Blue Bell, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of views and opinions , free from restraint or coercion , cannot
be gainsaid . However , the significant timing of the August 21
announcement , together with the antiunion context in which the
announcement was made, furnished the employees with a
reasonable basis for believing that the benefits suggested by
the Employer would be forthcoming without the aid of union
representation , and clearly implied a promise of economic
benefit which interfered with their free exercise of the right
to choose a bargaining representative.?
In my opinion , the majority decision herein departs from
well-established Board precedent , 8 approved by the courts, 9
delineating the area in which employers ' preelection state-
ments exceed the bounds of allowable free speech . The in-
stant decision , by sanctioning a clearly implied promise of
gain by the Employer who possessed the power to convert
prophecy into reality , makes serious inroads upon the em-
ployees' statutory freedom of selection.
I would sustain the Petitioner ' s objection and adopt the
Regional Director ' s recommendation that the election be set
aside.
?Main Fisheries Corporation, 99 NLRB 604.
$Maine Fisheries Corporation , supra; Majestic Metal Specialties , Inc., 92 NLRB 1854;
Lake Superior. District Power Company, supra; Schwarzenbach Huber Company, supra
The National Plastic Products Company, 78 NLRB 699.
9 See N. L. R. B v. Nabors, 196 F. 2d 272, 276 (C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. v. Bailey Co., 180
F. 2d 278 (C A. 6); N. L. R. B. v. La Salle Steel Co., 178 F. 2d 829 (C. A. 7)
BLUE BELL, INC. and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 15-CA-355 and 15-RC-513.
December 24, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 18, 1953, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued
his Intermediate Report in this consolidated 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations.
Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the Respondent ' s excep-
tions, and the entire record in these cases , and hereby adopts
107 NLRB No. 118.
BLUE BELL, INC. 515
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications and additions.
1. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the
Respondent discharged 3 employees, Shirley Frederick, Jewel
Taylor, and Bettie Necaise and laid off for 2 weeks a fourth
employee, Willie Lee Smith, because of union activity on their
part, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
With respect to Shirley Frederick the Respondent contends
that she was legally discharged because she helped to prepare
and signed a letter, addressed to the Company's vice-president,
Weant, which referred to his "obvious contempt for the truth,"
and three times characterized him (Weant) as aliar. This letter
was distributed to employees at the plant and elsewhere. At
the time of her discharge, Superintendent Day told Frederick
that he could not have her "going around calling Mr. Weant a
liar."
This letter, dated July 20, 1951, was in reply to a letter from
the Company to the employees, setting forth arguments against
the Union and signed by Weant.i It was answered in a further
letter from the Company, dated July 27, 1951, stating that the
union organizers "falsify the facts."2 The Trial Examiner
found that the preparation and signing of this letter by Frederick
was protected concerted activity within the meaning of the
Act, and that, accordingly, her discharge was a violation of
Section 8 (a) (3). We agree, but in so doing we expressly limit
our ruling to the specific facts of this case.
We recognize that during election campaigns employees
have the right, not only to express their own views, arguments,
and opinions, but also to challenge and to comment upon the
statements and opinions of their employer. But such a right
is not unlimited. The right of employees to challenge and to
comment upon the statements and opinions of their employer
must be exercised with a due regard for the proper respect
which employees owe their employer in the interest of main-
taining discipline and order. It must also be exercised within
the limitations which decency and fairness rightly imposes
upon all campaign propaganda. As this Board has previously
observed, an employee by engaging in concerted activity does
not acquire a general nor an unqualified right to use disre-
spectful epithets toward or concerning his employer.3 An em-
ployee may be lawfully discharged because of what he says or
does in the course of an organizing campaign, if under all the
circumstances his conduct either exceeds the bounds of
legitimate campaign propaganda or is so disrespectful of his
employer as seriously to impair the maintenance of discipline
and order and thus render the employee unfit for further
service.
'See appendix A
2 See appendix B.
3Betcher Manufacturing Co., 76 NLRB 526, 527; N . P. Nelson Iron Works, Inc , 78 NLRB
1270. Cf Bausch and Lomb Optical Co.. 72 NLRB 132.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under all the circumstances of this case , we find that
Frederick ' s letter did not exceed the proper bounds of con-
certed activity , as noted above . Her use of disrespectful
epithets was evoked in part by equally strong criticism of the
Union by the Employer , and occurred in the course of an
exchange of letters containing charges and countercharges.
Moreover , without in any way endorsing such conduct, we do
not believe that, considered in the context of this case,
Frederick ' s questioning of Weant's veracity or referring to
him three times as a "liar" can be said, absent other evidence,
to have so seriously impaired the maintenance of discipline
and order as to have rendered her unfit for further service.4
Accordingly , we conclude that Frederick ' s discharge violated
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.5
Willie Lee Smith was admittedly disciplined because she
distributed the Frederick letter to employees in the plant. The
Respondent ' s contentions relating to her are related to Fred-
erick's discharge . Like the Trial Examiner , having found that
Frederick was protected for her conduct in relation to the
campaign letter , we find that Smith was protected in dis-
tributing it. As we accept the Trial Examiner ' s credibility
findings , we find that she did not distribute it on company time
in the plant.6
Concerning Ira Jewel Taylor, the Respondent asserts that the
Trial Examiner ' s ruling that she was discharged because of
union activities , rather than absenteeism , " seems to be pure
and simple assumption ." We find no merit to this contention.
Contrary to the assumption of our dissenting colleague , there is
no evidence that her excused absences were irresponsible. She
was discharged without having been criticized for the number
of her absences or warned against being absent for such
reasons as seemed sufficient to make predictable that the ab-
sence would be excused , as the others had been. Like the Trial
Examiner , we consider the sequence of events revealing. In
March, Superintendent Day told Taylor she was smart for not
having joined the Union and praised her and her work. In the
middle of September she was criticized for 1 day's drop in
production , although she maintained the weekly average. At
the same time , Day let Taylor know that he knew she had been
getting names and addresses for the Union . He told her that
the union drive was over and that they might as well go back
to work. A few weeks later she was absent for 4 days because
of a family funeral. Although Day denied that her husband had
called , Mrs. Taylor testified that Oliver , who did not testify,
told her when she reported for work that she was discharged
because Day had said the funeral was only 1 day rather than
4. The Trial Examiner found that disparate treatment of ab-
4Cf. N L. R. B . v. Illinois Tool Works , 153 F . 2d 811 , 815 (C. A. 7)
5 As it is clear that the Respondent viewed the Frederick letter as a union circular, we
need not decide whether a single employee would be protected for such critical comment.
See appendix B
6Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc. v. N. L. R. B , 188 F. 2d 362 (C A. 3)
BLUE BELL, INC. 517
sences and personal problems indicated' discrimination in
Taylor's discharge for a trivial matter so soon after Day first
verified her union activities, and we agree. Like the Trial
Examiner, we deem it immaterial that Taylor may have assured
her husband that she wanted to stop working.
