Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 443 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of ALABAMA HOSIERY Muds, INO.l and AMERIOAN
FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS
Case No. C-990.-Decided September 16, 1939
Hosiery Manufacturing Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion:
charges of, not sustained-Discrimirn.ation: charges of, not sustained-Coan-
plaint : dismissed.
Mr. Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., for the Board.
Eyster cli Eyster, by Mr. Charles H. Eyster, of Decatur, Ala., and
.Mr. Benjamin T. Ward, of Greensboro, N. C., for the respondent.
. Mr. W. J. Frazier, and Mr. Herbert G. B. King, both of Chatta-
nooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. F. Hamilton Seeley, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by American Feder-
ation of Hosiery Workers, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional
Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its com-
plaint, dated June 16, 1938, against Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
Decatur, Alabama, herein called the respondent, alleging that. the
respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce. within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) ,and 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 thereon, were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance, that the respondent terminated the employment of and
refused to reinstate two employees, named Jeff Landers and .Frank
Barnes, because they joined,and assisted the Union and engaged in
' Incorrectly designated "Alabama Hosiery Mills" In the charge and the complaint. This
was corrected by motion at the hearing.
15 N. L. R. B., No. 45.
443
444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection ; and that the respondent, by
the above-mentioned activities, and by urging, persuading, and warn-
ing its employees, to refrain 'from becoming members of the Union,
and by threatening its employees with discharge and other reprisals
if they became and remained members of the Union, and by other
acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the-rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On July 13, 1938, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint
in which it admitted the allegations concerning its corporate struc-
ture, but denied the allegations concerning the nature of its business
and the allegations concerning the unfair labor practices. .
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July. 18, 19, 20, and
21, 1938, at Decatur, Alabama, before Peter F. Ward, the Trial,
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Union was repre-
sented by its representative ; 2 the respondent and the Board by
counsel. All parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence. bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties. At the
beginning of the hearing, counsel for the Board was permitted to
amend the complaint by striking that portion pertaining to Frank
Barnes. Counsel for the respondent was thereupon permitted to
refile the answer to the complaint as amended and to make certain
motions to dismiss upon the ground that the Board had no jurisdic-
tion in. the premises. The Trial Examiner did not make any ruling
on these motions either at the hearing or in his Intermediate 'Report.
The motions are hereby denied. At the close of the hearing counsel
for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because of in-
sufficient evidence. This motion was denied by the Trial Examiner.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made numerous
other rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner, and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 20, 1938, the Trial Examiner .filed his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties. He found
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act, but had not engaged in an unfair labor practice
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act as alleged in the com-
plaint. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from
2 Although the Union was not represented by counsel at the hearing, counsel subse-
quently filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report on its behalf.
ALABAMA HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 445
the unfair labor practices so found and post notices in its plant of its
intention to comply with the Act. He further recommended that the
allegations of the complaint be dismissed in regard to the discharge
of Jeff Landers.
Exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a request for oral
argument were filed by the Union on November 14, 1938, and by the
respondent on December 5, 1938. On the same date, the respondent
filed its motion to strike the Union's exceptions.
Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was
held on June 9, 1939, at Washington, D. C., before the Board, for
the purpose of oral argument. The respondent was represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union was not repre-
sented. Counsel for the respondent also filed a brief. The Board
has reviewed the exceptions to the Intermediate Report filed by the
Union and finds them to be without merit. The Board has considered
the respondent's exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the brief and
argument in support thereof and, save as they are inconsistent with
the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, sustains them.
The respondent's motion to strike the Union's exceptions is hereby
denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT
Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc., an Alabama corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Decatur, Alabama, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of women's unfinished full-fashioned silk
hosiery. The principal raw materials used by the respondent are
thrown silk and cotton yarn. The respondent uses approximately
1,700 pounds of thrown silk monthly, all of which is purchased from
the Mock-Judson-Voehringer Company, Inc., an affiliated company
located at Greensboro, North Carolina. Approximately 1,600 pounds
of cotton yarn is used monthly, all of which is purchased from the
Southern Mercerizing Company, at Tryon, North Carolina. The
annual volume of products sold-is- approximately 303,350 dozens with
an approximate value of $1,470,000. The entire output of the mill
is sold in the State of New York. All products are shipped from
origin by railway express and delivered in trucks.
Approximately 540 employees are on the pay roll which amounts
to approximately $45,000 monthly.
We find that the above-described operations constitute a continuous
flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States.
446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organiza-
tion, formerly affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and,
since March 1937, affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Or-
ganization, through . the Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
admitting to membership all production and maintenance employees
of the respondent, excluding "fixers" having the right to hire or dis-
charge employees, and clerical and supervisory personnel.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
During April and May, 1937, the Union conducted an active cam-
paign for members among the respondent's employees. This cam-
paign met with some success and a number of the employees signed
union application cards. On May 14, 1937, L. L. Lively, the respond-
ent's general manager, called a meeting of the employees to be held
on May 15, 1937, in the basement of the plant. Several days in
advance of the meeting a notice was posted by the respondent which
advised the employees of the discontinuance of certain penalties
which had been causing,some dissatisfaction among the employees.
The respondent contends that the purpose of the meeting was to
explain and amplify the notice. The meeting was attended by 15 or
20 employees, the general manager, and several other officials.
Jeff Landers, one of the employees present at this meeting, testified
that! Lively stated to the employees : "that he had heard that there
was some C. I. O. Union in the mill and they didn't want that. If
the boys and girls joined the Union, that they would close the mill
down; in fact, he had orders to do so."
