Bemis Brothers Bag Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1937

3 N.L.R.B. 267 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter of BEMIS BROTHERS BAG COMPANY and LOCAL No. 1838,
UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Cases Nos. C-55 and C-95-Decided August 10, 1937
Cotton Bag Industry-Company-Dominated Union: domination and interfer-
ence with formation ; soliciting and encouraging membership in ; discrimination
in favor of ; disestablished as agency for collective bargaining-Interference,
Restraint and Coercion : engendering fear of loss of employment for union
affiliation or activity ; discrediting union-Discrimination : discharge for union
activity; refusal to rehire-Reinstatcnacnt Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Mortimer Kollender for the Board.
Mr. S. J. Everett, of Jackson, Tenn., and Mr. Frank Gladney, of
St. Louis, Mo., for the respondent.
Mr. C. D. Puckett, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. H. C. Murchison, of Jackson, Tenn., for the Independent Tex-
tile Workers of Bemis.
Mr. Aaron W. Warner and Mr. Allan R. Rosenberg, of counsel to
the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 29, 1935, Local No. 1838, United Textile Workers of
America, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a charge that Bemis Broth-
ers Bag Company, Bemis, Tennessee, herein called the respondent,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. On January 14, 1936, the Board issued a complaint
against the respondent, signed by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region, alleging that the respondent had committed unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdi-
visions (1), (2), (3) and (5), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the Act. In respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint,
as amended, alleged in substance :
1. That the respondent has given and continues to give support to,
and dominates and interferes with the administration of, a labor
organization of its employees in its plant, known as The Independent
Textile Workers of Bemis.
2. That the respondent has discriminated and is discriminating in
favor of The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis, and its mem-
267
268 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bers, and against United Textile Workers of America, and its mem-
bers, by threatening employees with discharge or discrimination for
failure or refusal to join The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis,
by increasing the work load and lessening the rate of pay of em-
ployees who are members of United Textile Workers of America, and
by other forms of intimidation, discrimination, and coercion.
3. That the respondent, at all times since July 5, 1935, although
requested to do so, has refused to bargain collectively with Local No.
1838, United Textile Workers of America, as the representative of
the employees of the respondent who are members of said Union,
in respect to adjustments of grievances.
4. That the respondent, on or about July 23 and 25, 1935, dis-
charged and thereafter refused to reinstate Mrs. J. T. McCann, W. R.
Smith, Mrs. Judd Pipkin, Mrs. Myrtle King, and Mrs. Pearl War-
britton, all employees of the respondent, because they joined and
assisted Local No. 1838, United Textile Workers of America, a labor
organization, and engaged in concerted activities with other em-
ployees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection.
5. That the respondent, at all times since July 5, 1935, has refused
to reemploy A. T. Adams, Jim King, J. E. Wyatt, J. P. Fowler,
Nova Pollard, C. H. Phillips, C. J. Patterson, Louis Collins, A. T.
Mays,' Alf Taylor, Ben Collins, J. T. McCann, Lee Tate, and Judd
Pipkin,2 all former employees of the respondent, because they joined
and assisted Local No. 1838, United Textile Workers of America, a
labor organization, and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection.
On January 20, 1936, the respondent filed an answer to the com-
plaint, alleging that neither its business nor its labor relations are
in or affect interstate commerce, and that the Act is unconstitutional
and void. It admitted the discharge of the persons named in the
complaint but averred that the employment of said persons was
terminated for good cause and not for the reasons alleged in the
complaint. It" denied further that it has refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union, or that it has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of the Act. The respondent also moved
to dismiss the complaint.
Pursuant to notice thereof, Walter Wilbur, duly designated by
the Board as Trial Examiner, conducted a hearing commencing on
January 24, 1936, at Jackson, Tennessee. The respondent appeared
1 Incorrectly referred to in the complaint as T. A. Mays.
2 The complaint also included the following names, which were stricken during the
hearing : Clevie Tate, Leland Taylor, T. A Garrett, C. M. Mundaugh , Bill Kellar, O. M.
Shirey, Oliver Owens, and D. O. Irwin
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 269
by its counsel, S. J. Everett and Frank Gladney. The Union ap-
peared by C. D. Puckett. The Board was represented by its Regional
Attorney. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent
objected to the proceedings on the grounds stated in its' answer, and
requested a postponement on the ground that the respondent had filed
a bill in equity seeking a temporary injunction against the Board,
which matter was to come before the District Court of the United
States for the Western District of Tennessee, on January 28, 1936.3
The Trial Examiner ruled that the hearing was properly held and
denied a postponement, to which ruling the respondent excepted.
This ruling is affirmed by the Board.
On January 31, 1936, the hearing was adjourned by direction of
the Board, in order to give the respondent time to appeal to the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from
the decision of the District Court denying injunctive relief. Such
relief having been denied by the Circuit Court of Appeals, the Board
on February 19, 1936, acting pursuant to Article II, Section 35 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
ordered the proceedings to be transferred and continued before it,
and re-designated Walter Wilbur as Trial Examiner to conduct the
hearing. Pursuant to notice thereof, the hearing was resumed on
February 20, 1936, at Jackson, Tennessee. The Independent Textile
Workers of Bemis requested, and was granted leave to intervene, and
appeared by its counsel, H. C. Murchison.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to produce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded
to all parties.
During the hearing, the Board offered in evidence a certified copy
of strike statistics compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United
States Department of Labor, and entitled "Strikes and Lockouts in
the Cotton Textile Industry in 1934, and in January to July, inclu-
sive, 1935, by Major Issues Involved," which was marked for identi-
fication as Board's Exhibit No. 24. This evidence was excluded by
the Trial Examiner, subject to a ruling from the Board. It is the
opinion of the Board that the statistics thus offered and excluded at
the hearing, while not essential, have a bearing on the effect upon
interstate commerce of the alleged unlawful acts of the respondent
and should have been admitted in evidence. The ruling of the Trial
Examiner excluding the afore-mentioned evidence is therefore over-
ruled, and the document so marked for identification is admitted in
evidence.
a A temporary injunction was denied by Judge Martin of the District Court on January
29, 1936. The respondent thereafter took an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit . On February 6, 1936, the Circuit Court denied the
injunctive relief sought.
270 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the close of the hearing, on March 4, 1936, the Union filed
with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region a charge that the
respondent had committed unfair labor practices affecting commerce,
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (4) of the Act.
On ,April 4, 1936, the Board issued a second complaint against the
respondent, which, as amended, alleged in substance that the respond-
ent, on or about February 24, 1936, discharged and thereafter refused
to reinstate J. R. Ross, an employee of the respondent, because he
gave testimony on behalf of the Union in the afore-mentioned hearing
before the Board. On April 9, 1936, the respondent filed an answer
to the complaint, reiterating the averments of its former answer
concerning the unconstitutionality and inapplicability of the Act in
connection with the respondent's business. It admitted the discharge
of J. R. Ross, but attributed his discharge to his failure to abide by
the respondent's orders, rules, and regulations. In conclusion, it
denied that the respondent was guilty of unfair labor practices in the
operation or management of its plant, and requested that the com-
plaint be dismissed.