The Re spondent also contends that the fact that Bettie Necaise
did not disown or explain her failure to repair certain rejects
which she had marked repaired indicates that she was not
discriminatorily discharged. According to her credible testi-
mony the rejects which she had premarked, as was the custom,
were removed before she had a chance to repair them, a fact
of which she had complained to her supervisor before she
was called into the office concerning them. As her supervisor
to whom she had already complained was in the Respondent's
office when she was questioned concerning the rejects she
had marked repaired, we think it understandable that she
remained mute when confronted with her supervisor's similar
silence. She could not deny that she had premarked them; she
could have stated that it was her custom and that of other em-
ployees to premark them or she could have stated she didn't
know how they had been removed. Considering the fact that her
supervisor knew this and could, more appropriately, have re-
ported it, we cannot agree without our dissenting colleague or
the Respondent that her silence signified that her discharge was
warranted rather than that she thought any attempt to justify
herself was obviously futile. In her case, too, we think that the
ambiguities of the situation are clarified by setting this in-
cident in context. A little less than a month earlier, Day had
accused her, a member of the organizing committee, of
threatening the colored employees. He cautioned that he would
fire her if he heard any more rumors like that. She was dis-
charged immediately after the Union filed objections to conduct
affecting the election. Like the Trial Examiner, we conclude
that her discharge involved entrapment, and was discriminatory.
2. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent vi-
olated Section 8 (a) (1) by solicitation, interrogations, and
threats that the plant would close if the Union came in and that
the employees would thereby lose their jobs.
3. In view of the coercive conduct engaged in by the Re-
spondent prior to the election, we also find that the election
was not an expression of the employees' free choice, and that
it did not represent their free, untrammeled, and uncoerced
wishes as to collective -bargaining representative. Accordingly
we shall set the election aside and direct that another election
be held at such time as the Regional Director determines to be
appropriate.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to
Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the RespondentBlue
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bell, Inc., Natchez , Mississippi , its officers , agents, suc-
cessors , and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, CIO , or any other labor organization, by
discriminating in any manner in regard to the hire , tenure of
employment , or any term or condition of employment , of their
employees.
(b) Interrogating their employees concerning their union
membership and activities.
( c) Threatening to close its plant if a union comes in.
(d) Discriminatorily enforcing a no-solicitation rule, or
other rules.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the
above -named Union, 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 , or to refrain
from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as -a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board
finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Ira Jewel Taylor, Shirley Frederick , and Bettie
Necaise, according to the terms and under the conditions set
forth in "The Remedy" section of the Intermediate Report, im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their respective former or
substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges , and jointly and sever-
ally make them and Willie Lee Smith whole in the said section.
(b) Post at their plant in Natchez , Mississippi, copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Ap-
pendix C."7 Copies of such notice , to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall , after being
duly signed by the Respondents ' representative , be posted by
the Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by them for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondents to insure that the said notices are
not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in
writing within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken in compliance herewith.
7 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner," the words "A Decision and Order." In the event this Order is enforced
by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
BLUE BELL, INC. 519
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election of August 1,
1951 , in Case No . 15-RC-513 be , and it hereby is, set aside,
and that a new election be conducted therein at such time as
the Regional Director determines appropriate.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is , dismissed in all other respects.
Member Rodgers , dissenting in part:
I cannot agree with the majority ' s conclusion that Ira Jewel
Taylor and Bettie Necaise were discriminatorily dischargedin
violation of the Act.
In my opinion , Taylor's record of persistent absenteeism was
a proper and reasonable basis for her discharge. Within a
period of 7 months this employee admittedly absented herself
from work for 35 days --an average of 5 days per month, or
approximately 25 percent of the total working time . Moreover,
immediately before her discharge , she was absent without
leave for a period of 4 days.
In view of this record, and the light treatment accorded it
by the majority , it is difficult to perceive any situation in which
persistent and irresponsible absenteeism can ever be aproper
basis for discharge , once the employee becomes engaged in
union activity.
With respect to Necaise , the preponderance of the evidence,
in my opinion , does not support the majority ' s finding of un-
lawful discharge.
This employee falsely marked as "repaired " items which she
had not in fact repaired. This action on her part was a clear
violation of company rules.
When confronted with this evidence of her misconduct, the
employee stood mute , offering no explanation whatsoever. The
Employer thereupon and with complete justification discharged
her.
Where, as here , the Employer had proper cause for dis-
charging the employee , the majority should not rely on scant
evidence and repeated inference to make a finding which in
essence places the Board in the position of substituting its own
untested ideas of business management for those of the Em-
ployer.
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
The first paragraphs of Weant's letter read:
As you undoubtedly have already heard, the CIO Union
is claiming it represents you and that it is your agent.
We have insisted that the question as to whether this is true
or not true be put to a vote or an election by secret ballot.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Labor Board has ruled that this shall be done. So,
if the Union does not back out, you will very soon have the
opportunity of voting by secret ballot as to whether you do
or do not want this Union to come in here.
The Frederick letter answered these paragraphs as follows:
I am in receipt of your letter of recent date addressed
to all Blue Bell employees , Natchez, plant . Your obvious
contempt for the truth is indicated in the first paragraph
of your letter wherein you stated that "the Company in-
sisted that this issue be settled by a vote in a secret
election ." The record proves that you lied in this state-
ment because I was present at the hearing held by the
National Labor Relations Board wherein your attorney
fought hard to prevent us from having an election. We won
that fight and we are going to win the election.
The next eight paragraphs of the Weant letter asserted and re-
asserted the following concerning the Union : " What they are
after is money--YOUR MONEY." Frederick replied to such
statements by stating in her second paragraph:
You deliberately misrepresented the facts again when
you said that the Union Organizers were "around here"
trying to " get your money"--we, more than 300 Blue Bell
employees , both men and women, asked through a petition
that the union help us in our efforts to get a union set up
at Blue Bell , and for your information we are willing to
pay a reasonable amount in union dues, which of course is
none of your business!
The Weant letter continued further to analyze the claims of
the Union, asserting, e.g.:
And what do these organizers claim they can do for you?
What do they say they can get for you that you do not
already have? As for wages and earnings --you are up
with, and in many cases above , the plants which are our
competitors in this general line of work . That is where
we intend to keep your pay. The policy of Blue Bell has
always been to pay its people the highest wage scale pos-
sible and meet competition.
The Frederick letter countered:
You lied again when you said that "as for wages you are
up with , and in many cases above , other plants in the gen-
eral line of work." I know from personal knowledge that
the garment plants right here in Mississippi under union
contract pay much higher wages, in the union shops the
standards are lower, they have seniority, the workers are
BLUE BELL , INC. 521
not moved around from job to job without regard for their
seniority and pay rate , in the union shops under CIO con-
tracts the company pays for the insurance , the union
employees get at least 4 hours pay when they report for
work and are sent home, they also get several paid holi-
days ( not worked ), the union employees get their griev-
ances settled and most of all they don ' t have to put up
with " the few" who are always runningtothe supervisors,
and getting all the breaks.
The remainder of the Frederick letter contained some harsh
statements, as did the remainder of the Weant letter , but the
portions quoted above contain the statements to which Day
objected.
APPENDIX B
This three page letter contained such statements as the
following:
Most important of all , you will find that in its circulars
the union has not answered , nor even undertakento answer,
most of the matters which we brought up. Our letter
speaks the truth and they cannot answer it . That is why it
has so outraged them. The truth is what defeats the union!
The organizers know that , and that is why they have
started spitting venom instead of sensibly discussing the
facts.
