Anchor Rug Mill

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 764 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of ANCHOR RuG MILL and TExTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 10-CA-196-Decided August 04,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 11, 1949, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his In-
termediate Report in this 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 af-
firmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged
and recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect to these
allegations. Thereafter the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The General Counsel also filed a Motion to Remand and Reopen the
Record and Introduce Further Evidence. This motion is disposed of
below in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
i We reject the Respondent ' s exception to the Trial Examiner ' s ruling denying its
motion to dismiss the complaint made on the ground that the Congress of Industrial
Organizations , with which the Union is affiliated , has not complied with the filing require-
ments of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the amended Act. Matter of Highland Park
Manufacturing Company, 84 N. L. R. B. 744; see Matter of Northern Virginia Broad-
casters, Inc., 75 N. L . R. B. 11. The Respondent ' s exception to the Trial Examiner's
ruling denying its motion to dismiss the 8 ( a) (1) allegations of the complaint on the
ground that the charges did not specify the particular violations is without merit.
Matter of Cedartown Yarn Mills , Inc., 84 N. L . R. B. 1.
The Respondent 's further contention that the entire proceeding was barred by Section
10 (b) of the amended Act likewise lacks merit . The present charges were filed and
served less than 6 months after the effective date of the Act, and were therefore timely
in relation to the alleged violations . Matter of Itasca Cotton Mfg. Co., 79 N . L. R. B. 1442;
Matter of S. W. Evans & Son, 81 N. L . R. B. 161.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 138.
764
ANCHOR RUG MILL 765
mediate Report , the exceptions , and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner except as they are inconsistent with this Decision and
Order.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act and Section 8 (a)
( 1) of the Act ,2 as amended , by the following acts and conduct :
a. Erkes' interrogation of employee Robinson concerning her union
sympathies and his statement that, if she sympathized with the union,
she would be letting herself out of a good job later.
The Respondent objected to this finding on the ground that Erkes
was not a supervisor and was not named in the complaint and the bill
of particulars as one of the individuals for whose acts the. Respondent
was responsible . The record demonstrates , however, that Erkes owned
one-third of the corporate stock of the Respondent, that he was in
charge of the Respondent's weaving department , and that he was gen-
erally identified with management . In these circumstances the Re-
spondent is liable for his conduct in violation of 8 (a) (1) whether or
not he is a "supervisor" within the meaning of the Act.' As to the
Respondent 's second contention , we believe that the language of the
complaint , which alleged violations by "officers , agents and employees
of the Respondent ," was sufficiently broad to include conduct by Erkes.
Moreover , the matter was fully litigated at the hearing and at no time
did the Respondent claim surprise or request a postponement.
b. Lamar Cloniger 's statement to Robinson , after reference to a
union meeting held at her house the night before , that " if you make
your bed hard though, you will have to sleep in it."
Coupled as it was with mention of possible lay -off, this statement
clearly implied that employees who joined or assisted the Union
thereby risked economic reprisal from the Respondent . For reasons
noted above , the Respondent 's contention that this conduct was not
covered by the complaint or the bill of particulars lacks merit.
c. Flay T. Cloniger's remark to Anderson that he would have had
a good job if he had not tried to get smart and joined the Union.
d. Pierson 's interrogation of Cook as to.the subject of the union
meeting.
The Respondent 's main objection to these findings centers on the
Trial Examiner 's credibility rulings, in which he accepted the testi-
mony of Robinson , Cook, and Anderson and rejected the denials of
Erkes, Pierson, and the Clonigers. The Board has frequently stated
'References hereinafter made 1o sections of the amended Act refer also , where appro-
priate , to equivalent sections of the Act prior to amendment , unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise.
3 Matter of Caroline Hill, Inc., 64 N. L . R. B. 376, 377.
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that as it is the Trial Examiner, not the Board, that has the oppor-
tunity of observing the demeanor of witnesses who are testifying,
great weight will be attached to a Trial Examiner's credibility findings
and they will not be overruled unless they are clearly erroneous.' Upon
reviewing the entire testimony, in the light of the Respondent's objec-
tions, we are not persuaded that the Trial Examiner's rulings in ques-
tion are erroneous.5
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Henry Anderson, Doro-
thy Cook, Louise Morrison, Mary Robinson, and Mayme Bloodworth
were discriminatorily discharged, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
Henry Anderson was discharged the morning after he joined the
Union. Two or three days after his discharge, General Manager Flay
T. Cloniger told him that he would have had a good job if he had not
tried to get smart and joined the Union. The Respondent contends
that the discharge nonetheless was for cause. The separation slip
notified Anderson that he was discharged because his work was un-
satisfactory. Anderson's work had been praised, not criticized. At
the hearing and in its exceptions the Respondent urged absenteeism
as the ground. This shift in grounds for justifying the discharge is,
itself, so suspect as to be a significant factor in drawing an inference
of discriminatory motives .e The evidence in the record reveals the
shallowness of this second defense. Anderson worked long hours
overtime and the Respondent failed to particularize the times, other
than August 5th the day before his discharge, when allegedly he had
keen absent without permission. But according to Anderson's cred-
ited testilnony, Anderson had been absent on that day with the specific
permission of his supervisor. In view of the timing of Anderson's
discharge, the Respondent's shift in grounds for justifying his dis-
charge, the tenuous grounds asserted for the discharge, and Cloniger's
statement after the discharge that Anderson would have had a good
job if he hadn't joined the Union, we are convinced that he was dis-
charged because of his union activities.
Dorothy Cook was precipitously discharged 11 days after she joined
the Union and was told at the time that no reason for her discharge
need be given. The Respondent urged many reasons as justification
4 Matter of George V. Kussman, Jr. d/b/a Gulfport Transport Company, 84 N. L. R. B.
613 ; Matter of Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co ., 81 N. L . R. B. 577 ; Matter of Lancaster
Foundry Corporation, 75 N. L . R. B. 255, 256, and cases cited therein.
The Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner acted arbitrarily by crediting
the union witnesses and discrediting the Respondent's witnesses is without merit. Even
" total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence
of a trier of fact." N. L. R. B. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 335 U. S. 857.
"N. L. R. B. V. Idaho Refining Co., 143 F. 2d 246, 249 (C. A. 9), enfg. 48 N. L. R. B.
1084; Matter of Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., 80 N . L. R. B. 1149.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 767
for her discharge : improper performance of work, failure to perform
work, interference with others while working, and refusal to cooperate,
with supervisors. Although Cook had been employed for 8 months,
there had never been any complaints made to her concerning her work
or her conduct. As noted above she had been interrogated by her
supervisor, Pierson, concerning the subject of a union meeting held
after Anderson's discharge and had refused to supply him with the re-
quested information. When Pierson assigned Lane, another em-
ployee, to her machine, Cook carried her protest over Pierson's head
through Walsh to Cloniger, who said he would see that Lane did not
keep the machine. This provoked a heated discussion between Cook
and Pierson. Doubtless, these incidents did not endear Cook to Pier-
son. However, on the record as a whole, and in view of the earlier
interrogation of Cook concerning union activities; and the general.
antiunion animus of the Respondent; we are convinced that Cook's
union activities and not Pierson's pique, or any dereliction in the per-
formance of her duties, was the real reason for her discharge.
