Amory Garment Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 182 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC., and UNITED GAR-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 170, A. F. L.
Case No. 15-C-1175.-Decided November 9, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 10, 1947, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, 1 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. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with respect to such allegations.
No exceptions to the Intermediate Report were thereafter filed
with the Board.
The Board 2 has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. As no exceptions have been filed, and
upon the entire record in the case, the Board hereby adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3
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
1 The Trial Examiner found that the provisions of Section 8 (1) and ( 5) of the National
Labor Relations Act had been violated . These provisions are continued in Section 8 (a)
( 1) and 8 ( a) (5) of the Act , as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the 'N"atnal Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray].
3 The Trial Examiner ' s finding and conclusion of law with respect to the appropriate
unit are hereby amended by deleting the words "all supervisory employees with authority
to hire , promote, discharge , discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees
or effectively recommend such action ," and by substituting therefor the words "all super-
visors as defined in the Act " As so amended, the Trial Examiner 's unit finding and con-
clusion of law are hereby approved.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 41.
182
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 183
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Amory Garment
Company, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Garment Work-
ers of America, Local No. 170, A. F. L., if and when said labor organi-
zation shall have complied, within thirty (30) days from the date of
this Order, with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent's pro-
duction and maintenance employees at its Amory, Mississippi, plant,
excluding management personnel, clerical employees, personnel di-
rector, plant superintendent, foreladies, cutting room foreman, feed-
ers, and all supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist United Garment Workers of
America, Local No. 170, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to
bargain 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, 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) Upon request, and upon compliance by United Garment Work-
ers of America, Local No. 170, A. F. L., with the filing requirements
of the Act, as amended, in the manner set forth above, bargain col-
lectively with United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 170,
A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of the employees described
in paragraph 1 (a) of this Order with respect to rates of pay, hours
of employment, and other conditions of employment, and if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment ;
(b) Post at its plant at Amory, Mississippi, copies of the notice
annexed hereto marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth 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 a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
* In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER ," the words "DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, and again within
ten (10) days from the future date, if any, on which the Respondent
is officially notified that United Garment Workers of America, Local
No. 170, A. F. L., has met the conditions hereinabove set forth, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8 (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, be, and it hereby is, 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
Relations Act, as amended, 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 UNITED GARMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 170, A. F. L., or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion. All our employees are free to become or remain members
of this Union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request With UNITED GAR-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 170, A. F. L., as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement; provided that such labor organization complies
within thirty (30) days from the date of the aforesaid Order of
the Board with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at the Amory,
Mississippi, plant excluding management personnel, clerical
employees, personnel director, plant superintendent, foreladies,
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY , INC. 185
cutting room foreman, feeders , and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated ------------------------
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. T. Lowry Whittaker, for the Board.
Paine & Paine, of Aberdeen, Miss., by Mr. Thomas F. Paine, for the Respondent.
Mr. Earl W. Carroll, of New York, N. Y., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a fifth amended charge duly filed by United Garment Workers of America,
Local No. 170, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans,
Louisiana), issued its complaint dated January 31, 1947, against Amory Gar-
ment Company, Inc., Amory, Mississippi, herein called the Respondent, al-
leging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning 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 unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent, by certain named officers, agents, representatives and em-
ployees, from February 1945, committed, authorized, instigated and acquiesced
in, certain acts and statements interfering with the rights of its employees under
the Act;' that the Respondent on or about July 29, 1946, laid off employees on a
production line because of their membership and activities in the Union ; and
that the Respondent from on or about March 15, 1946, failed and refused to bar-
'The itemization of such activities in the complaint is as follows :
(a) Statements and conversations discouraging activity on the part of Respondent's
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and pro-
tection and discouraging membership and activity among said employees in the
Union ;
(b) Inquiring , questioning and interrogating said employees about their union
desires, sympathies, memberships , activities, meetings and union business ;
(c) Causing , and trying to cause, an unfair labor practice strike;
(d) Advising, stating, warning and threatening that demands for union security
would cause the plant to close;
(e) Advising, stating, warning and threatening that the continuance of the Union
as the bargaining agent would cause the plant to close ;
(f) Advising, stating, warning and threatening that membership in the Union
would prevent employees from getting jobs elsewhere ;
(g) Suggesting a company union ; and
(h) Making deprecatory, defamatory , disparaging and derogatory statements about
the Union , its representatives , its dues and its national affiliate.
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gain collectively with the Union as the designated exclusive representative of
its employees in an appropriate unit. In its answer, dated February 19, 1947,
the Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Amory, Mississippi, on February
25, 26, 27, 28, March 3, and April 1, 1947, before the undersigned, Sidney L.
Feiler, the Hearing 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 cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
After all the evidence had been offered, the Board moved to conform the
pleadings to the proof as to formal matters. This motion was granted without
objection. Opportunity was then afforded for the presentation of oral argu-
ment, but the parties waived oral argument and further stated that no briefs
or proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law would be submitted. None were
received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Mississippi corporation having its principal office and
place of business in Amory, Mississippi, where it is engaged in the manu-
facture of clothing. The Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business,
from October 1, 1945, to March 31, 1946, which period is representative of all other
times material herein, purchased raw material for its plant in Amory, herein-
after referred to as the plant, valued in excess of $250,000, of which approxi-
mately 100 percent was purchased and shipped from points outside the State
of Mississippi. During the same period, the Respondent manufactured and sold
finished products valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 99 per-
cent was sold and shipped from the plant to points outside the State of Mis-
sissippi.
The Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 170, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The course of negotiations between the Respondent and the Union'
' The findings as to the course of negotiations between the Respondent and the Union
are based upon the testimony of witnesses presented by the Board and especially the testi-
mony of the Union officials who were present at various conferences. The Respondent pre-
sented no testimony on this subject and the basic facts are not in dispute. A transcript
of the final bargaining conference between the parties is in evidence.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 187
a. History and background
In the early part of 1945 some of the employees of the Respondent became dis-
satisfied with the amount of their wages and considered striking. On or about
February 15, 1945, one of their leaders was discharged and the employees refused
to work until she was reinstated.
On February 17, Mrs. Mary Densmore, an international representative of the
Union, arrived in Amory. She met with some of the employees that evening
and made arrangements for a mass meeting of the employees the next day. The
following day a conciliation commissioner intervened and an agreement was
reached that the employees would return to work and that the Respondent would
not discriminate against any employee.'
The Union then filed a representation petition and an agreement for an
election was signed on February 21. The Union won the election, which was
held on February 23, and was certified as collective bargaining representative
on March 2, 1945.
Negotiations for a contract then were begun and a 1-year contract was signed
between March 8 and March 16, the effective date being March 8.'
Certain grievances arose during the life of the contract which were not settled
to the satisfaction of the Union. The Union protested several lay-offs on the
ground that the Respondent was discriminating against Union members. The
Respondent, while denying anti-union bias, did not reinstate those employees.