Pursuant to notice thereof, a second hearing was conducted before
Walter Wilbur, duly designated by the Board as Trial Examiner, at
Jackson, Tennessee, on April 17 and 18, 1936. The respondent and
the Union were again represented and participated in the hearing,
and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing on the issues.
It was stipulated by the parties at the hearing that the entire record
in the prior proceeding, including the exhibits and the official trans-
cript of the record, should be introduced and considered a part of
the record in this case.
On May 13, 1936, the Board, acting pursuant to Article II, Section
37 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
1, as amended, ordered this proceeding to be transferred and con-
tinued before it. On September 1, 1936, pursuant to Section 10 (b)
of the Act and Article II, Section 7 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, the Board issued
a second amended complaint for the purpose of conforming the alle-
gations of the complaint to the evidence received at the hearing. The
new allegations charged, in substance, that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act by its discharge
of, and subsequent refusal to reemploy, J. R. Ross because he joined
and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activity with other
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection. The respondent was given adequate opportunity
to file an answer to the second amended complaint, and to request a
further hearing. On September 11, 1936, the respondent filed an
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 271
answer denying the allegations of the second amended complaint,
but made no request for a further hearing.
On May 11, 1937, by order of the Board, the cases herein were con-
solidated for the purpose of the decision.
Upon the entire record now before it in the consolidated case, the
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent, Bemis Brothers Bag Company, is and has been
since 1885, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Missouri, having its principal place of business in the
City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. It is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and selling cotton and paper bags. It employs 4,476
workers in its factories ,4 and has . a total investment exceeding
$28,000,000. Its investment in the two cotton mills located in Ten-
nessee exceeds $3,000,000.
The respondent purchases raw cotton, either ginned or unginned,
and manufactures it into cotton sheeting at its three cotton mills.
This material is stored in the respondent's warehouse, and is shipped
to the bag-making factories as needed. The respondent does not sell
the cotton sheeting as such, but utilizes it in the manufacture of cot-
ton bags; except that occasionally a small amount of surplus ma-
terial is available for sale.5
The respondent's cotton mill at Bemis employs about 845 workers,
and uses annually approximately $1,000,000 worth of cotton, or about
18,000 bales. The cotton is purchased from gimlers in the immedi-
ate vicinity through the cotton buying office at the mill, and is
delivered to the purchasing platform principally by truck, occasion-
ally by railroad. It is then placed in warehouses, and is drawn upon
and run through the process of manufacture as needed. The com-
pleted cloth, or sheeting, is put into bales or rolls, and is again stored
in warehouses to await shipment. The Bemis mill furnishes cloth
to all of the respondent's factories and to that end carries a large
stock on hand. Depending on the demand, it makes shipments to
• The respondent ' s factories are located as follows : three cotton mills located at Bemis,
Tennessee ; Bemiston , Alabama ; and Indianapolis , Indiana ; a bleachery located at Indian-
apolis , Indiana ; a paper mill at Peoria, Illinois ; and bag factories at St . Louis, Missouri ;
Minneapolis , Minnesota ; Omaha , Nebraska ; New Orleans, Louisiana ; San Francisco, Cali-
fornia ; Indianapolis , Indiana ; Memphis, Tennessee ; Kansas City , Missouri ; Seattle,
Washington ; Houston, Texas ; Peoria, Illinois ; Brooklyn, New York ; Buffalo, New York ;
Wichita, Kansas ; and Winnipeg, Canada.
DA part of this information has been obtained from the decree of the District Court of
the United States for the Westein District of Tennessee , in the matter of the respondent's
application for -a temporary injunction against the Board and its agents , bereinbefore
referred to.
272 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the other plants, sometimes shipping one or two carloads in several
months, and sometimes several carloads a week.
The respondent maintains sales offices in several large cities in the
United States, including Detroit, Michigan, New York, New York,
and Boston, Massachusetts, and advertises extensively. The market
for its finished product is nation-wide, and extends to Canada. Its
bags are sold under a registered trade mark.
II. THE UNION
Local 1838, United Textile Workers of America, formerly affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, affiliated now with
the Committee for Industrial Organization, is a labor organization
composed of employees at the respondent's Bemis plant, having been
organized in or about August 1933.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The respondent's alleged refusal to bargain collectively
In September 1934, the Union called a strike at the Bemis plant,
as part of the general textile strike of that time, and caused the
plant to shut down for several weeks. The strike, however, was un-
successful, and the employees returned to work without an agree-
ment. The Union then brought a complaint before the Textile Labor
Relations Board, alleging the discriminatory discharges by the re-
spondent of 14 Union member employees for union activity, 13 of
whom were allegedly discharged since the strike.° The Textile
Board, after a hearing, rendered its decision on April 9, 1935, dismiss-
ing the complaint.? On April 27, 1935, C. D. Puckett, national
representative of the Union, calve to Bemis, and, through Lowell
Simmons, the recording secretary of the Local, arranged for a meet-
ing with the manager of the plant, Fred J. Young. The meeting
took place in the office of the plant on April 28, 1935, and related
to the desire for reinstatement by the discharged Union member
employees. In addition to Young, the respondent was represented
by D. Ballard, the superintendent of the plant, and Mr. Brock, the
assistant manager. Young expressed his willingness to consider the
matter, except for his concern over what the Textile Board might
think of his putting employees back to work after it "had found
against them." Puckett said he "thought that would be all right."
9 The names of the complainants , as read into the record by the respondent, are as
follows* J. W. King, C. M Mundaugh, Nova Pollard, A T Mays, J. E. Wyatt, O. M.
Shirley, Bill Kellar , L F Sisco, Leland Taylor, C M Phillips, Clevie Tate, C J Patterson,
F. M. Collins , T A. Jarret, J. L Collins, Alf Taylor, and J P Fowler It will be noticed
that 17 names are above enumerated , while the decision of the Textile Board refers to
only 14 complainants.
7 Respondent ' s Exhibit No. 1.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 273
Another meeting took place in May 1935. On this occasion,
Puckett complained to Young in regard to members of the Union
discharged after the hearing before the Textile Board. He also
notified Young that the Union was requesting a rehearing in the
matter of the prior complaint before the Textile Board. On May
24, 1935, Puckett did in fact request a rehearing and posted bond.
The rehearing,.however, never materialized, due to the collapse of the
Textile Board when the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared
unconstitutional. A third meeting took place on or about September
13, 1935, at the office of the mill. Young, Ballard and Brock again
represented the respondent, and Puckett, A. T. Mays, Miss Odell
Warren and Mrs. Pearl Warbritton represented the Union. At this
meeting, Puckett complained to Young in regard to discrimination
against the Union shown by the respondent in reinstating only non-
union employees. Mention was made of the rival organization at
the Bemis plant, named The Independent Textile Workers of
Bemis, and Puckett proposed that an election be held in the plant
to determine which organization should represent the employees in
collective bargaining. Young refused, saying he "didn't think it was
time for that."