Louise Morrison, Mary Robinson, and Mayme Bloodworth were dis-
charged within a month after they joined the Union and 5 days after
they left a conference with Flay Cloniger over hours, wages, and work-
ing conditions, saying that they were going to talk to the union repre-
sentative. They were all known union sympathizers or members.'
When summarily discharged, they were given separation notices which.
had previously been prepared reading "voluntarily quit.." 8 They
were told that they were being let go because other workers had com-
plained that they were interfering and disturbing them at their work.
They denied these accusations and requested that Flay Cloniger in-
vestigate them, but he refused, saying that he did not have to prove
the reason for their discharges. At the behest of the State unemploy
ment insurance office, they later had the slips changed to indicate that
the reason for their discharges were "interfering with and disturbing
other employees while working." At the hearing and in its excep-
tions, the Respondent contended that they were discharged for im
proper performance of work, interference with the work of others,
refusal to cooperate with supervisors, and economic recession. Before
4 The Respondent 's contention that it lacked knowledge of the union membership of
these dischargees is not supported by the record and the testimony credited by the Trial
Examiner . Erkes , Walsh. and Pierson k n ew of Morrison ' s union sympathies and activ-
ities . Erkes had, on August 6th. warned Robinson that if she was for the Union for which
she had held a meeting, she would be letting herself out of a job. Johnson had complained
to Pierson that Morrison . Robinson . and Bloodworth had tried to get her to join the Union.
6 The manner in which the discharges were made is itself highly suspicious and war-
rants an inference of discriminatory nwt.ivsl :ion. See N. L. N. 13. v. Fairmont Creamery
Co., 143 F. 2d 668 (C . A. 10), enfg. 52 N. L. It. B. 75, cert. denied 323 U. S. 752 ; Matter
of Illinois Tool Works, 61 N. L . It. It. '1123, cold . 153 F . 2d 811, (C. A. 7).
768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
September 5, 1946, when they were discharged, they had received no
complaints concerning their work or conduct.
Like the Trial Examiner we find that although the record establishes
that certain employees had complained concerning the conduct of the
dischargees,9 the sequence of events renders these complaints highly
suspect. On August 6, according to Morrison's credited testimony,
Pierson, then a foreman for Clondike Spread Company, another com-
pany managed and owned by the Clonigers and Erkes, conuuented on
Anderson's discharge by saying that the Clonigers "got a lot of money
and can close up all mills if they wanted to" and that "plenty more
would get fired." On August 9, the Clondike Spread Company was
closed and Pierson was transferred to the Respondent Company as
a foreman. A few days later three nonunion employees, who had
worked under him at Clondike Spread, were transferred into his de-
partment. Shortly after he became foreman at Anchor Rug, Pierson
interrogated Cook about a union meeting. A few days later he
assigned Lane, a transferred employee who testified that she lunched
daily with him that summer, to Cook's machine, precipitating the dis-
turbance with which the Respondent sought to justify Cook's discrim-
inatory discharge on the 17th. Lane and the other transferred
employees immediately started complaining about Morrison, Robinson,
and Bloodworth-the remaining union members. Pierson permitted
Beard and Thomason to carry their complaints to Cloniger, yet failed
°to reprimand Morrison, Robinson, and Bloodworth for their conduct.
Johnson, at least, complained to Pierson and Cloniger about their
"union talk." In view of Pierson's early antiunion statements, his
past association with the complaining employees, and his failure to
discipline the clischargees, the sequence of events leading to these
three discharges suggests a planned accumulation of complaints to
afford a pretext for their discharge.
The Respondent also contends that the discharges were economically
motivated. We note that it retained transferred employees with less
plant seniority than those discharged, although it had earlier
announced a policy of lay-off on the basis of seniority. 10 There was no
attempt to explain the subsequent departure from seniority standards.
It is highly significant that the retained employees were all nonunion
members. Such a disproportionate selection of union members for lay-
off further strengthens our conclusion that the discharges were discrim-
inatorily motivated. In view of the above facts and the general anti-
union animus of the Respondent, we are convinced that Morrison,
O Thomason and Lane testified that there had been no interference with their work ;
Johnson said that she was asked to join the Union only when in the rest room.
10 In justifying the August 19 lay-off of Louise Morrison.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 769
Robinson, and Bloodworth were discriminatorily discharged, as the
last act of a designed campaign to eliminate all union members.
The Remedy
The Trial Examiner recommended that the back pay be computed
only from February 19, 1948, when the present charges were first filed,
on the ground that there was no evidence of mitigating circumstances
in connection with a supposed delay in filing charges. The General
Counsel excepted to this finding and filed a Motion to Remand and
Reopen the Record and Introduce Further Evidence for the limited
purpose of introducing evidence as to the date when the dischargees
first actually filed charges. In support of the motion, the General
Counsel filed the evidence it sought to introduce. As the Motion did
not propose to adduce further evidence, we regarded the motion as a
Motion to Supplement the Record 11 and issued a show cause order.
Within the prescribed time the Respondent filed objections. These
objections which do not dispute the truth or authenticity of the evi-
dence are without merit.12 Accordingly, the evidence proffered in
the General Counsel's motion is hereby made a part of the record in
this case. That evidence establishes that the first charges naming
the dischargees herein were filed on November 4, 1946, erroneously
naming Neely Cotton Mill Inc., as the Respondent.13 That charge was
further amended on January 6,1947, to name Anchor Rug Company,
the Respondent herein. The evidence conclusively establishes the
Respondent's knowledge of the earlier charges and thereby mitigates
the apparent delay 14 which impressed the Trial Examiner. Accord-
ingly we shall order the back pay computed from the date of the
discriminatory discharges.
The Trial Examiner recommended that Dorothy Cook be awarded
back pay to the date when she first decided that she did not want a
job with the Respondent. The record does not enable us to determine
when Dorothy Cook so decided. We shall not require additional
evidence at this time, however, as the parties may be able amicably to
11 See Matter of The Wallingford Steel Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 404.
" The Respondent opposed the incorporation of the evidence on the ground that the Trial
Examiner was the proper party to determine the competence and admissibility of the evi-
dence and that it was entitled to appear before him to sliow him that the documents were
incompetent and inadmissible . The General Counsel's motion was made after the case was
transferred to the Board , when, under the Board ' s Rules and Regulations-Series 5, Sec.
203.35, the Trial Examiner has no further authority with respect to the case. There is no
requirement that the Board grant a hearing before accepting evidence such as was here
proffered . See Sections 203.34 and 203.48 ( b) of the Rules and Regulations.
13 Case No. 10-C-2112. These charges were stricken from the complaint in that case
during the hearing.
34 Cf. Matter of Gibbs Corporation, 74 N. L . R. B. 1182 , 1196 ; Matter of Cleveland
Worsted Mills Co., 43 N. L. R. B. 545, 592 ; Matter of Eastern Coal Corp ., 79 N. L. It. B.
1165.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adjust the amount of back pay due upon the basis of facts disclosed
when compliance with our Order is undertaken. This is without
prejudice to the Respondent's right, in the event that this matter is
not adjusted, to apply for leave to adduce further evidence.