Board witnesses at the hearing also claimed that the Respondent violated the
contract provisions as to seniority and the furnishing of names of new employees.
However, the Union never utilized the arbitration provisions in the contract for
a settlement of its grievances.
For its part, the Respondent had one serious dispute with the Union. On
June 19, 1945, a power switch at the plant was thrown by some employee or
employees and there resulted a power failure with complete cessation of work
The identity of those responsible was not completely established, although the
Respondent maintained in a written protest that Union members were respon-
sible. This matter was settled with the assistance of a conciliation commis-
sioner on the basis that Mrs. Mary Densmore, an international representative of
the Union, would caution the workers not to repeat the incident.
b. Preliminaries to negotiations for a new contract
In December 1945 Mrs. Densmore and Mrs. Mary Johnson, another inter-
national representative, were informed by some union members that a rumor
had been spread that the Union was going to strike. They went to the plant
and assured President Longenecker and Superintendent Ridings that the Union
had no intention of striking. Longenecker then started to discuss a new con-
tract and stated that he would not agree to a wage increase or a closed shop.
Mrs. Densmore replied that the Union wanted a union shop in order to prevent
8 At that conference, President Harrison suggested on behalf of the Respondent that a
company union be formed. He did not press this suggestion when it was rejected by the
employees ' committee.
S The Respondent was apparently not satisfied with the contract. There was a delay of
approximately a week after the contract was agreed to before an official could be found tp
sign the contract. I Longenecker, an official of the Respondent and later its president,
told employee Hazel Burdine soon after the contract was signed that it was not worth ^
cents. While the contract was being negotiated he had also suggested that an unaffiliated
union be formed at the plant.
5 This incident arose from the refusal of the Respondent to put an employee back to work.
She was rehired after a settlement had been arranged.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dissension among the workers caused by the withdrawal of some of the union
members e
On January 7, 1946, the Union notified the Respondent by letter, pursuant to
provisions of the contract, that it desired to begin negotiations for a new con-
tract and further stated that it wished to change or modify the provisions as
to wages, union security, vacations and working conditions. On the same day,
the Respondent sent a letter to the Union listing nine clauses which it wished
changed.
c. Bargaining conferences in March 1946
On March 4, Mrs. Johnson and representatives of the local met with Longe-
necker and other company representatives. Mrs. Johnson asked that a date be
fixed for negotiation of a new contract. Longenecker inquired whether the
Union would demand a wage increase and Mrs. Johnson told him that the Union
wanted an equalization in quotas so that rates of pay might be equalized. When
Longenecker expressed doubt that the Respondent could grant a union shop in
view of the Act, Mrs. Johnson assured him that it could do so. March & was
set as the date for the next meeting.
The next meeting took place on March 7. The Union presented its proposed
contract and Longenecker remarked that the clauses on wages and union
security would have to be studied. He then tried unsuccessfully to reach his
attorney, Thomas F. Paine, Esq., and stated that he was unwilling to proceed
in his absence. The meeting was then recessed until the next day.
Paine appeared at the March 8 meeting and said that he had not had an op-
portunity to study the proposed contract and needed more time. Clyde W. Stin-
son, the Union's time study observer, suggested that since the existing contract
expired on that day, the parties extend the life of the contract for 1 week. This
was done and March 15 was set as the date for the next meeting.
At the outset of the March 15 conference Paine stated that the Respondent
wished to arbitrate. Stinson replied that they first should discuss the proposed
contract clause by clause. Paine then said that the Respondent was willing to
extend the old contract. Stinson rejected this and urged that they proceed to
a detailed examination of the proposals. Paine replied that the Respondent had
made its position clear, but when pressed, he and other company representa-
tives said that their position was not final.
Longenecker said that he was opposed to granting a union shop because he did
not want to force his employees to join the Union. He then retired from the
conference room with the other company representatives and, on his return,
offered a 10-percent increase if the Union would drop its demand for a union
shop clause.? This was rejected by the Union ; Mrs. Johnson stated that the
union members were most interested in obtaining such a provision. Stinson
also said that he had received instructions from his superiors in the national or-
ganization of the Union that all open shop contracts be renegotiated on a union
shop or closed shop basis. He rejected Paine's suggestion that he telephone for
6 The existing contract provided that, "All employees who may later become members of
the Union , shall maintain their membership in the Union during the life of this agreement."
However the contract did not provide any machinery for the enforcement of this provision.
The Union had requested the Respondent to assist it by requiring employees to maintain
their union membership , but the Respondent had refused maintaining that that was a mat-
ter between the Union and its members.
7 The Union , in its original proposal , had not demanded a wage increase . However, on
March 7 it submitted a new provision calling for a 10-percent increase.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 189
contrary instructions saying that his boss would think him silly and also that
the local members had voted to demand a union shop in order to prevent favor-
itism. Stinson then made several attempts to have the Respondent's representa-
tives go over the Union's proposals clause by clause, but Paine and other com-
pany representatives refused to do so maintaining that they had made their
position clear, but that their decision was not final. The meeting broke up when
Stinson declared that the Union delegation had to leave, that he would seek the
aid of the Conciliation Service, and saw no point in meeting until a conciliator
arrived.
After the meeting, the Union sent a telegraphic request to the Conciliation
Service asking for the assistance of a conciliator. On March 23, Conciliation
Commissioner Byars telephoned Stinson and informed him that he would be
in Amory on March 25. When he arrived, he informed Stinson that he had
had a telephone conversation with Jordan Timlake, an officer of the Respondent,
and had arranged to meet him at the plant. Byars tried to reach Timlake and
Longenecker on March 25, 26, and 27, but reported that he had been unsuccessful.
He left Amory saying that he could do nothing further. During those same 3
days employees were being laid off and the plant closed down on March 27.
d. Events in April 1946
After the plant closed down, the Union filed a charge alleging in substance
that the Respondent had locked out its employees in violation of the Act. On
April 11 a mass meeting of employees was held at the City Hall at which certain
action was taken which will be related in detail further in this report. On April
19, Board Field Examiners came to Amory to investigate the charge.'
On April 26, the Field Examiners met with representatives of the Union and
the Respondent and submitted a settlement proposal for their consideration.
The proposed agreement provided in substance that the Respondent would not in
any way interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of their
rights under the Act ; that the Respondent would offer full reinstatement to all
laid-off employees, "as soon as material is available and in the event the plant
resumes manufacturing operations ;" and that the Respondent would upon
request bargain collectively with the Union. The Respondent was willing to
sign the agreement, but the Union refused. Mrs. Johnson testified that the
reason that the agreement was rejected was that the Union would gain nothing
from it since the Respondent was not giving any assurances that the plant would
reopen or that a signed contract would be agreed upon. She offered to go ovei
the Union's proposed contract, but Paine declined to do so at that time. Thb
conference thereupon broke up.9
e. The attempts to negotiate in June 1946
The plant partially reopened on June 3. On June 6, International Representa-
tive Earl W. Carroll spoke to Longenecker and asked him to set a date for the
resumption of negotiations. Longenecker replied that Paine would not be
available for at least 4 weeks and that he would not proceed in his absence. He
also refused to select another attorney. Carroll made another attempt on June
10 and a conciliation commissioner on June 17 attempted to arrange a meeting.