There was a further conference between the parties on November
1, 1935. Mr. Kollender, Regional Attorney for the National Labor
Relations Board, and Mr. Curtis, Examiner for the National Labor
Relations Board, were present. The conference again took place in
the mill office. After some general discussion in regard to the dis-
charged union members, Young proposed an adjournment until the
following morning. Puckett thereupon utilized the time to draw up
an agreement,' which he presented to Young on the following morn-
ing, with the statement, "I have an agreement to offer and I want to
see how far apart we are." Young read the proposed agreement,
and then let Ballard and Brock read it. Young then stated "that
he just didn't know, that he didn't feel like he wanted to sign any-
thing." With this, the meeting ended.
There had been another attempt by the Union to have the respond-
ent enter into an agreement. In March or April, 1935, Lowell Sim-
mons, the recording secretary of the Union, had drawn up a draft
of an agreement and had presented it to Young. After keeping it
in his possession for a few days, Young returned the draft, saying
that he did not approve it and would not sign it.
In spite of the studied procrastination exhibited by the respondent
in the negotiations described above, we cannot find that the respond-
ent failed to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative
of the employees, since the record indicates that the Union did not
9 Board's Exhibit No. 12.
274 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represent a majority of the employees during the period of the
negotiations. For this reason only, the. allegation of the complaint
with respect to Section 8, subdivision (5) of the Act will be dis-
missed. For the same reason, we will also dismiss the allegation of
the complaint with respect to Section 8, subdivision (1) of the Act,
in so far as it relates to the refusal by the respondent to afford its
employees adequate opportunity to discuss their grievances with the
management.9
B. Respondent's interference with the union activities of its employees
The Union at the time of the general strike in September 1931,
had 500 or more members. By February 1935, the number had
fallen to approximately 70; at the time of the hearing in January
1936, it was approximately 40. The cause of this decline is in
dispute.
The intervenor, The Independent Workers of Bemis, and the
respondent contend that the desertion from the ranks of the Union
during the period from September 1934 to May 1935, was caused
by the alleged misguided policies of its leaders and the irresponsible
conduct of its members. The Union, on the other hand, contends
that the- respondent's repeated acts of hostility, perpetuated in The
Independent Workers of Bemis, and in other ways, have discouraged
and intimidated employees from joining or remaining members of
the Union.
Whatever the Merit of these conflicting contentions, as they refer
to events which occurred prior to the effective date of the Act, it
is obvious that, as to later events, the respondent may not justify
its antiunion conduct by pointing to the acts of the Union or its
leaders which night also have caused a decline in union 'member-
ship. Furthermore, the unfair labor practices with which the
respondent is charged are alleged to have occurred "at all times since
September 1934, including the period from July 5, 1935 to the pres-
ent time;" whereas the leaders of the Union,1° whose misguided-
policies are alleged to have caused the decline in membership,
resigned from the Union in May 1935, and, after' the strike, were
employed by the respondent almost continuously up to the date of
the hearing, despite the policies which they followed. In our view
of the evidence, the contention of the intervenor and the respondent
is immaterial, if, in fact, the respondent has connnitted the unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint.
9 See Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No . 1221, United Textile Workers of
America, Case No C-85, 2 N L R B 952
10 Septimus Decimus Scott, vice president of the Union, resigned in May 1935 ; Lowell
Simmons, recording secretary, resigned in May 1935, and several months later joined The
Independent Workers of Bends ; Tom Warren, president of the Union, resigned in August
1935.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 275
The following sections describe the means whereby from Septem-
ber 1934 to the date of the hearing the respondent is alleged to have
coerced its employees not to join or to relinquish their membership
in the Union.
1. Domination of and interference with The Independent Textile
Workers of Bemis
In October 1934, The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis was
organized at the Bemis plant by three of the respondent's employees,
Benjamin Scott, Walter Cagle, and Morgan Doolan. They met in a
room above the company's store, laid their' plans, and selected the
name of the organization. They then went about getting other em-
ployees interested, and taking contributions. Prospective members
were told that the organization "stood for the employees of Bemis
that were not in sympathy with the United Textile Workers, and
didn't like their way of doing business." Membership was solicited
in the plant, and the first large organization meeting was held on
October 7, 1934, in front of the Y. M. C. A. The meeting was attended
by about 400 to 500 employees, Benjamin Scott was elected president
of the organization, Morgan 'Doolan, vice president; and Walter
Cagle, secretary. The meeting was addressed by Bob Grove who, in
his talk, referred to Francis Gorman and Thomas F. McMahon, vice
president and president, respectively, of the United Textile Workers
of America, stating that their interest in labor was to collect' dues
and enrich their own pockets, and to control every laborer, his vote,
and his religious views. He stated further that conditions were such
in the respondent's plant, that they could not be taken care of by
the "National Textile Union", and could be better handled by the
new organization.
The reasons for the formation of the new organization, as given by
Benjamin Scott, were that the Union was too drastic in its demands,
that he did not approve of the idea of striking, and that "if the
United Textile Workers * " * won their point, why, we would
automatically have to come under their jurisdiction, they would be
our collective bargaining agency; well, we wanted to do our own col-
lective bargaining, eve didn't know what kind of bargaining they were
going. to do." As thus organized, The Independent Workers of
Bemis is a labor organization.
Although at the time of the hearing the new organization had a
membership of approximately 600 employees, it had no contract with
the respondent, no agreed scale of wages, no agreed standard of
hours, no agreement as to seniority, or as to any other rights which
are commonly the subject of collective bargaining, nor had any at-
tempt ever been made to secure an agreement or to bargain collec-
tively with reference to hours, wages, or working conditions. 'The
276 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization has no constitution, although it does have rules and
by-laws. It has no treasurer or financial secretary, and levies no
dues, raising money by voluntary contribution. There are no regu-
lar dates set for meetings, and a meeting is called whenever "the
Independent Workers would get to talking around they wanted a
meeting and wanted to hear something out of us, and wanted to know
if we were still alive * * *" Prior to the date of the hearing,
meetings had been held about once a month. There were no regular
minutes kept, the secretary testifying that he often took none. Fore-
men at the plant are not eligible for membership, although there was
evidence that the meetings were attended by several of the manage-
ment. Lynn Medlin and Dewey Johnson, both second hands, were
seen at a meeting held on November 16, 1935, and participated in the
voting. Other officials reported to have attended meetings were Ar-
thur Scott, assistant foreman in the weaving department; Newsome
Williams, foreman in the weaving department; Dan Cobb, foreman
in the carding department; L. K. Rush, foreman of the spinning,
spooling and warping department; Mr. Grissom and Dewey Bishop,
second hands in the carding department; Millard Fry, paymaster;
and Fred Butler, assistant superintendent.
A frequent speaker at the meetings of the Independent, and of
great assistance to the officials of that organization in its conduct,
was Robert Grove. According to the testimony, Grove had been a
clerical employee in the respondent's cotton buying office for eight or
ten years, and had no supervisory duties. His salary is approxi-
mately $2,000 per year, and his time, so long as he does his work
efficiently, is his own, particularly during slack periods. He is the
magistrate for the county, an elective office which he has held since
1930, and is also a member of several civic committees in the com-
munity. Because of his position as magistrate and his talents, the
employees at the plant have accepted Grove as their adviser on any
matters of importance which might arise. Grove testified : "They
ask my advice on a wide variety of subjects, and I have tried to do
this since I have been made Magistrate, especially if anyone in my
district comes into the office and wants advice on any particular sub-
ject, or wants me to write a letter or asks me to write deeds or
mortgages, and they ask me to write almost every kind of paper, if
it does not interfere with my work, why it is permissible for me to
do those things. Sometimes a man will leave a piece of work he will
want me to do. I do it for accommodation, and they come to me
about everything including family affairs, and all these things."
