Aldora Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

or
In the Matter of ALDORA MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 10-C-1811:Decided August 23,1948
Mr. M. A. Prowell, for the Board.
Weekes and Candler, by Mr. Murphy Candler, of Decatur, Ga., and
Mr. D. R. Cumming, of Griffin, Ga., and Messrs. L. E. Macomber,
W. E. Vecsey, C. M. Neuner, and J. R. Mathews, of Barnesville, Ga.,
for the Respondent.
Mr. Garland R. Brook, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 3, 1947, Trial Examiner J. J. Fitzpatrick issued his Inter-
mediate 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.' Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and requested oral argument.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man
panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
The Board has, reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Respondent's request for oral argument
is hereby denied, as the issues are clearly defined, and the Respondent's
contentions were sufficiently indicated in its exceptions and at the hear-
ing. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Re-
spondent's exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the modifications hereinafter set forth.
' Those provisions of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act
which the Trial Examiner found were violated herein , are continued in Section 8 (a) (1),
(3), and (5) of the Act, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
*Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 1. - 1
`z DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. We find, as the Trial Examiner did, that the Respondent unlaw-
fully refused to bargain with the Union by ignoring the certified
bargaining representative and dealing with the shop committee and
by unilaterally announcing wage increases. In addition, we find not
only evidence of bad faith but also a per se violation of Section 8 (5)
of the Act, in the Respondent's studied derogation of the Union's sta-
tus as the bargaining representative of the employees throughout the
negotiating conferences. The Respondent asserted many times, it one
form or other, that "there was [sic] no union in a bona fide state of
existence" at the Respondent's plant, and repeatedly refused to sign
a contract until the Union, which had been certified as bargaining
representative by the Board, chartered a local organization? In our
opinion such behavior impugns the validity of Board certifications and
evinces disdain for the orderly processes of collective bargaining.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent did not in bad
faith unduly prolong the opening of the bargaining negotiations "in
the spring of 1946." We do not agree.
On April 17, 1946, after the Union had won the election on April 8,
1946, as a result of which it was certified by the Board on April 23,
1946, the Union began its attempts to open bargaining negotiations.
It was finally successful when on August 14 arrangements were made
for the first conference on.. August 27. The Union was informed on
April 22 by the Respondent that a representative in Akron, Ohio,
(A. J. Teusch, the director of industrial relations for the General
Tire and Rubber Company, of which the Respondent is a subsidiary)
has been designated as the Respondent's negotiator. Numerous com-
munications, detailed by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate
Report, passed between the Union and the Respondent's representa-
tives, both at Aldora Mills and in Akron. On July 2, 1946, the Union
sent a telegram to Teusch asking, "When can we expect a conference?" 3
The Respondent's reply stated, "None of our plants, are working this
week. Next week we shall advise you date for meeting." The Re-
spondent has at no time informed the Union of a meeting as promised
by this telegram. On July 16 the Union unsuccessfully tried to reach
' The stenographic reports of the negotiating meetings received in evidence at the hear-
ing are replete with statements by the Respondent 's counsel to the effect that he did not
consider the Union a representative of the employees , that he did not think there was a bona
fide labor organization in existence , and that the Respondent would not sign a contract until
the local group was chartered . The assertions were made in the face of reiterated declara-
tions by the Union that it was the duly certified bargaining representative . The Union also
explained to the Respondent 's spokesmen that, in accordance with its practice , it would not
charter a local at this plant until after the first contract had been executed , but that the
members of the employee committee who assisted in the bargaining conferences would sign
the contract.
3 The Union ' s telegram of July 2, 1946, and the Respondent 's reply of July 4, 1946, were
omitted from the Intermediate Report.
ALDORA MILLS c3
Teusch by telephone before sending him a telegram' informing him
that charges would be filed with the Board on July 17 unless negotia-
tions were arranged. No reply was received by the Union to this com-
munication, but the next day, July 17, the local plant manager had the
local grievance committee gathered together and announced wage
adjustments. Although the Respondent at that time replaced Teusch
with Vecsey, the local plant manager, as the Respondent's, negotiating
representative it did not inform the Union of this shift of authority.
These delays and evasions, related above and in the Intermediate
Report, constitute, in our opinion, the antithesis of the good faith bar-
gaining required by the statute. We find that the Respondent's un-
lawful refusal to bargain began with the first request for negotiations
oxl April 17, 1946.4
3. We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respond-
ent's action in "insisting on reviewing discussion of the already settled
arbitration provision" constituted a refusal to bargain violative of Sec-
tion 8 (5) of the Act. It is true that the parties did reach agreement
on some points of the arbitration section of the proposed contract such
as the number of arbitrators and the method of their selection. How-
ever, that agreement was not reached on all the provisions of arbitra-
tion is evident, as we interpret the record, from : the Union's letter
of December 12, 1946, to Sherman Dalrymple of the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, listing the arbitration of individual wage
grievances and workload grievances as deadlocked issues; the discus-
sion of this letter of December 12 at the January 17, 1947, negotiating
meeting; the Union's letter of January 20, 1947, to the United States
Conciliation Service, in which the Union stated, among other things,
that the Respondent had refused to accept the arbitration of individ=
ual wage grievances; the Union's letter of February 8, 1947, to the
Conciliation Commissioner listing "Arbitration as outlined in my let-
ter of January 20" as one of the unsettled matters; and the discussions
of arbitration at the negotiating meetings of March 7, 13, and ' 20,
1947.
4. The Board certified the Union on April 23, 1946, as the bargain-
ing representative of the Respondent's employees as the result of an
election held on April 8, 1946. No issue with respect to the appro-
priateness of the unit has been raised in this proceeding. However,
we note that the unit includes watchmen. We shall amend it by
eliminating these employees from the unit, in accordance with the pro-
visions of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
" See Matter of Burgie Vtinegar Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 829, in which the Board stated,
"The Act, which was designed to equalize bargaining power between employees and em-
Iployers, does not permit the employer to secure , even unintentionally , a dominant position
at the bargaining table by means of unreasonable delay."
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all employees of the Respondent , including section
men, but excluding watchmen, office and clerical employees , technical
and laboratory employees , second hands , overseers , and all supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Aldora Mills,
Barnesville , Georgia, and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by refus-
ing to reinstate employees because they engaged in collective activity,
or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the unit herein found to be appropriate;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of th right to self-organization , to form
labor organizations , to join or assist Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed 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 Homer Crumbley , James Lasseter , James H. Andrews,
and Charles Scarborough immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions , and make them whole for
any loss of wages in the mamier outlined in the section of the Inter-
mediate Report entitled , "The remedy";
(b) Upon request , bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union
of America , CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to grievances, labor
disputes , rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other con-
ditions of employment , and, if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement ;
ALDORA MILLS 5
(c) Post at its mill in Barnesville, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees customarily are posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to see that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia) in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the complaint of dis-
crimination against Joe Jones, Roy Moss, and Hugh Williamson be,
and they hereby are, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Re] ations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORICERs
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to Homer Crumbley, James Lasseter, James H.
Andrews, and Charles Scarborough immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions with-
out prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges pre-
viously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment, and if
6 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Corn t of Appeals, there
shall be inserted in the notice, before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER" the words :
"A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING "
809095--49-vol 79-2
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All employees, including section men, but excluding watch-
men, office and clerical employees, technical and laboratory
employees, second hands, overseers, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization. We will not dis-
criminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of membership
in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ALDORA MILLS,
Employer.
Dated------------------------ By------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. M. A. Prowell, for the Board,
Weekes and Candler, by Mr. Murphy Candler, of Decatur, Ga., and Mr. D. R.
Cumming, of Griffin, Ga., and Messrs. L. E. Macomber, W. E. Vecsey, C. M. Neuner,
and J. R. Mathews, care Aldora Mills, Barnesville, Ga., for the Respondent.
Mr. Garland R. Brook, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., 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 complaint dated March 4, 1947, against Aldora Mills, Barnesville,
Georgia, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (3) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint
together with notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the Respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the Respondent had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by : (1) on or about
the 23rd day of April 1946, and at all times thereafter, refusing to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appro-
priate unit; (2) discharging Joe Jones about October 30, 1945 and Hugh William-
son about August 1946, and refusing at all times since to reinstate either of said
employees, because of their membership in or activity for the Union ; and refusing
to employ W. G. Guyton about September 1946 and since, because he and his family
were members of, joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other concerted
ALDORA MILLS 7
activities ; (3) refusing since about February 20, 1946, to reinstate six employees'
of the twister room, because they and other employees engaged in concerted
activity by going on strike about February 20, 1946; and (4) since about June 1,
1945: (a) vilifying, disparaging and expressing disapproval of the Union; (b)
soliciting employees to abandon their concerted activities; (c) interfering with
the distribution of union literature, causing the arrest of a union representative
and then offering to drop the charges if he would cease distributing union litera-
ture ; (3) threatening employees with eviction from company houses for concerted
activities; (e) questioning employees concerning the identity of union officials
and union members; (f) offering reinstatement to an employee on condition that
he withdraw from the Union; (g) advising employees that they would lose their
jobs and perish if they assisted the Union; (h) advising an employee to have his
family cease their union activity; (i) blacklisting and refusing to recommend
employees because of their union activities ; (j) questioning an employee as to the
contents of an affidavit given to the Board; and (k) granting unilateral wage
increases to discourage union activities.'
Thereafter the Respondent filed an answer wherein it admitted certain allega-
tions in the complaint as to the nature of its business. It admitted that the Union
had been certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees in an appro-
priate unit and that the Union had requested the Respondent to bargain with it.