And what is more, they falsify the facts. In one of their
circulars they say that we went to the hearing leading up
to the election and had our attorney to try to keep you
people from having any vote or election at all. On the con-
trary, what we tried to do at the hearing was to get for all
the employees , except supervisors , the right to vote in the
election . While the arrangements for the election have been
in progress , the union has done its best to try to make it
as inconvenient as possible for you people to vote. First,
it wanted the election held downtown in the hopes that only
a few of you would go to the trouble of going down there and
voting. Next , it wanted the voting hours to be narrowly
limited so that many of you wouldn't have time to vote. All
of that we opposed , insisting that the election be held as
near the plant as possible and that the voting hours be as
broad as possible so as to make it just as convenient as we
could for all of you to vote.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 13 , 1951, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , CIO, herein called the Union,
filed with the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, a petition in Case No
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RC-513 for certification of representatives for the employees in a specified unit at the Natchez
Mississippi , plant of Blue Bell, Inc , herein called the Respondent After a hearing on the
Union's petition the Board, on July 11, 1951, directed that an election be conducted among said
employees to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union for the
purposes of collective bargaining Pursuant thereto an election was conducted on August 1,
1951, in which a majority of the voters were against the Union. i On August 6, 1951, the Union
filed objections to the election. On November 9, 1951, the Board's Regional Director for
Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued his report on objections in which he
recommended that the Board direct a hearing on the objections On December 4, 1951, the
Board issued an order directing a nearing on the issues raised by the Union ' s objections.
Previously, on May 9, 1951, the Union had filed with the Board, unfair labor practices
charges against Respondent . Six amended charges were subsequently filed . 2 Upon these
charges the General Counsel of the Board 3 by the said Regional Director issued a complaint
against Respondent dated August 5, 1952, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat 136,
herein called the Act
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended alleged that Re-
spondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees by (a) Interrogating employees
as to their union affiliations or sympathies ; ( b) threatening to shut the plant down if Union
came in; (c) circularizing , sponsoring , or permitting to be circulated petitions which were re-
straining and coercive regarding union activities , (d) attempting to persuade certain employees
to discourage other employees from union membership or activities , (e) ordering employees
to vote against the Union; (f) threatening employees with loss of employment or loss of bene-
fits if Union came in; (g) surveillance of union meetings , (h) referring to the Union as a
"bunch of Communist stool pigeons", ( i) promulgating discriminatory " no-solicitation" rule
and enforcing it in a discriminatory manner ; (j) statements and conversations interfering with
and restraining activity on the part of its employees for the purpose of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection , and interfering with and restraining from membership
and activities among its employees in the Union 4
The complaint further alleged that Respondent discriminatorily discharged or laid off various
employees because of their union activities 5 In its answer Respondent denied committing any
unfair labor practices.
Simultaneously with the issuance of the complaint the Regional Director issued an order
consolidating the hearings on the complaint and the election . Copies of the charges , complaint,
order of Consolidation , andnotice ofhearmgwere duly served upon the parties Pursuant there-
to a hearing was held in Natchez, Mississippi , from September 22 through 27 The General
Counsel and Respondent appeared by counsel and the Union by a representative All parties par-
ticipated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence Counsel declined the opportunity to argue the
issues orally but reserved the right to file briefs A short brief was filed by the General
Counsel-- none by the Respondent.
Upon the entire record of the cases and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
i There were 484 eligible voters. 198 votes were cast for the Union, 258 against There
was 1 void ballot, 6 were challenged.
2 These charges were filed August 27, September 7 and 25 in 1951; and February 18,
March 5, and August 1 in 1952.
3The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel.
4 The complaint was amended at the hearing adding the following allegation:
k. Discharging Foreman Dungan in order to discourage membership in the Union
5 Those named as dischargees were Ellie Murl Delaney, Shirley Frederick, Helen Pepper,
Bettie Necaise, Jewel Taylor, Myrtle Wisner, Sally Turner, Euna Ratcliff, Lois Golman,
and Lamar Felter. Willie Lee Smith was allegedly the laid-off employee.
BLUE BELL, INC.
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
523
Respondent , Blue Bell , Inc , is and has beenduring the period material herein a corporation
duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, and
qualified to do business in the State of Mississippi.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained principal offices in Greensboro,
North Carolina, and New York City, New York, with an office and plant at Natchez, Mississippi,
where it is engaged in the manufacture of work clothing
The Respondent, in thecourseand conductof its business at Natchez , Mississippi , during the
year ending December 31, 1951, which is representative of all times material herein, pur-
chased raw materials , consisting principally of cotton piece goods and thread, of a value in
excess of $ 150,000, approximately 90 percent of which was purchased outside the State of
Mississippi and shipped in interstate commerce to theNatchez , Mississippi , plant . During the
same period Respondent manufactured and sold finished products , consisting of cotton work
clothes, of a value in excess of $200,000, approximately 90 percent of which were sold and
shipped to customers outside the State of Mississippi Respondent admits and I find that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of events
Early in 1951 the Union began a campaign to organize Respondent ' s employees . An initial
meeting was held on February 9 at the home of Geneva Williams, one of the employees An
organizing committee of about 30 employees was established About 10 days later E. W.
Weant, Respondent ' s vice president in charge of manufacturing, whose headquarters are in
Greensboro, North Carolina, arrived in Natchez, Mississippi, spending 4 or 5 days there.
According to his testimony the Natchez plant had not been showing a profit for years During
the period lust prior to his visit management had been concerned about the fact that costs
were going up in Natchez and production going down Accordingly , it was decided to visit
the plant to see what could be done to improve the situation
The testimony shows that Respondent had started production on a new civilian line in late
1950 and had also taken an army contract about the same time These two operations re-
quired considerable changes in machinery and procedures and resulted in a great number of
personnel shifts all of which had a tendency to slow production and increase costs. Never-
theless, it is quite clear, I find, from the testimony of Chief Engineer L. K. Mann and
Weant's own admission , that an important , if not the only reason for Weant's visit to Natchez
was the union campaign which had started shortly before
From the reluctant testimony of Plant Superintendent Hubert Day it appears that plans to
counteract the union threat were discussed at that time by top management. Accordingly,
rules against visiting in the plant by employees were tightned up, individual coke and rest
breaks were abolished in favor of periodic organized rest periods, and all solicitation during
work hours prohibited
The union campaign culminated in an election August 1, which the Union lost by a wide
margin. Weant and the Respondent's president, Morris, were at Natchez shortly before and
during the election. The day before the election speeches were made by Weant and other
officials to the employees over a loudspeaker system in the plant late in the afternoon after
which the employees were allowed to go home being paid for the remaining half hour of the
workday
During the entire period from the beginning of the union campaign until about 6 weeks
after the election the Respondent engaged in various acts alleged by the General Counsel to
have been in violation of the Act.
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Late in March, Ina Lee Barrow was called into Plant Manager Rippitoe's office He told
her, "I guess you know what's going on in our plant and that if a union comes in our plant
I believe there is going to be more hair pulling than can be taken care of. You have lots of
influence and you can get down there and help us out " Barrow replied, "I can't, Mr Rippi-
toe " He said, "Ina Lee, you have been listening to a lot of outside talk . . if you saw a
big black snake coming in the door, Ina Lee, wouldn't you try to do something about it? I
would mean the same " Barrow said, "Mr Rippetoe, if there was a black snake coming in
that door, these people out in the plant are big enough and old enough and some of them are
ugly enough to know what they want, and I couldn't do anything about it." Rippetoe asked,
"and then you can't help us? " Barrow replied, "No, Mr. Rippitoe." As she walked out
Rippitoe said, "any time you get ready to talk to me, Ina Lee, come back "
This testimony is undenied Rippitoe did not testify I credit Barrow and find that Reppi-
toe's solicitation of Barrow's aid in counteracting theunion campaign constituted interference
with the employees' rights and was a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
During the spring of 1951 Rippetoe called several other employees to the office and, with-
in the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, engaged in restraining, coercive, and inter-
fering conduct against them as follows:
1. Rippitoe told Ola Edwards, "Ola, I am not going to ask you if you did or didn't join
the Union," and went on to say, "If somebody told you there was a rattlesnake at your door
you would want them to warn you, wouldn't you? " He also told her she could be of great
help to the Company and asked her how she felt about the Company.