We further find that the unfair labor practices committed by the
Respondent potentially relate to other unfair labor practices-pro-
scribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be
anticipated from the Respondent's past conduct. The preventive
purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless our order is coextensive
with the threat. Accordingly, in order to make effective the inter-
dependent guarantees of Section 7 and thus effectuate the policies
of the Act, we shall adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation and
order the Respondent to cease and desist from in any manner inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Anchor Rug Mill, of York,
South Carolina, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discriminatorily discharging employees or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment;
(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 Textile Workers Union of Ameri-
ca, C. I. 0., or any other 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 protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 81 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
u May Department Stores v . N. L. R. B., 326 U . S. 376 ; Matter of Cedartown Yarn
Mills, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 1.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 771
(a) Offer to Henry Anderson, Louise Morrison, Mary Robinson,
and Mayme Bloodworth immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions or to substantially equivalent positions,16 without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination of the Respondent against them by payment
to each of them of a suln of money equal to that which each of them
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the Respon-
dent's discrimination' against each of them to the date of the offer
of reinstatement, less the net earnings each may have had during that
period; 17
(b) Make Dorothy Cook whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination of the Respondent against
her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the Re-
spondent's discrimination against her, to the date when she first de-
cided that she did not want a job with the Respondent, less her net
earnings during that period;
(c) Post at its .plant in York, South Carolina, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 18 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by it imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 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; and
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Inter-
16 In accordance with the Board ' s consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent positions " is intended to mean "former positions
wherever possible , but if such positions are no longer in existence , then to substantially
equivalent positions." See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New Pork,.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch , 65 N. L. R . B. 827.
14 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation , room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else -
where , which would not have been incurred but for the unlawful discrimination and the
consequent necessity of seeking employment elsewhere. Matter of Crossett Lumber Com-
pany, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal, State, county,
municipal , or other work -relief projects shall be considered as earnings . Republic Steel
Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
"In the event that this order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be inserted before the words , "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words,
"A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
857829-50-vol. 85-50
'772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with
the foregoing recommendations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint here-
in 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, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in TExi'n WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of
,our employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of
our employees or by discriminating in any other manner in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
,condition of employment;
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere With, restrain, or coerce
,our employees in the exercise of the 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 representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to re-
frain from any or all such activities except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL immediately offer to HENRY ANDERSON, LOUISE MOR-
RISON, MARY ROBINSON, and MAYME BL00DWORTH full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL make DOROTHY CooK whole for any loss of pay she
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her.
All our employees are free to become, remain or refrain from
becoming members of the above-named union or any other labor
organization except to the extent that this right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
amended Act.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 773
WE WILL NOT discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
such labor organization.
ANCHOR RUG MILL,
Employer.
By -----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other.
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Clarence D. Musser, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John M. Spratt, Esq., of York, S. C., and W. S. Blakeney, Esq., of Charlotte,
N. C., for the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed on July 7, 1948, by Textile Workers Union of
.America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the General Counsel 1 of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for
the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), on September 8, 1948, issued a complaint
against Anchor Rug Mill, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein referred to as the Act, and Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the amended Act. Copies of the com-
plaint, the amended charge upon which it was based, 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: (1)
that since on or about July 15, 1946, to the date of the complaint the Respondent
by certain named officers, agents, and employees in violation of Section 8 (1)
of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and of the amended Act by: (a) interrogating its employees concern-
ing their union affiliation and activities; (b) vilifying, disparaging, and ex-
pressing its disapproval of the Union; (c) keeping under surveillance the meet-
ing places, meetings, and activities of the Union; (d) urging, persuading, threat-
ening, and warning its employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members
of, or remaining members of the Union; and (2) that in violation of Section 8
(1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended Act, the
.Respondent discharged Henry Anderson on or about August 6, 1946, Dorothy
-Cook on or about August 17, 1946, and Louise Morrison, Mayme Bloodworth, and
Mary Robinson on or about September 5, 1946, and has since refused and failed
'The General Counsel and his representative are herein referred to as the General
Counsel; and the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to reinstate them, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment in order to discourage membership in the Union.
In its answer filed September 20, 1948, the Respondent admitted certain allega-
tions of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The answer was further amplified at the hearing to aver affirmative defenses as
hereinafter set forth.
Prior to the hearing in this case, the Respondent demanded, the undersigned
Trial Examiner or lered, and the General Counsel furnished to the respondent a
bill of particulars concerning certain allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in York, South Carolina, from November
16 to 19, 1948, inclusive, before W. Gerard Ryan, the undersigned Trial Examiner,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and respond-
ent participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues.
At the opening of the hearing the undersigned denied motions: (1) to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that Section 9 .(f), (g), and (h) of the amended
Act had not been complied with; and (2) to dismiss all of the 8 (1) and 8 (a)
(1) allegations contained in paragraph VI of the complaint on the ground that
there is nothing contained in the charge upon which to predicate the allegations
in paragraph VI.2
During the hearing, the Respondent applied in writing for a subpena directed
to the attorney for the General Counsel which would require him to produce
certain affidavits alleged to be in his possession on the ground that such atfi-
davits if produced would contradict testimony given in the hearing. I reserved
decision upon such application. Thereafter, the Respondent advised me by tele-
gram, confirmed by letter, that it did not insist upon the subpena, and, accord-
ingly, the subpena was not issued.
At the conclusion of the testimony the General Counsel participated in oral
argument. The Respondent did not argue orally. The parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and conclusions of law,
but neither the General Counsel nor Respondent availed themselves of such
opportunity.
On the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT 3
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a South Carolina corporation having its principal office and
place of business in the city of York, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the
manufacture, processing, sale, and distribution of knitted cloth and cotton rugs.
2 Matter of Marshall and Bruce Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 90.
A charge alleging 8 (1) and five 8 (3) violations was filed and served on the Respondent
on February 19, 1948. An amended charge alleging 8 (1) and the same five 8 ( 3) viola-
tions was filed and served on the Respondent on July 7, 1948 . In the charge and amended
charge the alleged 8 (1) was not spelled out but was stated only in the words of the Act.
All of the testimony adduced by the General Counsel in support of the alleged 8 (1) related
to incidents occurring prior to August 22, 1947. See Biggs Antique Co., Inc., 80 N. L. R. B.
345; Electric Auto-Lite Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1-601; Olin Industries, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B.
455; Baker Manufacturing Co., 75 N. L. R. 11.1012.
3 In making the findings herein, I have considered and weighed the entire evidence. It
would needlessly burden this report to set up all the testimony on disputed points. Such
testimony or other evidence as is in conflict with the findings herein is not credited.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 775
In the course and conduct of its business during the year 1946, the Respondent
purchased cotton, yarn, raw materials, machinery, and supplies with a value in
excess of $20,000 of which $3,000 worth was purchased outside the State of South
Carolina and shipped in interstate commerce to the Respondent's plant in York,
South Carolina. During the same period, the Respondent manufactured and sold
products with a value in excess of $35,000 of which 50 percent thereof was sold
and shipped to customers outside the State of South Carolina.
During the year 1947, the Respondent's purchases were in excess of $25,000 of
which value 33 percent was purchased outside the State of South Carolina and
shipped in interstate commerce to its plant in York, South Carolina, where the
Respondent manufactured and sold finished products with a value in excess of
550,000 of which value approximately 50 percent was sold and shipped to cus-
tomers outside the State.
