Bahan Textile Machinery Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1942

43 N.L.R.B. 97 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of BAHAN TEXTILE MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., and
UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. C-00-909.-Decided August 13, 1949
Jurisdiction : textile machinery parts and gun carrier parts manufacturing
industry.
.Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint,, and Coercion: charges of dismissed since alleged unfair
labor practices were not established by the record.
Practice and Procedure: complaint dismissed.
Mr. William M. Pate and Mr. Thomas H. Ramsey, for the Board.
Mr. D. B. Leatherwood, of Greenville, S. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Harry H. Kuskin, of counsel to the'Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by United Electrical Radio and Machine
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, herein called the Union, the 'National Labor Relations Board,,
herein called the Board by the Acting Regional Director for the.Tenth
Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued its complaint, dated April 28, 1942,
.against Bahan Textile Machinery Company, Inc., Greenville, South
Carolina, 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 Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of hearing thereon
were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance : (1) that since about November 27, 1941, the respondent, by
.its officers and agents, has warned' its employees against talking with
union organizers or representatives, has threatened its employees with
discharge or other reprisals if they became members of the Union or
were seen talking with union organizers or representatives; has stated
.to its employees that they would not be good Americans if they joined
43 N. L. R. -B., No. 8.
97
481039-42-vol. 43-7
98 DECISIONS. OFNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union or assisted in its organizational efforts, has made statements
derogatory to the Union or. its organizers and representatives, and has
advised its employees that the Union would not benefit them; and (2)
.that the respondent has, by the foregoing acts, interfered with, re-
sfrained,and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar:
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent, filed an answer to the complaint on May 6; 1942,
denying that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices..
'Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held' on May 6, 1942, before' A.
Bruce Hunt, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner.. The Board and the respondent were represented by coun-
sel and participated in the hearing? Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties.. At the close of the-hearing,
the Trial Examiner granted, without objection, a motion of counsel for
the Board to conform 'the pleadings to the proof in such matters as
spelling and dates. During'the course of the hearing, the Trial Exam-
iner made rulings on other motions and on objections to the 'admis-
sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing, counsel for
the Board and counsel for the' respondent were afforded, but declined,
an opportunity to argue orally before the Trial Examiner.'
Thereafter the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report,
dated May 30, 1942, copies of which were-duly served upon the respond-
ent and the Union. He found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce; within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of. the Act, and
;recommended that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
No exceptions were filed to the Intermediate Report; nor did any of the
:parties • file a brief with the Board or request oral argument before
the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
L. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Bahan Textile Machinery Company, Inc., a South Carolina corpo-
ration with its principal office in Greenville, South Carolina, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of textile machinery parts
and in the manufacture of gun. carrier parts -for the United. States. '.
' Although two of the Union' s organizers appeared and testified at the hearing, the'
Union entered no formal appearance. •
BAHAN, TEXTILE..MACHIN'ERY 'COMPANY, INC.., . 99
Government. The respondent operates two plants in Greenville,..
South Carolina, where it employs approximately 225, persons. The
principal materials used in the respondent's manufacturing operations
are iron, steel, brass, aluminum, and rubber. Approximately $100,000
worth, or 50.percent, of these materials came from outside the State of
South Carolina during the year 1941. Approximately $400,000 wort;,
or 50 percent, of the respondent's finished products were shipped. out-
side the State of South Carolina during the same period. The.,
respondent admits that it-is engaged in commerce, within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
It admits to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED" UNFAIR ;LABOR PRACTICES
The first occasion on which efforts were made by the Union to*
organize the respondent's employees was on November 27, 1941, when
John R.'Kirby; a general representative of the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, accompanied by Horace White, an organizer for the
Textile Workers' .Union,2 arrived outside one of the respondent's plants
shortly after noon, the commencement of. the lunch hour. They dis-
tributed' literature, and ' engaged in conversation with some of the
respondent's employees outside the gates of the plant, and thereafter
entered into a discussion with a group of employees who had congre-
gated across the street from the plant. Toward the close of the lunch
hour, James H. Bedenbaugh, a foreman in charge of several depart-
ments.' accompanied. by Charles L. Thomason, one of the respondent's
employees, walked over to the group of employees gathered around
Kirby and White.
