B. F. Goodrich Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 550 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY and WARREN E. HALL, JR.
Cases Nos. 10-CA-20 and 10-CA-21.-Decided February 8, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 29, 1949, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore 1 issued
his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices , and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.2
The Board 3 has reviewed the rulings made by Trial Examiner
Donovan at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
the Intermediate Report, the Respondent 's exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings and con-
clusions of Trial Examiner Whittemore only to the extent consistent
with this Decision and Order.4
1 As Trial Examiner Donovan, who had died in the interim , was not available to prepare
the Intermediate Report herein , we find without merit the Respondent ' s exception to
the preparation of the Intermediate Report by Trial Examiner Whittemore . Administra-
tive Procedure Act, Section 5 (c) 5 U . S. C. See. 1004 ( c). See Stocker Manufacturing
Company, 86 NLRB 666, and cases cited therein.
2 The Respondent in its brief contends that the charging party is acting as a "front" tor
a noncomplying union . We find in this case that Warren E. Hall, the charging party;
is acting in his capacity as an attorney for two individuals, each charging violation of
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act . The fact that Hall is also counsel . for a noncomplying
union does not preclude him from acting as attorney for these individuals and filing
a charge in their behalf.
The Respondent also contends that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground that
it was not validly issued under Section 10 (b) of the Act, as amended. We have pre-
viously held that Section 10 (b) of the amended Act imposes no limitation upon the
issuance of complaints in any case in which , as is the fact in the instant case, the charges
were filed and served within 6 months after August 22, 1947, the effective date of the
amendments . Old Colony Boa Company, 81 NLRB 1025 ; The Electric Auto-Lite Com-
pany, SO NLRB 1601.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member
panel [ Members Houston , Reynolds , and Murdock].
* Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the excep-
tions and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the positions of the parties.
88 NLRB No. 117.
550
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 551
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Master Mechanic Huckaby
:and employee Oglesbee engaged in surveillance of Union Organizers
Walk and Watson. He further found that Foreman York, accom-
panied by Huckaby, trailed and kept under surveillance employee Mar-
tin a few days before Martin was discharged. The Trial Examiner
concluded that these acts of surveillance were attributable to the Re-
spondent and therefore constituted conduct violative of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act. We cannot agree with these findings.
The evidence relied on by the Trial Examiner to support his find-
ings of surveillance of the union organizers by Huckaby and Oglesbee
consist of the testimony of the --lion organizers given in a companion
,cases involving a different employer. In our decision in the Thomas-
ton case, we adopted the Trial Examiner's finding that the evidence
failed to prove the allegation of surveillance of the union organizers
by two named supervisors. But, we overruled his finding that the
,surveillance activities of several named rank-and-file employees were
.attributable to their employer on the ground that the evidence did not
establish an agency relationship between the employer and those who
engaged in the surveillance. In our opinion the evidence is no more
persuasive as proof of unlawful surveillance by the Respondent in
this proceeding.
Huckaby, who was identified by the union organizers as one of their
-surveillancs, did not testify in the Thomaston case; however, he denied
on the record in this case that he engaged in surveillance of the union
organizers. In the performance of his normal duties as master me-
chanic in charge of the company village maintenance, including the
water system, sewage disposal, electrical power and transmission lines,
etc., Huckaby traveled around the village in a company-owned truck.
'Thus, it is not unlikely that while he was performing these duties his
path often crossed and even paralleled that of the union organizers as
they proceeded in cars from and to the homes of the Respondent's em-
ployees in the village. Neither Walk nor Watson testified that he
observed Huckaby with Oglesbee while the latter was, accompanied
by the named rank-and-file employees employed at the Thomaston
Cotton Mills, engaged in following them during the organizational
campaign. Under these circumstances, the record, in our opinion,
fails to support the Trial Examiner's finding that Union Organizers
Walk and Watson were followed by Huckaby in the sense of intended
surveillance.