This testimony of Landers is unsupported by any convincing evi-
dence. It is specifically. denied by Lively and by a number of
employees who were present at the meeting. Lively testified that the
only time that unionism was mentioned was when he replied to a
question concerning unionism, with the statement : "I am not inter-
ested in that at all." Upon the basis of the evidence before us, we
conclude that the statement made - by Lively was such as testified
to by him.
Several days after the meeting on May 15, 1937, there was a second
meeting of the employees in the basement of the plant. There were
no supervisory officials present at this meeting. Roy Poteet, an
employee in the knitting department, was nominated as chairman
by Landers. The purpose of this meeting was to form an. "inside"
or "company union." Poteet and another employee had previously
ALABAMA HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 447
consulted a local attorney and obtained a petition form from him.
Seven copies of this petition were circulated among the employees at
the meeting, and, subsequently, at the plant. Apparently no attempt
was made to conceal these petitions since they were left openly upon
the work benches where they could be, and were, seen by a supervisor.
At this meeting a committee of three employees, including Poteet,
was appointed to meet with Lively and' to present certain requests.
Immediately after the meeting, the committee had an interview with
Lively and they requested him to post on the bulletin board a state-
ment of his position in regard to the formation of an employees'
association. Lively refused to make a statement of any kind because
"it would be a violation of the Wagner Act." Lively said, "I am not
going to encourage or discourage our employees to join anything
whatsoever." The committee then asked him if he would recognize
them as the bargaining agency for the employees if they formed an
employees' association. Lively replied, "Well, you don't have any-
thing to recognize now. Under the Wagner Act, we have to recog-
nize any kind of a Union, national, local, or anything, and we have
to deal with it in collective bargaining."
After the committee had reported the results of the interview to
the other employees, approximately 339 employees signed the peti-
tions. Thereafter different signers began erasing or withdrawing
their names from the petitions. About 15 signers did erase or with-
draw their names. This withdrawal caused some disturbance around
Poteet's machine. A fellow employee, who had assisted Poteet,
advised him that they had not proceeded properly in organizing the
employees' association because the petitions should not have been
circulated within the plant or on company time. Poteet then
destroyed the petitions. Apparently no further attempt was made
to form an employees' association. It appears that Poteet was
promoted temporarily to the position of supervisor in March 1938.
We do not believe that this fact, standing alone, warrants the Trial
Examiner's conclusion that Poteet's efforts to form an employees'
association were made at the request of the respondent.
Upon the above evidence, we find that the respondent did not
interfere, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act: Accordingly, we will dismiss
the allegations of the complaint in this respect.
B. The allegedly discriminatory discharge of Jeff Landers
The complaint alleges that the respondent discharged Jeff Landers
on February 7, 1938, because he joined and assisted the Union, and
engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and other mutual aid and protection. The respondent's answer
448 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
denies that it discharged Landers because of his union activity, and
sets out the affirmative defense that it discharged Landers for viola-
tion of known rules of the respondent. In his Intermediate Repoi t,
the Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint be dismissed as
to Jeff Landers. The Union excepted to this recommendation.
Landers started work for the present owners in December 1933,
and worked continuously as a "legger" until his final discharge on
February 7, 1938. On August 10, 1937, Landers joined the Union
and thereafter became active in soliciting employees for membership
in the Union. In the early part of September 1937, Landers was
discharged for alleged negligence in oiling his machine, but was im-
mediately reinstated and given "another chance." On February 7,
1938, Landers was discharged by the night superintendent allegedly
because he had violated a company rule.
. The evidence concerning the September discharge is not clear. It
.is significant that Landers did not at that time attribute his discharge
to his union activity but based his plea to the superintendent for rein-
statement upon the need of his wife and child, and the fact that
he would lose his automobile and furniture unless he regained
employment.
Landers' final discharge on February 7, 1938, followed his violation
of a company rule against cutting tip a defective stocking. This rule
was apparently well known to the employees prior to January 7,
1938. On or about that date, the respondent posted a notice upon
the plant bulletin board stating, in substance, that any employee
caught cutting up a stocking would be discharged. Landers admitted
seeing this notice and knowing of the rule. It is unquestioned that
Landers did cut up a stocking.
On the night of February 7, 1938, Phelps, the night superintendent,
returned to the plant about an hour earlier than was his custom.
Phelps testified that he saw Landers cut up a stocking and that'he
immediately called Landers into his office, and requested James
Warren, a supervisor, to accompany them as a witness. In the office,
Phelps asked Landers if he knew the company rule, which Landers
admitted. Phelps then told Landers, "You know I have discharged
others for this same offense. I am going to have to let you go too."
Landers replied, "It is a God damned frame up. You are not dis-
charging me for cutting up that stocking; you are discharging me
because I belong to the Union." Phelps denied that he was influenced
by Landers' union membership and testified that the sole reason for
discharging Landers was the violation of the company rule.
The record indicates that at least two employees were discharged
before, and two after, Landers for like offenses. In view of the un-
questioned violation of the company rule by Landers, the discharge
ALABAMA HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 449
of other employees for a like offense, and in the absence of any sub-
stantial evidence tending to show that the violation of the rule was
merely a pretext for his discharge, we are not convinced that the
r.gspoi^dent .discriminated against Landers .because of his union
activity.
Since none of the allegations of unfair labor practices contained in
the complaint have been found to be supported by the evidence, we
will dismiss the complaint in its entirety. V
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and.upon the entire
record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. The operations of the respondent, Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
Decatur, Alabama, occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section
2 (6) of the Act.
2. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor, organiza-
tion, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not discouraged membership in a labor or-
ga;nnization by discrimination in regard to the hire or tenure of em-
ployment of Jeff Landers, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
plaint against Alabama Hosiery Mills, Inc., Decatur, Alabama, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.