2. Ellie Murl Delaney was asked about the rumors going around the plant. She was also
asked if she had been going to any union meetings. Learning that she was going to one that
night, Rippitoe told her that was her privilege but that it was best to stay away.
3 Zella Lee Tatum was asked, "Zella, has anyone mentioned anything about the Union to you?"
4 Annie Murray was asked in substance what she thought the Union could do for her that
could not be done by the Company after having been told by Rippitoe that he had heard she
was doing a "lot of talking" and asked why she had lost confidence in him.
According to Charlene House's testimony, sometime in March after 6 p. m an old friend,
Bonnie Smith accompanied by the latter's sister, Supervisor Sue Lyons, called on her at her
home Smith asked House if she had signed a union card and learning that she had not done so,
asked House to sign a petition for the Company. House signed At this point Lyons stated that
the Union was a good thing but that Blue Bell was paying as much as it could, that the first
thing a union would ask for was a wage increase accordingly "they would just have to close
the plant down "
Lyons' testimony was that she and her sister had been to town one evening and Smith had
told her she wanted to stop to see House, telling Lyons she would only be a minute and not
telling her what the purpose of her visit was Lyons waited quite a while in the car then
went to the door and asked her sister if she was going to stay all night. Smith said she was
ready to leave They "passed a few words" with House and left Lyons denied that her
sister made any mention of the petition to her and denies the remarks attributed to her by
House Lyons testified that she had visited House at her home several times with her sister
On one occasion she attended a shower at the home of House's mother. I credit House's
testimony and find that Lyons' remark about closing the plant was coercive
I further credit Jessie Lanehart's testimony that Lyons told her in April at Lanehart's
machine that a union might cause them to lose their jobs and close down the plant.
Although denied by Plant Superintendent Day, I find that in the latter part of March Ira
Jewel Taylor, during a discussion with Day about the discharge of Taylor's sister Delaney,
was asked by Day how she stood in the Union Learning that Taylor had not signed a union
card Day told her she was a smart girl--that he liked her and that her work was good.
According to Wisner's undenied and'credited testimony Supervisor Laird asked Wisner in
March (at her machine) what she thought about the Union
I also find contrary to his testimony that Supervisor Roy Smith asked Lamar Felter how
he felt about the Union Respondent violated the act by the foregoing interrogation of its em-
ployees6 and by its threats that the plant would close if the Union came in and that the em-
ployees would thereby lose their jobs 7
6 Standard- Coosa- Thatcher , 85 NLRB 1358 ; Syracuse Color Press Inc., 103 NLRB 1017.
7 Bryan Manufacturing Company, 94 NLRB 1331 , Royal Palm Ice Company , 92 NLRB 1295;
Stokely Foods , Inc v. N L R B , 193 F 2d 736 (C A. 5).
BLUE BELL, INC. 525
According to Lillian Dillingham ' s testimony , about 2 months before the election she was
at her mother 's home with her sister , Supervisor Thelma Rogers , and another sister, Jewel
Prichard , an employee of Respondent also. During a conversation at which her mother and
father were present Rogers made the statement that if the Union came in the plant it would
close--that that was information Rogers had gotten from the Company ' s "higher ups."
In her testimony Rogers denied making the statement . Rogers' denial was corroborated by
the testimony of Mr . and Mrs . R. W. Prichard , the parents in question . In view of Dillingham's
admission on cross-examination that there was a "good deal of hard feeling" between her
and Rogers and, after persistent denials and evasions by Dillingham , that she might have
made the threat to a third party that she was " out to get" Rogers, I credit Rogers' testimony
as to the matter.
A former mechanic , William E . Hill, Jr ., testified that shortly after the campaign started,
his supervisor , Roy Smith , told him and a group of other mechanics " that the plant would
close if (the Union) came in, but it wouldn ' t be from the reason of the Union , they'd have
other reasons ." Smith denied the statement . I credit Hill.
The evidence establishes ,, I find , that Respondent 's tightening of its rules also included a
rule against solicitation during working 'tours . I also find that several of Respondent's me-
chanics and carpenters took the initiative in February and March in getting various employees
to sign an antiunion petition during working hours. The undenied credited testimony of the
General Counsel ' s witnesses , Lanehart , Frederick , Felter , Murray, Delaney , Dillingham,
Turner , and Hill, Jr ., advert to incidents involving themselves or others in which mechanics
Rutherford , Pitts , Jackson , and carpenter Reed solicited employees ' signatures on an anti-
union petition during working hours . Among other places the signing sometimes occurred at
the individual ' s machine , sometimes they were taken to the carpenter shop, or the bins to
sign, on one occasion a whole group was called behind some packing cases by Rutherford
for that purpose . In addition , Hill, Jr ., testified that he had solicited several signatures
himself.
According to Hill's further testimony at the time Smith made the statement that the plant
would close if the Union came in, a group of mechanics were discussing the petition in
Smith's presence . Smith commented that it would necessary to get "a certain amount on
the petition ." Day testified that he had heard a petition was being gotten up to stop the Union
and that he instructed the supervisors to have nothing to do with it ; that if they saw it being
circulated , to stop it whether it was on company time or not.
In his direct testimony Smith denied any such discussion occurring . He did testify, how-
ever, that mechanic Lyonel Pitts called him behind a cabinet one day, pulled the petition out
of his pocket , handed it to Smith and said, "Here , look at this petition ." Smith looked at it,
handed it back and said , that he (Smith) " didn't have anything to do with it, it was his busi-
ness ." He also told Pitts "not to get any names in the plant , not to be caught in the plant
getting signatures ." Smith also testified that to his knowledge he never again saw the peti-
tion.
On cross-examination Smith at first testified that he did not recall any incident when he
saw a group of people in the machine shop with carpenter Reed in the spring of 1951. Then
he admitted he saw employees there with Reed several times . Asked if that was not against
the rules he testified , " I have seen them back with Mr . Reed drinking coffee," and that he
would not say that was against the rules . Explaining his concept of the rules he testified that
"They are free to go anywhere in the plant they please when rest period comes." Although
Smith was the supervisor of the mechanics , carpenters , and oilers , he testified it was not
his job to keep people out of the machine shop or to keep them from talking to carpenter
Reed during rest periods . Yet he testified he did not know when girls were in talking to
Reed whether they were on rest periods or not . Nor did he question them as to whether or
not they were on rest periods.
Several employees testified undenied and credibly for the General Counsel that after the
rules were tightened they were criticized for and prevented from talking to other employees
during working time, or even going to another department during lunch time . Thus it appears
and I find from Wisner ' s testimony that the employees were not allowed to go into another
department during lunch time ; early in March , Shirley Frederick was called to Day's office
and told she would have to eliminate " visiting" on her part completely ; Ira Jewel Taylor
testified that in September , during her lunch period , she was talking to Carolyn Clary at the
latter's machine while Clary was working . Day came over and asked if she had permission
to do so . Learning that she did not he told her that from then on she was to get permission
from both supervisors to talk to another employee working under a supervisor different
than she.