6 Thomaston Cotton Mills, 87 NLRB 278. The union organizers did not testify in
the instant case. However , in accordance with the stipulation of the parties entered into
at the hearing , the record of the Thomaston case, insofar as relevant to the issues in this
consolidated case, is incorporated in the record herein.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nor do we find sufficient supporting evidence in the record to estab-
lish, as found by the Trial Examiner, that employee Oglesbee was.
acting as an agent of the Respondent in any surveillance activities in
which he may have engaged. The Trial Examiner's finding in this.
respect rests on his subsidiary finding that Oglesbee participated with
Huckaby in surveillance activities. As found above, the record does
not support the Trial examiner's subsidiary finding. Moreover, we
have found that Huckaby did not engage in unlawful surveillance of
the union organizers.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's findings that Shift Fore-
man York and Huckaby engaged in surveillance of employee Martin
prior to his discharge in mid-October 1946. These findings of the
Trial Examiner are predicated chiefly on the testimony of Martin.e
For reasons stated below, we are constrained to question Martin's
reliability as a witness.' In testifying as to Huckaby's alleged sur-
veillance of him on October 20, 1946, Martin stated that on several
occasions that day Huckaby followed him around the village in the
Respondent's truck and that whenever he left the village limits (at
least two or three times during the course of the day) Huckaby ceased
following him at the edge of town and Oglesbee and Buchanan were
waiting there in another car to pick up his trail. He further testified
that there were six or seven roads leading out of town and that he took
a different one each time he left the village area. The flaw in Martin's
story that marks it as a fabrication, at least in our view, is the un-
erring accuracy with which Oglesbee and Buchanan were able to guess
at which of the six or seven exits Martin would emerge from the
village. Chance might possibly explain one such incident but hardly
two or three. The incredibleness of Martin's testimony in this respect
in our opinion, taints his entire testimony, particularly insofar as it
relates to the allegation of surveillance as to him. Under the circum-
stances, we are unwilling to predicate a finding of surveillance solely
on Martin's uncorroborated testimony.
2. The Trial Examiner found that employee Martin did not quit, as
contended by the Respondent, but was discharged because of his union
activity and observed association with Organizer Watson. We do not
believe the evidence preponderates in favor of such a finding.
Although Martin joined the Union, he did not solicit any other em-
ployees to join and was not, according to his own testimony, otherwise
active in behalf of the Union. Absent the Trial Examiner's finding
of surveillance as to Martin, which we have rejected above, the record
e See Intermediate Report, footnote 5.
In view of the fact that Trial Examiner Whittemore did not hear the testimony in this
case, we cannot accord his credibility findings the weight to which such findings would be
entitled had he had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand.
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 553
contains no evidence of knowledge by the Respondent of Martin's
membership in the Union, nor does it contain any evidence of anti-
union animus ' from which a discriminatory motive might be inferred.
Moreover, the record, in our opinion, raises doubt as to the correctness
of the Trial Examiner's finding that Martin did not quit but was dis-
charged. Martin, himself, initiated the interview with Superintendent
Scott and Overseer Barfield which resulted in his separation. The
ensuing discussion concerning his written "suggestion," which was
in fact a complaint about the speed at which his machines were set,
became quite heated and he left Scott's office in an angry mood. Mar-
tin testified that he left Scott's office to consider whether or ndt to
quit. Scott and Barfield testified that Martin ended the interview and
stalked out of the office saying, "Okay, I will quit." The record re-
veals that Martin had quit the Respondent's employ on three previous
occasions . Furthermore, after examination of the testimony given
by Scott and Barfield as to the interview and subsequent events, we
find ourselves unable to agree with the Trial Examiner's characteri-
zation of their testimony as "garrulous and highly colored." In view
of the fact that we have discredited Martin's testimony in other re-
spects, we are reluctant to resolve this conflict in testimony concerning
his termination in his favor as did the Trial Examiner. Under all
the circumstances, we are not persuaded that the preponderance of
evidence supports the Trial Examiner's finding that Martin was dis-
criminatorily discharged within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act, We shall therefore dismiss the complaint as to Martin.
