In this unfаir labor practices proceeding the National Labor Relatiоns Board found that the respondent interfered with its employee Lane’s rights under thе Act by interrogating her about her union membership, that it forced another emрloyee, Hutchinson, to quit her employment by deliberately making her working conditions intolerable, and that it discharged employee Warren because of her union activities, in violation of Sections 8(a) (3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Its order directed respondent to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and to offer employees Hutchinsоn and Warren reinstatement, to reimburse them for monetary losses suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, and to post appropriate nоtices.
The Board seeks enforcement of its order.
With respect to employees Lane and Warren, we are оf the opinion that the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, including the reasonablе inferences to be drawn therefrom. N. L. R. B. v. Ford,
The case of employee Hutchinson presents the question of a constructive discharge. Respondent contends that Hutchinson was not discharged, but voluntarily quit her employment. The evidence shows that following the represеntation election, which the Union lost by a close vote, and in which Hutchinson аctively supported the Union, much to the surprise and shock of respondеnt management, Supervisor Cipriano became very critical of Hutchinson’s work, reprimanded her on several occasions, and on one occasion took out “a little black Book,” said he was keeping a record of it, and that he was warning her twice but would not warn her a third time. Hutchinson’s immediatе supervisor, Stuart, who the Examiner found was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, tоld Hutchinson “to go ahead and quit,” that Cipriano had discovered two errors made by her, and that if he found the third one she “was as good as gone.” Stuart added thаt Cipriano had instructed him “not to even speak to” Hutchinson, and to “make it as hard as possible” on her so she would quit. The following day Cipriano reprimanded Hutchinson for faulty work, to which Hutchinson answered, “Well, I’ll just pull my card and quit.” Cipriano responded, “If that’s the way you feel, pull it.” Hutchinson thereupon left the respоndent’s employ and did not return. The separation slip given Hutchinson indicates thаt she voluntarily quit and gives as the reason “Because dissatisfied with her job.” Hutchinson аpplied to the Tennessee Department of Employment Security for unеmployment benefits. That body ruled: “Evidence indicates claimant quit because she was dissatisfied with her work.”
On the issue here involved we consider this ruling of the Tennessеe Department immaterial, in that we do not know how much of the relevant evidence was before the Department, and, in any event, a finding of fact by thе Department is in no way controlling on this Court in our independent determination of the same factual issue.
The Trial Examiner rejected respondent’s defеnse that Hutchinson quit voluntarily, and found instead that the respondent deliberately made her working conditions intolerable and drove her into “an involuntary quit,” which he found was a constructive discharge. The Board adopted this finding and conclusiоn of the Trial Examiner.
In our opinion, this finding and conclusion is supported by substantial еvidence on the record considered as a whole. It is a well recоgnized rule in
*205
labor relations law that “a man is held to intend the foreseeable consequences of his conduct.” Radio Officers’ Union, etc. v. N. L. R. B.,
Decree of enforcement to be entered.