The answer also admitted that Jones was discharged and that the employees in
the twister room ceased work, but denied that the Respondent had committed
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Barnesville, Georgia, March 24
through March 28, 1947, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the undersigned Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondent
were represented by counsel, the Union by a representative. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and coss-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of its main case,
Board counsel's unopposed motion was granted to dismiss the allegations of
unfair labor practices in the amended complaint' insofar as it alleged discrimi-
natory treatment of Ben Harris and W. G. Guyton. Before proceeding with the
presentation of its defense evidence, the Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss
as to certain other allegations of unfair labor practices in the amended complaint
upon the ground that no evidence had been submitted to support the allegations.
That portion of the motion which asked the dismissal of the allegation that the
Respondent "advised employees they would perish if they assisted the Union"
and "advised an employee to have his family cease their union activity," unop-
posed by Board's counsel, was granted. The remainder of the motion to dismiss,
opposed by Board's counsel on the ground that the allegations referred to were
i Homer Crumbley, James Lasseter, James H. Andrews, Charles Scarborough, Roy Moss
and Ben Harris.
2 At the opening of the hearing the Respondent moved that the complaint he made more
definite and certain as to the allegations of interference set forth in part (4) above. The
motion was denied.
3 Three of the Respondent's present officials and its former manager also entered appear-
ances for the Respondent.
' During the hearing, without objection, Board counsel's motion was granted to amend
the complaint so as to substitute the name of James H. Andrews as one of the six employees
discriminatorily refused reinstatement, in lieu of James H. Anderson as originally stated
in the complaint.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supported by evidence, was denied.' At the close of the hearing, counsel for the
Board and for the Respondent argued orally on the record. The privilege of
filing briefs, and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law thereafter
with the Trial Examiner was waived by the parties.
Upon the entire record, and from his observation of the witnesses, the under-
signed makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Aldora Mills, is a Georgia corporation with principal office
and plant located at Barnesville, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of textile products In the operation of its business, the
Respondent annually purchases approximately 10,000 bales of cotton and 5,000,000
pounds of rayon, over 90 percent of which comes from States other than the
State of Georgia. It annually sells and distributes approximately 10,000,000
pounds of textile products, over 90 percent of which is transported in interstate
commerce to States other than Georgia.'
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Texile Workers Union of America, C. I 0., is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Introduction
As the result of organization efforts which started in June 1945, and a petition
for certification filed by the Union in August of that year, the Board, on April 23,
1946, certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the
Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. Thereafter for several months,
the Union sought unsuccessfully to arrange bargaining conferences with the
Respondent for the purpose of negotiating the terms of a contract covering
wages, hours and working conditions for the employees in the unit. On August
27, 1946, the first bargaining conferences convened Thereafter at intervals
ranging from less than a week to about 3 weeks apart, and up to and including
March 20, 1947 (4 days before the start of the present hearing), numerous meet-
ings were held by the duly authorized negotiators. As a result of these meetings,
many controversial issues were settled, but the representatives had not agreed to
all the terms of a contract at the time this hearing opened Although no negotia-
tion meetings were held during the hearing, such a meeting was scheduled tor
April 1, 1947, 4 days after the close of the hearing
5 Paragraph 6 of the complaint alleged that the Union had been certified by the Board as
the bargaining agent in an appropriate unit on or about April 23, 1946, "has been and is
now the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in said unit " The
Respondent ' s answer admitted the certification in an appropriate unit as alleged but added
that the Respondent "neither admits nor denies that the Union , at the present time, repre-
sents a majority of the workers in the Respondent 's plant " Other than the certification,
no evidence was offered by Boaid's counsel to prove present majority, and the Respondent,
in the motion above referred to, moved to dismiss the allegation as to present majority
status on the ground of failure of proof . Board's counsel objected and the motion was
denied. Cf . Matter of Con P. Curran Printing Company etc ., 67 N. L. R. B. 1419
6 Findings on commerce based on allegations in the complaint as amended at the hearing,
and either admitted or not denied in the answer.
ALDORA MILLS .9
The complaint as amended alleges, and the Respondent denies, (a) that during
the organizational period as above set forth, and thereafter, the Respondent
committed acts of interference, and of discrimination against its employees, and
(b) that since April 23, 1946, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the
Union as the representative of the employees
B. Interference, restraint and coercion; discrimination
1. The organizing campaign ; Barker's arrest
In June 1945 , as a result of discussion by Joe Jones and other employees of the
Respondent of the need of a union in the mill, Jones signed a letter which was
mailed to the Union at Atlanta, Georgia About a month after the mailing of this
letter, two union organizers , Barker and Kannan, carne to Barnesville and looked
up Jones and the other interested employees At first several small union meet-
ings were held in the open air in a pine thicket near the company village.' There-
after, meetings were held in a store building Some solicitation took place and
handbills were distributed at or near the mill property by the union representa-
tives However, in August 1945, Barker wrote Kenneth Douty, the Union's state
representative, that there were rumors that any further distribution of handbills
at the mill would result in the arrest of the Union's representative responsible
for same. On learning this, Douty immediately came to Barnesville on Friday,
August 10, and together with Barker, informed the village marshal on duty that
they were about to distribute union handbills at the entrance of the mill. The
marshal told them that he had instructions from Mill Manager William E. Vecsey
to arrest anyone distributing such bills. Nevertheless, during the change of shifts,
Barker, standing several yards from the west side gate which is the employees'
entrance to the mill, started to distribute union handbills Within 5 minutes
thereafter, he was arrested by the marshal, taken to the county jail, and placed
in the custody of the county sheriff. The sheriff, after consul, i.g with Vecsey
over the telephone, told Barker that the complaint against him was "trespassing
and disturbing the peace," but that Vecsey was willing to drop the charge if
Barker and the Union would agree not to distribute any more union literature
at the mill. Neither Barker nor Douty (who was present) would agree to this
and asked about bail. After a further telephonic discussion with Vecsey, the
sheriff told Barker that there would be no bail but that he was to report the
following Monday morning at the mill office for trial before the village mayor.
No formal complaint was ever issued against Barker and the Union was later
informed by Vecsey that the charge was being dropped and that Barker would
not have to appear for trial.' The Respondent had never previously attempted
to prevent the distribution on its premises of any advertising matter. Other than
the incident above described, the Respondent has made no effort to prevent the
Union from circularizing the employees. .
T Alclora Village is located about a mile outside of Barnesvile The entire property in the
village, including not only the mill but the houses of the employees, is owned by the
Respondent.
8 Finding as to the Backer incident is based upon the testimony of Douty (as corroborated
by the stipulated testimony of Backer and that of Vecsey) Vecsey admitted that Barker
was arrested under his instructions, but denied that Backer had been "booked" with any
formal complaint or charge under Ills instructions Vecsey testified (and the evidence other-
wise shows) that Barkei, at the time of his arrest, was standing on "mill property" although
it was outside the fenced- in area , and that his arrest was ordered because of complaints
of "half a dozen employees" made previously that handbills were being "forced on them"
as they entered the mill -
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the oral argument , the Respondent's counsel contended that-it was-no
violation of the Act for an employer to promulgate a rule prohibiting distribu-
tion of union literature on plant property where the purposes are (a ) to pre-
vent untidy littering of the premises , or (b) to maintain plant discipline and
order. The difficulty with this reasoning is that it is not applicable to the facts
in the instant case. There is no evidence that Manager Vecsey issued the order
to arrest Barker to prevent littering' of the mill premises,9 or that the handbills
were in fact littering the mill property or even the village property which in-
cluded the mill . Manager Veesey testified credibly that he ordered Barker's
arrest because his distribution of the handbills on the private pathway in front
of the mill gate was causing "confusion" and was a "nuisance." These explana-
tions of the plant manager might imply that the order was issued to preserve
mill "discipline and order" if it were not for the further statement of Vecsey
that he had not stopped distribution of union literature at the plant until "half
a dozen folks came to me about things being forced on them." It is obvious,
therefore, and the undersigned finds, that the order was issued, not to prevent
untidy littering of the mill or to preserve plant discipline and order, but to'
prevent the advocacy of self-organization on company property but not on com-
pany time, and which in no way interfered with the proper conduct of the
Respondent's mill business. This is clearly proscribed by the Act.
It is therefore found that the Respondent, by refusing on August 10 to permit
Organizer Barker to distribute union handbills at the mill gate, and in causing
Barker's arrest for attempting to do so, under the circumstances as above found,
has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.30
2. The lay-off of Joe Jones
Up to about June 1945, Jones had worked for the Respondent about 18 years
as a card grinder. This involved heavy -lifting and in 1930 he developed a
hernia which caused him to undergo an operation in 1932. After several weeks
in the hospital after the operation, Jones returned to his old job as card grinder
with the Respondent. Either because he returned to work too soon, or because
the type of work was too heavy for him, he became ruptured again about 1941
and, at his request, in June 1945 was transferred to lighter work as night watch-
man and fireman.
In early June 1945, and before his transfer to the watchman's job, Jones and
several other employees became interested in having a union in the mill, and at
that time Jones signed a letter addressed to the Union at Atlanta, Georgia. This
letter brought a union organizer to Barnesville and as herein otherwise detailed,
the Union organized the mill. While the record does-not warrant a finding that
the Respondent knew that Jones was, to a large extent, responsible for initiating
the union activity, it did know that Jones was a member of the Union shortly
after his transfer to the new job when he began wearing a union button at work.
9 That the Respondent was not concerned about handbills littering the premises is clearly
shown by the following credited testimony of J. R. Mathews who, about the first of 1947,
became mill superintendent . Mathews testified that about the first of March 1947, the
gateman requested authority to ask that union handbills not be dropped on the ground by
the distributor , but that he told the gateman , " . . it was all right, it was just another
cleaning up job for the cleaning up crew to do."