On occasion, Grove has given such assistance to Ballard, the super-
intendent of the plant.
Among the many interests which occupied Grove, the question
of the Union had an important place. Strongly opposed to the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 277
"National and International Federation of Unions", he regarded
their methods and tactics as alien and un-American. In his speeches,
he termed the words of the Union organizers "a lot of alien propa-
ganda, or if you like it a little plainer, a lot of alien lies." He stated,
it was testified, that the "United people, all that belonged to it, if
they didn't repent at once they was going straight to hell." His
resentment turned not against the Local, but against the national
organization, whose leaders he characterized as "not even American
citizens that are causing disruption of operation in an ideal city like
ours to get a few shekels flowing into their own pockets." Grove
testified that his "sympathy has been with the Independent organ-
ization." Although he was not a member of the Independent, he
kept a supply of membership cards in his possession for the accom-
modation of his fellow employees, a number of whom signed in his
presence, after receiving an explanation of what the Independent
stood for. On one occasion, Grove represented the Independent in
dealings with the management in regard to the purchase and installa-
tion of some machinery, and secured Young's permission to make an
investigation at the plant with the assistance of Ballard and Rush.
On another occasion lie acted as spokesman for the Independent in
negotiations with the Union, wherein it was attempted to achieve
"better understanding and harmony" among the workers through the
holding of an election, but which failed because of disagreement as
to the issue to be decided "
The influence wielded by Grove over the employees and his close
relation to the Independent are not in dispute. The respondent,
however, repudiates all responsibility for Grove's actions, on the
ground that he is merely an employee who in no sense represents
the management. The respondent also maintains that its attitude
toward both the Union and the Independent has been one of pure
disinterestedness. The evidence does not sustain these contentions.
Whether or not Grove directly represented the management, it is
clear that, at the very least, the respondent utilized him as an agent
in fostering the growth of The Independent Workers of Bemis,
towards which its attitude was in no sense that of pure disinterested-
ness, but, on the contrary, one of active support and encouragement.
Two of the respondent's employees of long standing, W. H. Davis
and L. A. Stout, testified that their affiliation with the Independent
was brought about solely by means of the intervention of officials of
the respondent. Both were members of the Union, and had been
transferred from tIIe carding department, which was overcrowded,
to the weaving department, where they were put to work as sweepers
"The Union proposed that the employees should vote as to which of the two organiza-
tions should represent all of them in collective bargaining . The Independent proposed
a vote to determine whether both organizations should be eliminated The Independent's
proposal was drawn up by Grove. See Board's Exhibits Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16.
49446-38-vol . III-19
278 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at a reduced rate of pay. Other employees were also transferred, but
were given more lucrative work. Davis complained to Newsome
Williams and A. M. Scott, the foreman and assistant foreman in the
department, and was told by Scott that nothing could be done for
him so long as he belonged to the Union, but that if he would "turn
in his book" to the Union, go to Bob Grove and sign an Independent
card which Grove would give him, Scott would guarantee him a
better job inside of two weeks. Davis did as he was instructed, and
signed an application in Grove's presence. Grove testified that Davis
came to him to sign a card, and that he explained to Davis "what the
Independent stood for." According to Davis, Grove also inquired
about the membership of the Union, and stated : "Well, they don't
have many. There are only 250 that work in the mill that do not
belong to the Independent." Thereafter, Davis was sent by Scott to
see Ballard and Butler, and was told by Ballard : "Well, that is the
best thing for you. It would be best if they would all quit it."
Ballard also told Davis "about those big fellows, Green,12 and those
fellows up there, that had big, fine automobiles to ride in and was
not caring nothing about us down here, or these other fellows that
had been coming in to Bemis, that they did not care nothing for us
either, that they were after the money there was to it." Butler said
he was glad Davis had left the Union. Several days later, Newsome
Williams admonished Davis that he was to stay out of the Union,
and promised him a good job. He advised Davis that there was
nothing to the Union, and that he thought it was about dead. On
the next day, Davis was transferred to a job with better pay.
The testimony in regard to Stout was similar. Scott said to both
Davis and Stout : "Boys, I tell you, you are both good workers, but
I can't do nothing for you as long as you stay in the Union, and they
won't let me." He continued : "The foreman over me won't let me
do anything for you as long as you are in the Union." Scott re-
quested Davis to induce Stout to leave the Union, and Davis did so.
Stout testified that he then went to Bob Grove at Scott's behest, and
signed an Independent membership card, whereupon Scott said:
"Well, I'm glad to know that you did. I can pull for you now."
Newsome Williams instructed Scott to find Stout a better job "as
quick as he could", -which Scott did soon after. Williams also stated :
"Well, you know what to tell them now if they say anything to you
about it, don't you? * * * Tell them to go to Hell." Some time
later, after it had come to Williams' attention that information had
been turned in to the Union, he told Davis that if he could find out
who had been reporting his statements to the Union, "he would fire
him and guarantee that they would never get another job, at the
Bemis Cotton Mill." Scott warned Davis that "if anything came
12 Presumably William Green , president of the American Federation of Labor.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 279
up about it for me (Davis) to tell that I lied." Both Davis and
Stout testified that a strenuous supervision over their work was
relaxed immediately upon their leaving the Union.
Although the respondent has flatly contradicted this testimony, it
is too well corroborated by other conduct of the respondent's officials
to admit of doubt. It is not disputed that Davis and Stout joined
the Independent and were given better jobs. The respondent claims
that the better jobs were occasioned by a sudden increase in activity
among the looms, necessitating additional help. Under the circum-
stances, we regard this explanation as unsatisfactory.
Other evidence concerning the interest of the respondent in the
Independent was given by Curtis Howell, the former employee who
had joined the Union a short time prior to his leaving the respond-
ent's employ. He applied for a job in December 1935, to Rush, who
said that if he would join the Independent he could have a job at $10
per week. Howell came to Rush again, and Rush told him "they just
about had the Union broke", and to keep coming back.
Dave Ervin, another employee of long standing, was laid off in
April 1935, for leaving up a flag on his loom. He was reinstated
in three weeks. Prior to his reinstatement, he had spoken with J. R.
Greer, a loom fixer in the same department, who came to Ervin's
house to tell him that if Ervin would cease to be a member of the
Union, he could get his job back. Ervin was later told the same
thing by Guy Thomas, another loom fixer in the department. Ervin
then went to Bob Grove, and told Grove he was through with the
Union, and would appreciate Grove's help in getting back his job.