3. We cannot agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re-
spondent unlawfully discharged employee Pitts on October 28, 1946..
It is abundantly clear from the record that cleaning the frames on
which the bobbins rested was an important part of Pitts' job as head
doffer. Pitts admittedly failed to clean certain of the frames for
which he was responsible and as a result defective yarn was produced.
The record does not, in our opinion, establish that the Respondent
knowingly condoned any similar dereliction of comparable character.
or that it was the practice of other employees to overlook this par-
ticular duty. Moreover, we find insufficient evidence in the record
to support a finding that the Respondent was aware of Pitts affiliation
with or activity on behalf of the Union. Under these circumstances
and in the absence of any evidence in the record of antiunion animus
from which a discriminatory motive might be inferred, we are of the
opinion and find that Pitts was discharged for cause.
As the General Counsel has failed to prove that the Respondent
committed any of the alleged unfair labor practices, we shall dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint issued herein
against the Respondent, B. F. Goodrich Company, Silvertown,
Georgia, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Shally 0. Wise, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Frank A. Constangy, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Respondent.
Mr. Warren E. Hall, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., for the Charging Party.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed on September 18, 1947, by Warren E. Hall, Jr., an
individual, in Cases Nos. 10-CA-20 and 10-CA-21, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
(Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint against B. F. Goodrich Company, herein
called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of,
Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act as amended by Public
Law 101, 80th Congress, 1st Session, Chapter 120, herein called the amended Act,
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and amended Act. On the same date the
said Regional Director issued an order consolidating cases and notice of hearing
thereon. Copies of the charges, the order consolidating the cases, the complaint,
and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and Hall.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleges, in substance,
that the Respondent: (1) Discriminatorily discharged, because of their member-
ship in United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of
America, herein called the Union, employees Autrey Martin and Thomas B.
Pitts on October 22 and October 28, 1946, respectively; (2) by certain named
officers, agents, and employees interrogated its employees concerning their union
affiliations and maintained surveillance over union activities and representatives ;
(3) participated in and condoned a physical assault upon a union representa-
tive; and (4) by this conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer, duly filed, the Respondent admitted certain allegations con-
cerning the nature of its business, but denied that it had engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Thomaston, Georgia, on August 30,
31, and September 1, 1948, before Charles S. Donovan, a Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All,parties were represented by counsel,
all participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence upon the
issues.
1 The representative of General Counsel at the hearing is herein referred to as the Gen-
eral Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 555
Before the hearing Trial Examiner Donovan denied motions filed by the Re-
spondent to dismiss the complaint and for a bill of particulars. At the con-
clusion of the hearing ruling was reserved upon a renewed motion to dismiss.
It is hereby denied.
At the hearing it was agreed by all parties that testimony, exhibits, offers
of proof, and rejected exhibits, appearing in the record in the case of Thomaston
Cotton Mills, Case No. 10-CA-26, and relevant to the issues in the instant cases,
should be considered as if presented in these cases.
Trial Examiner Donovan granted a motion, at the close of the hearing, to
conform the pleadings to the proof in minor matters. Oral argument was waived.
Briefs were received from the Respondent and Hall following the hearing.
Before issuing an Intermediate Report, Trial Examiner Donovan died. There-
after the undersigned Trial Examiner was directed by the Chief Trial Examiner
to issue an Intermediate Report.
Upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned Trial Examiner makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New York corporation, maintains an office and plant in
Silvertown, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
tion of textile products.
In the conduct of its business at this plant the Respondent annually purchases
raw materials consisting of cotton, parts, and supplies, valued at more than
$100,000, of which about 50 percent is purchased outside the State of Georgia and
shipped in interstate commerce to said plant. Also annually the Respondent sells
and distributes finished products valued at more than $100,000, about 70 percent
of which is sold and shipped to points outside the State of Georgia.
IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Construction Workers, affiliated with the United Mine Workers of
America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent'
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Major events and issues
During the period material to the issues Silvertown has been an incorporated
mill village. Its three governing commissioners, including their chairman, were
all officials or employees of the Respondent. Its police force, consisting of two
men, maintained .its office in the Respondent's plant. The village funds were
obtained from "occupational taxes"-the major occupation being, apparently,
work in the Respondent' s mill , which employed about 2,600 hands. The "city
judge" was Sam Black, the Respondent's personnel manager.
Render G. Huckaby, the plant master mechanic and conceded by the Respondent
to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, also has complete charge of
2 The complaint alleged that the United Mine Workers was, in turn, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor. It is common knowledge that this affiliation no longer
exists.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
village "maintenance," including water works, sewage disposal, electrical power
transmission lines, etc.
. In September 1946, Robert Walk, a representative of the Union, began organ-
izing employees of the Respondent and of Thomaston Cotton Mills, a neighboring
mill. Shortly thereafter he was joined in organizing by others, including Grady
Watson who, until early in October, was an employee of the Respondent. Some-
times together, sometimes separately, and again in company with individuals
then employed at the Respondent's mill, the organizers visited homes of the
Respondent's workers in the mill village. On several occasions the organizers
and employees were followed by persons in cars. Whether or not this following
constituted surveillance and the question of the Respondent's responsibility for
it are among the major issues.
• On November 1, Walk was physically assaulted while in the Thomaston mill
village by employees of Thomaston Cotton Mills.' Whether or not the Respondent
bears joint responsibility for the assault is an issue in this case.
In October 1946, employees Autrey Martin and Thomas B. Pitts were dis-
charged by the Respondent, and the cause of these dismissals is in issue.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Surveillance
The preponderance of credible evidence, a good part of which is undisputed,
establishes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Master Mechanic R. G. Huckaby,
conceded by the Respondent to be a supervisor, and Section Man Eugene H.
Oglesbee frequently followed the union organizers as they proceeded in cars
from and to the homes of the Respondent's employees, for. an undertermined
period but beginning shortly after Grady Watson left the Respondent's employ
and joined the organizing staff.4 It is undisputed that on occasions Huckaby
and Oglesbee accompanied Loy Wilson and R. J. Buchanan, employees of Thomas-
ton Cotton Mills, when, as found in Thomaston Cotton Mills, supra, issued
September 8, 1949, the latter were engaging in surveillance of the union
organizers, during their visits to homes of employees in both mill villages.
Credible evidence also establishes, and the undersigned finds, that Shift Fore-
man B. W. York, accompanied by Huckaby, "trailed" and kept under surveillance
employee Martin, a few days before his discharge in mid-October 1946.' Martin
is organizer Watson's brother-in-law, and at the time of the organizing campaign
the latter frequently visited at the former's home in the mill village.
The Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that Huckaby, Oglesbee, and York
engaged in surveillance of union organizers and employees, for the purpose of
discouraging union membership. It is concluded and found that the Respondent
8 The assault is described more fully in Thomaston Cotton Mills, 87 NLRB 278, issued
September 8, 1949, by the undersigned Trial Examiner.
4 Huckaby merely answered in the negative when asked if he had had "any occasion"
to follow Organizers Walk and Watson. He testified that Oglesbee, who lived near him,
"might have" ridden with him in his truck as he drove about the mill village.
5 The finding rests mainly upon Martin's credible testimony and the general circumstances
of surveillance at that time in that vicinity. York lived within a few houses of Martin.
York denied following Martin, but admitted he knew of the Union organizing campaign
and that he had seen Martin and Watson together. He was not questioned about riding
with Huckaby.
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 557
must be held accountable for their illegal conduct e By this conduct the Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.'
2. The assault upon Organizer Walk
Union Organizer Walk was severely beaten on November 1, 1946, in Thomaston
mill village by employees of the Thomaston Cotton Mills. The assault is described
in the Intermediate Report above cited, involving Thomaston. There is no evi-
,dence of participation by employees of the Respondent. It will, therefore, be
.recommended that the allegations of the complaint, as to this incident, be
dismissed.