11 Cf. LeTourneau Company of Georgia v N. L. R. B., 324 U. S. 793.
ALDORA MILLS - 11
Furthermore,, Jones testified, presumably for the Union, at the representation
hearing in Barnesville, Georgia, on September 28,1945."
On October 28, 1945, Master Mechanic Clement, under whose supervision Jones
worked as watchman, told the latter that he would be laid off on November 1
because of his rupture and at the request of the Respondent's insurance carrier-
Jones, at the time, questioned the reason given for his lay-off and told Clement
that there were "half a dozen or more" employees working who were in "the
same shape" he was, and stated that he was being released because of,his union
activity."
The record shows that, while the duties of watchman were comparatively
light in the summer months, in the cold weather he was required to fire the coal-
burning heating plant in the mill. This necessitated hauling coal in a barrow
a short distance, unloading the barrow, and shoveling the dumped coal into the
furnace as required. Employment Manager Eldridge testified that Jones was re-
leased because his supervisor feared that the heavier winter work might cause
strangulation of Jones' hernia. It is apparent that in the fall of 1945 Jones was
not in good physical condition because the following January he was again op-
erated on for hernia. Jones' testimony is credited that, about February 1946,
subsequent to his release from the hospital, he went to see Respondent's officials
on one or two occasions relative to his compensation claim. And during one of
them he asked J. R. Mathews" about getting his job back as watchman, and that
Mathews told him that there was no such job then available but that Jones was
"on the list." There were only four watchmen jobs in the mill of the type that
Jones had held before his release in November and there is no evidence that
there was a vacancy among the watchmen when Jones applied in February 1946,
or thereafter, for that matter.
There was no criticism of Jones' work as such, either as a card grinder prior
to June 1945, or subsequent thereto as watchman. He was either released in No-
vember 1945 because of his poor physical condition, as contended by the Re-
spondent, or because of his known union activity. Jones testified and named two,
possibly three, employees of the Respondent who were ruptured. This testimony
was not denied and is credited, but there is no evidence as to the type of work
these men were doing, and there is no way of knowing from the record whether
their work was heavier or lighter than that of watchmen, or their actual physical
condition. In any event, they were not doing watchmen work as Jones did not
name any of his three watchmen co-workers as being afflicted.
Although as heretofore found on August 10, 1945, the Respondent illegally dis-
couraged distribution of union handbills in front of its plant, there is no evidence
of the existence, at the time of Jones' lay-off, of the conventional acts of coercion
and discrimination that usually indicate an anti-union bias."
11 Case No. 10-R-1585.
12 Finding as to the conversation between Clement and Jones on October 28 is based upon,
Jones' testimony. Clement did not testify, and there was no showing of his unavailability.
'$ Mathews later became mill superintendent. At the time he was in training for superin-
tendent, but was classified as senior time-study man.
14 The interference and discrimination hereinafter found to have occurred in February
1946, was the result of a temporary refusal of a few employees to work because of a very
nominal pay grievance, and which the Respondent felt was unjustified. I do not believe
the facts found in the later twister room incident, considered with the isolated interference
with distribution of union literature 6 months prior to that time, is sufficient to warrant a
finding of a design and plan by the Respondent to discriminate against all known union,
members ; and no such finding is made.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In this state of the record, giving due consideration to the Respondent's attempts
in the early fall of 1945 to prevent distribution of union literature, the undersigned
is not convinced that the record shows that the Respondent discriminated as to
the hire and tenure of employment of Jones by discharging or laying him off on
November 1, 1945, and thereafter refusing to reinstate him, because of his union
activity and to discourage membership in a union. It will therefore be recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violation of Section
8 (3) of the Act as to Joe Jones.
3. The twister room walk-out
The first of February 1946, there were 42 twisting machines in what is referred
to in the record as the twister room. On each of the 2 shifts then operating, 1
Than alone tended and doffed 6 of these machines. The other 36 machines were
operated on each shift by 2 groups, each consisting of a tender and 2 doffers who
handled 18 twisting machines." On February 11, the 1 man operating the 6
machines on each shift was eliminated and the 6 machines were divided equally
among the 3-man crews remaining, thereby increasing their machines to 21. At
the same time, a certain amount of cleaning work that the crew had previously
been expected to do,36 was eliminated insofar as the 2 crews were concerned.'
The twister room was on a piece-work earnings basis, depending upon the num-
ber of hanks produced. It was the custom of the Respondent on Tuesday to post
the pay roll for the previous week on a bulletin board in the mill.14 On Tuesday,
February 19, after the employees had put in approximately 1 week's work using
the 21 machines, the 12 employees expressed concern to management because the
posted record indicated slightly lower daily earnings per individual than those
earnings had previously been. Management agreed to correct any errors. How-
ever, on February 20, nothing having been done so far as the employees knew to
correct the apparent discrepancies, both the first and second shifts refused to work
until the grievance was rectified, in spite of management's plea that it had not as
yet had time to study the matter or to correct any existing errors in the pay
calculations.
At the time the employees left the job on February 20, their overseer, Ellis, a
supervisor, as defined by the Board, told them as a group that if they walked out
some of them would never be rehired, and that those of them who lived in company
houses would have to move. After the walk-out, Ellis devoted his time to trying
to get the employees on the two shifts to return to work by direct solicitation.
He was assisted in this by Creamer, second man on the first shift and who also was
a supervisor as that term has been defined by the Board 18 As a result, some of
15 Although described as tenders and doffers, the iecord shows their work was more or
less interchangeable
1s This cleaning was not ordinary sweeping but consisted of keeping the machines them-
selves clean of loose cotton yarn and the spools and other paraphernalia in order There is
dispute its to whether this cleaning work had previously been done effectively and properly
by the news In any event, the changeover was prompted at least in part by the Respond-
ent's desire to change the method of handling the cleaning There is no allegation that the
transfer of the three additional twisting machines to the two crews was in and of itself
discriminatory
IT The Friday following the Tuesday posting, the emplovees received their pay checks for
the previous week's work
18 Ellis testified and admitted substantially all the testimony of several Board's witnesses
as to his activities after the strike He was not asked and did not deny the credited testi-
mony of Andrews that lie had told the group that those that lived in company houses would
be requiied to vacate
ALDORA MILLS 13
.the employees returned by the end of the week, but on Monday, February 25, the
twister room was still shorthanded on both shifts 3°
As above found, a number of the twister loom employees returned to work
within a short time after the February 20 walk-out and the strike was in fact
broken probably by the end of that week Although some of the employees in
the twister room who later applied were returned to work, the evidence shows
that James Lasseter, Houser Crumbley, James H Andrews, Charles Scarborough,
and Roy Moss were not returned on application. The complaint alleges and
the Board contends that these employees were not reinstated because of their
collective activity. On the other hand, the Respondent contends that they were
not reinstated because, by the time they individually applied, their jobs had been
filled.
James Lasseter had been an employee of the Respondent for about IS years
and lived in a company house At the time of the walk-out, he worked on the
second shift under Williams On Februaiy 21, the day after the walk-out, he
injured his hand in an automobile accident On February 22, Friday, which
was pay day, his wife, who also worked for the Respondent under Ellis, went to
the plant for her check At that time she told Ellis that her husband would be
back to work the following Monday, if he had sufficiently recovered from his
injury, and asked for his pay check Ellis replied that he did not have the
check as he had just turned in a quit card on her husband.-" Ellis also told Mrs.
Lasseter that "some" who had worked in the twisting room would not be re-
hired, and'that as her husband was no longer an employee, it was doubtful if
she could continue to work in view of a rule prohibiting the employment of mar-
ried women it their husbands were not also working at the mill ; but that she
should report the following Monday and he would let her know definitely. The
record does not otherwise disclose whether the Respondent did actually have a
rule prohibiting the employment of married women in the absence of their hus-
bands. In any event, the following Monday dirs. Lasseter was permitted to
continue with her work.21
The following Monday, February 25, Lasseter, on his way to the doctor's to
have his hand dressed, stopped at the mill to see Ellis who inquired if he was
able to work Lasseter explained that he was on his way to the doctor and
could not work for another week Ellis again remarked that some of those who
walked out would not be reinstated and told Lasseter to inform Janes Andrews
that he could get "his time." 22
19J R Mathews , in February 1946 senior tine -study man but who later became mill
superintendent, testified that by Monday, Februaiy 25, the twistei room was operating
satisfactorily He later qualified this statement with the asseition that on Monday they
were operating with "spate help " "We didn't assign any paiticular operator to this job
until we gave all of them [who had walked out] a chance to come back " He also stated
that ordinal fly on Monday only half of the twister room was running and that that prob-
ably was true on February 25 Other credible evidence shows and the undersigned finds
that for sonic -time after Febi nary 25, 1946, the twistei room was not operating with a full
crew consisting of a tender and 2 doffers for each of the 21 machines on each of the
2 shifts
20 Ellis, in his testimony, admitted that he tanned in quit cards on all the employees who
had failed to report for work by Friday He also testified, and the record otherwise dis-
closes, that all these quit cards contained an answer "no" to the question thereon whether
the employee would be rehired.
