TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

Unfair Labor Practices 85
panel found that the employee's action was in fact concerted activity,
it held that the alleged violation of section 8(a) (1) could not be
sustained since no evidence attubuted knowledge to the employer
that the discharge° acted on behalf of other employees as well as
herself
However, the dischaige of an employee because of the employer's
mistaken belief that he had joined other employees in filing unfair
labor practice charges against the employer was held to have violated
section 8(a) (1), although this employee had not done so prim
to Ins discharge 70
e Supervisory Instructions and Discharges
The Board, reaffirming its decision in Florida Builders, Inc ;11 adhered
to the view that an employer's unexecuted instructions to a
supervisor to discriminate against employees who are unaware of the
instructions do not have any impact upon the employees and, therefore,
do not violate section 8(a) (1) of the act 72
In the same case, however, a Boat d majority 73 held that the employe'
had violated the section by terminating a supei visor because of his refusal
to support as true the employer's pretext for the disci minatory
discharge of a rank-and-file employee It is well settled that the discharge
of a supervisoi for refusing to engage in the unfair labor pi actice
of thwarting employees' union activities violates section 8(a) (1),
as the net effect thereof is to cause employees to fear that the
employer would take similar action against them if they continued
to support the union 74 In view of the "overwhelming evidence" of
the employer's antiunion motivation in this case—numerous unlawful
antiunion threats and promises of benefit, and the discriminatory
discharge of union adherents—and the fact that the supervisor NI, as
discharged on the same pretext as that used for the discriminatory
discharge of the rank-and-file employee, the majority held that it
was reasonable to infer that the employees would become aware of
the true ieason for the supervisor's discharge
However, m another case, the discharge of a nonsupervisory employee
for union activities previously engaged in while a supervisot
was held not violative of the section, since the former supervisor's
Gt be Corp, 131 NLRB No 118, footnote 1 However, the sec 8(a)(3) and (4)
alleotions 'Ls to this discharge were dismissed See discussion below, p 92
71 111 NLRB 788, 787 (1955)
72 General Engineering, Inc , 131 NLRB No 87
"Member Rodgers dissenting
14 Talladega Cotton Factory, Inc. 108 NLRB 295 (1953), enforced 213 F 2d 208
(C A 5, 1954)