Grove said, "If you are through with the Union, why I, as an indi-
vidual employee talking to another one, will intercede to Mr. Young
and see if I can get him to agree to put you back to work." On an-
other occasion, Grove asked Ervin to join the Independent, but Ervin
did not do so. Grove said, "We would not let you join right now
but after you get back to work, will you?" About a week later, Ervin
was reinstated. Ervin never joined the Independent, although he
was asked by Guy Thomas if he was ready to join. Thomas said,
"What are you waiting on, for them to fire you again?"
At the hearing, Grove testified, in regard to employees who came
to him to sign Independent cards, that "some of them said they were
joining under the impression that they would further their interests
with the company management," and that "this rumor got so bad
at one time, that they took all the cards in the Independent Hall and
asked me to announce that anyone that had joined the Independent,
with the impression it would have any bearing on their standing
with the company * * to please come and get their cards,
because they didn't want them in the organization under that
impression."
280 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board, nevertheless, is convinced that the respondent, up to
the time of the hearing, has continuously fostered this impression,
and that the Independent has grown in response to the will and pur-
poses of the respondent. Without the respondent's active support
and open encouragement, we do not believe it likely that the Inde-
pendent would have succeeded in enlisting the membership of most
of the employees, if indeed it would have received any support from
the employees at all. We find that the respondent has dominated
and interfered with the formation of, and has contributed support
to, The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis.
2. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Accompanying the efforts of the respondent to organize its em-
ployees in The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis were its per-
sistent attempts to discourage membership in the Union. The record
contains many illustrations of this form of illegal conduct.
Bertha Scott, an employee for 12 years, had left the respondent's
employ because of illness in 1932. Upon seeking reemployment 11.
August 1935, and thereafter, she was told by Ballard that her hns=
band, who worked at the plant, was a member of the Union and had
"better get out". Mrs. Scott testified that Ballard prefaced his re-
marks by saying that "he was going to tell me something, and if I
had it in Court he would swear he didn't say it." Ballard then
stated he would like to put Mrs. Scott to work, but she and her hus-
band had turned their backs on him and joined the Union, and con-
sequently Ballard could do nothing for her. Ballard said further
that "he never had nothing hurt him any worse than me and my
husband picketing the gates during the strike, and also me and my
sister joining the Union."
In October 1935, another former employee, Rosa Barker, had in-
terceded with Ballard for her husband, Jim W. Barker, who had
been discharged on June 11, 1935, after 18 years of employment.
Mrs. Barker testified that Ballard said "Jim was a man he liked, but
he was sorry he got messed up like he did, that he could not do any-
thing for him." Ballard then sent Mrs. Barker to see Rush, who
said : "Mrs. Barker, I don't believe in whipping the devil around the
stump. I am going to tell you to your face, I would not work your
husband again at ten cents a day." He then added, "Another thing,
when this Union first started I went around to all my section men
and talked to them enough to let them know that they did not need
to belong to the Union." He stated further that "he thought when
a man was working for a man or a company he should be loyal to the
boss instead of that Union. * * *"
Minnie Granger, who has been in the respondent's employ for 12
years, had been a member of the Union. She testified that after the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 281
strike, Rush, her foreman, asked her what position she held in the
Union. She testified also that Leon Medlin, second hand in the
spinning room, inquired as to why she did not get out of the Union.
On July 23, 1935, after Medlin had discharged an employee named
Mrs. Warbritton, he told Miss Granger that if she did not leave the
Union, she would be next. On the following morning he asked Miss
Granger if she had made up her mind "to get on the right side."
Miss Granger promptly left the Union.
C. C. Redden, all employee of long standing, had been a mem-
ber of the Union at the time of the strike. He testified that assistant
foreman A. M. Scott told him "we were damn fools to belong over
there, we ought to come back * * * and be sociable." Redden
quit the Union in April 1935, because "it seemed like the Union
boys were getting fired more so than the nonunion workers."
T. M. Warren, employed by the respondent for nine years, had
been president of the Union from April to August 17, 1935. In July
1935, Warren was asked by A. M. Scott to come to the latter's office.
According to Warren's testimony, the following conversation took
place : Scott said, "Tom, you and I are growing old, and if we should
lose our jobs the chances are we would never get another one."
Warren said, "Arthur, I have never thought about losing my job, it
has never entered my mind. I stay on my job and run it. I live
up to the rules and regulations of the company as far as I know, and
I haven't thought anything about losing my job." Scott replied,
"Well you can't tell, these Southern mills are sore." Warren asked,
"What are they sore about?" Scott said, "The Union." Warren
asked, "Well, what are they going to do about it?" Scott replied,
"They are going to clear out." Warren testified, however, that he
quit the Union for other reasons than these.
Janie Houston, who had been formerly employed by the respond-
ent for about seven years, left the plant in 1928 when she married.
In October 1935, she applied for reemployment, and went to see
Rush. According to Mrs. Houston, when she said something to him
about the Union, Rush stated that the respondent would not hire any
union people, and that they were going to get rid of all of the Union
members sooner or later. He promised her employment when some
new looms were installed. She has never been a member of the
Union.
Eva Reeves, employed by the respondent for 16 years, was laid off
by Rush on January 6, 1936. When she asked to be reinstated, Rush
said he could not get over seeing her on the picket line during the
strike, and added that lie was going to discharge all of the union
people if it took him 15 years, and that he knew every one of them.
Miss Reeves testified that Rush consulted a list of names in a little
book, and asked her whether she had "signed one of those cards
282 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the strike." After studying the list, he commented that her
name was missing, and said, "that shows how bad you want to work."
On another occasion, Rush repeated that he "couldn't get over my
being on the strike down there." He subsequently put Miss Reeves
to work on a two day a week schedule, whereas other employees
doing the same type of work were employed four days a week. Miss
Reeves has been a member of the Union since 1933, and this fact was
known to Rush, who told her that, although she sought work when
unemployed, yet she had been on the picket line keeping out others
who wanted to work. He also chided her for spending her money to
help maintain the Union.