3 37593 0 - ^5 - 31
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel maintains that the mechanics and the carpenters were acting as
agents for Respondent in matters pertaining to the union campaign. On his representation
that such agency would be disclosed I allowed testimony of interrogation of employees by
mechanics as to the employees' union activities and other testimony of illegal conduct by
mechanics if they were acting as Respondent's agents. The record does not establish such
agency. Accordingly, the instigation of the above petition cannot be attributed to Respondent.
Therefore, I find no merit in the General Counsel's allegations that Respondent circularized
or sponsored the petition.
But the preponderance of the evidence does show, I believe, that the Respondent knowingly
and discriminatorily permitted the circularization of the petition. The wholesale open solici-
tation of signatures by the mechanics at a time when the rules had been tightened, and were
being otherwise strictly enforced, shows a disparity of conduct on the part of Respondent
toward the union advocates interfering with the rights guaranteed its employees in the Act--
I so find.8 This disparity is all the more apparent when considered in the light of Respond-
ent's action regarding its employee Willis Lee Smith which appears below.
The union meeting at Williams' home on February 9 broke up about 9:30 p. m. According
to Williams' testimony, standing on the porch at that time with several of the departing
guests, she saw employee Bettie Hughes drive by the house with Plant Superintendent Day
in the car. The porch was located about 25 feet from the street which made a right-angle
turn at the edge of or just beyond her property. There was no street light at the point or
in front of the house but the porch light was on. Williams' testimony was that Hughes was
driving her own car with Day on the front seat beside her. Williams called Shirley Frederick's
attention to the car and occupants.9 The car proceeded past the house on the side of the
street opposite the house and turned the corner. Ten to twenty minutes later the car drove
by again by which time most of the people had left. Frederick was still there when the car
came by again.
On direct examination Frederick testified only that Williams called her attention to Day
driving by the house, and that Frederick thought "there was a lady in the car" but does not
know who she was. On cross-examination she further testified that she saw Day and the car
only once and then changed her testimony to the effect that she saw the car both times it
passed. She also testified that Williams had said Day was in the car but "wanted to make
sure" and asked Frederick "is it? " Then she denied that Williams had indicated any un-
certainty about the matter but later admitted she was not sure of Williams reaction. Frede-
rick was unable to say whether Day was looking toward the house as the car passed. Nor
could she testify that she recognized the driver of the car as a person she had ever seen
before. ii
Day denied the entire incident. i credit Day. Apart from the inherent improbability of being
able to see who was in an automobile at night on the opposite side of the driver from the
point of observation some 30 to 40 feet away, there is such damaging conflict in the General
Counsel's evidence as to make it unacceptable.
Nor, even though I credit Lois Golman's testimony that she saw Supervisor Harold Poin-
dexter standing on the sidewalk on Main Street in Nachez at the Union Hall entrance as em-
ployees came out of a union meeting one evening, do I find that such evidence establishes
surveillance on the part of Respondent.
Sometime during the first half of August, Supervisor Frank Dungan was called into the of-
fice by Plant Manager B. R. Rippitoe who told Dungan he was not being discharged but was
advised to resign. Rippitoe told Dungan the latter's work was good but that Respondent
did not like what was going on in the union campaign; that Dungan had been showing partiality
to the union people and "it was showing up on other employees that were nonunion." Dungan
resigned. I find no violation of the Act on this evidence.
The General Counsel also alleges as a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, statements
made to the employees by management referring to the Union as a "bunch of Communists
stool pigeons." In his brief the General Counsel admits, citing Globe Wireless, Ltd., 88
NLRB 1262 and Editorial "El Imparcial" Inc., 92 NLRB 1795, that the Board has held the
contrary but argues that the Board should be given a chance to review its rulings in this
8 Salant R• Salant Inc , 92 NLRB 417; Jaques Power Saw Company, 95 NLRB 440
9It was only on cross-examination that she testified that she mentioned this matter to
Frederick. Although not specifically saying she mentioned it the first time the car passed
the house the context of her testimony, I find, so shows
ii She testified that she did not know Berrie Hughes by name.
BLUE BELL , INC. 527
regard. I find nothing in the reports to indicate that the Board has changed its view. Accord-
ingly I find no violation here.
C. The discrimination
1. Lamar Feller
Felter worked for Respondent as an oiler . Roy Smith was his supervisor . According to
Felter's direct testimony he joined the Union in March . Sometime in May, about 3 months
after he was hired , Smith called Felter into the shop and started talking to him about the
Union. Smith said that all the mechanics were against the Union and asked Felter to take
the same position . Smith also asked how Felter "was " on the Union telling him that he had
heard that Felter was for the Union . Felter said he had not yet made up his mind. During
this conversation Smith gave Felter a 5-cent an hour raise explaining to him that it was
because his "work was going on good." Asked whether or not anything was said to him about
his work between this time and the election Feller testified , "Not that I remember." His
employment terminated sometime in August.
On cross-examination Felter testified that he quit his job at Smith 's request. At that time
Smith had told him his work was unsatisfactory . Smith did not explain his comment and
Felter did not request an explanation . But Felter did ask Smith if the latter would give him
a good recommendation which Smith said he would do.
Smith testified that when he hired Felter he told him that as an oiler Felter had the oppor-
tunity , if he showed an interest in his work and did a good job, to work up to the position of
mechanic . At the time Smith gave him the 5-cent raise Felter had not shown much progress,
but gave him the raise because as a matter of policy raises were given to new men on the
payroll as long as Felter then had been . He also discussed Felter 's work at the time and en-
couraged him to do a better job. According to Smith's further testimony Felter thereafter
did not show any progress and did a poor job. Two instances were testified to by Smith,
neither identified as to time, in which he criticized Felter about his work . Finally Smith told
Felter that he had shown "practically no progress " and to advise him to quit , that if his
work continued as it was he would never be able to progress to the position of mechanic and
that he would eventually be let out . Felter quit . Although testifying that at the time he was
given the raise , Felter volunteered the information that he was not for the Union. Smith de-
nied any of the other comments about the Union at that time attributed to him by Felter. He
further testified that so far as he knew , up to the time he heard Felter testify, Felter was
against the Union.
While the testimony of both witnesses in this matter is subject to question in some respects,
I conclude and find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Respondent had knowledge of Felter 's union adherence or membership at the
time he was discharged . By Felter 's own admissionhe signed the antiunion petition . According
to him he told Smith he had not made up his mind about the Union . Smith's testimony, which
I am inclined to credit was that Felter told him he was not for the Union . The only evidence
which might support knowledge of his union attitude was Felter's testimony that he associated
with prounion employees . This , without more substantial evidence of knowledge , on the part
of Respondent , is insufficient to support the General Counsel's allegation of discrimination
against Felter.
2. Helen Pepper
Pepper was a native of Great Britain having come to this country as the wife of an Ameri-
can serviceman . She started working for Respondent in April 1950 . During Weant 's first
visit to the plant in early 1951 she had a conversation with him in the office regarding com-
ments he had made pertaining to unionism in Britain . She questioned his analysis of conditions
there telling him what they did have was because of the unions.