G1 The above finding is based on the credited testnnony of Mrs Lasseter Ellis was not
asked and did not den.) het testimony
:Finding is based upon the credited uncontiadicted testimony of Lasseter
,14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next Monday, March 4, 1946, Lasseter reported for work to Williams, his
supervisor, who told him he would have to see Ellis. Ellis sent him to Employ-
ment Manager Eldridge. Eldridge was not in at the time and Lasseter was in-
structed to report the next day. On Tuesday, after waiting for awhile in the
,outer office to talk to Eldridge, Ellis came out of the employment manager's
-office and told Lasseter, "We are filled up, haven't got any openings." 23 There-
after, on two or three occasions, Lasseter talked to his former supervisor, Wil-
,liams, about reinstatement. Williams agreed to do what he could- about the
matter and in June sent word to Lasseter through employee Carver, an oiler,
that if Lasseter would sign an affidavit repudiating the Union he could come
,back to work. Lasseter refused to sign the affidavit .24
The latter part of the summer of 1946, Lasseter was told by J. D. McBroom
that the latter had quit his job at the mill the night before although urged by
,management to remain because they were short of help. This information
,came to Lasseter before work the morning after McBroom had quit. Lasseter
immediately went to the mill and applied for the job vacated by McBroom but
was told by Eldridge that they were "filled up" and had two or three extra em-
•ployees 25
Lasseter has not since been reemployed by the Respondent. He testified credi-
bly that in the late summer of 1946 he applied unsuccessfully for work at other
nearby cotton mills, including the Martha mill at Thomaston, Georgia, a mill at
Griffin, Georgia, and another mill at Tartersville, Georgia. In each instance,' so
Lasseter testified, he had information that the particular mill needed help. Rul-
ing was reserved on a motion by the Respondent to strike this testimony as im-
material upon Board counsel's statement that it would be followed by other
'testimony proving the existence of a blacklist in the mills in this area of Georgia.
No further testimony was adduced by Board counsel to support this contention.
-The testimony will not be stricken as in the opinion of the undersigned it is
-material to show diligence on the part of Lasseter in seeking other employment.
However, it is deemed entirely inadequate to support a finding that a blacklist
•existed and no such finding is made herein.
James H. Andrews had been a twister tender for the Respondent for approxi-
mately 4 years prior to February 20, 1946. He was on the morning shift under
-Second Hand Creamer. He joined the Union in the fall of 1945, and in the
.various conferences with management on February 19 and 20, prior to the walk-
out, he acted as spokesman for the twister room employees. Andrews' undenied
-and credited testimony is that Ellis told the second shift employees at the time
23 This credited testimony of Lasseter was not denied by Ellis.
24 Finding based upon the testimony of Lasseter and Supervisor Williams. Ellis admitted
in his testimony that Williams had talked to him two or three times about Lasseter return-
=ing to work. He denied that he instructed Williams to get an affidavit from Lasseter and
testified that Williams asked him how a man could get out of the Union and that he replied
that so far as he knew the best way would be for the party to write a letter to the Union.
He admitted that Williams had discussed Lasseter's union affiliation with him. Under the
-circumstances, it is found that, Williams was acting on advices he had from Ellis when he
sent word to Lasseter that he should get out of the Union, if he wanted his job back.
Finding based on the credited and undenied testimony of Lasseter. The undersigned
is of the opinion that no inference unfavorable to the Respondent is justified from this
,refusal to hire Lasseter in the summer of 1946, because (a) the record fails to disclose
what type of work McBroom had been doing and whether Lasseter was qualified to fill the
vacancy, and (b) there is only an inference that McBroom' s job had not in the interim been
filled. Furthermore the record otherwise indicates that by at least late summer the twister
room crews had been completed.
ALDORA MILLS 15
-they walked out, "All you boys that live in the village know that you are going
rto have to move." 2e
So far as the record discloses, Andrews did not offer to return to work for at
least a week after the walk-out, but on Friday, March 1, he came to the mill for
his check. At that time, he told Ellis that he was sorry that he had walked
.out and said he probably had "made a mistake." He asked that he be given his
job back or a recommendation so that he could get another job . Ellis agreed
to talk to Plant Manager Vecsey about the recommendation and the next day told
Andrews that Vecsey would not give a recommendation, "except for employees."
Ellis, at the time, also stated that he was in need of twister hands and suggested
that Andrews return the following Monday and apply to Employment Manager
Eldridge. When Andrews applied the following Monday to Eldridge, he stated
to the latter what Ellis had told him about needing more help in the twister
room. Eldridge replied, "we are filled up" and "I don't like the way you and
Johnson did anyway." 27 In spite of Eldridge's statement to the contrary the
Respondent at the time, was shorthanded in the twister room 26
Andrews has not since been reemployed by the Respondent. His last appli-
cation is a letter dated March 21, 1946.
Roy Moss worked for the Respondent for some time prior to entering the army
during the second World War. He was released from the army apparently in
1945 but had only been working for the Respondent in the twister room as a
doffer on the second shift for.2 days at the time of the walk-out. He did not
return or apply for work with the Respondent until about Christmas time 1946.
At that time he talked to Leon E. Macomber who had in the meanwhile succeeded
Vecsey as plant manager. Macomber told him that there were no openings then
but that if one developed he would be sent for. Several weeks later Moss again
applied to Macomber with the same result. He has not since been rehired by
the Respondent26
'Charles Scarborough served in the army for about 4 years but prior to that
had worked for the Respondent. On his release from the a:-my the first part
of 1946, he returned to work for the Respondent about the middle of January
on the first shift in the twister room under Second Hand Creamer. About March
10, 1946, following the February walk-out, he applied for work. Employment
26 As previously noted, the Respondent owned the houses in Aldora Village which were
rented to mill employees . The evidence otherwise discloses that a number of the twister
room employees occupied these houses at the time of the walk -out. This included , however,
some of the twister room employees who were later returned to work and also two of the
claimants herein, Lasseter , previously referred to, and Charles Scarborough , and Joe Jones
heretofore discussed , and who was discharged in the fall of 1945. There is no evidence
in the record that the Respondent at any time made any move to dispossess any of the
-Claimants involved in the February 20 walk -out, or any other claimant discussed in this
Report who lived in a village house.
21 Johnson apparently was the leader of the group on the first shift that walked out on
'ebruary 20. He had, however , returned to work within a day or two thereafter.
26 Findings in this paragraph based upon the credited and undenied testimony of Andrews
relative to statements of Ellis and Eldridge . Ellis testified , and the record otherwise dis-
closes, that the Respondent was in need of more employees in the twister room on Monday,
March 4, 1946.
26 Finding in this paragraph based upon the credited testimony of Moss. In his testimony
.he was not too certain as to the name of the man to whom he talked about returning to
work, but he did point out Macomber from a number of the officials sitting at the Respond-
ent's table during the hearing. Although Macomber denied that he knew Moss or that the
latter had ever talked to him about a job, it is found that Moss did unsuccessfully apply
for work with the Respondent about the end of December 1946 and again 6 or 7 weeks
thereafter.
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Manager Eldridge told him at that time that there were no openings but agreed
to send word to him if one developed. Scarborough also talked to Personnel
Manager Neuner about a job about the same time but has not been reemployedl10
Homer W. Crumbley worked for the respondent-for 7 years prior to the walk-
out, as a' doffer. He was a member of the Union and about the first of April,
after the walk-out, be applied to Eldridge for a job and was told that he would
be sent for through his father (who also worked for the Respondent) if an
opening developed. He has not since been reemployed and his testimony is credited
that since the above application several doffers have been hired by the Re-
spondent in the twisting room "
Conclusions relative to the walk-out
'In the oral argument Board's counsel contended that the evidence will support
a finding that the claimants herein who were involved in the walk-out on Feb-
ruary 20, 1946, were in fact discharged on that date. In support of this con-
tention he called attention to the fact herein found that, on February 20 when
the twister room employees refused to work and left the plant, Supervisor
Ellis told them that some of them would not be permitted to return to work and
that they would be required to move from company houses. It seems clear from
the record that Ellis' general threat on February 20 of possible discharge and
eviction to "some" of those who refused to work was made in the hopes that it
would cause them to abandon the walk-out That this statement was not in-
tended as an actual dischaige, is supported by the fact that Ellis as well as
other supervisors thereafter directly appealed individually to apparently all
those involved in the walk-out to return to work Although the record is not
too complete in that respect, there is evidence that one or two twister room em-
ployees, other than the claimants, who were on the Respondent's pay roll on or
prior to February 20 (and who presumably engaged in the walk-out) were per-
mitted to return to work after Ellis, on February 22, had turned in quit slips
against all who had failed to report back to work by that time. In any event,
under fairly recent decisions of the Board'- the undersigned is of the opinion and
finds that the statements of Ellis on February 20, as well as the issuance of
the quit slips inn February 22, were intended primarily as a tactical maneuver de-
signed to induce the twister room employees to abandon the walk-out and did
not amount to a discharge of the twister room claimants herein."' Although the
above acts do not constitute a violation of Section S (3) of the Act, the purpose
and effect of threatening discharge and purporting to discharge these strikers
was to restrain them from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection. It is therefore found that by the activities of Ellis on February
20 and 22 above described the Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
in violation of Section 8 (1) thereof
ii Findings in this paragraph based upon the credited and uncontradicted testimony of
Scarborough
ai Findings in this paragraph based upon the uncontradicted credited testimony of Crum-
bley. Other credited testimony including the Respondent's records of employees in the
twisting room subsequent to the walk-out and Supervisor Ellis' testimony, show that there
was a shortage of workers in the twisting room in the spring of 1946
3' Matter of Rockwood Stove Woris, etc, 63 N L R B 1297. Matter of Jfatestic Mfg.