8In the course of their investigation , the Field Examiners took the testimony of Com-
pany officials and other persons. A transcript of the testimony was received in evidence.
The Union later withdrew the charge , without prejudice.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both efforts were unsuccessful and were met with the same response as Longe-
necker had given on June 6.
Carroll filed a charge and an amended charge of unfair labor practices on June
12 and 20 respectively.
f. The July 1946 bargaining conferences
On June 25 , the Respondent sent a letter to the Union stating that it had been
informed that Paine intended to return about July 15 and suggesting that a
meeting be held on July 19. The Union replied accepting the suggestion.
The meeting was held as scheduled . A conciliation commissioner also
attended at Carroll 's request . The parties agreed to examine the Union ' s proposed
contract clause by clause and this was done . Carroll noted on the contract the
points of agreement and disagreement . The Respondent , among other matters,
objected to the Union 's increasing its wage demand from 10 to 15 percent stating
that a 10-percent increase had been given the employees when the plant reopened
on June 3 and it could not understand the increased demand. They then
proceeded to discuss the clauses in disagreement . They first discussed clause 4
"Union Security ." The Union voluntarily struck out part of the clause, but
retained the provision requiring all employees covered by the agreement and all
new employees be members of the Union in good standing as a condition of
employment . Paine and Longenecker asserted that they did not wish to force
any employees to join the Union. Stinson suggested that the employees be
polled on the question and offered several suggestions as to how this could be
done. After some discussion, the Respondent rejected this plan. The conciliation
commissioner then suggested to the Union that the union security clause be
rewritten and this was done, The new proposal provided that :
All Employees now members in good standing shall remain in good
standing during the life of this agreement , all new employees after 30 days
shall become members and remain in good standing during the life of this
agreement . All employees, not now members of the Union , but later express
desire to become members , shall upon signing an authorization become and
remain members in good standing.
The new clause differed from the prior proposal in that it contained no sanc-
tions for its enforcement ; union membership was not made a condition of
employment . In this respect it was substantially the same as the clause in the
original contract . However, Paine rejected the new clause saying that it was prac-
tically the same as the other proposal discussed that day.
Carroll then suggested they discuss the other disputed clauses in the Union's
proposal , but Paine refused to do so maintaining that if there was no agree-
ment as to union security there was no point in further discussion . The con-
ciliation commissioner then suggested that that clause be submitted to
arbitration , but the Union and the Respondent rejected that plan.
At this point, Paine stated that the Respondent wanted company security.
While he did not submit a written proposal , his proposal was, in substance, that
security be furnished by the Union and the American Federation of Labor to
indemnify the Respondent for damages resulting from strikes, slowdowns, and
other labor disturbances . Carroll said that the Union could not bind the
American Federation of Labor, but Paine declared that it would have to obtain
such authorization . The commissioner suggested that the parties adopt a
security agreement which had been reached by the Ford Motor Company and
the United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 191
America, C. I. 0. This agreement provided a system of penalties for employees
who engaged in strikes in violation of the contract. Paine, after discussing
the proposal with other company representatives, stated that the proposal
was unacceptable ; that It did not give the company what it wanted-money
damages In the event of strikes Carroll tried unsuccessfully to continue dis-
cussion of other clauses in the proposed contract. Then a new meeting was
scheduled for July 29.
Representatives of the Union, the Respondent, and two conciliation commis-
sioners attended the July 29 meeting. The parties first discussed the proposed
union security clause. The Union offered to modify the clause by inserting
a 10-day escape provision applicable to those then employed by the Respondent.
Paine rejected this and suggested that the employees be free to join or not
join the Union. This clause, which offered the Union no security, was rejected
by it. The parties then discussed company security. Paine stated that he
wanted a clause binding on the Union and the American Federation of Labor.
Carroll protested that the Union could not bind that body. The Ford Motor
Company proposal was then suggested by the conciliators, but it was rejected
by the Respondent after further study. The Respondent at that meeting did
not produce a written counterproposal. The Union representatives then sought
to continue discussion of the rest of the contract, but Paine stated that there
was no use proceeding if there could not be agreement on the clauses in issue.
He refused to set another meeting date for the same reason.
g. Conclusion of the bargaining conferences
On August 22, the Respondent's counsel addressed a letter to the Regional
Director in which they refused to submit a proposed contract and summarized
the course of the negotiations as follows :
As you have been advised the Local Union, through its representative,
Mr. Carroll, did submit a proposed contract and negotiations were entered
into between the company and the Union but were not successful; our
client basing their action upon the facts concerning the operation of their
plant and their business judgment could not sign such contract as pre-
sented by the Local Union, but advised the local union and its representative
that they were perfectly willing to continue negotiations whenever the
Local Union was prepared to recede from certain demands made in the
contract which were inacceptable to our client. There existed an honest
difference of opinion so far as our client was concerned and diametrical
opposition of view as contended for by the Union.
Field Examiners for the Board then proceeded with an investigation. Later,
Carroll was advised by Board representatives to communicate with Paine with
reference to arranging another meeting. A meeting, which proved to be the
final bargaining conference, was held on October 9, 1946.
The discussion on October 9 was noted by a stenographer and a transcribed copy
of the notes taken was admitted in evidence. At the outset of the meeting
Paine read a written demand that the Union prove its majority status and also
a statement that by meeting with the Union the Respondent did not waive
its rights to insist on such proof. After some discussion, of this point, the
parties entered into a discussion of points which remained in dispute. They
first discussed the clause on union security The Union offered to modify the
original proposal requiring all employees and all newly hired employees to be
members of the Union in good standing by inserting a 10-day escape clause for
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
present employees, but with no exemption for new employees. The Respondent
rejected this proposal and offered as a counterproposal a clause stating, in sub-
stance, that employees who were or later became members of the Union should
maintain their membership, but that no obligation would rest on the Respondent
to enforce this provision, enforcement being a matter for the Union. The Union
offered to accept this proposal if the Respondent would recommend that its
employees belong to the Union. It also offered a proposal that all employees who
signed authorization cards and all new employees must remain members of the
Union in good standing. The Respondent rejected this proposal. Thereupon,
the Union agreed to accept the Respondent's proposal.
Paine then submitted a written proposal desired by the Respondent entitled
"Company Security." This proposal is as follows :
COMPANY SECURITY
The Local Union in order to protect the Company from breach of this
agreement by its members and resulting damage caused the Company shall
execute a bond in the amount of Ten Thousand dollars in some solvent
surety company licensed to do business in the State of Mississippi, which
bond shall be conditioned to pay to the Company any damage and attorneys
fee incurred by it as a result of any breach of this agreement by the Local
Union or its members in the nature of strikes, slow downs, sit-down strikes,
walk-outs or any other concerted action by members of the Union by what-
ever name it may be called, which results in damage to the Company in the
operation of its plant or the production of the goods manufactured by it.
