significantly, its appraisal of him and his work performance began to deteriorate simultaneously with this knowledge.

Furthermore, in the period that followed, it unlawfully interrogated Glover on 2 occasions, and on 5 other occasions, it either threatened 'The Tiial Examiner incorrectly repotted that Mr. and Mrs Glover attended a union meeting on October 17, 1954 The correct date is October 17, 1953.

2 Although the Respondent denied knowledge of Glover' s union activities its witnesses admitted that they knew In August 1953, that Glover was talking to other employees about the Union . In November 1953, the Respondent 's second shift overseer told an employee that the union organizer was not going to do his work for him, and if lie was lined up with the Glovers, ' to liell' with him.

112 NLRB No. 2...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here