Co, etc., 64 N.L.R B 950
33 It is also noted that the complaint does not allege the diecrimniatory dischaige of any
of the tai ister room employees
ALDORA MILLS 17
Board's counsel also argues that the efforts of Ellis and other supervisors, by
individual solicitation, to induce the twister room employees to abandon the
walk-out constituted an interference with the employees' "collective activity" in
violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act There is no evidence of iny threats or
promises by the Respondent in this individual solicitation of employees to abandon
the walk-out Furthermore, while some of the twister room employees were
members of the Union (including three of the claimants), others in the group
were not members of that organization. It.is rioted further that at this time
the Union, while active, had not proved its majority not had it been designated
as the bargaining representative of the Respondent's employees. Moreover, the
record fails to disclose that the Union as such was officially involved in the
walk-out. Under the circumstances, any efforts on the part of the employer to
settle the dispute would necessarily have to be by consultation with the indi-
viduals involved. The undersigned is not convinced by the facts herein that the
individual solicitation constituted a violation of the Act, and no such finding
is made.
As the walk-out was an economic strike, the Respondent was fully within its
rights as an employer in seeking to replace these strikers provided it was suc-
cessful in so doing before they offered to return to work. It is the Respondent's
contention that all the claimants involved in the walk-out were replaced by
outside help hired before such claimants offered to return to work. The record
does not sustain this contention of the Respondent insofar as the claimants,
with the exception of Roy Moss, are concerned. It shows that the other four all
applied for and were refused employment on or before about the first of April
1946, and that at that time and, later, in the spring of 1946, the Respondent was
employing workers in the twister room to do the type of work that these four
claimants had been doing prior to the walk-out. Subsequent unsuccessful appli-
cation of these four claimants for work confirms the conviction that the
Respondent decided to get along without their help in its mill regardless of the
absence of proof that any of the four had a poor work record. It is therefore
found that the Respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate Andrews on
February 28, Lasseter on March 4," Scarborough on March 16, and Crumbley on
April 1, 1946, because of their collective activity in engaging in the walk-out, to
discourage membership in a labor organization
In its oral argument the Respondent also contended in effect that the claimants
involved in the walk-out were not engaged in union activities and that therefore
the refusal to reemploy them in any event did not constitute a violation of
Section 8 (3) of the Act because such failure to reemploy did not and could not
under the facts of the case constitute an attempt to encourage or discourage mem-
bership in a union. It is true that of the four claimants above found to have
been discriminatorily treated, only three of them were members of the Union
and that the record fails to disclose that the walk-out was inspired or participated
in by the Union as such. However, the Respondent, for some time prior to the
walk-out, knew of the union activity in the mill and had made some efforts to
discourage that activity as herein otherwise found. It is also noted that Super-
visor Ellis regarded Andrews, a union member, as a leader of the walk-out
movement ; and that 2 days after the walk-out, Mathews, at that time head of
'° Although March 4 has been found as the date when the Respondent refused to reinstate
Lasseter, it is noted that the Respondent knew from Lasseter's wife as early as February
22 that Lasseter planned on returning to work as soon as he was physically. able.
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
the time-study department but in training for superintendent, asked employee
Brinkley if he had heard that Andrews was "second pal to a union." Nor can it
be overlooked that the Respondent in effect offered Lasseter reemployment if he
would repudiate the Union. There can be no question that the action of the
twister room employees in staging the temporary walk-out, regardless of the-
advisability of the effectiveness of such action, constituted concerted activity for
their mutual protection, within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. The moti-
vating cause-iof' the Respondent's failure to reinstate Andrews, Lasseter, Scar-
borough and Crumbley was their refusal to abandon this concerted activity.
Although there is no showing that any union sponsored the walk-out it neverthe-
less was concerted activity for mutual aid protected by Section 7 of the Act.
Normally concerted activity leads to the formation of a labor organization, but
in this instance the Union had organized the plant and was engaged in the
process of establishing legally its right to act as exclusive representative of all
employees in an appropriate unit (which included the twister room.employees) "
Since some of the employees who engaged in the February walk-out were members
of the Union, the refusal to rehire any employees for refusing to abandon the
walk-out not only discouraged collective activity, but also membership in the
existing union.88 The above argument of the Respondent is found untenable,
under the circumstances. However, assuming arguendo that the refusal to rehire
the four named employees was technically not a violation of Section 8 (3) of
the Act, the undersigned is convinced and finds that their treatment was in
violation of Section 8 (1) of said Act, and that it is necessary to recommend
their reinstatement as hereinafter provided, in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act 87
The undersigned further finds that the efforts of the Respondent to get em-
ployee Lasseter to abandon the Union constituted an interference with the rights
of its employees as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and in violation of
Section 8 (1) thereof.
Roy Moss only worked 2 days for the Respondent in the twister room prior
to the walk-out. The record fails to disclose whether he was a member of the
Union or not. In any event, according to his own credited testimony, he did not
reapply for work after the walk-out until the following December. At that
time and again the following February, when he applied to the Respondent for
work, he was told there was no opening for him. The evidence does not disclose
whether, in fact, there was an opening in the mill in either December 1946 or
February 1947, that Moss would have been qualified to fill. Therefore, no in-
ference unfavorable to the Respondent can be justified as to his failure to secure
work at such a late period. It will therefore be recommended that the complaint
be dismissed insofar as it alleges discriminatory treatment of Roy Moss.
4. Discharge of Hugh A. Williamson
Williamson worked for the Respondent for a total of about 3 years. Two or
three months prior to his discharge on August 15, 1946, he had been assigned,
35 At this time, the Board , as a result of the Representation hearing the previous fall, had
already established the unit and had ordered an election, which as herein otherwise found
was won by the Union within less than 2 months after the February walk-out in the twister
room.
36 Matter of Lone Star Gas Company, etc., 52 N . L. R. B 1058.
31 Matter of Ever Ready Label Corporation , etc , 54 N. L. R. B. 551.
ALDORA MILLS 19,
against his, protest, to the job of respooling 38 in the twister department on the
second shift under Second Hand D. S. Williams. At the time of his transfer,
(on or before June 1, 1946 ), John Ellis , heretofore referred to, was in charge
of all the twister room shifts. However, about the end of June, Ellis was dis-
charged and was succeeded by J. L. Faulkner. Williamson joined the Union in
1945 and was sufficiently active therein so that he was either elected or appointed.
shop steward approximately a week prior to his discharge on August 15.
Among other things, Williamson's duties as respooler required-him to count
and record the number of spools removed from the bobbin. These recordings
made by him on a card were the basis upon which the earnings of other em-
ployees on the shift were computed. He was also expected to keep the op-
erators of the machines supplied with yarn and keep the alleys clear of empty
spool boxes.
Williamson was illiterate. He could not read nor write but was able to count
and also to sign his name Prior to Faulkner's advent as supervisor in the
twister department, Williamson performed his duties as respooler without criti-
cism from management. However, the record indicates, and in fact Williamson
testified , that during this period he was assisted in his counting and marking
of the cards 39
Williams was not a member of the Union and in fact was not eligible because
be was a supervisor. However, there is credible testimony that management
regarded Williams as being too friendly with union officials. Supervisor Ellis'
testimony is credited that 2 days after his [Ellis'] discharge, acting Superinten-
dent Mathews told him that be believed that Ellis' release was due in part
because of his failure to get rid of Williams. Actually Williams was discharged
in September 1946, but there is no allegation in the complaint that Williams'
discharge was discriminatory nor would the evidence support such an allegation.
It is a fact, however, that Williamson's difficulty with management that even-
tuated in his discharge did not begin until Faulkner succeeded Ellis as overseer
of the twister room.
About a week or ten days after Faulkner took over the duties of overseer he-
instructed Second Hand Williams to see that Williamson kept the aisles clear
of empty spool boxes and had full boxes on hand. Faulkner also, at this time,
asked Williams if Williamson was not "a big union worker." Williams dis-
claimed any knowledge of Williamson's union affiliation or activities and Faulk-
ner added that he had heard rumors to the above effect. A day or two later,
Faulkner, and possibly Williams, talked to Williamson about his failure to
keep his spool count straight and about it resulting in complaints from other
workers of inequality in earnings. Williams, at that time, insisted that his
counts were correct, but the evidence indicates otherwise as will hereafter be
Williamson 's testimony is credited that at the time he was transferred to this work he
stated to management , "I would rather not have it. I would rather have some other job.
I don't want the responsibility ." It is not alleged in the complaint that this transfer was
discriminatory , and the evidence will not support a finding to that effect . However, his
Supervisor Williams ' undenied testimony is credited , that before the transfer other work
that Williams had been doing had not "always been satisfactory " and that he had had "a,
little trouble" in his previous jobs in the mill.
99 Williamson testified that the "section man" sometimes assisted him in the above respect.
From the testimony of Williamson and other references in the record of assistance rendered
to him , it is probable that the "section man" referred to in Williamson 's testimony was his
immediate supervisor , Williams , whose type of work is also sometimes referred to as that
of section man.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
noted. Within a day or two after this episode Faulkner instructed Williams
to discharge Williamson as he was not running his job right and stated that
women employees on the machines were complaining that Williamson was not
keeping them supplied with spools Williams demurred to this drastic procedure
as he had no one to replace Williamson. Faulkner agreed to secure a new
respooler.40
At this time which was 2 to 4 days prior to the actual discharge, Williams
instructed Williamson that it would be necessary for him to keep the aisles
clean, the empty as well as the filled spool boxes in proper order and plenty of
yarn on hand for the workers. Williamson replied that he was being required
to do the work of two men and that he could not do it all Williams answered
that if he was unable to do the work required it would be necessary to replace
him with somebody else. Williamson told Williams to "go ahead" and get some-
body else for the work 41 The record discloses that the work thus requested of
Williamson by his supervisor was the ordinary usual work that had in past been
done by the respooler without assistance
On August 14, Williamson was advised that he was being replaced by another
man. He was paid off the next day. At the time of his discharge Williamson
did not question the reason therefor..42
On August 15 while he was waiting for his pay, Williamson talked to Plant
Superintendent Mathews and expressed a desire to work for the Respondent.