In each of these cases, the respondent has sought to refute the
testimony or to explain away the inferences raised thereby. In regard
to Mrs. Scott, Ballard testified she had left her employment with
the understanding that her husband was to take her place, and could
return at any time she desired to replace her husband. With refer-
ence to Rosa Barker, Rush testified that her husband had been dis-
charged for inefficiency, but admitted telling Mrs. Barker that her
husband has possibly listened to other persons who influenced him
somewhat. Rush also admitted telling Mrs. Barker that "just after
the N. R. A. went into effect, that I talked to all of my section men-
just probably a week or two after the beginning of N. R. A.-that
I did not believe that any section men should belong to any labor
organization, simply because I did not believe he could be impartial,
or fair, to all the workers on his job, but I did not tell any of them
that they could not join, but, that was their right, as stated under
Section 7-A, that they could do as they saw fit, but I did not see
they could be impartial to all the workers on their sections, and
carry out my instructions, and orders, and belong to any labor or-
ganization." Rush also testified he had received complaints that
Jim Barker discriminated in favor of the union employees under
him. In regard to Miss Granger, both Rush and Medlin testified
that she inquired of her own volition whether she had to sign an
Independent card to work, and was told, "no, you don't have to sign
nothing to work here. All you have to do is run your job like you
have been running it and you will still work." Assistant foreman
Scott corroborated the testimony of Redden, but added that what be
told Redden applied to both organizations at the plant, and that lie
had stated he did not "see why those crazy people don't disband all
that and come on back and be sociable." The testimony of Warren
and Janie Houston was flatly denied. In regard to Miss Reeves,
Rush testified that he had received complaints in regard to her work,
and at the time of her lay-off had summoned her to his office. There
he kept a little book in his desk, containing a record of his confer-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 283
ences with employees, which he took out and was looking over in
order to refresh his memory in regard to prior complaints about Miss
Reeves. Rush then testified as follows : "She said she had an invalid
sister to keep up and this sister depended on her, and that there was
no one to support the family except her, and I told her, I said : `Now,
you are putting up a hard luck tale to me, and I remember at one
time seeing you back here, not so long ago, sitting on the gate out
there on the picket line, and smiling and going on,' and I said : `It
looks to me like here, now, you have put up another tale about having
to work,' and I said : `That don't look quite right, and quite con-
sistent,' and she said she had to work, and I said : `Well you were
out during the strike,' and I said : `Did you want to gback, then P
and she said she did, and I said : `Did you remember a meeting that
was held at the Auditorium?' and she said : `I did not know anything
about it,' and I says : `You did not mark a ticket, or something, to
that effect, to go back to work?' and she said: `Well, I do not know
anything about it, nobody told me about that,' and then she went on
and said she was going to starve to death, and I'said: `It is not my
intention to make it hard on you,' and I did know she had a sister
to keep up, and the weather was cold, and I said : `You promised me
many times you would do your work right,' and it was just the same
as the other times, she solemnly promised she would do it right if I
would give her a chance, and I said : `All right, you go and tell Mr.
Johnson I said put you back to work,' and she grabbed my hand and
shook it for about five minutes."
In spite of the denials contained therein, the hostility of the
respondent toward the Union is revealed in the testimony of its
own witnesses. It is obvious, for example, that the respondent, with
an overstaffed plant and in complete control of the community in
which its employees lived, was unwilling to forego its position of
undisputed dominance over its workers. To the end that it might
retain this favorable position free from the interference of the
Union, it availed itself of the punitive privileges inherent in the
paternal relation it has assumed toward its employees. Overabun-
dance of available labor in its plant made possible the summary dis-
missal of inefficient help; it also enabled the respondent to lay off
employees as a matter of discipline, usually accompanied by a lec-
ture pregnant with disappointment and admonition. Instances of
this are numerous in the record of this case. The Union in particu-
lar has provided the respondent with a fertile source for injured
complaint; a good example is the occasion testified to by Rush when
he told Eva Reeves : "Now, you are putting up a hard luck tale to
me, and I remember at one time seeing you back here, not so long
ago, sitting on the gate out there on the picket line, and smiling
284 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and going on." Such conduct on the part of the respondent is cal-
culated to discredit the activities of the Union, and goes hand in
hand with the unbridled attacks made by Grove in his public
speeches, which were in fact attended by a number of the respond-
ent's officials. It is apparent from the entire record that from the
time of the general strike in September 1934, to the date of the
hearing, the respondent has painstakingly endeavored to destroy the
Union. We find that it has thereby interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
3. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
Between July 23 and July 25, 1935, the respondent discharged
six employees. Of these, Mrs. Myrtle King, Mrs. J. T. McCann,
Mrs. Judd Pipkin, and Mrs. Dexter Warren were members of the
Union; Mrs. Walter Cagle and Mrs. Carrington were not. The
respondent testified that it was the policy to discharge married
women whose husbands were not employed at the plant; otherwise
it "would be furnishing a house for the discharged men to live in.
and the wife keeping him up." The husbands of Mrs. King, Mrs.
McCann, and Mrs. Pipkin had been discharged; 3 and it would not
do, according to the respondent, to "let the wives work and support
them, and them able bodied men, so we just sent those out indefi-
nitely." But the husbands of Mrs. Carrington, Mrs. Warren and
Mrs. Cagle were working, and those women were laid off with the
understanding that when conditions improved they would be rein-
stated. There was no complaint about the work of any of those
employees.
Mrs. King had been employed for six years when discharged by
the second hand, Cobb, who attributed his action to the "short time"
(i. e., running the department four days a week instead of five). An
employee who had been hired a few weeks before was given her
place. Both Grissom, the foreman, and Cobb knew of Mrs. King's
affiliation with the Union and participation on the picket line during
the strike. Mrs. King testified that at one time Cobb stated she
made one. of the best hands that the respondent ever had on the job.
Mrs. McCann had been employed 14 years. She testified that
Cobb, who discharged her, had stated after the strike that he could
not forget she had been on the picket line.
Mrs. Pipkin had been employed nine years, and was also discharged
by Cobb, who once told her that she made a good hand. She testified
13 J. W King was a complainant in the case before the Textile Labor Relations Board
(see P 272 , supra ), and is also a complainant in this case, as are J T McCann and Judd
Pipkin.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 285
that after the strike her work was closely watched by the foreman
and the second hand. She had been on the picket line.
On or about July 23, 1935, the respondent discharged Mrs. Pearl
Warbritton, who had been employed about seven years. She had
also been on the picket line during the strike. When discharged,
she accompanied the union committee on a visit to the management
in an attempt to secure reinstatement. Ballard testified that he
would have patched up the matter if she had come to him alone,
because he "liked Pearl very much, she was raised out there." In
regard to the committee, he testified : "I would not want to put any-
body back to work in the mill, as far as I am individually concerned,
if they did not make up their minds-I would not want to run a mill
where a committee could come and put people back to work.
Frankly, I would not do it * * * I think that would cause the
mill trouble; I think it would cause the Union trouble, and the
Independent trouble, or anybody, if people could be discharged, and
quit, and walk out, and cone back through somebody else. I would
not want to run the mill if Mr. Young were to tell me I had to put a
fellow back to work, because I do not think I could ever get satis-
faction out of it." Speaking in the same vein, Ballard said, "I have
no objections to the committee, but I do not like for a committee to
come in and tell me that I must put so-and-so back to work, because
I think it would be detrimental to the hands, or the mill, or them
either, to do it." When pressed as to whether the Union committee
had "demanded" he put anyone back to work, he admitted, "No, you
did not; you did not do it, but, as I just stated, if we did have to put
them back to work by some committee, or anybody, or even the
manager were to force anybody back on us without them making it
satisfactory, we could not work them satisfactorily." Ballard
thought that Pearl was a good worker and "a very good little girl."
In September 1935, the respondent discharged W. R. Smith, a
sweeper employed over three years. Prior to his discharge, Smith
had been told by Asa Martin, a second hand, that he had better "turn
over" in regard to the Union, and join the Independent, or he was
liable to lose' his job. Smith was similarly approached by other
employees, the last request to join the Independent having been made
three days before his discharge. In an attempt to secure reinstate-
ment, Smith visited both Ballard and Rush, but first sent the union
committee. Ballard said that had Smith come to him first in place of
sending someone else, the matter would have been straightened out.