Pepper 's work was on sew down curtains . Several other girls were also engaged in the same
operation . Among the regular size bundles requiring this operation were bundles of large
size pants coming from Myrtle Rushing who sewed buttons on the large pants . It is clear
that Rushing had no authority regarding the distribution of these bundles to the curtain girls,
that being the function of the bundle boy.
According to Pepper 's testimony , after the union campaign started she began to get a
disproportionate number of the big bundles , many of them brought to her by Rushing or by
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the bundle boy at Rushing's direction. On the day of her discharge Pepper complained to
Thelma Rogers, her supervisor, about the matter. Rogers told her the bundles had been
coming off another line, that she shouldn't be doing them, that it was unfair and that she
would take it up with the supervisor of the line in question. Pepper thereupon continued
working.
Later, returning to her machine after the lunch recess Pepper found another large bundle.
She picked it up, took it to Rushing, and threw it down. Then Pepper saw Rushing go toward
the supervisor. Soon Rogers came to Pepper's machine, checked her out and took her to
Assistant Superintendent Adams. Adams asked why she had refused work. Pepper told him
she had explained to her supervisor. Adams told her she had no right to refuse work, that
she "hadn't been doing right" and had taken time off without notice. Thereupon she was
discharged.
On cross-examination Pepper testified that the disparity in distribution of the big bundles
was happening to "the other girls too," and that when called into the office she stated she
would not do any more of the large bundles then changed her testimony denying she made
the statement.
It appears that some months previously management had caught Pepper trying to avoid
doing some of her rejects by disattaching the tags identifying them as hers. She was warned
at that time if there was ever again any occasion to call her into the office about her work
she would be discharged. While it could be that Rushing and the bundle boy conspired against
Pepper regarding the distribution of the large bundles, there is nothing to show that Respond-
ent condoned such conduct or was aware of it before Pepper was called into the office about
it. Furthermore, there is considerable doubt from Pepper's own testimony just how real the
disparity, if any was. In any event, based on the entire record about the incident, and in view
of Pepper's previous aberration and warning I find her discharge not to have been discrim-
inatory within the Act but to have been for cause.
3. Euna Ratcliff
Ratcliff had worked for Respondent 2 years during the war and returned about January
1951 at which time she was put on side and inseaming, a new operation to her. During the
war her work was never criticized and she had made production. She joined the Union at
the beginning of the campaign and attended the initial meeting at Williams' house. She also
became a member of the organizing committee and on the day of the election transported
people to the polling place in one of the organizers' cars.
About 3 weeks before the election she was called into Day's office where, in the presence
of her supervisor, Laird, Day asked her if she knew that her unit hour had fallen. She said
that she did, explaining "I haven't been feeling well lately. I can hold my unit hour up until
a little after dinner and then it begins to fall and I can't seem to hold it up--and I have been
having quite a lot of machine trouble lately." Day told her they couldn't keep girls who did
not make a 60-unit hour. Ratcliff said, "I'll do my best and that's all I can do." Day replied
that if she failed to do so he would have to let her go.
On the day of the election Ratcliff obtained a month's leave of absence to have an operation.
At this time she received a copy of her leave slip, which she never read. About 10 days after
starting her leave she learned that she was pregnant and would not have the operation. She
decided to use the remainder of her leave to rest up.
Ratcliff was to have reported for duty on September 3. She had gone to Brookhaven some
75 miles from Natchez to get ner niece to take care of her children intending to be back on
the 2d. Her niece not being home she waited over the 3d and called Day the morning of the
4th to tell him why she hadn't come in the day before. He told her there was no need for her
coming in as they had already terminated her explaining that she hadn't gotten in touch with
the Company in any way to let them know if she was coming back or not. She protested that
she didn't know she was supposed to do so. Day said, "You did know you were supposed to re-
turn to work yesterday morning" to which Ratcliff replied, "sure did," and tried to explain
the circumstances. Day would not listen to her.
Day's testimony supported by a blank copy of a leave of absence request shows that unless
a request for an extension is made prior to the termination of an employee's leave, her name
is removed from the payroll if she fails to return to work. According to Day this policy is
strictly enforced and is automatic. The evidence reveals that on July 20, 1951, Inez Tew
applied for and received a 3-week leave expiring August 13. 'lbw had not reported back for
work as of August 27 and was terminated. Day testified credibly that the reason Tew was not
BLUE BELL, INC. 529
terminated until August 27 was because he was absent on his vacation and did not process
the termination until he returned.
On the record I could hardly hold that Respondent 's action regarding Ratcliff was discrim-
inatorily motivated . While the 2-week difference on the timing of the 2 terminations gave
rise to a suspicion of disparity , Day's explanation is plausible . Furthermore , there is nothing
to show that Tew would have been permitted to resume work had she appeared after her leave
had expired but prior to August 27. Nor is there any reason to believe that Respondent would
have taken any overt action for several days after September 3 regarding Ratcliff had she not
pointed up the issue by her call to Day on September 4.
4. Lois Golman
Golman worked several times for Respondent since 1941 quitting each time . Her last con-
t}nuous employment dated from July 1950 at which time she was on a back -sergmg operation.
She joined the Union and was on the organizing committee . About a month before the election
she passed out union literature in front of the plant before and after work and during the
lunch hour . Rogers passed by her on one of these occasions but made no comment.
According to her testimony , before her last period of employment Golman had never been
called to the office , discharged , or criticized about her work . After February 1951 , Golman
began having an unusual amount of machine trouble . Before the Union came in Golman had
had trouble making production but had no complaints about it On about April 1, however,
she was called in Day 's office and told in the presence of Rogers , her supervisor , that she
was not making a 60 -unit hour and that Respondent would not keep girls who did not make
production . She was also told that she would be given a week to attain production . Golman
did not mention machine trouble to Day at that time . Although she continued to have machine
trouble she did not thereafter mention it to her supervisor.
Golman was 1 of 2 back sergers on her line. The other was also called in Day's office
about her production at the time Golman was According to Golman the other serger's pro-
duction was at best no higher than hers
In May , Golman was again called into the office and warned that she had to get her produc-
tion up. She made no comment nor did she complain about machine trouble . About a week
before she was discharged she was again called in to the office -- this time by Adams. Park-
hurst, who was now her supervisor , was there too. Adams commented that she had not been
making standard , " that he knew she could because she had done so in years past. Golman
pointed out that the production standard was less those days . Adams asked what her pro-
duction was currently . She replied that it was 311 bundles . '2 According to her testimony
that was exactly 60 units or standard . Adams reminded her of her previous warnings and
told her he would give her another week to make production She told Adams she was having
a lot of machine trouble and had to wait for thread - - which was unusual
Golman did not remember if she had machine trouble or not that week . In any event her
production for the week was below 60. On August 30 Golman was called to the office. There
Day told her her grace period was up, that she had not "made it ," to punch out and wait for
her time . Golman refused to punch out but received her time . Golman could not recall if
her serging mate Hazel Plunkett was still working at that time or not.
Powell testified credibly that Golman at the time of her discharge was the lowest of 9
sergers except for a learner who had been hired 10 weeks before and 1 other who was out
at the time and never returned to work. Except for these 2 Golman had been lower than the
others for approximately 4 months . Furthermore , during the last 4 weeks of her employment
she had 25 minutes of machine trouble all of which occurred on the first day of the 4-week
period.