Mathews replied, "Maybe someday we can work out something for you " Two
weeks after his discharge he again appealed to Mathews who sent him to Em-
ployment Manager Eldridge. The latter told him there was "no opening," but
that if one developed he would be sent for. Williamson has reapplied since on
two or three occasions but has not been reemployed by the Respondent.
The record shows without dispute, and the undersigned finds, that shortly after
Faulkner became overseer of the twisting department complaints developed of
a discrepancy in the earnings of certain twister room employees who worked on
the two shifts then being operated. Under instructions from the pay-roll de-
partment Faulkner had a check made of the work on the two shifts. This study
developed that on the second shift where Williamson was counting the yarn spools
more yarn was being recorded on the spools than came through the twister ma-
chine, an obvious impossibility. It also developed that the respooler's records
on the first shift were accurate. It is also found that on at least ope previous
occasion a respooler had been discharged for failure to do his job properly.
From the entire record in the case, the undersigned is convinced and finds that
Williamson was properly discharged on August 15, 1946, because of inability to
properly perform his job as respooler.
In view of the Respondent's attitude toward the Union during this period as
herein otherwise found, the question arises whether its failure to reemploy Wil-
liamson was not inspired to some extent at least because of the Respondent's
40 Based on reconciliation of testimony of Williams and Faulkner
41 In substance the testimony of Williams and Williamson
42 Williamson testified that when Williams notified him that he iias being discharged he
asked, "What have I done" and that Williams replied that he could not tell him However,
Williams' testimony, credited as the more probable, is that Williamson when told of his
release simply stated, "Well, it couldn't have come at a worse time" and that the super-
visor had replied that Williamson had "brought it on himself " It is also noted that Wil-
liamson identified his signature to a typed statement dated August 16, 1946, to the effect
that he was being released because of his many errors in counting Williamson testified
first that lie signed the paper after it had been read to him, but later, although still admit-
ting the genuineness of the signature , claimed lie had signed a smaller sized paper This
Kist testimony is not credited.
ALDORA MILLS 21
suspicion, if not its knowledge, that Williamson was active in the Union. How-
ever, no adverse finding in this respect against the Respondent is justified where as
here, there was no showing of availability of any jobs in the twister department
or anywhere else in the mill that Williamson was qualified to fill. It is also
noted in this respect that Williamson had had some difficulties with his previous
work in the mill prior to his designation as a respooler. Under the circumstances,
the evidence will not support a finding that Williamson was discriminatorily re-
fused reinstatement or rehiring. It will therefore be recommended that the
complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges discrimination in the hire and tenure
of employment of Williamson.
C The refusal to bargain
1 The appropriate unit and the representation by the Union
of a ma,oiity therein
On August 13, 1945, the Union filed a petition for an investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives Pursuant thereto a hearing was held in Barnesville on
September 28, 1945, in Case No. 10-R-1585. Thereafter, on March 14, 1946, the
Board ordered an election in an appropriate unit consisting of all the Respond-
ent's employees "including section men and watchmen, but excluding office and
clerical employees, technical and laboratory employees, second hands, overseers,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to„hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action." 4'
The Union won the election which was held on April 8, 1946, and, accordingly,
the Board, on April 23, 1946, duly certified the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive for collective bargaining of the Respondent's employees in said appropriate
unit. During the preliminary negotiations and the actual negotiations on bar-
gaining that followed as will hereafter appear in more detail, the Respondent
at no time raised any question of the Union's majority status or its authority to
represent the employees At the hearing, for the first time, the Respondent ques-
tioned the Union's majority status but proffered no proof of any kind that the
Union did not in fact represent a majority.
Accordingly, the undersigned finds that on April 8, 1946, and at all times there-
after, the Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the
employees in an appropriate unit, and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act
was, on April 8, 1946, and thereafter, the exclusive bargaining representative of
all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, hours, wages, and other conditions of employment.
43 Board ' counsel calls attention to the fact that Williamson, a union steward , was dis-
charged at the time when the union shop committee was discussing grievances with man-
agement and when Douty , the state representative of the Union, was trying to get manage-
ment to agree on conferences to negotiate a contract . As will hereafter appear, at the
request of management , the Union shop committee began to hold weekly meetings with the
Respondent 's officials , beginning July 17. Williamson was not on this committee He had
only been selected as a union steward a week prior to his release and there is no showing
that the Respondent was aware of the fact that he was a steward during this period.
Furthermore , the record does not disclose that at any of the conferences between manage-
ment and the shop committee or in the later discussions with Douty , that Williamson's
name came into the discussions, either as a complainant himself or on behalf of other
aggrieved employees , The fact that Williamson was discharged during the period when
the union shop committee was meeting with management is coincidental and in no way
significant
44 66 N . L. R. B 731
809095-49-vol. 79-3
2Y DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1'' 2. The refusal td'bargain
Events prior to the actual negotiation conferences
On April 17, after the election but before the Board had formally certified the
Union as the bargaining agent for the Respondent's employees, Kenneth Douty,
the Georgia State Director for the Union, endeavored by letter to the Respond-
ent to arrange for a time to begin negotiations on a contract. In this letter
Douty suggested that the bargaining commence at the mill in Barnesville the
week of May 8, 1946.' He also indicated that the Union hoped to submit to the
Respondent a proposed contract prior to the initial meeting. Mill Manager Veesey
replied to this letter on April 22 in a communication addressed to the Union's
office in Atlanta, Georgia, and to the attention of "Mr. Kenneth Douby, Ga. State
Director." In this letter Vecsey wrote in part as follows :
I have contacted our negotiator at Akron, Ohio, and he advises me that
he will be unable to attend a conference any sooner than the latter part of
May. He is presently tied up with two other negotiations and will be free
to take our case on after he has concluded the others.
I would appreciate your sending me a duplicate copy of your basic contract
proposal so that I may send one to Akron for our negotiator's perusal.'5
On May 7, Douty wrote Vecsey enclosing two copies of a proposed contract and
asked that, "if possible," negotiations begin "before the end of the month." On
May 20, Douty wired Vecsey asking that the latter "advise" an "acceptable" date
to begin negotiations. Receiving no response to this wire, Douty, on May 23,
wrote Vecsey, stating that no response had been received from his wire requesting
a definite date to begin negotiations, and adding "Although we regret having to
do so, we shall be forced to file charge; of failure to bargain with the National
Labor Relations Board unless negotiations can be started in the near future."
On May 29, Douty wrote the General Tire and Rubber Company at Akron, calling
attention to the fact that the Union had won the election at the Aldora plant in
April but that they had since been unable to arrange for a negotiating date. He
urged the necessity for prompt arrangement for a bargaining conference to avoid
the necessity of the Union filing charges. On May 30, D. R. Cumming, one of the
attorneys of record for the Respondent in the present case, wrote Douty that the
"Company's specialist" would probably be available for negotiations during the
second week of June, but that he would advise Douty more definitely as soon as he
received further information from Vecsey. On June 4, Douty wired Cumming
that he would be available from the 13th through the 15th of June. The same
day, A. J. Teusch, director of industrial relations for the General Tire and Rubber
Company, wrote Douty that he had been busy negotiating other contracts hilt
that it then appeared that he would be able to be in Barnesville "about June 15."
Douty wired Teusch on June 6 that he would be out of the State from the 17th to
the 21st of June and asked that the conferees meet between the 12th and the 15th
of the month Ae Douty received no response to this wire, and on June 7 wrote
Cumming suggesting June 22. Cumming replied by letter dated June 27 stating
that the other matters Teusch was engaged in had taken an "unexpected turn
45 The record otherwise discloses without dispute that Alders. Mills is a wholly owned;
subsidiary of the General Tire and Rubber Company with headquarters at Akron, Ohio.
to At the time this last wire was sent by Douty he presumably also had before him a later
letter from Cumming that Teusch would not be available until the 17th or 18th of June.
ALDORA MILLS 23-
about which you probably know-more than I do," 17 and his availability was
uncertain.
Douty on July 16 wired Teusch, "Am filling failure to bargain charges with
N. L. R. B. tomorrow unless negotiations set for Aldora Mills. Please advise."
Before sending this wire, Douty tried unsuccessfully to reach Teusch at Akron by
long distance telephone.
In the meanwhile, the Barnesville Local for the Union, which had not as yet
received its charter or been formally organized, elected a grievance committee
consisting of Lester Meeks and four other mill employees. Although this grievance
committee had never met with the Respondent, the latter apparently was aware
of its existence, because on July 17 Superintendent Mathews went to Lester
Meeks' home in Aldora Village and asked him to round up the other members of
the grievance committee and bring them to the conference room in the mill offices.
Meeks did so and when the committee arrived at the conference room, they found
Plant Manager Vecsey, Superintendent Mathews, and a stenographer. Vecsey
announced that he had 'found some inequalties in the wage schedule and that
there would be a 3 cents an hour wage increase in some jobs and 1Y/2 cents an
hour increase in certain other jobs in order to equalize the pay. He also stated
that certain jobs found to be paid above the average would ba permitted to stand.
It was agreed that subsequent meetings would be held weekly between the griev-
ance committee and management.
Thereafter, for several weeks, a meeting was held every Wednesday between
management and the grievance committee. Douty was not advised of the meet-
ings, nor was his name mentioned in the discussions. At a special meeting on
Tuesday, July 30, called by the Respondent, Veesey announced a general in-
crease 48 During one of these meetings in response to a question from manage-
ment as to whether the Local had any officers, Meeks responded that he was
"acting head" of the Local. Aside from the announcement of the wage increases
above referred to by management, which the Union committee acquiesced in, the
matters discussed had to do with individual employee grievances. There were
no discussions about a proposed contract and no reference thereto, excepting that
in the July 30 special meeting or the July 30 regular Wednesday meeting Vecsey
asked Meeks what the Union "intended to do" and what it was waiting for.