Carroll stated that the Union was not financially able to furnish a bond in the
amount requested, that it would agree to a standard clause against strikes
and lock-outs, and that the Respondent under the contract had the right to dis-
charge employees guilty of interfering with production or causing damage. He
submitted a proposal for insertion in the contract. Paine rejected this pro-
posal insisting on a bond. He also refused to discuss other clauses in the
proposed contract maintaining that it would be a waste of time. He further
stated that the Respondent would be willing to re-open negotiations when the
Union agreed to a company security clause similar to the one proposed. In
further discussion Paine asserted that the no-strike no-lock-out clause plus
the right of management to discharge employees under certain conditions was
insufficient security in view of the prior work stoppage for which the company
received no compensation. The conference then ended. No further meetings
were held.
Conclusions
The Respondent contends that it fulfilled its obligations under the Act, as-
suming that it was under a duty to bargain with the Union. The undersigned
does not agree.
An outstanding feature of the negotiations is that although the Union pre-
sented a proposed contract on March 7, there was no clause-by-clause examina-
tion of it until July 19. In the March 15 conference the Respondent first took the
position that it was willing to extend the old contract. It then offered to trade
a 10-percent increase in exchange for the dropping of the demand for a union
shop. While there was then some exploration of the area of disagreement the
Respondent refused to examine the proposed contract to find areas of possible
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC . 193
agreement. The requirement of good faith bargaining under the Act presup-
poses more than mention of a clause or clauses in disagreement. It contemplates
an attempt to reach an agreement by the consideration of all proposals to find
areas of agreement from which progress may be made on a "give and take"
basis towards an agreement. The Respondent's attitude throughout the confer-
ence was marked by a refusal to proceed until a clause in disagreement was
settled by some concession from the Union. These tactics not only delayed
negotiations but prevented progress on other clauses which progress might have
ultimately led one party or the other to make concessions in view of advantages
obtained. The Union pressed for full negotiations, but was unsuccessful. The
chief disputed issue between the parties until late in the negotiations was that
of union security. On this issue, both sides took a firm position at the outset.
The Union later made counterproposals and finally accepted the Respondent's
proposals which gave it no security at all. Consideration of issues other than this
one would undoubtedly have led to more progress in the conferences.
The Respondent's conduct was also marked by periods when it cooperated
in arranging conferences and other times when attempts to arrange meetings
were rebuffed. Thus, on March 25, 26, and 27, a conciliation commissioner at-
tempted unsuccessfully to reach Timlake and Longenecker, although he had
made prior arrangements with Timlake to meet him at the plant. There may
have been some justification for the Respondent's conduct, but none was offered
at the hearing. It should be noted that on those same dates employees at the
plant were being laid off and the plant was closed on March 27. The Respond-
ent also refused to meet with the Union from June 6 to July 19 because of the
absence of its attorney and refused to designate another attorney to assist it
in his absence. These delays seriously interfered with the rights of the Union.
The Board has recently stated : "In labor relations, a delay in commencing col-
lective bargaining entails more than mere postponement of an ordinary business
transaction, for the passage of time itself, while employees grow disaffected and
impatient at their designated bargaining agent's failure to report progress, weak-
ens the unity and economic power of the group, and impairs the Union's ability
to secure a beneficial contract. The Act, which was designed to equalize bar-
gaining power between employees and employers, does not permit an employer
to secure, even unintentionally, a dominant position at the bargaining table by
means of unreasonable delay.110
It also is undenied that when the plant reopened in June 1946, the Respondent
granted the employees a 10 percent wage increase without any consultation or
notice to the Union. This amount had been demanded by the Union in the
March 1946 conferences. The Respondent had offered to grant the increase in
exchange for the Union's dropping a union shop demand. Its unilateral action
in bypassing the Union and granting the wage increase without notification
or consultation with it was violative of the Act 11
Finally, the transcript of the October 9 conferences shows that negotiations
broke down when the Respondent insisted on company security in the form of
a $10,000 surety bond for damages resulting from breach of the contract by the
Union or its members "in the nature of strikes, slow downs, sit-down strikes,
walk-outs or any other concerted action . . ." The Respondent insisted on
such a provision and rejected counterproposals for penalties for individual vio-
10 Matter of Burgie Vinegar Company , 71 N. L. R. B. 829.
"May Department Stores Co. v. N. L. R. B., 66 S . Ct. 203, 209, 326 U. S. 376.
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lators. The idea of company security was first advanced on July 19, months after
negotiations had begun for a new contract.
The Board has in several decisions considered the validity and effect of de-
mands for surety bonds or other means of indemnification. In the case of
Matter of Jasper Blackburn Products Corporation,'2 the Board commenting on
a demand for a $10,000 surety bond said :
The Act also requires, in ordinary circumstances, a willingness to con-
summate any understandings that may be reached in a bilateral signed
agreement. The respondent, in refusing to execute a signed agreement,
binding upon both parties, unless the Union posted a bond, sought to prefix
the fulfillment of its statutory obligation with a condition not within the
provisions, and manifestly inconsistent with the policy of the Act. Even
assuming a bond of the kind requested to be obtainable, the employer cannot
lay down the blanket requirement that the Union pay a tax to a surety com-
pany before the result contemplated by the Act, a signed bilateral agreement,
can come to pass. Since the respondent had in 1937 stated its intention not
to sign any agreement, and since none of the proposals advanced either by
the respondent, or by the Union, called for any performance whatsoever on
the Union's part, it would seem clear that the primary purpose of the
respondent's demand for a bond was to avoid the required fundamentals of
collective bargaining.
This holding was reaffirmed in subsequent cases."
In the October 9 conference, the Respondent asserted that it insisted on a
bond because a member of the Union had pulled a power switch at the plant.
Mention has already been made of this incident It occurred in June 1945.
While a power switch was pulled, the culprit was, according to the evidence,
not identified, but a satisfactory understanding was reached by representatives
of the Respondent and the Union. There is no proof of the occurrence of
any other similar incidents thereafter." The undersigned concludes that the
interjection of the proposal for a surety bond months after bargaining had com-
menced, was a move to delay and impede the ultimate consummation of an
agreement.
The undersigned finds that the making of the above demand considered with
the refusal of the Respondent to review the proposed contract in detail until
July 19, the delays in negotiation attributable to it, its unilateral granting of a
wage increase in June 1946 after having refused to grant it to the Union In
prior negotiations, and the unfair labor practices hereafter detailed all are
indicative of the Respondent's lack of a genuine desire to reach an agreement
with the Union from the commencement of negotiations on March 7, 1946.