At the hearing, Ballard testified that Smith was not reinstated be-
cause he "did not ever come and ackiiowledge he had done wrong,
and he would not keep his work up * * * If the boy had come
back to me and said: `I an sorry, and I will run that job if you will
286 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
give it back to me,' I would have prevailed on Mr. Rush to give him a
job back, and, if he had talked to Mr. Rush right about it, too."
The complaint alleges that the respondent has discharged and re-
fused to reemploy the afore-mentioned employees because of their
union activities. In addition, the complaint sets forth the cases of
other employees who were discharged prior to July 5, 1935. The
burden of the complaint in these cases does not concern the dis-
charges, but only the subsequent refusal by the respondent to re-
employ these employees because they had joined and assisted the
Union. For the sake of convenience, these cases will now be con-
sidered in conjunction with those already discussed.
J. T. McCann had been discharged on January 6, 1935, after
12 years in the respondent's employ. He had been active on the
picket line during the strike. Prior to his discharge he had been
arrested in a lunch room i.ot on the respondent's property and after
working hours by a deputy sheriff in the employ of the respondent,
allegedly for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. He was then
tried before a court consisting of Grove and two other magistrates
and was acquitted. Nevertheless, he was discharged by the respond-
ent. His requests to Ballard and Cobb for reinstatement were of no
avail. Additional requests for reinstatement were made on his be-
half by the union committee on September 13, 1935, and November
1, 1935. McCann testified, and it is not contested, that discharge for
drunkenness at the respondent's plant is a punitive measure, and is
usually followed by reinstatement, in several instances even after a
conviction and the serving of a term in jail. Prior to his discharge,
McCann had been told by Bishop that he had better get out of the
Union, and that Bishop was "going to get everyone of them if they
didn't." At the hearing, Ballard testified that he knew McCann
had been acquitted of the charge of drunkenness. He had told the
union committee which had asked him, "When are you going to put
all those people (including McCann) back to work?" that "I am
not going to put any of them back to work until they get themselves
right." Ballard said McCann came into his office with the wrong
attitude, having stated that his tongue was made to talk with, that
he was free, that he would take a drink when he got ready, and that
he did not consider it anybody's business. McCann's work was
taken over by another employee.
A. T. Mays had been discharged on October 4, 1934, after having
been employed as a painter by the respondent for eight years. There
was no complaint about his work. He made frequent applications
for reinstatement, the last attempt occurring one week prior to the
date of the hearing, but with no success. The union committee had
also discussed the case with the management. Mays' work has been
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 287
done by others who have been employed since his discharge, and
who have lesser seniority. Mays had been active in the Union, and
at the time of the hearing was the president of the Local. His
union affiliation was known to his foreman, Jim Walters, who had
been the one to discharge him. Walters had said: "You know good
and well that the company, that a company like this * * * is
never going to have a labor movement in it;" and he added: "I can-
not see why you should join the Union." At the hearing, the
counsel for the respondent intimated that the respondent employed
other painters because they worked for less wages than Mays had
received. Mays testified he had received no offer from the respond-
ent to go back to work at a reduced wage.
In the light of the entire record, it is clear that the respondent's
discharge of these employees was in continuation of its policy to
remove all vestiges of the Union from its plant. The respondent's
procedure was deliberate and cautious. It found that its custom of
imposing lay-offs as a matter of discipline in instances of minor
lapses in the efficiency of its employees afforded a ready means for
its purposes. The discharges were accordingly embellished with the
usual reasons. The requests for reinstatement, however, presented
other problems, for which the respondent devised other means of
circumvention. An instance of this is the respondent's insistence
upon the appearance of the discharged employees before the man-
agement to "get themselves right". Mrs. Warbritton did come before
the management, but she was accompanied by the union committee.
Faced with this contingency, the respondent was forced to admit
that it would tolerate no interference from the Union, and stated
that Mrs. Warbritton should have come alone. W. R. Smith came
before the management alone, but was rebuked because the union
committee had been there before him. On this account, neither of
those employees was rehired. It can safely be assumed that the
intervention of the Union on behalf of J. T. McCann and A. T. Mays
had like consequences. As to the reasons advanced for the refusals
to reinstate'Mrs. King, Mrs. McCann and Mrs. Pipkin, admittedly
satisfactory employees, the Board, viewing the case as a whole, con-
siders it more likely that their foreman, Cobb, had not forgotten the
picket line.
In accordance with the foregoing findings of fact, the Board con-
cludes that by discharging Mrs. Pearl Warbritton on July 23, 1935,
by discharging Mrs. Myrtle King, Mrs. J. T. McCann and Mrs. Judd
Pipkin on July 25, 1935, by discharging W. R. Smith on September
12, 1935, and by refusing reinstatement to J. T. McCann and A. T.
Mays, the respondent has discriminated against its employees with
respect to hire and tenure of employment for the purpose of dis-
288 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
couraging membership in Local No. 1838, United Textile Workers
of America, and that by such acts, the respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The complaint also charges a violation of the Act by the respondent
in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of the following
employees : A. T. Adams, Jim King, J. E. Wyatt, J. P. Fowler, Nova
Pollard, C. H. Phillips, C. J. Patterson, Louis Collins, Alf Taylor,
Ben Collins, Lee Tate and Judd Pipkin. There was only meagre
and unimportant evidence introduced in respect to Jim King, J. P.
Fowler, and Judd Pipkin; no evidence was introduced in respect to
the others. The allegation with respect to these persons will there-
fore be dismissed.
C. The discharge of J. R. Ross
Subsequent to the events described in the preceding paragraphs,
the respondent discharged J. R. Ross, who had been in its employ
for eight or nine years. Ross was a member of the Union and had
participated in the strike. He testified that after the strike, Cobb,
the foreman of his department, became less friendly and refused to
speak to him. On February 19 and 20, 1936, Ross appeared as a wit-
ness on behalf of the Union at the hearing before the Trial Examiner
in connection with the discharges of his fellow employees. On
February 24, he was also discharged. -
As in the cases already discussed, the respondent claims to have
discharged Ross because of an alleged infraction of its rules. How-
ever, the circumstances surrounding the discharge are again illus-
trative of the respondent's unmitigated antagonism toward the
Union and its adherents. Ross was engaged in the operation of a
machine which separated the dirt from the motes, or waste cotton,
discarded by the picking machines in the respondent's plant. The
waste is first collected in large boxes constructed especially for such
use. The boxes, when full, are weighed in order that the amount
of waste may be calculated. Although the waste cotton is baled and
sold for use in the manufacture of mattresses and other products,
the weight of the waste before cleaning is not ascertained for that
purpose, but is used as a check on the efficiency of the picking ma-
chines.. The cotton is subsequently weighed again preparatory to
shipment and sale.
On the morning of February 24, 1936, 10 or 15 minutes before the
hour set as the starting time for the plant, Cobb observed Ross
emptying a box of waste cotton into his machine without first placing
it on the scales. Cobb summoned J. G. Pruitt, second hand in the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 289
picker and opening departments, and proceeded to question Ross as
to whether he had weighed the other boxes he had emptied. Ross,
according to his testimony, answered that he had weighed the first
box, had estimated the weights of the other, and had not yet had
time to mark down the figures. Cobb thereupon instructed Pruitt
that Ross be laid off. On the two following days, Ross returned to
the plant in an effort to regain his job but was told on each occasion
by Pruitt that the matter of reinstatement rested with Cobb, and
that Cobb was away.