Meeks apparently communicated to Union State Director Douty Vecsey's
inquiry as to what the Union was going to do because on July 31 Douty imme-
diately wired Vecsey as follows :
The union committee has reported that you have indicated to them that
delay in negotiations was on the part of the Union. I called your of ee
yesterday and found you were out of town. This is to reaffirm our request
for a meeting which we have previously made to Mr. Cumming and to Mr.
Teusch without result.
Upon receipt of this wire Vecsey wired Douty
There is nothing to preclude the union committee from bringing up any
subject of interest to our employees at any meeting.
,11 This had reference to strikes in other plants of the parent company, reference to which
otherwise appears in the record.
sa In the meanwhile , on July 27 , as supplementary to the proposed contract previously
submitted as a foundation for bargaining conferences , Douty had submitted to the Respond-
ent a proposal for a general wage increase.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Douty then wired Vecsey stating that his previous telegram had in mind contract
negotiations and asked if the Company was willing to begin contract negotiations
at the August 7 meeting . Vecsey replied by wire on August 3:
There is nothing to preclude the union committee from bringing up any
subject of interest to our employees at any meeting.
On August 6 Douty wired Vecsey asking if it would be possible to meet "on
wages and contract" on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday of the following week.
Vecsey answered this on the 10th (Saturday) reiterating that he was willing to
have Douty sit on "our committee meeting held each Wednesday morning."
He also added, "Nothing prevents the committee from bringing up any subject of
interest to our employees as heretofore mentioned " As a result of the communi-
cations, Douty arrived in Barnesville and appeared at the committee meeting with
management on the morning of Wednesday, August 14. So far as the record
discloses this was a comparatively short meeting. Douty announced that he was
ready to proceed with negotiations on a contract and-presumably it was then
arranged that a meeting be held at the plant on August 27 for the purpose of
negotiating a contract. At the August 14 conference Douty called attention to
the fact that at the time the Union submitted its original proposed contract it
also requested certain information from the Respondent relative to the current
wage schedule and that the information had not as yet been received. Ile again
requested this information.
Conferences concerning collective bargaining from August 27 , 1946, to March 20,
1947
•
At the August 27 conference, the Respondent was represented by Attorneys
Candler and Cumming, and by Manager Vecsey and Superintendent Mathews.41
The Union was represented by Douty and the local shop committee. Candler did
most of the talking for the Respondent and Douty acted as spokesman for the
Union. At the opening of the conference, Douty again requested that the Com-
pany furnish information relative to wage schedules. He conceded that the
Union had submitted a general wage proposal on July 27, but stated that they
needed the wage information covering about 4 weeks prior to the general 8-
cent an hour wage increase granted by the Company on July 30 so that the
Union could reduce the general wage proposal to concrete terms. It was agreed
that the desired wage information would be submitted as soon as it could be
prepared by the Company, and in the meanwhile the conferees would forego
further wage discussions.50 Agreement was reached on the preamble, and cer-
tain subparagraphs of the opening sections of the Union's previously submitted
proposal.
At three meetings held thereafter, on September 6, 27,61 and October 7, agree-
ment was reached on provisions covering holidays, duration of the contract,
penalties for breach of its provisions, safety and health terms, and use of the
Company bulletin board. The Union agreed to strike a proposal on shop rules.
At the last of these three meetings (October 7) an alternative proposal of the
49 Vecsey attended none of the conferences after he was succeeded by L E Macomber as
mill manager about January 1, 1947 Macomber who had come to the mill from New
England in late October 1946 , attended the conferences thereafter . Personnel Manager
Neuner was also in attendance at some of the later meetings
55 The Respondent submitted the wage information on September 24, 1946.
51 At the September 27 meeting , Mr. Candler was not present but his law partner, Mr.
Weekes, represented the Company.
ALDORA MILLS ' ` IN 25
Union on work loads was discussed, as was arbitration and union security, but
no accord was reached on any of them.
Between the period beginning October 14, 1946, and ending January 17, 1947,
the conferees held six meetings. As a result of these meetings and various
proposals and counterproposals on each side, the, parties reached substantial
accord on most of the terms of a bargaining contract. Arbitration machinery
was provided as the ultimate method of settling possible disputes involving terms
of the proposed contract. Areas of dispute included a general wage scale, in-
surance, union security, seniority and leave of absence, and management pre-
rogatives. At the January 17, 1947, meeting, very little progress having been
made to settle these conflicts, to avoid a stalemate and at the Union's sugges-
tion, it was agreed that the next meeting be held before United States Conciliator
McLaughlin in Atlanta.
On January 29, 1947, in accordance with plans previously outlined, the nego-
tiators met with United States Conciliator Frank R. McLaughlin at the latter's
office in Atlanta, Georgia At this conference, the Company made a proposition
that they would include in the proposed contract a provision for leave of absence
on union business "provided the Union would drop its request for top seniority
for members of the Union's shop committee This was agreed to. The Union of-
fered to accept either maintenance of membership or the check-off with the under-
standing that wages would remain as they were but with a reopening clause in
the contract applicable when and if a new pattern of wages was set in the
textile industry of the south. The Company asked time to study this proposal
and the meeting adjourned for that purpose."
During this intermission of approximately a week, the Union submitted to the
Company several written proposals on wages and a wage reopening clause, as well
as one on union security. The Company also submitted to the Union a written
proposal on a wage reopening clause.
At a conference before the Conciliator on February 11, these various proposals
were discussed in considerable detail but no agreement was arrived at. An area
of mutuality was found, however, on the question of the Company granting an
immediate general wage increase provided the industry pattern called for such
increase This conference closed with the understanding that the Union would
submit in writing to the Company its ideas covering wage changes.
During the interval before the next meeting with the Conciliator on February
19, the Union submitted three different proposals on wage reopening. The last
Union proposal in this respect, submitted on February 15 and whicn is a restate-
ment of the two previous proposals, reads as follows :
Six months from the date of this agreement, both parties shall examine
the Consumer's Price Index for the Atlanta area, compiled by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor. If the index has risen or
fallen by as many as five points either party may submit to the other party
a wage proposal based on the increase or decrease. In the event agreement
is not reached within 15 days of submission of the proposal, either party
shall have the right to cancel the agreement on 30 days' notice.
Notwithstanding the above, in event of a general wage increase in the
industry in Georgia, the Company shall apply such increase immediately
as Unless otherwise indicated , findings relative to what transpired at the various negotia-
tion meetings prior to January 29, as well as the meetings subsequent to that date as will
hereafter appear , are based upon a digest of stenographic reports of these various meetings
received in evidence , as well as other pertinent exhibits and testimony.
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon its becoming effective, with the Union reserving the right to negotiate
any difference arising from the application of-such increase."
On February 17, the Respondent wired Douty at Atlanta as follows :
Effective today wage increases are being made at Aldora Mills according
to the general pattern set by the cotton textile industry in Georgia. We
meet next Wednesday at which time we will be glad to discuss this action
with you.
The same day the Respondent told the employees that a general wage increase
had become effective. On receipt of the communication Douty, by wire, imme-
diately answered taking exception to this unilateral action on the part of the
Respondent and stating that he expected to negotiate terms of the increase at the
coming meeting. However, prior to that meeting, and about February 15, Douty,
because of the change in the industrial wage pattern, had submitted to the Re-
spondent through Conciliator McLaughlin a proposed wage increase
At the February 19 conference Douty again protested against the action of
the Respondent in announcing a general wage increase when it was a subject of
negotiations. Candler, however, insisted that the question of a general wage
increase had actually been agreed upon by the negotiators in the event of an in-
crease in the wage pattern in the textile industry, and that as the amount of
the raise had not been announced it was still a matter for present negotiation.
He also called attention to the fact that prior to the announcement of the wage
increase, the Respondent had received through the Conciliator a proposal from
Douty for a general 10 percent an hour increase in wages. Using Douty's proposal
as a basis , the negotiators then agreed upon the amount of the increase and
the effective date thereof. They then discussed proposals for a wage reopening
clause based on future changes in the cost of living, but reached no accord.
At three conferences at Atlanta before the Conciliator on February 25, March
13 and 20, and one meeting at Barnesville on March 6 without the Conciliator,
the parties discussed a shift differential for the "graveyard shift," insurance,
union security and certain unagreed portions of the management rights section.
Management again brought up the subject of arbitration TM and made a proposal
for arbitration of individual wages and a 5-cent differential for the third shift
(which the Union had asked for), provided arbitration of work loads, the check-
off and the insurance clause be eliminated from the contract. Douty took the posi-
tion on March 20 that the arbitration matter had been previously settled and
as they were in substantial agreement on all other matters asked that the parties
arrange to meet again without delay. Management insisted that the arbitration
feature was still in dispute and agreed to meet with the Union representatives on
April 1, 1947, after the completioli of the present hearing.TM
Conclusions relating to bargaining
It is the contention of counsel for the Board that the Respondent showed bad
faith in delaying the opening of the bargaining negotiations for 4 months, par-
es In the meanwhile, the Company had submitted to the Union its proposal on a wage in-
crease providing for a general wage increase if wages in the textile industry showed an
increase.
64 Notwithstanding the apparent settlement of this provision (originally requested in the
Union's proposal ), the subject was injected by management into the bargaining conferences
-on several occasions after January 1947.
55 The record, shows without dispute that management submitted a counterproposal on
November 4, 1946, containing a provision for arbitration of individual grievances as well
as work loads.