2. The appropriate unit
The Agreement for Consent Election which was signed by the parties on
February 21, 1945, set forth the following unit as appropriate :
All production and maintenance employees of the employer in Amory,
excluding Management personnel , clerical employees , personnel director,
'2 21 N L. R B 1240, 1254
13 Matter of Seripto Manufacturing Conrpanv, 36 N. L. It B 411, 427. Matter of Inter-
state Steamship Company, et at , 36 N I. R B 1307, 1:118, Matter of Burgie 1 uiegar
Company, 71 N L R. B 829. Matter of Benson Produce Coinpaiiy, 71 N L R. B 888
14 Mention was made at the October 9 conference of a slow-down, but no proof of it
was presented at the hearing.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 195
plant superintendent, foreladies, cutting room foreman, shipping room fore-
men, feeders, and other supervisors with the authority to hire, discharge
or change the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
The Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of
the employees in that unit on March 2, 1945. The complaint alleges as an
appropriate unit : "All employees of the respondent at its Amory, Mississippi,
plant, excluding executive, administrative, office and clerical employees, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action." The Respondent did not challenge the appropriateness of the unit
as set forth in the Agreement for Consent Election or the complaint.
The undersigned finds in accordance with the prior certification that all
production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its plant at
Amory, Mississippi, excluding management personnel, clerical employees, per-
sonnel director, plant superintendent, foreladies, cutting room foreman, shipping
room foremen, feeders, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees or effectively recommend such action, at all times material herein
constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Representation by the Union of a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit
As heretofore noted, the Union and the Respondent commenced bargaining
for a new contract on March 7, 1946, with the first extensive discussion having
been held on March 15. The Respondent's pay roll as of that date included 309-
employees in the appropriate unit. The records of the Union show that it had
182 dues-paying members in good standing in March 1946 Of this group, 169
appear on the March 15 pay roll. The Union membership rolls also listed other
persons who had been suspended for non-payment of dues, but who still retained
their membership. In view of the clear majority of dues-paying members of
the Union on the March 15 pay roll and in view of the fact that the Respondent
did not contest the Union's majority status as of March 1946, the undersigned
deems it unnecessary -to determine the extent of further union membership-on
the pay roll." The Respondent entered into bargaining negotiations with the
Union prior to the plant shut-down on March 27, 1943. It continued negotiations
after the plant reopened on June 3, 1946. It first raised the question of the
majority status of the Union in a letter sent by its attorneys to the Regional
Director on August 22, 1946. The concluding paragraph of this letter is as
follows :
In making the above statement as to willingness to further negotiate
our client does not waive any rights as to the question of whether the Union
represents a majority of the employees of the Amory Garment Company
based on information which is common report on the streets of Amory,
Mississippi.
The Respondent also presented a formal request for proof of majority in its-
last conference with the Union on October 9.
"The above findings are based upon the testimony of Maxine Kennedy, business agent
for the Union, and also upon the records of the Union.
817319-49-vol 80 -14
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing, the Respondent presented a petition dated November 18,
1946, purportedly signed by 120 employees stating that they did not desire
to have the Union represent them. Copies of this document had been sent to
the Respondent, the Union, and the Board 19 In addition, Earl W. Carroll, an
international representative of the Union, testified that he received instructions
after the plant was closed that dues payments to the Union would be waived
in view of the fact that the members were out of work and that he transmitted
those instructions to the local union. No dues were thereafter sought from the
members after work was resumed, although some paid voluntarily.
The undersigned finds that the circumstances mentioned above did not de-
stroy the majority status of the Union. Dues-paying membership in a union is
not required by the Act.17 Most important, the petition which furnishes appar-
ent proof of defections from the Union was signed after bargaining negotiations
had broken down because of the Respondent's attitude which the undersigned
has found constituted a refusal to bargain within the meaning of the Act.
Defections from the ranks of the Union are attributable in substantial part to
that unfair labor practice. It is well settled that an employer cannot question
the majority status of the Union when by his own act he has contributed to the
destruction of that majority.'"
The undersigned finds that on and at all times after March 7, 1946, the Union
was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
Union was at all times material herein and is the exclusive representative of all
the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours or other conditions of employment.
The undersigned further finds that on March 7, 1946, and at all times there-
after, the Respondent failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. The assistance given by the Respondent in the circulation of an anti-union
petition
In support of its contentions concerning the Union's lack of a majority, the
Respondent offered in evidence a petition which had been received by it by
registered mail . The petition was addressed to the Board, the Respondent, and
the Union. It read as follows :
We are employees of the Amory Garment Company at Amory, Miss. We
represent a large majority of the employees. We do not desire that the
union represent us further in our dealings with Amory Garment Company
and we ask that the union be dismissed and, if necessary, an election be
called to determine whether the majority desire the union to further repre-
sent them.
The petition was dated November 18, 1946, and contained 120 signatures.
11 The circumstances under which signatures to the petition were obtained will be dis-
cussed later in this report.
l7 Matter of Gatke Corporation , 69 N. L It. B. 333.
N. L. R. B. v. Dixie Motor Coach Corp., 128 F. (2d) 201 (C. C. A. 5) enf'g, as modified,
25 N. L. It. B 869; N. L. R. B. v. H. G . Hill dtorea, Inc., 140 F. (2d) 924 (C. C A. 5)
enf'g 42 N. L . It. B. 184.
'AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 197
Superintendent Earl K. Hutson testified that employee Steve Shackelford, a
former president of the Union, circulated the petition through the plant on or
about November 18. Shackelford first showed him the petition, Hutson testified,
and asked if he might send it down the production lines. Hutson refused
permission for this, but said that Shackelford could take it around.1B Hutson
testified that Shackelford did this and devoted part of a working day to the
task." Hutson also testified that President Longenecker saw Shackelford pass-
ing around the petition and asked Hutson about it and that he, Hutson, told him
that Shackelford was circulating a petition that he had drafted at the request
of some employees.
Employees Lona Holloway and Velma Hatheock testified that Shackelford
asked them to sign the petition and assured them they would get wage increases
if they did so. Hatheock further testified that Shackelford told her that Longe-
necker had said that if a majority signed the petition he would give them a wage
increase. She also testified that she observed the petition being passed down
another production line. The testimony of Holloway and Hathcock, which was
not contradicted, is credited.
The above testimony establishes the fact that the Respondent, with full
knowledge of its contents, permitted an employee on working time to solicit
signatures of other employees to a petition seeking to destroy the Union's
right to act as collective bargaining agent. The undersigned finds that such
assistance constituted a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Shackelford was
a production employee and the undersigned finds that in the absence of further
evidence, his promise of wage increases to employees if they would sign the
petition was not attributable to the Respondent.
C. The attempt to bribe Robert Cantrell
Robert Cantrell was employed by the Respondent from February 1942 until
September 16, 1946. He had been a production worker and had succeeded
Shackelford as president of the local union. He testified that he received a
subpoena by mail to appear at the hearing held herein and that the following
events occurred thereafter.
On the evening of February 24, 1947, Shackelford asked him whether he had
received a subpoena. Cantrell replied that he had and intended to appear.
Shackelford replied that he did not have to do so, but when Cantrell did not
change his mind, Shackelford, who also had received a subpoena, suggested
that they spend the evening at his house and go to the hearing together (the
first day of the hearing was February 25, 1947)." Cantrell went with
Shackelford.