C. The discharge of Autrey Martin
1. Events surrounding the discharge
Until mid-October 1946, a few days after his brother-in-law, Grady Watson, had
left the Respondent's employment to join the union organizers, Martin had spent
a good part of his youth and adult life as an employee of the Respondent, a period
covering about 20 years. He was a "forming twister side hand" of long expe-
rience; never laid offer disciplined because of his work.
Grady Watson was a frequent visitor at Martin's home both before and after
the organization drive began. Martin joined the Union about October 12.
Between October 16, when Watson joined the organizing staff, and October 22,
when Martin's employment was terminated, he was followed in the mill village
on numerous occasions by Huckaby, York, and Oglesbee. It is undisputed and
the Trial Examiner finds that at least 2 days before Martin's discharge, if not
before, York, shift foreman over Martin, knew of the employee's interest in the
Union. In a discussion raised by Martin himself, the employee asked if the
foreman thought the Union would "come into" the mill. York replied that he
did not know, but was against it. Martin then said that he had worked under
organized labor and had "always been treated mighty nice."
On or about October 9 Martin submitted a written suggestion, in accordance
with the approved custom at the plant, to Personnel Manager Black for a change
in the operating speed of the "forming twisters." He suggested that the speed
be reduced to what it had been until about 6 weeks before. During his employ-
ment Martin had made at least two other suggestions which the personnel man-
ager, as a witness, testified were not "frivolous," but showed interest in his work.
Before reporting on his shift October 22, the employee went to Black's office
and inquired about the disposition of his suggestion. Black told him it had been
referred to Superintendent Scott, and asked him to wait outside a few minutes.
6 Although the evidence is not convincing that Oglesbee was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, he was accompanied by Huckaby, conceded to be a supervisor.
7 No findings are here made as to the Respondent ' s responsibility as alleged in the com-
plaint for surveillance by Buchanan and Wilson , employees of Thomaston Cotton Mills,
although the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that substantial grounds exist in the records
of the Thomaston and instant cases for a reasonable inference that responsibility was
joint. Had the cases been consolidated before hearing , it is probable that findings on
this point would have been made . The Trial Examiner is aware of no authority granted
him by the Board's Rules and Regulations to issue an order of consolidation. It is con-
ceivable , however, that in the event these cases are transferred to the Board, it may wish
to consider such consolidation.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A little later Black told him to go to Scott's office. When the employee arrived
Scott declared, according to Martin 's credible testimony :
We are not going to slow down those frames. We hadn't cut your wages-
I think the best thing for you to do is quit and get out somewhere and get
you another job, move on somewhere else, you are making it miserable here-
for yourself and for others you are working around.
Martin replied that he had worked there so long the place was like home., and
he did not want to quit, but would think it over. He went outside the mill for
that purpose, and about half an hour before the turn of the shift reported to
Overseer Barfield, who had been in Scott's office during the previous interview,
that he did not wish to quit. Barfield, however, replied that Scott had already
"written out" his time ; that he, himself, had signed the slip, and that it was on.
Black's desk awaiting him. Martin then went to Black's office, was given his.
slip and told only by the personnel manager that he "was sorry." A few minutes.
later, while going to his locker for his clothes, Martin was met by his shift fore-
man, York, who denied him the privilege of getting his clothes and ordered him
from the mill.
2: The Respondent's contentions as to the discharge
The Respondent's answer claims that Martin was separated for cause, and
during the hearing counsel for the Respondent repeated the contention. Per-
sonnel Manager Black testified that it was the Respondent's position that Martin
had quit. Testimony given by the Respondent's witnesses and documents from,
its files fail to support a finding that he was discharged for cause or that he quit
voluntarily.