During the year 1945, the Respondent's purchases were in excess of $10,000 of
which value $3,000 worth was purchased outside South Carolina and shipped to its
York plant; it manufactured products having a value in excess of $15,000 of
which 50 percent was shipped across the State lines . The undersigned finds
that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and
the amended Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile 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
Anchor Rug Mill, Clondike Spread Company, Bud Fabrics Company, and Neely
Cotton Mill, Inc., were all textile mills in or around York, South Carolina, in
which three brothers, J. C. Cloniger, Lamar W. Cloniger, and Flay T. Cloniger
were corporate officers and stockholders. The Respondent, Clondike Spread Com-
pany and Bud Fabrics Company, during the summer of 1946, occupied in York,
South Carolina, the Manufacturers Building which was owned by the Cloniger
brothers. There was a close association of employees of the Respondent, Clon-
dike Spread Company, and Bud Fabrics Company in addition to common officers
and stockholders. Bernard A. Lewis was the office manager for the Respondent
and for Clondike Spread Company. The dyeing room of the Respondent was also
used for dyeing the products of the other companies, Bud Fabrics, and Clondike
Spread Company. Parker Walsh was in charge of the dyeing operations for
Bud Fabrics Company and for the Respondent. Platt Pierson was foreman of
Clondike Spread Company whose operations were located on the same floor where
the operations were conducted for the Respondent. When Clondike Spread
Company closed clown on August 9, 1946, Pierson became foreman for the Respond-
ent without loss of time or pay.
The Union started its campaign to organize the textile workers in York County
about June 1, 1946. The Union's headquarters was in Rock Hill, South Carolina,
16 miles from York, and its activities were directed towards getting employees
of the several textile mills throughout York County to join the Union. The
Respondent's weaving department was located in Rock Hill in the summer of
1946 and its dyeing and finishing departments were in York . Several employees
of the Respondent learned of the membership campaign conducted by the Union
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and after discussing it.among themselves decided to get in touch with the union
organizer. About the first of August 1946 in response to a message received
at union headquarters from employees of the Respondent in York, a union organ-
izer conferred with Respondent's employees and arranged for the first union
meeting which was held in York on August 5, 1946, attended by 35 to 40 employees
from 3 textile mills, including the Respondent's mill. An active, vigorous organ-
izational campaign was conducted by the Union, with weekly meetings held regu-
larly and sometimes oftener, during August and the first part of September 1946.
The organizational activities were well publicized ; union talk was heard all the
time-in the plant, on the street, everywhere. As described by Bolin, a witness
for Respondent, "every one was talking about it."
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion 4
1. Threats and interrogation
On August 6, 1946, the day after the first union meeting had been held in York
at Mary Robinson's home, Joseph P. Erkes, who owned one-third of the corporate
stock of the Respondent and was in charge of its weaving department, went to
the place where Robinson was working, and after, referring to the union meeting
of the night before, asked Robinson if she was for the Union ; adding, that if she
was, she would be letting herself out of a good job later when the Respondent
started up its new mill. Also, on August 6, Lamar Cloniger went to Robinson's
department and in the presence of two other employees, after referring to the
union meeting of the night before at Robinson's home, stated "if you make your
bed hard though, you will have to sleep on it" and he concluded by saying : "that
by the way the rugs were piling up they would probably be getting a two week's
vacation soon."
Shortly after he had become foreman for the Respondent, Platt Pierson unsuc-
cessfully tried to find out from Dorothy Cook, a few days before her discharge on
August 17, what the union meeting was all about." Two or three days following
the discharge of Henry Anderson, Flay T. Cloniger remarked to him that Ander-
son would have had a good job if he had not tried to get smart and joined the
Union.'
Erkes, Cloniger, and Pierson denied making such statements and on those
issues I credit the testimony of Anderson, Robinson, and Cook and find that such
statements were made. It is found that by the above-named supervisors ques-
tioning employees as to whether they were in favor of the Union, inquiring as to
what transpired at the union meeting, and making statements containing threats,
implied threats, and promises of benefits, the Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Other alleged acts of interference, restraint, and coercion
Evidence was introduced that when the union meeting was being held on August
5, 1946, at the home of Mary Robinson, Flay T. Cloniger was "parked" in his
automobile in the street outside Robinson's home and that he called to Alma
4 During the hearing it was stipulated that Flay T. Cloniger, general manager, Parker
Walsh, superintendent, and Platt Pierson, overseer, were supervisors within the meaning
of the amended Act.-
c Pierson 's denial of the conversation with Cook is not credited . Cook 's testimony is
credited.
6I credit Anderson 's testimony although the remarks were denied by Cloniger.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 777 a
Parker, an employee who was present at Robinson's home, who walked to his,
Car and conversed with him. Cloniger testified that on that occasion he was
driving through the street , returning from other business of his, when he
happened to see Parker and thereupon stopped his automobile to ask her if
she could vacate the house which Cloniger had rented to her, as he intended to.
work his farm and wanted to put a tenant farmer in the house. It was un-
contradicted that Parker had leased his house with the understanding that
she would vacate if the time came when Cloniger decided to let it to a tenant
farmer. At the conclusion of the conversation with Parker , Cloniger drove away.
Other instances of alleged surveillance are that Jim Clifford,' brother-in-law
to Clonigers , drove slowly down the street past Robinson 's house where a
union meeting was being held ; that Lamar Cloniger on another day was seen
driving his automobile past Robinson 's house; and that on still another occasion,.
Louise Morrison and the union organizer saw E. H. Davis' standing on the
sidewalk near his parked automobile on the public street which happened to be
directly in front of Morrison ' s apartment . It needs no citation of authority to
support the statement that the lawful use of the public streets either for driving.
or parking purposes is not prohibited even though such use may occur con-
temporaneously with the holding of union meetings . In the absence of any
further evidence in addition to the foregoing , I find that the evidence of sur-
veillance as alleged in the complaint is wholly insufficient to support the allega-
tion and shall recommend that such allegation be dismissed.
C. The dischargees
Henry Anderson
The complaint alleges that Henry Anderson was discriminatorily discharged on.
or about August 6, 1946, and that at all times since the Respondent has refused
and failed to reinstate him. The Respondent interposed a general denial and
later at the hearing amplified its defense to include that he was discharged
for absenting himself from work and for improper performance of work.
Anderson went to work for the Respondent in January 1946, in the dyeing
room, dyeing rugs at 50 cents per hour. At the time he went to work the dye
plant was located on West Jefferson Street, York, South Carolina, and Anderson
lived next door. In June 1946, the dyeing room was moved to its present loca-
tion around the corner from where he lived. The superintendent of the dye
house was Parker Walsh. Anderson and another employee, Dock Bolin, were
the dyers . Anderson 's workday began at 7 o'clock in the morning and he was
paid overtime for all work after 5 p. in. During July and August, it was
necessary for him to work overtime on many occasions, sometimes as late as 10
o'clock ; but the average overtime was until 7 o'clock three times per week,
as the rugs were "running heavy" and they were getting more rugs out. Ander-
son was assistant to Bolin and they worked together getting the rugs out of
the kettles to the extractors and from the extractors to the crates where they
were put in the dry room.
From January to June 1946 , while the dye room was next door to Anderson's
home, there was no separate toilet for the colored help. Anderson, who is a Negro,
used the same toilet as the white people used until Walsh complained about it.
° Clifford was not employed by Respondent. He was an employee of Neely Cotton Mill,
Inc., referred to supra.