11 Shackelford was a presser who was paid on a piece -rate basis , but he had a guaranteed
minimum rate of 60 cents an hour.
10 Hutson testified that his reason for making the distinction was that the passing of a
paper down a production line would cause more talk among the employees than if they
were each approached privately. Employee Velma Hathcock testified without contradic-
tion that after her production line was closed down on July 29, 1946, under circumstances
hereinafter related, she sent a paper down that line when work was resumed requesting
the employees to sign it. Hutson confiscated that paper.
11 Cantrell had talked with Shackelford previously in October or November 1946. At that
time, Shackelford asked him how much he would want to "sell out" to the Respondent and
mentioned that he believed he could get Cantrell $100. Cantrell said he might be inter-
ested in a "couple of hundred ." Nothing further was done at that time.
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the way to Shackelford's house, Shackelford said that he would not go,
to the hearing and that Longnecker had told him, "If you don't go and they
fine you, I'll pay your fine, if it's $10,000." When Cantrell said that no such
promise had been made to him Shackelford replied, "We'll fix that" The lat-
ter made a telephone call in Cantrell's presence, Cantrell heard him ask for
Longenecker and heard Shackelford say, "He's here at my house." After that
call was completed, Shackelford said that Longenecker was sick and they would
have to go to his house.
About an hour and a half later they drove to Longenecker's house and parked
in the driveway. Shackelford went inside. When he returned, he told Cantrell
that Longenecker was sick, but that he had said they should ". . . go ahead
and have a big time and call him up this afternoon- and he'd come to us wherever
we were; if we run out of money, let him know." Cantrell protested that no,
arrangement had been made about any fine he might incur, but Shackelford
replied that that would be taken care of.
The next morning Shackelford left Cantrell saying that lie would bring
Longenecker. When he returned, he told Cantrell that Longenecker would not
come because he did not trust Cantrell. However, he said lie had three pairs
of pants and $25 for Cantrell. He said that he had obtained the pants and the
money from Jordan Timlake, secretary of the Respondent. They then proceeded
to buy some liquor and Shackelford offered Cantrell $20.' He also had pre-
viously informed Cantrell that Longenecker had said he would pay any fine
assessed against Cantrell if he did not appear in court. During the afternoon,
Shackelford told Cantrell that Longenecker had promised to give him his job
back after things had died down. Cantrell also told Shackelford that $25 was
not enough, that he would have to have more.
The next afternoon Cantrell telephoned Shackelford and the latter reported
that Longenecker had said that the $25 was only the first payment and that he
would be well paid if he stayed away from the hearing.
On Saturday, March 1, Cantrell saw Shackelford and the latter gave him $10.
Cantrell in the course of his testimony produced the $10 and the pants which
he claimed to have received from Shackelford. The pants were wrapped in some
paper on which was written, "Mr. Tiinlake." The pants were tagged with tags
of the type used at the plant carrying notations of cut numbers, size, and the
initials of the person stamping each tag.
Longenecker and Tinilake were not called as witnesses. The undersigned
credits Cantrell's uncontradicted testimony. Certain parts of Cantrell's testi-
mony independent of Shackelford's statements to him point to the fact that
Shackelford was acting for the Respondent's officials. These matters are
Shackelford's entering Longenecker's house while accompanied by Cantrell and
Shackelford's giving Cantrell the pairs of pants that had been produced at the
Respondent's plant and which bore its identifying tags. Cantrell's testimony
contained convincing detail and, in the absence of any denial of his testimony
by the officials be named, the undersigned concludes and finds that Shackelford
attempted to bribe Robert Cantrell so that lie would not appear and testify in this
proceeding and that Shackelford acted for and under instructions from the
2' Cantrell also testified that after Shackelford had offered him the money, the former
said that he had been instructed by Timlake not io give him the money until March 3.
Cantrell then told him to keep the money.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 199
Respondent 's officials . By these acts , the Respondent has violated Section 8
(I) of the Act 23
D. The .alleged unfair labor practices
1 The shut-down of the plant on March 27, 1946, and the surrounding
circumstances
On March 25, 1946, the Respondent began closing down operations and by
March 27 the shut-down was complete.
The Respondent maintained that it was forced to close because of a shortage
of materials, but there is substantial evidence that supervisors, employees,
and the community in general felt that there was another reason. On March
27, Head Mechanic Buster Beason told employee Mae Hutchison, "We've got
to clean these machines, take them up and get them ready to ship." When
employee Ernestine Pickle asked him if the plant would stay closed, he replied,
"They've started it and we are going to end it." He did not amplify his
remark." Forelady Ruth Owings told employee Ruby Tart that the machines
at the plant might be moved to other places. Forelady Ruth Vaughn told
employee Corine Stevens that she did not know if the plant would ever reopen2B
Employee Robert E. Cantrell overheard President Longenecker remark to Super-
intendent Ridings on the last working day, "I don't expect to run a factory
in Amory another day. . . . If the union is going to run it, why, to hell with it."
On April 9, 1946, the Union sent a letter to the Respondent maintaining that
the employees had been locked out because of their union activities and further
advising the Respondent "in order that there be no misunderstanding" that the
employees were not on strike and were willing to return to work. The Union
also published a statement in the local newspaper outlining the course of the
bargaining negotiations, denying that the employees were on strike, and main-
taining that the Respondent's claim of a material shortage was a subterfuge.
On or about April 8, 1946, postcard notices signed "The Committee" were
sent to employees inviting them to a meeting at the City Hall, Amory, on the
evening of April 11. Mayor Dudley Rowan opened the meeting and was elected
chairman.8 He then addressed the employees and made the principal talk of
the evening. He stated that the chief purpose of the meeting was to get the
plant back in operation. He then called attention to the fact that the plant
meant a lot to the community, that if it did not reopen there would be hard
times for some of the workers, and that experience showed that industries would
not come to Amory and give employment if there had been prior labor disturb-
ances. Dealing with the immediate situation, he declared that the plant had
78 Matter of Star d Crescent Boat Co., 18 N. L. R. B . 479 ; Matter of Banco Piece Dye
Works, Inc., 38 N. L. it. B. 690.
24 Beason was in charge of the maintenance and repair of machinery and supervised the
work of another mechanic and a helper. The undersigned finds that he had supervisory
authority.
88 The findings as to the statements by supervisors are based upon the uncontradicted
testimony of the employees involved.
26 The findings as to the meeting of April 11 and Rowan's part in it are based upon his
transcribed statement to Board Field Examiners on April 19, 1946, an incomplete
transcript of the occurrences at the meeting made by a stenographer who was present,
and the testimony of Carroll and others who were present. Rowan did not testify at the
bearing. In his statement to the Field Examiners , he maintained that he suggested to
certain production workers that a meeting be held after they appealed to him for
assistance.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given employment to many who needed it and that if it closed down permanently
the employees would have to go elsewhere to find work or be a burden on the
community. He pointed out that the management had offered to sign the old
contract with a 10-percent increase. Rowan also stated that the management
had said it would not operate under a union shop. He then suggested that the
Board could be petitioned to hold an election and read a petition stating in
substance that the employees wanted to work and wanted to work without
joining the Union and that they wanted an election to be conducted. The
petition was circulated among the audience over the protests of union represent-
atives.