On February 26, 1936, a committee of union members, includ-
ing Puckett, Ross, and Mays, conferred with Young, Brock and
Ballard at the respondent's office in regard to Ross' reinstatement.
Because of the absence of Cobb, the conference was adjourned to
the following day. Cobb, when questioned at the second meeting
by Puckett, accused Ross of neglecting his work in several ways,
including stopping his machine an hour or so before he was supposed
to, sleeping on his job, and neglecting to weigh the waste cotton.
However, Pruitt, who was summoned to the meeting, said that he
had never seen Ross shut down his machine before the scheduled
time, and had never found him sleeping at his work. In addition,
Pruitt asserted that "Ross had been a good hand and that he had no
kick on his work." At the close of the discussion, Cobb demanded
to know why Ross had gone to the union committee instead of
coming to him first. No decision was reached at the meeting, but
on the following morning the respondent notified Ross he would
not be reinstated. At the hearing, in explanation of this action,
Young testified he had been told by Cobb : "You are holding me
responsible for my department, I can't reemploy Ross and still keep
up my discipline."
We feel that it is unnecessary at this point to examine further into
the manner in which Ross conducted himself at his work; it suffices
to say in this regard that we are satisfied his discharge resulted from
other causes. Cobb made no secret of his irritation at the interven-
tion of the union committee, considering it an interference, with the
discipline in his department. When questioned at the hearing con-
cerning his rebuke to Ross for having consulted the Union instead
of himself, Cobb testified : "I only asked it for my own information.
As you remember, I stated that heretofore when a man had been
discharged, laid off or discharged, he always came back to his over-
seer, to see if he could not talk the thing over and readjust matters,
until this particular time, and I did ask Mr. Ross why, just why he
did that, and I said at the same time : `Now, I might be all out of
order, but I am asking for my information. I want to know why
290 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you did not come to me instead of going to Mr. Puckett and Mr.
Mays?"' This attitude on the part of the respondent toward its
employees has already been examined in connection with the dis-
charges already described, and what we have said there is strictly
applicable here. We find that Ross' discharge was intended as a
further warning to the members of the Union that their interests
would be best served by a severance of their affiliation with that
organization . We find that by this conduct, the respondent has not
only interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, but
has also discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of employment to
discourage membership in the Union.
Upon the whole record we find that the activities of the respond-
ent set forth in Section III, occurring in connection with the opera-
tions 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 have led and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
The Board has found that the respondent has dominated and
interfered with the formation of The Independent Textile Workers
of Bemis and has contributed support to it, and that its growth has
been due to encouragement received from the respondent 's officials,
and the accompanying attacks upon the Union . It is clear from the
testimony that the reason many of the employees joined the Inde-
pendent was to curry favor with the management to safeguard
their jobs . The Independent has therefore become an organization
which tends to increase rather than diminish the inequality of bar-
gaining power between employer and employee . With its members
dominated by a fear of loss of employment , and itself designed to
offset the Union, it does not and cannot offer to the employees the
freedom in the choosing of representatives for collective bargaining
which the Act guarantees . Furthermore , it has served the respond-
ent as a useful means of destroying the Union . Therefore, to remedy
as much as possible the harm done by the respondent to the Union
and union members, and to restore to the employees some measure
of independence of thought and judgment in their dealings with the
respondent, the Board will order the immediate disestablishment of
The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis.
As regards the individual employees discussed above, the Board
will order the reinstatement with back pay of those employees whom
the respondent has illegally discharged or refused to reinstate.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
291
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Local No. 1838, United Textile Workers of America, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of
the Act.
2. The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis is a labor organi-
zation, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (5) of the Act.
3. By its domination of and interference with the formation of
The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis, and by contributing
support thereto, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision
(2) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment,
thereby encouraging membership in The Independent Textile Work-
ers of Bemis, and discouraging membership in Local No. 1838,
United Textile Workers of America, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8, subdivision (3) of the Act.
5. 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, subdivision (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent, Bemis Brothers Bag Company, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join br assist labor organizations, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist from encouraging membership in The Inde-
pendent Textile Workers of Bemis or any other labor organization
of its employees, or from discouraging membership in Local No.
292 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1838, United Textile Workers of America, or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment, or by threats
of such discrimination;
3. Cease and desist from in any manner dominating or interfer-
ing with the formation of any labor organization of its employees,
from dominating or interfering with the administration of The In-
dependent Textile Workers of Bemis, or any other labor organization
of its employees, or from contributing financial or other support to
The Independent Textile Workers of Bemis or any other labor or-
ganization of its employees;
4. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
a. Withdraw all recognition from The Independent Textile
Workers of Bemis, by whatever name now known, and disestablish
such organization, as representative of its employees, for the purpose
of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor dis-
putes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment;
b. Upon request, reinstate to their former positions Mrs. Myrtle
King, Mrs. J. T. McCann, Mrs. Judd Pipkin, Mrs. Pearl Warbritton,
W. R. Smith, J. T. McCann, A. T. Mays, and J. R. Ross, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges;
c. Make whole Mrs. Myrtle King, Mrs. J. T. McCann, Mrs. Judd
Pipkin, Mrs. Pearl Warbritton, W. R. Smith and J. R. Ross for any
loss they may have suffered by reason of their discharge, by payment
to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which
each would normally have earned as wages during the period from
the time each was discharged to the date of such offer of reinstate-
ment, less the amount earned by each of them, respectively, during
such period;
d. Make whole J. T. McCann and A. T. Mays for any loss they
may have suffered by reason of their failure to be reinstated, by
payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum equal to that which
each would normally have earned as wages during the period from
the date on which other persons were hired to do the work formerly
done by each of them after each of them had, on or subsequent to
July 5, 1935, applied for reinstatement, to the date of such offer of
reinstatement, less the amounts earned by each of them, respec-
tively, during such period; and
e. Post notices in conspicuous places in each department of its cot-
ton mill in Bemis, Tennessee, stating (1) that The Independent
Textile Workers of Bemis, by whatever name now known, is so dis-
established, and that the respondent will refrain from any recogni-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 293
tion thereof, (2) that the respondent will cease and desist in the man-
ner aforesaid and (3) that such notices will remain posted for a
period of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of
posting;
f. Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days of this Order what steps the respondent has
taken to comply herewith.
The allegation of the complaint that the respondent violated Sec-
tion 8, subdivision (5) of the Act is hereby dismissed.
The allegation of the complaint that the respondent violated Sec-
tion 8, subdivision (3) of the Act in respect to the hire and tenure
of employment of A. T. Adams, Jim King, J. E. Wyatt, J. P.
Fowler, Nova Pollard, C. H. Phillips, C. J. Patterson, Louis Collins,
Alf Taylor, Ben Collins, Lee Tate and Judd Pipkin is hereby dis-
missed.
49446-38-vol m ---20