Davis was not employed by Respondent. He was in charge of the knitting department
for Bud Fabrics Company, referred to supra.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anderson was then requested to use his own toilet at his home. Anderson testi-
fied the only times he was away from his job was when he had to go home to
use the toilet. After the dye room was moved to its present location, separate
toilets were provided for white and colored and thereafter Anderson used the
toilet provided at the mill. He testified that he was never away from his job
thereafter except when he went to another part of the mill to receive instruc-
tions on which dye to use. During his employment from January to his dis-
charge on August 6, 1946, Anderson had been complimented on his work more
than once and at no time were any complaints made to him about the way he
was working or for any other reason.
On August 5, between 4 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, Anderson asked Walsh
if he could quit at 5 o'clock in the afternoon (the normal quitting time). Walsh
asked him if it was important and gave his permission when he replied that it
was. Anderson, however, did not mention that he was going to a union meeting.
Anderson left at 5 o'clock and arrived at the meeting which started at 5: 15 p. in.,
a short distance away. That was the first union meeting held and Anderson
joined the Union at that time and took a book so that he could sign up others as
members of the Union.
The next morning when he reported to work at 7 o'clock, Bolin told him not
to go to work until he saw Walsh. Walsh discharged him at 7:30 a. in. Ander-
son relates that Walsh said when he fired him that he had heard that Anderson
had got off to go to a ball game but instead had gone to a union meeting. Ander-
son was handed a separation slip at the time he was discharged containing the
notation : "Work unsatisfactory." Anderson testified that at that time, Walsh
orally informed him the reason for the discharge was that the company had de-
cided "not to work any more colored people." ° Two or three days following his
discharge, Anderson was talking with Flay T. Cloniger, general manager and
an officer of Respondent, who remarked to him that Anderson would have had a
good job if he had not tried to get smart and joined the Union."
Not the slightest evidence was offered by the Respondent to prove that Ander-
son had ever improperly performed any work assigned to him. The substance
of the evidence offered by the Respondent was that he had slipped out several
times in the past through the door and window and finally had left again without
permission at 5 o'clock in the evening on August 5, 1946. The Respondent was
unable to show with any particularity the number of times or occasions it claimed
that he had been away from his job. The Respondent's evidence is unconvincing
especially since the separation slip notified Anderson that he was discharged be-
cause his work was unsatisfactory and not even a hint was contained thereon
that it was for absenteeism. It is open to the challenge that such defense was
an afterthought. Nor did the separation slip make any reference to the fact
that Anderson had left at 5 o'clock, the evening before, if that was the reason
for discharging him. In view of the long hours of regular work and overtime
that Anderson worked, often from 7 in the morning to 10 at night, it is not reason-
able for me to believe that he was discharged because of unsatisfactory work ;
and I can not accept as plausible a defense that his alleged leaving without per-
mission at 5 p. in. instead of working overtime on August 5 was the final absence
that spelled discharge.
Upon these considerations, I credit the testimony of Anderson who impressed
me as a simple, straightforward, truthful witness and find that he was dis-
° Walsh's denial that Anderson had any conversation with him in which he requested
permission to leave is not credited.
10 Cloniger's denial that he made such statement to Anderson is not credited.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 779 ,
charged because of his union membership and activities which were known to the
Respondent and was not discharged for the reasons advanced by the Respondent;
and accordingly further find that, in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
Act, and 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended Act, the Respondent by discharging
Anderson on August 6, 1946, discriminated with respect to his hire and tenure
of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and amended Act"
Dorothy Cook
In addition to its general denial that Dorothy Cook was discriminatorily dis-
charged on August 17, 1946, and thereafter was refused employment, the Re-
spondent, at the hearing, amplified its defense to include, as reasons for her
discharge, improper performance of work, failure to perform work, interference
with others while working, and refusal to cooperate with supervisors.
Cook went to work for the Respondent in January 1946, sewing and inspecting
rugs. Early in August 1946, Cook took an active part in union affairs. She
openly talked about the matter of having a Union and helped arrange the first
union meeting which she attended on August 5. There were 35 to 40 people
present at the meeting, including employees from the Respondent and from
Clondike Spread Company. She addressed the meeting and on August 6 joined
the Union while in the rest room at the mill. Thereafter she signed up members,
outside the plant, in the rest room at the plant, at union meetings, and helped to
get people out to the meetings by providing an automobile driven by her husband,
Floyd Cook, who was also an employee of Respondent. About 2 days after she
joined the Union, Flay T. Cloniger remarked to her that if the girls wanted more
money they should have gone to him instead of going to the Union. Cook replied
that they had not gone to him because he had said that if they did not like
the salary they were getting they could go home.
About 1 week before her discharge, and shortly after Pierson had become
Respondent's foreman in the rug department, he went to where Cook was working
and stated that he had come to see her to find out what the union meeting was all
about. Cook gave him no information but did advise him that if he was so
interested he should have been at the meeting.'
On August 16, Cook returned from lunch hour a few minutes late and found
that Pierson had assigned Margaret Lane to work at her sewing machine.
Pierson testified that Cook caused a commotion about it. He admitted, however,
that notwithstanding the so-called "commotion" he did not go over to where
Cook and the commotion were. I therefore conclude that the incident was not
so exaggerated as Pierson 's testimony would indicate . Cook complained about
Lane working at her machine directly to Superintendent Walsh without saying
anything to Pierson. Walsh referred her to Flay T. Cloniger, general manager,
and Cloniger told Cook that he would see that Lane did not keep her machine
and that he would be back to straighten things out . Lane relinquished her
machine and while there is some dispute in the record as to whether Cook did
"The charge on behalf of Henry Anderson was not filed until February 19, 1948, more
than 18 months after his discharge . There being no evidence of mitigating circum-
stances in connection with this delay, back pay owing to him shall be computed only
from the time the charge naming this employee was first filed. Matter of Gibbs Corp.,
74 N. L . R. B. 1182 , 1190 ; Matter of Cleveland Worsted Mills Co ., 43 N. L. R. B . 545, 592;
Matter of Eastern Coal Corporation , 79 N. L. R. B. 1165.
22 Pierson denied any Such conversation.
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any further work on the sewing machine that afternoon or did inspecting work
exclusively nothing unusual occurred thereafter during the rest of the after-
noon. Cook finished out the day and also worked without incident the next
day, August 17. At quitting time on August 17, Pierson in talking to Cook
brought up the fact that she had gone directly to see Cloniger on the day previous
to report that Lane had her sewing machine, and then Pierson asked her how
much time she had coming to her. Cook thereupon complained to Walsh that
Pierson was trying to fire her for nothing. Walsh said he was sorry, left the
room, and shortly after returned and informed her that he would have to let her
go, and she was thereupon discharged. Never at any time before had any com-
plaints been made to her concerning her work or her conduct.
Louise Morrison, Mary Robinson, and Mayme Bloodworth
The Respondent contends that Morrison, Bloodworth, and Robinson were not
discriminatorily discharged but that they were discharged for improper per-
formance of work, interference with the work of others , lack of necessity for
as many employees as Respondent then had, and their refusal to cooperate with
supervisors.
Morrison was employed by Respondent in June 1946, as an inspector and later
became a sewer on a sewing machine . She started at the rate of 50 cents per
hour. Mayme Bloodworth was her supervisor . Morrison testified that on or
about the last of July 1946, when all the mills that had unions were getting an
8-cent an hour increase , she and several other employees of Respondent talked
about forming a union. The union organizer met Morrison , Robinson , and several
others one day at the White Rose Cafe in York and the matter was discussed.