According to Black, Martin had previously submitted suggestions which the
Company was "anxious" to receive and openly solicited. He said that such
suggestions indicated an "interest" in the work, and that employees were never
discharged or asked to quit because of making suggestions. On direct examina-
tion Black testified that when Martin came into the office after his interview-
with Scott he inquired "what the matter was," and the employee had replied that
he "was leaving"-the gist of his account being that Martin had quit voluntarily
and that he was unaware of it until that moment. On cross-examination, how-
ever, Black admitted, when confronted by the document, that he had signed
Martin's "Termination of Employment" slip before the employee had returned
from Scott. That slip, in evidence, bears no notation of quitting or resignation„
although a space for such appears upon it, and it states :
Was advised to quit due to being unhappy in his work.
When confronted with this document, Black then admitted that lie would not be
sure what he had said to Martin in the final interview.
The substance of Scott's garrulous and highly colored testimony would indicate
that Martin became uncontrollably angry because his suggestion was not adopted,
and when advised to go some place else, he had said, "Okay, I quit." His account.
of the interview is wholly inconsistent with his further testimony that "we
encourage all operators to turn in suggestions," and that they indicated an
interest in their work.
Overseer Barfield, following Scott as a witness, gave equally colored testimony
as to the interview with Scott-but admitted that Martin had told him, about an
hour later and before being discharged, that he did not want to quit-a fact con-
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 559
sistent with Martin's testimony that he had not in fact quit, but had only gone
out to consider Scott's advice.
The Trial Examiner considers the contradictory and confused testimony of
the Respondent's officials to be insufficient to support either of the implied
claims : (1) Of voluntary quitting, or (2) of such uncontrolled display of dis-
satisfaction with his work that lie was advised to quit.
3. Conclusions as to the discharge
The Trial Examiner is convinced and finds that Martin was actually dis-
charged-not because of the interview regarding the legitimate suggestion, but
with the interview as a pretext, while the real reason was his union activity
and observed association with Organizer Watson. It is concluded and found that
the discharge was discriminatory, for the purpose of discouraging union member-
ship, and that by the discharge the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
D. The discharge of Thomas B. Pitts
1, Events surrounding the discharge
Six days after Martin was discharged, his friend Pitts, a doffer working on the
:same shift and also under Foreman York, was discharged. Three days before
his dismissal on October 28 Pitts was visited at his mill village home by Organizers
Walk and Watson. He joined the organization and was given a number of ap-
plication cards for distribution in the mill . He thereafter openly distributed
some 25 or 30 cards among employees while at work and urged them to join.
In view of the clearly established surveillance of union representatives and
of Martin, the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that Pitts' organizing
efforts became known to his supervisors in that department. His shift foreman,
York, although not questioned as to his knowledge of Pitts' activity, testified that
he was aware of the organizational campaign.
While at work on October 28 Pitts was summoned by Second Hand Donald
Fortner and told that he was not needed any longer, and that it would be his
"last night." Pitts asked what it was "all about," and Fortner referred him to
York. He went to York, who told him he was discharged for not "cleaning his
frames,"
2. The Respondent's contentions as to the discharge
From certain portions of the vague and inconsistent testimony of Second Hand
Fortner and Superintendent Barfield, the Respondent's position appears to be
that Pitts actually was not discharged on October 28, but simply relieved from
his usual shift. This position, however, finds scant support in a document intro-
duced into evidence by the Respondent, purportedly hearing the signatures of
York and Barfield, dated October 30, 1946, which states flatly that the employee
was discharged on October 28, for the following reasons :
Not giving satisfaction on job. Not doing any cleaning as in set up. When
talked to about cleaning he got angry and wanted to fight foreman. If
Thomas had not talked and acted so bad about being reprimanded I am
sure we could got [sic] him corrected about cleaning and let him work on.
Thomas have [sic] always wanted to leave off cleaning so could git [sic] unit
hr by 11: 00 PM. this way he got pay for 1-0 hr he did not work. in doing
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this he made it hard for doffers on other shifts as they had to do cleaning
he got paid for. which is very unfair and these doffers dont have any way
to prevent this unfair act. therefor foreman duty is to see that all are
treated alike. which is our policy and a fair one.