The Board Field Examiners on April 19, 1946, not only took the testimony
of Rowan, but also examined company officials as to the nature and extent of
company operations and the circumstances surrounding the closing of the plant
in the prior month. These officials maintained that the plant was closed be-
cause of a shortage of material and furnished information supporting this
explanation.
Conclusions
The complaint does not allege that the Respondent was guilty of any unfair
labor practice in the shut-down of the plant and counsel for the Board stated
at the hearing that he did not intend to litigate the lay-off on its merits. Be-
cause of these facts the undersigned makes no findings as to the plant closure,
in March. Furthermore, in view of the state of the record, the undersigned
is not persuaded that the statements of various supervisors as to the closing
of the plant and the possibilities of its reopening were coercive. These super-
visors were minor supervisors and there is no proof that they played a part
in the formation of company policy, nor is the undersigned convinced that the
employees would reasonably conclude that the statements in question were
threats of discriminatory action by management.
The undersigned also finds that the Respondent cannot be held responsible
for the occurrences at the April 11 meeting. There is no evidence that the
Respondent played any part in organizing the meeting or in the preparation
of the petition that was circulated24 Rowan apparently acted on his own
initiative. Under those circumstances, his anti-union activity is not attributable
to the Respondent.
2. Other remarks and activities by supervisory employees
Several employees gave testimony concerning remarks made by supervisors
at or about the time of the plant shut-down in March 1946. Their testimony,
which was not contradicted, is credited.
Lora Lee Hughes testified that on March 18, 1946, she heard President
Longenecker call out, "Why in the hell don't he-they strike? That's what I
want them to do." This remark was made in the plant, but was not addressed
to anyone. In the absence of evidence clarifying the circumstances under which
this remark was made, the undersigned does not find it violative of the Act, but
has considered it in appraising the Respondent's attitude.
Employee Ernestine Pickle testified that on March 26, she overheard Fore-
lady Madge L. Roberts tell another forelady that she would like to "stomp hell"
24 Certain supervisory employees were in the audience on April 11, but they confined
their activity to applauding Rowan and signing the petition.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 201
out of Mrs. Johnson ( a union representative ), that everything was quiet before
she came to the plant.
Ruth Hawkins , a former employee , testified that she was employed at the
plant in February 1946, that on one occasion during that month , Forelady Moselle
Pennies asked another employee in her presence when another union meeting
would be held and then remarked , "Well, the Union isn't worth a damn and never
will be." Former employee Corine Stevens testified that on the day the plant
closed she observed Superintendent Ridings and Forelady Pennix reading a
union notice and overheard Pennix remark to Ridings , "Well, by God, they've
got a closed shop."
The remarks of supervisors quoted in this section of the report all reveal
hostility to the Union . However, most of them were not directed to employees,
but were overheard by them. The undersigned concludes that those remarks
were not violative of the Act. The inquiry of Forelady Pennig as to the date
of a forthcoming union meeting is on a stronger footing. However , because
this is an isolated occurrence , and under the circumstances , the undersigned does
not find it violative of the Act.
Former employee Wallace Wood testified that on the day the plant closed he
asked Superintendent Ridings whether he might work overtime rather than come
back the next day to complete some work and that Ridings said, "Well, why
don't you go to the Union and see them?" Ridings then asked Wood why he
was "so much" in favor of the Union and of what good was it . He further re-
marked , "Last week we had a union , and this week we don't have and it looks
to me like things are running as good now as it was last week ." The undersigned
finds that Ridings' disparagement of the Union did not exceed permissible bounds.
In this connection , the undersigned has considered the fact that the statements
to Wood were the only remarks alleged to have been made by Ridings in violation
of the Act.
3. The lay-off of employees in Line No. 3 on July 29, 1946
As afore-mentioned, a bargaining conference between the Respondent and the
Union was scheduled for July 29, 1946.
At the beginning of the meeting, Earl Carroll, international representative of
the Union, requested that the Union's negotiating committee which consisted
of certain employees of the plant be brought in. Longenecker remarked that
a production line would have to be closed down if that were done. Paine, his
attorney, replied, "Well, if you have to close it down, you'll have to close it
down." 28 The bargaining committee was allowed to attend the meeting, but
Line No. 3 was closed down for the day.2B Some of its employees were reassigned
to other posts ; the remainder was sent home. The complaint alleges that the
line was closed because of the union membership and activities of employees on
that line and because the employees engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection.
The Board presented detailed charts showing the break-down of employment
figures at the plant. These charts had been prepared by Norman P. Mathias,
an employee of the Board. Their accuracy was not disputed. The undisputed
28 The above findings are based on Carroll's credited testimony.
21 The committee consisted of three employees , two of whom , Velma Hathcock and Lone
Holloway, came from Line 3.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony of Mathias and other witnesses and the charts reveal the following
information :
The Respondent did not have more than four production lines in the last 6
months of 1946. There were three regular production lines, designated on the
charts as Unit 100, Unit 300, Unit 400 or Lines 1, 3 and 4. Employees were
assigned to a specific production line and were given badge numbers which indi-
cated the assignment An employee might be shifted from one line to another
for a day or a longer period, but the Respondent did not maintain records
from which it could be ascertained on what line an employee had worked on a
specific date. Generally, an employee worked on the line indicated by her badge
number. In addition, the Respondent had a "Component Parts" line. That line
prepared specific component parts of pants, such as pockets. These component
parts were used on the main production lines as needed. Another group of
workers were designated "Temporaries." These were extra workers who were
used to fill in for absent employees. This group varied in size and was increased
as the occasion required. The Respondent maintained files of former employees
and new applicants and used those files in emergencies. Finally, there was a
group of miscellaneous employees, who did not work on the production lines.
They were designated on the charts as Unit 1.
Two charts were introduced in evidence. The first chart is a record for certain
specified days of the number of persons in each job classification working on
each line.30 For July 29, all employees who worked 31/4 hours, that is, up until
the time Line 3 was stopped, were counted as available except for one employee
who only worked in the afternoon. For other days, employees were counted as
absent if they worked less than 4 hours. A second chart is a similar study for
different dates. The charts reveal that on July 29 a grand total of 178 employees
were available for work and that on 12 days less than 178 worked and that 178
worked on 6 other days. Excluding the miscellaneous group, 149 worked on
July 29, 1946, and less than this number worked on 19 days and an identical
number worked on 3 other days. Mathias further testified that from a detailed
study of the charts he found that in the 19 days when a smaller production line
group was employed than on July 29 except for the category of seam presser,
he found that in every category that the Respondent was able to get along
on different dates with as few or fewer employees than it did oil July 29.