According to the-testimony of Kirby, which is corroborated by that
of White, Bedenbaugh inquired as to why the men had congregated,
was informed 'by White of the nature of the visit of both organizers,
and was offered.,, but refused, organizational literature which White'
was distributing among the employees.. White and Kirby testified
further that Bedenbaugh, upon refusing White's offer, remarked ili,the
presence of 8 • or 10 employees that."No good Americair would be
putting that stuff out around here." Bedenbaugh denied having made
that statement. Thomason testified to his recollection of the conversa-
tion'and; although lie was' not questioned specifically about the remark
attributed to.Beden:baugh by' the union representatives, his narration
2 Textile ; workers','Union is not otherwise involved:in this - proceeding.
The respondent concedes the supervisory status of Bedenbaugh.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of'the facts, as he recalled them, did not include any-such statement.
Thomason also testified, without contradiction, that Bedenbaugh and
the 2 union representatives discussed rates of pay and that, in that
connection, Bedenbaugh commented that "A man that hasn't got sense
enough to come to a man and • tell him how much he thinks he is worth
be needs something like this, but .... I believe these fellows have,
.sense enough to ask for a- raise if they need it."' According to the
testimony of both Kirby and White, 'Bedenbaugh closed the conversa-
'tion. at about 12: 5,5 p. in. by swearing at the congregated employees
and saying, in addition, "You fellows get back on the job... If I hear
any of you . . . talking to these fellows :... any more, ' I will fire
you." Both Bedenbaugh,and Thomason denied that Bedenbaugh
made the closing remarks attributed to him by Kirby and White and
both stated that Bedenbaugh looked at his watch and pointed out to
the assemblage that it was 2 minutes past the lunch hour-and time for
the employees to return to work.4
The Trial Examiner resolved the foregoing conflicts in the testi-
'mony of the witnesses by crediting,,on the oiie hand, the testimony,of
Kirby and White that. Bedenbaugh stated that no good American
would distribute organizational' literature and rejecting the denials in
that respect of Bedenbaugh and Thomason, and on the other hand, by
disbelieving the testimony of Kirby and White that Bedenbaugh swore
at the employees and threatened them with discharge if they spoke to
union organizers, thereby accepting the denial of Bedenbaugh and
Thomason on that score. Although the Trial Examiner had the oppor-
tunity at the hearing to-observe the witnesses, we cannot agree with his
resolution of the conflicts in testimony.' The record affords no basis
for believing Kirby and White, in oile.respect, when contradicted by
Bedenbaugh and Thomason, and for accepting the testimony of Beden-
baugh and Thomason, in another respect, when contradicted by Kirby
and White. Moreover, standing. alone, the uncontradicted testimony
of Thomason, that Bedenbaugh told-the respondent's employees that
they did not need the assistance of a union to obtain an increase in pay,
is of insufficient' probative value to support the allegations of 'the
complaint. Under the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to find -
that the alleged 'unfair labor practices have been established by' the
record. Accordingly, we find that the respondent has not interfered
with, restrained, or coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in section 7 of the Act. We shall therefore dismiss the
complaint. '
On the. basis of the' above findings of" fact and. upon. the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following ' .
4 The .respondent .' did not use a whistle or ' other means of notifying . employees of the
commencement of working'hou'rs.
BAHAN TEXTILE 1VIACHINERY COMPANY, INC. 101
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America,
affiliated With the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 .(5) of the Act.
2. The operations of the respondent, Bahan Textile Machinery
'Company, Inc., occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section
2 (6) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8,(i) of the Act
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section fO (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint against Bahan Textile Machinery Company, Inc., Green
Ville, South Carolina, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.