York, although a witness, did not testify as to the discharge. What foreman,
if any, was threatened by Pitts, as claimed in the above document, is not revealed
by the record.
Fortner's testimony as to Pitts' failure to clean his frames is vague and uncon-
vincing. He said he "believed" that before the discharge he had had complaints
from succeeding shifts as to the lack of cleaning on what he thought were Pitts
frames. He said he believed he checked later to see if the frames actually were
run by Pitts. He admitted however, that he did not talk to Pitts himself about it
until the moment on October 28 when he told him "the best thing for you to do is
to punch out." If, as the above document apparently claims, Pitts failed to clean
his frames so they would be in good condition for the following shift, the record
contains no reasonable explanation why Fortner told him to "punch out" before
the turn of the shift, particularly since Fortner testified that it only took 10 min-
ces to clean a frame. In any event, Fortner declared emphatically, "I didn't
discharge him."
Barfield, whose purported signature appears on the above quoted document,
likewise testified flatly, "I didn't discharge Pitts."
Fortner, York, and Barfield were Pitts' supervisors, in that order of ascendency.
Two of them denied that they discharged Pitts ; the third, although a witness
for the Respondent, was not questioned on this matter. Despite this fact, the
Respondent placed in evidence a document apparently signed 2 days after the
termination, stating that he was discharged and setting forth various reasons
which are wholly without support in the evidence.
Both the testimony and the document fall somewhat short of trustworthiness.
Under the circumstances the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that there is
no merit in any of the various contentions, actual or implied, advanced by the
Respondent for the dismissal of Pitts.
3. Conclusions as to the discharge
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Pitts was discriminatorily dis-
charged on October 28, 1946, because of his activity on behalf of the Union, and
to discourage membership in that organization. Such discriminatory conduct
interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
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 its operations 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 engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 561
It has been found that the Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire
and tenure of employment of Autrey Martin and Thomas B. Pitts. It will,
therefore, be recommended that the Respondent offer to them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former, or 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 Respondent's dis-
crimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal
to that which he normally would have earned as wages as an employee from
the date of his discharge to the date of offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period.
The undersigned is convinced that the unfair labor practices found manifestly
indicate a disposition on the part of the Respondent to thwart self-organization
of its employees and to deprive them of their rights under the Act. There is a
likelihood not only that such acts may be repeated but that other unfair labor
practices proscribed by the Act may be resorted to or committed by the Respond-
ent. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Construction Workers, affiliated with the United Mine Workers of
America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act and amended Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Autrey
Martin and Thomas B. Pitts, thereby discouraging. membership in United Con-
struction Workers, 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.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
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.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act and amended
Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record in
the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the amended Act, the Trial Examiner
recommends that B. F. Goodrich Company, Silvertown, Georgia, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Construction Workers, affiliated with
United Mine Workers of America, or in any other labor organization of its
8In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression
"former or substantially equivalent position" Is intended to mean "former position wher-
ever possible and if such position is no longer in existence then to a substantially equiva-
lent position." See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , an Juan,
Puerto Rico, Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, by discriminatorily discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its
employees, or discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment;
(b) By surveillance or in any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of rights to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist United Construction Workers, affiliated with United
Mine Workers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and amended Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Autrey Martin and Thomas B. Pitts immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole in the
manner set forth in Section V above, entitled "The remedy" ;
(b) Post at its plant in Silvertown, Georgia, 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, after being signed by representatives of
the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous 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 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 herewith.
It is also recommended that unless, on or before twenty (20) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies the said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda-
tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respond-
ent to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the allegations of the complaint as to the
responsiblity of the Respondent for the assault upon Walk be dismissed.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board 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, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such excep-
tions 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 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. Immediately 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. Statement 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 Section 203.55. As further provided in said Section 203.46
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board request
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 563
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.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , and recommendations herein
contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order , and all
objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 29th day of September 1949.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
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 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 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, affiliated
with the UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 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.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment 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.
Albert Martin
Thomas B. Pitts
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any
employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated____________________
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
882191-51-37