On cross-examination, Mathias testified that he could estimate when produc-
tion was stopped on certain days by records showing a low production of units.
He further testified that in determining to which line to assign a worker for the
purposes of his calculations he used the employee's regular assignment as indi-
cated by his badge number rather than his actual assignment since there were
no records of actual assignments. He also testified that it was his understanding
that the Respondent used employees from the Component Parts Line to fill in
on the regular production lines, when they were qualified. He further testified
that a clerical employee, Frances Thompson, who "seemed" to him to be actively
in charge of time records told him, in substance, that employees worked most of
the time at the assignment indicated on their time card.
Although the Respondent challenged the interpretations to be given to the
charts, no positive evidence was presented to contradict the accuracy of the
computations therein. The undersigned credits those charts as being accurate
30 In the July 29 figures, the three members of the bargaining committee , Velma Hath-
cock, Frieda Humphries , and Lona Holloway , were not included in the computations.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 203
representations for the day indicated subject to the limitations and restrictions
developed in the testimony of Mathias. His testimony is credited subject to the
same limitations.
Superintendent Hutson testified that the shut-down of Line 3 on July 29 was
a necessity. He testified that 13 operators were absent on July 29, that he
told Carroll that a line would have to be closed down if the committee members
had to be excused for the meeting, and that he did so when Carroll insisted
on their presence. He further stated that there had been other instances when
he had had to close down a line because of absences. He also testified that
when there was a large number of absences utility operators and foreladies
were used to fill in before a decision was made to close down a line. Con-
tinuing his testimony, Hutson testified that the Respondent operated a straight-
line production system and that when key workers for particular tasks were
unavailable, work would necessarily pile up and the line could not operate.
Hutson stated that that situation occurred on July 29 and that he used part of
the Line 3 employees to fill in on other lines and sent the rest home. He
could not rearrange the employees to keep the line going, he claimed, and prior
to taking the three employees from their work, he had been compelled to instruct
Ruth Owings, forelady of Line 3, to drop her regular duties and do sewing.
Employee Velma Hathcock, one of the committee who worked on Line 3,
testified that she did not see Owings sew on July 29 and that as far as she
could tell Owings was performing her regular supervisory duties on that day
and that she was sure that Owings did not sew all through the entire morning.
Alvis Hathcock, who was also working on Line 3 on July 29, corroborated the
above testimony and testified that she observed Owings that morning and that
Owings was doing her regular work and that she did not see Owings do any
sewing. Owings testified that she did sewing that morning on Hutson's instruc-
tions. The undersigned credits her testimony.
Conclusions
The charts which were received in evidence show that on July 29 the Respond-
ent had a staff shortage. Line 3 had 38 employees, not counting the two
committee members, Lona Holloway and Velma Hathcock. On only one other
day, October 15, 1946, were fewer than 38 listed for that line. On that day,
the total was 37. On two other days, October 4 and November 27, the total was
38. On all other days, the total was higher. The total number of workers on
all the production lines on July 29 was 149. The charts reveal that the Re-
spondent had been able to keep these lines going with as few as 141 employees.
However, the charts are of little assistance in determing the important point
of the versatility of individual employees and their ability to shift to different
tasks in order to maintain production as affected by absences of other employees
on speefic days.
Hutson admitted that he had made no special preparation to replace the
members of the bargaining committee, although he knew that a meeting was
scheduled. He made no such preparations, he maintained, because they could
have been spared if other absences had not occurred. He further admitted-
that he made no additional effort to secure emergency replacements for the
committee and testified that he had already exhausted all such sources before
the committee stopped work.
The evidence establishes the fact that on July 29 the Respondent had a
relatively small staff in attendance, especially of those employees who were
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
regularly assigned to Line 3 It is undenied that in prior and succeeding bar-
gaining conferences the Respondent placed no obstacles in the way of attend-
ance of the Bargaining Committee at bargaining conferences. It is also unchal-
lenged that on other occasions the Respondent has closed down a production
line because of absenteeism. In view of the factors above mentioned and from
his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned credits Hutson's testimony
and finds that Line 3 was not closed down in violation of the Act.
IV. THE EFFEOT 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 such of them as have been found to be unfair
labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of all production and
maintenance employees at its plant at Amory, Mississippi, excluding manage-
ment personnel, clerical employees, personnel director, plant superintendent,
foreladies, cutting room foreman, feeders, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action.
It has also been found that the Respondent in violation of Section 8 (1)
of the Act assisted a faction seeking to destroy the majority status of the Union
by permitting an anti-union petition to be passed among its employees on plant
premises during working hours. In addition, the Respondent violated Section
8 (1) of the Act by attempting to bribe a prospective witness and have him
stay away from the hearing. The undersigned is convinced and finds that the
entire course of conduct of the Respondent is indicative of persistent efforts to
thwart the self-organization of its employees by various devices and that there
exists real danger of the continuation of such practices in the future. In order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of
its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 170, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 205
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its plant
at Amory, Mississippi, excluding management personnel, clerical employees,
personnel director, plant superintendent, foreladies, cutting room foreman, feed-
ers, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 170, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, was on March 7, 1946, and at all times thereafter
has been, and now is the exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees
in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on March 7, 1946, and at all times thereafter to bargain col-
lectively with United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 170, A. F. L.,
as the exclusive representative of its 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.
5. By the above acts, by assisting in the circulation of an anti-union petition
on plant premises during working hours, by attempting to bribe a prospective
witness subpoenaed to appear at the hearing herein, the Respondent has inter-
fered with and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. The Respondent by laying off employees in its Line No. 3 on July 29, 1946,
has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3)
of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the under-
signed recommends that Amory Garment Company, Inc., Amory, Mississippi,
its successors and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Garment Workers of America,
Local No. 170, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
unit heretofore found appropriate, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist United Garment Workers of America, Local No. 170,
A. F. L., to bargain 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 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Garment Workers of
America, Local No. 170, A. F. L., as the exclusive representative of all production
and maintenance employees at its plant at Amory, Mississippi, excluding man-
agement personnel, clerical employees, personnel director, plant superintendent,
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
foreladies, cutting room foreman, feeders, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement ;
(b) Post at its plant at Amory, Mississippi, copies of the notice annexed
hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth 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 a period of sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
It is also recommended that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the
Respondent discriminatorily laid off certain employees on July 29, 1946, be
dismissed.
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, Wash-
ington 25, D. C, an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other 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 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.
SIDNEY L. FEILER,
Hearing Exanviner.
Dated July 10, 1947.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC. 207
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Hearing 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 UNITED GARMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LocAL
No. 170, A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
protection. All our employees are free to become or remain members of
this union, or any other labor organization.
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 at the plant at Amory, Mississippi, excluding management
personnel, clerical employees, personnel director, plant superintendent, fore-
ladies, cutting room foreman, feeders, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire; promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action.
AMORY GARMENT COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated -------------------------- By ----------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for.60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, oroeA.esied by any other material.