From Powell 's cross-examination it appears that Plunkett was the employee referred to
in his direct examination who was below Golman in production . The week ending August 19
was the last time Plunkett worked. Although the circumstances of Golman's employment,
union activity , and discharge raises a suspicion of illegal discrimination against her by
Respondent , I do not believe that the General Counsel's allegation regarding her has been
established by necessary preponderance of the evidence.
iiA 60- unit hour was standard or as it is sometimes referred to herein "production "
i2 From its context I find this to have been her production for the particular day involved
The record shows , and I find , that production was computed and considered on the basis of
weekly averages.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Considering Golman's previous employment record and the fact that she had always been
a submarginal operator and particularly in view of the warnings (which started long before
Golman passed out union literature at the plant) and the length of time she was given to
achieve production I find her discharge to have been for cause and not discriminatory.
5. Sally Turner
Turner had worked continuously for Respondent from 1945 to the time she was discharged.
She had also worked for Respondent prior to 1945. She testified as follows:
Prior to joining the Union in 1951 she had never been criticized about her production.
Although she was not a speedy, high-unit operator she had made production on her operations
except on the army contract upon which the company wanted perfect work. She, along with
the 6 or 7 other side and inseamers on the army contract, complained to Weant and top
management about the rate on their work. Mann told them they would be given 10 units until
management was able to make studies on the operation which the employees agreed was
fair. As a result of the survey the standard was set at 1/4 of a bundle less but the operators
were required to do their own ripping which they had not been required to do previous to
the study. They were also told that management was now satisfied that they could make
production.
Along in March, Turner began having trouble with her machine skipping stitches. This
continued to the day she was discharged. In April the army side and inseamers were called
in by Mann and told if they did not gain speed it would be necessary to replace them. 13 Turner
complained that her machine was not as fast as it should be and was told it would be checked.
On one occasion the last part of April, Day and Powell were at her machine which was making
unusual noise. Turner called it to their attention. One of them commented, "Well, it does
make a racket," but nothing was done about it. She asked mechanic Rutherford to fix it. He
listened to it and said "Well, if it gets any worse, let me know." and walked off.
Ten days before her discharge she was again called in the office. Day asked, "Sally, why
aren't you getting production? " She replied, "Well, Mr. Day, I just don't know. I just can't
seem to get it. My machine sews bad and those bundles are bad." Day said, "Well, I want
you to get production." She said, "Well, Mr. Day, you don't want me to get it any worse than
I want to get it." He asked, "Sally, do you really want to get it? " She told him she did. Then
he said, "If you want to, you can; I will give you two weeks to get production and if you don't
have it in those two weeks I'll have to let you go."
Turner had worked with her supervisor, Parkhurst, in the 40's as a fellow operator--a
friendly relationship existing between the two at that time. However, according to Turner,
as of March or April 1951 this relationship had changed. Parkhurst then "nagged" Turner
"a lot." As an example of Parkhurst's antagonistic attitude toward Turner the latter testi-
fied about a conversation between the two relating to a mix-up of bundles on the part of some
other employees. Turner made a critical remark about them to Parkhurst. The latter com-
mented, "Sally, nobody is perfect." Turner said, "Yes, I am." Parkhurst retorted, "You are
either ignorant or conceited" and walked off.
Turner was discharged on May 4. The day before she was discharged she lacked on bundle
of production. On May 4, sometime before the afternoon break, Day took Parkhurst into the
office. They were there a "good while" during which the break period started. Turner was
just starting for a coke when she met Parkhurst who told her Day wanted to see her. Day
told her, "Sally, I am sorry, but we are going to have to discharge you." Parkhurst appar-
ently was present at the time. Day told Turner her unit hour was lower than anyone else's.
She denied it. Day insisted. Turner claimed she had had machine trouble all day a day or
two previously and also that she had been getting bad bundles saying that Parkhurst "can tell
you how bad the bundles were." Parkhurst said, "I sewed them, Sally. I could sew them.
Turner said, "Yes, by stretching them and pulling them and taking your time you could sew
them." Parkhurst retorted, "You could sew them; I sewed them."
At this point apparently Parkhurst left. Turner then complained that Parkhurst was picking
on her claiming that she did not treat Turner like she used to and that Parkhurst did not seem
to want to get along with her alluding to the fact that "she even called me ignorant one day."
Day denied that it was so and said that he frankly did not think Turner was trying.
13 Turner also testified on cross-examination that previous to this time they had been told
the same thing by Day.
BLUE BELL , INC. 5 31
There is little conflict between Turner 's and Respondent 's testimony about her discharge.
The only essential difference is Day's testimony that the employees were given a 6-week
trial period with the understanding that the one who showed the least progress at the end of
that time would be displaced . Although testifying that she did not remember such an arrange-
ment Turner did not deny it. I credit Day's testimony in this respect . I also find that at the
time of her discharge Turner had shown the least progress of the group in question.
As in the case of Golman , although the record raises a suspicion that Respondent may
have been motivated by antiunion considerations in its discharge of Turner , I conclude and
find that the allegation has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence . Although
Turner's record as an employee had been better than Golman's she had equal and ample
warnings and opportunity with the other employees to have avoided her discharge. Considering
these repeated warnings and her failure to respond , the circumstances of her discharge would
seem to belie a discriminatory or arbitrary motive on Respondent 's part. Any inference that
Respondent 's purpose was to establish a pretext for Turner 's discharge by such treatment
particularly when control of the factors were left in Turner 's hands is too tenuous to accept.
6. Myrtle Wisner
Wisner started with the Company in 1949 as an inseamer . She was in the group of army
inseamers warned about their production by management in late February or early March
which resulted in the discharge of Turner . She ultimately attained production on that opera-
tion . Wisner testified , by the aid of leading questions , that Day told them that he understood
the side and inseamers "were all on the wrong side of the fence." Whether Day made this
statement in the office or not Wisner could not say nor did she testify when the statement
was made . I credit Day 's denial that he made the statement . According to her testimony she
had never been criticized about her production prior to February 1951.
Wisner joined the Union about the middle of February. At the plant she associated with the
prounion group . During late June or early July she had a union meeting at her residence. For
3 days before the election she ate at the union canteen which was visible from the company
cafeteria . Sometime in March at her machine , according to Wisner 's previously credited
testimony , her supervisor , Laird , commented , " I understand there is a lot of union talk
going around. What do you think about it? " Wisner replied that if it would do any good she
hoped they would get it. Laird answered , "So do I."
The first part of August , Wisner was put on a folder operation . Immediately her production
declined , due, according to Wisner , to the trouble she began having with her machine. Two
difficulties developed with her work on the folder--a great deal of pleating occurred and she
had trouble maintaining proper width margins in the seams . This she attributed to the
improper functioning of her machine of which she complained continually to Laird, the
mechanics , and management . Laird would try the machine , sew very slowly , not do as well
as Wisner , and then tell Wisner she could find nothing wrong with the machine.
On cross-examination Wisner admitted that Rogers also had tried her machine but denies
that Rogers did "fine" testifying that Rogers had to "rip up too ." Wisner at first testified
on cross-examination that she had no recollection of asking any other operator to try her
machine then emphatically denied that Winnie Bell Hall had done so at her request. She
further testified that she had tried sewing on a spare machine with a folder attachment and
had completed a bundle in about an hour which she described as standard. This was con-
tradicted by Mann's uncontroverted and credited testimony that 42 minutes would have been
standard for a bundle.
Two weeks after starting on the folder she was called into the office by Day and Mann and
told that she was not making satisfactory progress , that she would have to make production
or be discharged . According to her Mann at this time asked her to get into some other kind
of work suggesting , perhaps , clerical work. Wisner complained to Day at this time about her
machine . Day asked Laird about the machine . Laird replied that it sewed perfectly.