ALDORA MILLS,- n27
ticularly in view of its unilateral increase in wages announced to the union shop
committee on July 17 and July 30, 1946. In evaluating the Respondent's actions
in this respect between April and August 1946, the Respondent's illegal attempt,
the previous August, to prohibit the distribution of union literature as well as
its contemporaneous action,in refusing to reinstate the twister room employees
in the spring of 1946, as heretofore found, must be considered.
As heretofore indicated, the effort to prevent the distribution of union literature
was an isolated instance of interference not thereafter repeated, and must be
considered as such. While, as heretofore found, the effect of the discriminatory
refusal to rehire the four twister room employees was to discourage member-
ship in the Union, the record discloses that the punitory action of the Respondent
was directed against those twister room employees whose collective activity in
refusing to return to work (unassisted in any way by the Union, so far as the
record discloses) was deemed unwarranted by management. It can be conceded
that these events indicate a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Respondent for
union organization, or collective activity, of its employees. They are not, how-
ever, adequate to warrant a finding that the Respondent had a fixed design not
to deal with the' Union once it had established its legal right to represent the
employees in collective bargaining, and no such finding is made.
Nor can it be said in fairness that the Respondent in bad faith unduly pro-
longed the opening of the bargaining negotiations in the spring of 1946, under
the circumstances then existing. At that time, A. J. Teusch was director of
industrial relations for the parent Company, the General Tire and Rubber
Company, and in charge of all collective bargaining negotiations for all its
plants, including the Respondent's. When Douty first requested a date to begin
bargaining, Plant Manager Vecsey promptly answered him stating that the
official "negotiator" in Akron had been notified of the request to begin nego-
tiations, but that Teusch was "tied up with two other negotiations" and would
not be available until the end of May. Thereafter Douty and Teusch were unable
to select a June date that was mutually agreeable. About this time other out-
side matters complicated Teusch's availability in Barnesville, and the parent
Company authorized Vecsey to bargain with the Union for his mill.
However, after he had been so authorized and until about the middle of Au-
gust, Vecsey proceeded in a manner that can be interpreted as (a) a deliberate
intent to discredit and by-pass the employees' bargaining agent, or (b) an utter
lack of comprehension of the responsibilities and obligations given him as the
official bargaining negotiator for the Respondent. Although the Textile Workers
Union of America (not the local of that Union) had been certified as the bar-
gaining agent for the employees, and Vecsey had previously corresponded with
Douty as the representative of the Union, lie took no action in July to advise
Douty that he and not Teusch was the authorized negotiator. Instead on July 17,
he called in the shop committee of the Local, secured their approval to a cor-
rection upward of some wage rates," and thereafter, by mutual agreement with
the shop committee, met with them weekly and discussed various grievances.
In a special meeting of the local committee called by Vecsey, he announced and
secured the approval of the committee to a general wage increase. At no time
during these meetings did Vecsey request or even suggest that Douty be brought
58 It is noted that July 17 was the date when Douty, by previous wire, had advised the
parent Company that he would file charges unless a date for bargaining was set by that
time. However , the record fails to disclose whether Douty carried out this threat and
actually filed charges at that time, or that Vecsey, on July 17, had been advised of the
threat to do so.
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mn to the meetings or notified that they were being held.. It was not until July 30
or 31, when Vecsey asked Lester Meeks of the shop committee and who was acting
president of the Local, what the Union was "waiting for" that Douty became
aware of the weekly meetings.
So far as the record discloses , there had been no collective bargaining in the
Aldora Mill prior to 1946. Vecsey had been manager since about 1940 having
been promoted from an inferior position. It can be believed, as testified to by
him, that when he was authorized to bargain for Respondent, that he was inex-
perienced in bargaining, but his further testimony that he supposed that the local
shop committee was his proper avenue of approach in order to bargain with the
Union stretches credulity. He not only knew that Douty was the Union's bar-
gaining representative, but he also knew that the Union (through Douty) was
interested in bargaining for a wage increase, among other things He was aware
that collective bargaining was deemed so important by the parent Company that
no one in the local mill had previously been permitted to negotiate for a contract.
Furthermore, Judge Cumming, one of the Respondent's attorneys of record, was
available in July for consultation by Vecsey if the lattel had any doubt as to the
modus operandi. Notwithstanding this knowledge, he chose to deal with the
local committee. It is also noted that during this period no mention was made
of a contract, or of negotiations for a contract, in the various meetings with the
shop committee. The undersigned finds that Veesey's action in July and early
August 1946, did not constitute bargaining in good faith, but was an attempt to
by-pass and discredit the Union's known bargaining representative and to deal
with a local committee of employees.
Notwithstanding this poor beginning, the negotiators really made progress
in bargaining after they got started in August. By the end of November, as
a result of a number of conferences and the submission of proposals and counter-
proposals, they had reached accord on arbitration and a substantial number
of other clauses In later conferences before the Conciliator, the area of dispute
was further narrowed, but when the negotiators had reached agreement on a
wage reopening clause to be based on the cost of living, management unilaterally
announced a wage increase and then wired Douty that they would he "glad to
discuss" the announced increase with him at the next meeting. When the details
of the announced wage increase had been negotiated, and it looked like the parties
were again in substantial accord on all but a few matters, the Respondent in-
sisted in reopening the arbitration clause, which had been agreed upon the pre-
vious fall.
The unilateral announcement of wage increases, both before the actual nego-
tiations and during them, did not show good faith in bargaining," especially as
the Respondent had been advised that a wage increase would be one of the major
issues in the negotiations. On the contrary, it indicated a design to discredit
the employees' representatives. That the Respondent was going through the
motions only of bargaining and with no desire or intention to reach an accord
in all matters is evidenced by its insistence of resurrecting the already agreed
upon arbitration clause, at a time when the parties were in practical accord on
most other proposals. Under all the facts as herein appear, the undersigned
finds that, by the action of Manager Vecsey in ignoring Douty and dealing with
the shop committee, by the unilateral announcement of wage increases, and by
E7 Matter of The Barrett Company, etc., 41 N. L . R. B. 1326; N. L R. B. V. Reed d Prince,
118 F. ( 2d) 874 ( C. C. A. 1 ), certiorari denied 313 U. S. 595.
ALDORA MILL'S 29
insisting on reviewing discussion -'of the already settled arbitration provision,
the Respondent has in fact refused, to bargain with the Union 6B
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 relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, it will be recommended that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent unlawfully failed and refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the unit heretofore found appropriate, the undersigned will recom-
mend that the Respondent upon request bargain collectively with such Union
as such exclusive representative and, in the event that an agreement is reached,
embody such agreement in a signed contract.
It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily failed to reinstate
Homer Crumbley, James Lasseter, James H. Andrews and Charles Scarborough
at a time when there were positions available for them, because they engaged
in collective activity. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent
offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position b9 without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges. It will be further recommended that the Respondent make each of
,them whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimi-
natory action, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount
he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discriminatory
refusal to rehire to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings A0
during said period 61
By its interference with the employees' rights under the Act as heretofore
found, by the discriminatory treatment of certain twister room employees be-
cause of their collective activity, and by refusing to bargain with the Union, the
Respondent evidenced a purpose to defeat self-organization among its employees.
It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in
any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
58 Matter o f Central Minerals Co., etc., 59 N. L. R. B. 757.
ae Employment at "substantially equivalent" position does not constitute compliance
unless the "same" position no longer exists The remedial provisions of the Act contem-
plate the restoration as nearly as possible of the situation which would have existed except
for the discrimination. See Matter of The Chase National Bank, etc., 65 N. L. R. B. 827.
so Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L. R B 440
m As previously tound, the action of the Respondent in failing to reinstate the four
twister room employees constituted a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, even if it be
held that, technically, such action did not violate Section 8 (3) thereof ; their reinstatement
is necessary in either case to effectuate the policies of the Act. See footnote 37, supra.
30`' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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. Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., 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 and the
terms and conditions of employment of Homer Crumbley, James Lasseter, James
H. Andrews, and Charles Scarborough, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) and (1) of the Act.
3. All the Respondent's employees, including section men and watchmen, but
excluding office and clerical employees, technical and laboratory employees, second
hands, overseers, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively recommend such action, at all times material herein con-
stituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., was on April 8, 1946, and at all
times since has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of,
the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. O., as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
6. 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
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
7. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting*
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by laying off Joe
Jones, by refusing to reinstate Roy Moss, or by the discharge of Hugh Williamson.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that Aldora Mills, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0.,
or in any other labor organization of its employees, by refusing to reinstate
employees because they engaged in collective activity, or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment ;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Textile. Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit herein
found to be appropriate ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions,' to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other
ALDORA MILLS-
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representativesQof their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Homer Crumbley, James Lasseter, James H. Andrews, and
Charles Scarborough immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of wages in
the manner outlined in the section herein entitled, "The remedy" ;
(b) Upon request bargain collectively with Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all employees, including section men
and watchmen, but excluding office and clerical employees, technical and labora-
tory employees, second hands, overseers, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action ;
(c) Post immediately at its mill in Barnesville, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon the receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60). consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees cus-
tomarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
see that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate
Report what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is also recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
discrimination by the Respondent with respect to Joe Jones, Roy Moss, and Hugh
Williamson.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from receipt
of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the above recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington 25, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any part of the
record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he
relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period,
file an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203.39,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the
date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
J. J. FITZPATRICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated June 3, 1947.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
• Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT IN ANY MANNER interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to Homer Crumbley, James Lasseter, James H. Andrews,
and Charles Scarborough immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All employees, including section men and watchmen, but excluding office
and clerical employees, technical and laboratory employees, second hands,
overseers, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees or effectively recommend such action.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
ALnoRA MILLS,
Employer.
Dated ------------------------------ By ------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.