Thereafter a union meeting was held on August 5, 1946 , at Robinson ' s house in
York, at which time Morrison and Robinson joined the Union. Bloodworth joined
the Union on August 6 in the rest room at the plant before she started work.
Morrison "signed her up." Morrison was made chairman of the Union at the
meeting on August 5 and took an active part in its affairs. She signed up other
employees, mostly in the rest room at the plant, at different times during the
day, but for the most part , during lunch hours ; and helped get others automobile
rides from the mill to the meetings. On August 6, 1946, Henry Anderson told
her in the presence of Superintendent Walsh that he had been fired. She there-
upon, in Walsh 's presence , told Anderson to get in touch with Don McKee, the
union organizer , and inform him that he had been discharged ; adding, further,
that if Anderson could not reach him , that she would call McKee at noontime.
Walsh made no comment . At noontime of the same day, August 6, Morrison
was eating with other employees at the White Rose Cafe . In the booth adjoining,
Pierson was eating lunch .13 Morrison and her group were discussing the Union
and particularly the discharge of Henry Anderson . Morrison testified that on
his way out , Pierson stopped and she remarked to him that she thought Cloniger
"had done wrong to fire Henry for he was a GI"; to which Pierson replied : "You
know, the Clonigers got a lot of money and can close up all the mills if they
wanted to"; and that Pierson then went on to say that the way he heard it
plenty more would get fired.
The same day, August 6, the Respondent posted a notice on the bulletin board
that effective the following week there would be an 8-cent hourly increase in
wages. Accompanying the notice was also posted a set of rules and regula-
13 Pierson at that time was foreman for Clondike Spread Company . Pierson denied
that he made the statement.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 781
tions that were thereafter to be observed" Later the same day, Morrison was
laid off and at the time, Walsh informed her that since she was the last one
hired and because they had an overproduction of rugs, she would have to be
the first to be let go. On August 19, Morrison returned to work and continued
working until September 5 when she was told that she was wanted in Flay T.
Cloniger's office. In the office, when she arrived, were Mary Robinson, Mayme
Bloodworth, Platt Pierson, and Flay T. Cloniger. Morrison testified that
Cloniger said that he had complaints from other workers that they were inter-
fering and disturbing them at their work and therefore he would have to let
them go. This provoked a discussion in which Bloodworth, Robinson, and Mor-
rison denied the accusation, demanded to know who had said they had inter-
fered with them and asked Cloniger to prove it. Cloniger replied that he did
not have to prove it to which Morrison answered that maybe some day he would
have to prove the reason that he fired her. Their three pay checks and separa-
tion notices were already waiting on Cloniger's desk which were handed to
them.
Mary Robinson was employed by respondent from November 22, 1944, to
September 5, 1946. She began work as an inspector of rugs but about a year
later was given a sewing machine to operate. During the summer of 1946,
Mayme Bloodworth was her supervisor. Robinson joined the Union at the first
meeting, August 5, 1946, which was held in the living room of her home. The
next day, August 6, Joseph P. Erkes, who at that time owned one-third of the
stock of the Respondent and was in charge of the weaving department for Re-
spondent, came to where Robinson was working in the rug department and said
to her that he had heard she had a union meeting at her house the night before
and asked her if she was for the Union. He added that if she was for the Union
she would be letting herself out of a job-a good job later when the Respondent
started up its new mill in York. On direct examination, Erkes categorically
denied that he made such statement. But on cross-examination he testified :
Q. Now, in August, when was the first that you learned that they were
trying to organize over there, Mr. Erkes?
A. I never gave it much thought. To me it was a joke.
Q. Just a joke when you asked Mary Robinson that you heard she had
a union meeting. You were just asking her that?
A. I don't know that I asked her.
Q. Do you deny it?
A. You heard what I said before.
Trial Examiner RYAN. Answer the question.
A. What was the question.
Q. (By Mr. Musser) Do you deny that you mentioned the union and
the fact they were trying to organize at Mary Robinson's?
A. No, I don't deny that because everyone was talking about it at that
time. [Emphasis supplied.]
'On August 6, according to Robinson's testimony, Lamar Cloniger went to her
department where she was working and in the presence of Bloodworth, Alma
Parker, and herself remarked that he sure did not want to be fooling around
Mary's house; that there was too much going on out there ; adding, "if you make
your bed hard though, you will have to sleep on it"; and concluding by stating
14 As shown infra, these forbade visits to the rest room without permission of the
supervisor under penalty of discharge.
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that by the way the rugs were piling up they would probably be getting 2 weeks'
vacation soon."
On or about August 8, 1946, Flay Cloniger accompanied by Walsh went to the
rug department and told the girls to shut off the machines because he wanted
to talk to them. He then told them that the Union was all right if you wanted to
belong to it, adding "You know the kind of people that belong to it." He concluded
by saying that it was not needed in a small mill where the employees could take
their troubles to the employer. On or about August 30, Robinson with Morrison,
Bloodworth, and several others at the suggestion of Floyd Cook" went to Flay
Cloniger's office and discussed with him hours, wages, and working conditions. At
the close of the talk, when Robinson informed them : "We are meeting a union
man for lunch," Walsh, who also had been present, said : "Can't you just not
go?"" Nothing at all was discussed at the meeting about the conduct of either
Robinson, Morrison, Bloodworth, or anyone else. Robinson further testified that
about September 4, Lamar Cloniger came into the rug department where she
was working and they conversed about Robinson's previous request for a leave
of absence to have an operation performed. Robinson remarked that it did not
look as if she was going to have the operation because they would not give her a
leave of absence. Thereupon Cloniger said, "Where did you get that word?"
Robinson answered : "You don't think I am crazy"; to which Cloniger, according
to Robinson, replied : "You think I don't know the set-up?-that came from the
union." 1S On September 5, she again asked Walsh about her requested leave
of absence and he said he would see about it. Later, on September 5, she was
discharged with Morrison and Bloodworth, the circumstances of which have
been set forth above substantially as recounted by Morrison.
Mayme Bloodworth was employed by Respondent from September 23, 1944,.
until she was discharged on September 5, 1946. - She began work as an inspector
and sewer of rugs at 50 cents per hour. In February 1946, she was promoted to
the supervisory position of floorlady and had charge of six or eight girls. She
had the right to hire, discharge, and reprimand if necessary. When she-
became floorlady she was put on a weekly basis of $40 per week and at the
time of her disch:irge was being paid $44.55 per week. A few days prior to August
5, Bloodworth heard from conversations among the employees that they were
planning to organize a union. On August 6, she joined the Union, and although,
she did not take a book to secure memberships, she was active in the campaign
and did the best she could to get it organized. She wanted to join the Union
and she did, as she considered it to be her privilege so to do. She continued as
floorlady until she was discharged. On September 5, she was called to Cloniger's
office and discharged with Morrison and Robinson, the details of which have
already been set forth above.
The Respondent's defenses
In addition to its particular defenses pleaded with respect to the individual
discharges as set forth above, the Respondent further set up the defense of eco-
nomic reasons as justifying the discharges.
15 Denied by Lamar Cloniger.
10 Husband of Dorothy Cook and also an employee of respondent.
V Walsh denied making such statement and denied that he heard Robinson make It-
's Denied by Lamar Cloniger.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 783
Bernard A. Lewis, office manager, testified from the books and records of the
Respondent as to the accumulation of rugs and the reduction in personnel. Lewis
outlined the situation as follows :
1946 Rugs contracted for-
March---------------------------------------------------------- 7,110
April----------------------------------------------------------- 10,572
May--------------------------------------------------------- -- 12,646
June----------------------------------------------------------- 4,057
July ----------------------------------------------------------- 1,724
August --------------------------------------------------------- 18,767
September------------------------------------------------------ 11,522
October -------------------------------------------------------- 1,525
November ------------------------------------------------------ 1,650
December------------------------------------------------------- 300
Inventory for finished rugs
Quarter ending:
Mar. 31------------------------------------------------------ 5,640
June 30----------------------------------------------------- 4,864
Oct. 31---------------------------------------------------- 139,777
1 The bulk of this was accumulated during July and August.
Lewis further testified that on or about August 10, 1946, the Respondent received
an order for 10,000 special rugs which required about 3 months for delivery.
That order was for a special type of rug which could not be filled from inventory,
and the accumulation of 39,777 rugs above referred to was the general run of rugs
and did not include that special order.
With respect to the personnel situation, Lewis testified :
1946 Separations from pay roll
Aug. 6--------------------------------- Morrison ; (rehired Aug. 19).
Aug. 17-------------------------------- Dorothy Cook.
Sept. 5 --------------------------------- Morrison, Robinson, Bloodworth.
Sept. 12 -------------------------------- Platt Pierson.
Sept. 19 -------------------------------- Lane.
Oct. 10 --------------------------------- Floyd Cook.
-Oct. 31 --------------------------------- Dicey Timmerman.
Nov. 29-------------------------------- Jim Brackett.
Lewis further testified that on and after September 5, 1946, down to the date
of the hearing, there had been no replacements for the above separations; and
admitted that when Clondike Spread Company closed down around August 8 or
9, Pierson, Lane, Beard, and Thomason were transferred from Clondike's pay
roll to the employ of Respondent.
Platt Pierson testified that on September 5, 1946, he gave permission to Elma
Beard and Leila Thomason to go to Flay T. Cloniger and complain to him about
Robinson, Morrison, and Bloodworth and that Lane went to complain to Cloniger
about them later in the same afternoon. Pierson further testified that he had
never made any mention of the Union in his complaint about the girls to Cloniger
and stated further that as a result of all the "uproar, molesting and confusion"
that was allegedly caused by Robinson, Morrison, Cook, and Bloodworth, he was
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not getting over half the production he should have had if they had been "working
and cooperating." '9
Flay T. Cloniger testified that he discharged Morrison, Robinson, and Blood-
worth on September 5, 1946, acting on the complaints that had come to him
continuously beginning sometime in August from Platt Pierson, Parker Walsh,
Leila Thomason, Margaret Lane, Alma Parker, and Viola Johnson that Morrison,
Robinson, and Bloodworth were causing confusion and turmoil and were not
keeping up their end of the work so that extra work had to be done by the others.
As an added reason, Cloniger testified that he had too many employees in the
finishing department.
Superintendent Walsh offered no testimony with respect to the conduct of
Robinson, Morrison, Cook, or Bloodworth. He testified that he laid off Morrison
between August 6 and 19, because of overproduction of rugs and because she
had less seniority than any other girl.
Dock Bolin, dyer in the dye room, testified that on one occasion Robinson and
Morrison asked him to join the Union. When he declined, they told him he was
yellow. He met this with the rejoinder "Well, at least, I am not pink." In
Bolin's own words, that was about all there was to it. He does not recall any
of them ever talking to him again. Neither (lid he ever inform Pierson, Cloniger,
or Walsh that they had tried to get him to join the Union.
Elma Beard testified that after Clondike Spread Company closed she was em-
ployed by Respondent running a looping machine in the finishing department and
that she had complained to Superintendent Walsh that the girls were constantly
whispering and "we" did not like it; that the work was getting behind, and "they
were throwing it on us to pick up the rugs." She further testified that this had,
been going on from the time she was hired until they were discharged ; and that
when they asked her to join the Union she told them she would think it over.
Leila Thomason testified that she was hired by Respondent as an inspector when
Clondike Spread Company closed in August 1946. Her complaints in substance
were that Robinson one day made an uncomplimentary remark which she believed
was directed at Lane ; that Robinson and Morrison would stay too long talking
in the rest room, so that the rugs would pile up, making it necessary for Thoma-
son to do some of their work ; and this kept up until they were discharged. On
cross-examination she testified that she had never joined the Union; that when
the girls "ganged around and whispered" she thought they were talking about
her ; that Robinson's and Morrison's talking never interfered with her work and
that she would only do the work that she thought Morrison and Robinson should
have done, when she had idle time on her hands.
Margaret Lane testified that she was hired to inspect rugs by the Respondent
in August 1946, when Clondike Spread Company closed. While Thomason tes-
tified that Robinson and Morrison spent 45 minutes in the rest room, Lane would
venture no statement as to how long they were away. Lane testified that Rob-
inson and Morrison had very little to say to her on the job; they said nothing
to her at any time that affected her in her work in any way ; and that when
she complained she just told Cloniger that the girls had been talking; that she
took for granted that it was about her ; and that she and Thomason were doing
more than their share of the rugs. Continuing her direct examination, however,
Lane was unable to say how much time she spent working on rugs that were not
her rugs to work on, but that it did not take too much of her time. On cross-
'9 Apparently he was not aware of the accumulation of over 39,000 rugs during July and
August.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 785
examination , Lane admitted that she knew they spent so much time in the rest
room because she saw them there when she went to smoke ; and that she had
never joined the Union.
Alma Parker testified on direct examination that Robinson and Morrison were
always wanting to know why she had withdrawn from the Union after she had
joined it ; that they said she was yellow and a double -crosser ; that Robinson
and Bloodworth told her she was turning from her class of people to the rich and
that she could never expect anything from the Clonigers ; that Robinson,
Morrison , Cook , and Bloodworth worried her at her machine on the job, in the
rest room , anytime they would be near her on the street and that Robinson
followed her during lunch hour to further question her. On cross -examination,
she testified that Robinson did not smoke , and that it was Morrison and Blood-
worth who did the smoking ; that she did not see them in the smoking room
more than one time a day "or maybe twice"-once in the morning and once in
the afternoon ; but that they went to the rest room to smoke although she did
not see them oftener than twice a day ; that she did not object to Robinson going
to lunch with her ; that they bothered her for about 2 weeks prior to their dis-
charge ; and that she complained to Cloniger but did not complain either to
Pierson or to Walsh r0 She continued that the rugs that she claimed piled up
because Robinson and Morrison did not work as they should have worked did
not get in her way but got in the way of Lane and Thomason.
Viola Johnson testified that while Johnson was working in the rest room one
day, Morrison asked her to join the Union and that she complained to Pierson
and Cloniger that she was getting behind in her work because " they kept after
me about joining the union , and I didn ' t understand what it was about" ; that
they would ask her to join "every day a week if they would catch me out in the
rest room."
Morrison , Robinson , and Bloodworth all contradicted the testimony of Re-
spondent 's witnesses concerning their conduct and alleged neglect of work.
From the voluminous testimony the following facts stand out in sharp relief:
August 5, 1946
First union meeting held at home of Mary Robinson, at which time Henry
Anderson, Louise Morrison, and Mary Robinson joined the Union.
August 6, 1946
Henry Anderson discharged.
Dorothy Cook joined the Union.
Louise Morrison laid off until August 19.
Erkes, in charge of weaving department, made coercive statements to
Mary Robinson.
Lamar Cloniger made threatening and coercive statements in the pres-
ence of Bloodworth, Parker, and Robinson. Respondent announced a pay
increase of 10 cents per hour and announced new rules that thereafter no
one could go to the rest room without permission of the supervisor ; and if
done more than three times without permission discharge would follow.
20 Observe that Pierson did not complain about Parker going directly to Cloniger with-
out first consulting him, as he did when Cook complained directly to Cloniger about Lane
having her machine, supra. ,
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 9,1946
Clondike Spread Company closed ; Pierson transferred as foreman to Re-
spondent's employ and within a few days three nonunion employees (Lane,
Thomason, and Beard) who had worked for Clondike Spread Company as
sewers and inspectors under Pierson were transferred to Respondent's pay
roll in the same department where four union employees (Cook, Robinson,
Morrison, and Bloodworth) were employed as sewers and inspectors. Almost
immediately complaints by the nonunion employees began concerning the
conduct of the union employees.
Cook discharged.
August 17, 1946
September 5, 1946
Morrison, Robinson, and Bloodworth discharged.
It is therefore either by design or coincidence that within a month to the
day of the first union organizational meeting the first five employees who joined
the Union and were most active in its affairs and whose membership and
activity were known to the Respondent were discharged. It is either by design
or coincidence that within 1 month after Pierson, as foreman, assumed his
duties, four union employees were displaced by three nonunion employees.
I can not accept as pure coincidence the sequence of such events. On the
basis of the entire record, and after weighing and considering all the evidence,
I credit the testimony of Cook, Robinson, Morrison, and Bloodworth and find
that they were discharged because of their union membership and activities
which were known to the Respondent, and were not discharged for the reasons
advanced by the Respondent ; and, accordingly, further find that in violation of
Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended
Act, the Respondent by discharging Dorothy Cook on August 17, 1946, and by
discharging Louise Morrison, Mary Robinson, and Mayme Bloodworth on Sep-
tember 5, 1946, discriminated with respect to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union and interfering with, re-
.straining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
.Section 7 of the Act and amended Act 21
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
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (1) and (3) of the
.Act and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the amended Act, I shall recommend that
it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
21 Charges on behalf of Cook, Morrison , Robinson , and Bloodworth were not filed until
February 19, 1948 , more than 17 months after their discharges . There being no mitigat-
ing circumstances in connection with this delay, back pay owing to them shall be computed
.only from the time the charges naming these employees were first filed. See cases cited
-under footnote 11, supra.
ANCHOR RUG MILL 787
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Henry Anderson in
regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, by discharging him on or about August 6, 1946, I shall recommend
that the Respondent offer to Henry Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to
his former job as a helper in the dye room or a substantially equivalent posi-
tion,^ without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges ; and that
the respondent also make the said Henry Anderson whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by him by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages as a helper in the dye room from the date of the filing of the
charge herein, February 19, 1948, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during that period.R3
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Dorothy Cook in re-
gard to her hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership
in the Union, by discharging her on August 17, 1946, and since Cook has testified
that approximately 2 months after her discharge, she moved from Cedartown,
Georgia, to Chester, South Carolina, where her husband is in business and that at
the time of the hearing stated that she did• not then want a job with Respondent,
I shall recommend that the Respondent make Dorothy Cook whole for any loss
of earnings suffered by her by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against
her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally
would have earned as wages as a sewer and inspector from the date of the filing
of the charge herein, February 19, 1948, to the date when she first arrived at the
decision that she did not want a job with Respondent, less her net earnings
during that period.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated against Louise Morrison,
Mary Robinson, and Mayme Bloodworth in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, by discharging them
on September 5, 1946, I shall accordingly recommend that the Respondent offer to
each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or sub-
stantially equivalent positions,24 without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges ; and that the Respondent also make the said Louise Mor-
rison , Mary Robinson, and Mayme Bloodworth whole for any loss of earnings
suffered by them by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them.25
by payment to them each of a sum of money equal to that which each would
normally have earned as wages from the date of the filing of the charges herein,
February 19, 1948, to the date of the offers of reinstatement, less their net earnings
during that period:5
It will also be recommended that the complaint so far as it alleges that the
Respondent kept under surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and activities
of the Union be dismissed.
22 See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan , Puerto
Rico , Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 837. Also , Matter of Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 N. L. R . B. 1525.
23 Matter of Crossett Lumber Co ., 8 N. L. R. B . 440, 497-498.
24 See footnote 22, supra.
25 Notwithstanding that Mayme Bloodworth was a supervisor within the meaning of
the amended Act on September 5, 1946, when she was discharged , reinstatement and back
pay will be recommended since the exclusionary provisions of the amended Act do not
retroactively preclude the issuance of an order requiring the reinstatement , with reparation,
of supervisors discharged prior to the amendatory legislation . Matter of Eastern Coal
Corp ., 79 N. L. It . B. 1165; Matter of Republic Steel Corp ., 77 N. L . It. B. 1107.
20 See footnote 23, supra.
857829=50-vol. 85-51
788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act and of the amended Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and the amended Act, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair'labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the amended Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Henry
Anderson, Dorothy Cook, Mayine Bloodworth, Mary Robinson, and Louise Mor-
rison, and thereby discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of America,
C. I. 0., the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (3) of the
amended Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and of the amended
Act.
5. The Respondent has not violated the Act or amended Act by keeping under
surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and activities of the Union.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I
recommend that the Respondent, Anchor Rug Mill, of York, Sou th Carolina,
and 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 discriminatorily dis-
charging employees or by discriminating in any other mariner in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of America, C. I. 0., or any other
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, 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 and of the
amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act :
(a) Offer to Henry Anderson, Louise Morrison, Mary Robinson, and Mayme
Bloodworth immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination of the Respondent against them by pay-
ment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which each of them
would normally have earned as wages from the date of the filing of the charges
herein, February 19, 1948, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less the
net earnings each may have had during that period ;
ANCHOR RUG MILL 789
(b) Make Dorothy Cook whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination of the Respondent against her by payment to
her of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned
as wages from the date of the filing of the charges herein, February 19,1948,
to the date when she first decided that she did not want a job with the Respond-
ent, less her net earnings during that period ;
(c) Post at its plant in York, South Carolina, copies of the notice attached
hereto and 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, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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 ; and
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing recommen-
dations.
It is further recommended that, unless the Respondent shall within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order notify 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 further recommended that the complaint, so far as it alleges that the
Respondent kept under surveillance the meeting places, meetings, and activities
of the Union be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original
and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order 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 six copies of a brief in support thereof ;
and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a
brief in support of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immedi-
ately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. State-
ments of exceptions and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions
of the record relied upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and
if mimeographed shall be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties
of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Sec-
tion 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46 should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must he
made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 11th day of March 1949.
W. GERARD RYAN,
Trial Examiner.
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 discourage membership in TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, C. I. 0., or any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees or by discriminat-
ing in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment ;
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O.,
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 immediately offer to HENRY ANDERSON, LOUISE MORRISON, MARY
ROBINSON, and MAYME BLOODWORTH 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 make DOROTHY COOK whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against her.
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 because
of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
ANCHOR Run MILL,
Employer.
By ------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for sixty (GO) days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.