On October 5, Laird called Wisner to her desk and asked her if she would rather quit than
be fired. Wisner refused to resign although Laird made several requests of her to do so.
Thereupon Wisner was discharged.
Wisner had been a reporter on the plant newspaper from November 1949 until two issues
after she joined the Union . Then Personnel Officer Oliver took her off telling her she wanted
to give others a chance to write . According to Wisner in 1949 the Company allowed employees
21. to 3 months to make production . She also testified she had always made production on
532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
every operation she had ever been on but the folder and that 32 months after she was hired
had sewn samples.
Mann's direct testimony was that the folder operation was introduced in late 1950 or early
1951 and had been under study, with other operations, from the time it was started. It
involved a large number of operators most of whom were low on production. During the latter
part of the summer he and the local plant engineer had spent most of their time on the study
estimating the period as covering at least 2 or 3 months. The conclusion they reached was
that the operators were not trying. The conditions were right and the values were right.
During time studies of an hour's duration the operators would run above standard, yet by
the end of the day they would have fallen below. In all, a total of 7 or 8 operators including
Wisner were terminated according to Mann. This had a stimulating effect on the others so
that gradual increase in efficiency occurred. At the time of the hearing the operation aver-
aged above a 70-umt hour for trained operators.
After the army contract was completed In June, Wisner was put on the folder operation.
She got to about 2/3 of standard and "tended to level off and stay at that level." From her
previous experience and "from all the factors surrounding Mrs. Wisner" it was felt that
she should make standard. Wisner's performance was compared with that of 2 other opera-
tors, Marjorie Henn and Maudie Beasley, who started on the folder at the time she did. For
the 13 weeks she was on the operation, according to Mann's explanation of a chart offered
by Respondent, Wisner was below the others in progress and absolute performance. That her
production "tended to level off" is refuted by the chart. If anything, that conclusion would
be more applicable to Beasley's record than Wisner's.14 Mann admitted that Wisner had
been an above-production operator until she was put on the folder which was the first week
in July. He also admitted that Respondent tries to keep good operators--that operators
below 60 were unacceptable "depending on the circumstances" and that at the time Wisner
was discharged 21 of the folder operators were below 60. Of these, 3 had just been trans-
ferred to the operation that week and 9 "had been fired within the ... three months" pre-
ceding the hearing. Mann denied telling Wisner she ought to find other work
Day's testimony generally corroborated Mann's. He further testified that he discussed
Wisner's production with her individually at least 3 times warning her that she would have
to improve or be let out. Day admitted good operators have been difficult to get "at times"
and that in 1951 Respondent was putting people on as fast as they could train them. He
further admitted that it was preferable to have a person who had been employed a year, if her
work was satisfactory, to taking on a new person they knew nothing about. He also admitted
that no matter how experienced employees may be they occasionally fall below standard,
apparently in explanantion of the "circumstances" referred to by Mann which would account
for keeping below-standard operators it appears from Powell's testimony that of 6 operators
who were lower than Wisner at the time of her discharge all were new employees with total
employment ranging from 11 to 21 weeks, the latter employee having been transferred from
the army operation to the folder operation . Of these, 1 was still employed, 4 quit, and only 1
was terminated.
Both Rogers and Laird testified that they tried Wisner's machine and found nothing wrong
with it. According to Rogers, she had operated that type of folder attachment for about a
year being the first one in the Natchez plant to do so. Laird, on the other hand, had never
operated a folder on a full-time basis but had learned the operation as a part of her super-
visory duties.
Laird testified without denial and credibly that she had worked with Wisner numerous
times trying to help her improve and progress. Two weeks before Wisner's discharge
Laird urged her to improve in performance and told her that Respondent "wouldn't be able
to keep her unless she did show a great improvement, because her unit hour was so low,
and she said she would try."
Winnie Bell Hall testified that Wisner had asked her several times to try Wisner's ma-
chine. Finally she tried it sewing 5 or 6 garments. Hall told Wisner, "Myrtle, just to tell
you the truth, it sews pretty good to me." Wisner shrugged, "Well, I guess its just me "
The head mechanic, Roy Smith, testified that the mechanic or Wisner's line asked him
2 or 3 times to help on Wisner's machine. He would make minor adjustments fixing it to the
14It appears from Beasley's testimony that she was terminated June 27, 1952, for un-
satisfactory progress Beasley also had joined the Union and was a member of the orga-
nizing committee. According to her testimony it was not unusual for girls to be terminated
for unsatisfactory progress prior to February 1951
BLUE BELL, INC. 533
best of his ability . Neither he nor the other mechanics could satisfy Wisner . Smith dented
in effect sabotaging Wisner 's machine. 15
Rogers , Smith , and Hall all testified that the pleating and margin trouble Wisner was
having was the fault of the operator and not the machine attributing the trouble to improper
feeding of the material.
Concluding Findings as to Wisner
As with the cases of Golman and Turner there is an inescapable undercurrent of suspicion
that Respondent 's purpose and motivation was to eliminate Wisner, not because of her
failure to make production or progress but because of her union activity . Here again, how-
ever, I feel the General Counsel has failed to support his allegation regarding Wisner by a
preponderance of the evidence.
There is no doubt that Wisner 's production on the folder was below standard . The weight
of the evidence , I find, supports the conclusion that Wisner 's difficulties were not caused
by the machine but were largely the result of her own limitations . With respect to the con-
flict between the testimony of Wisner and that of Laird, Rogers and Winnie Bell Hall as to
their sewing on her machine and the results they got, I credit the latter. In the face of
Wisner's testimony that she could not recall having asked any fellow employee to try her
machine, her emphatic denial of having so asked Hall did not ring true. Moreover, her
testimony that the supervisors in trying her machine could produce a faulty job yet blandly
tell her there was nothing wrong with the machine and by implication the faulty work they had
just produced seems incredible on its face. Moreover, on the basis of her own testimony, it
would appear that when Wisner tried another machine her production thereon was only about
5 percent better than the production she had reached at the time of her discharge. Mann's
testimony that 6 or 7 other low-folder operators were also terminated , although not detailed,
stands uncontroverted in the record . So does his testimony that as of the time of the hearing
trained operators were averaging above 70 and that the upward trend began with the termi-
nations.
As to comparison of the records of Beasley and Wisner I have this comment: Beasley was
also a union member and, unlike Wisner, was a member of the organizing committee. Nine
months after Wisner's discharge Beasley was also discharged for failure to make produc-
tion. Wisner was given repeated warnings and over 3 months to make production. The
record does not establish that her discharge was discriminatory.
7. Ellie Myrl Delaney
Delaney had worked for Respondent since about 1949 . She was on the union organizing
committee . Her conversation with Rippetoe has already been set forth . According to her
testimony, on Friday afternoon, March 10, just before quitting time she had asked Laird,
who was not her supervisor but who supervised the line next to the one she worked on, if
she could come in to work next day--Laird told her she could if she wanted to. However, the
next day her child was in so she called Laird explaining why she couldn't come in. Laird
told her it was all right. The following Friday she again asked to be allowed to work this
time making the request to her supervisor , Rogers , just before quitting time . Rogers, who
was at her desk writing , gave her assent without looking up. That evening Delaney asked
her brother to tell her sister , Jewel Taylor , to come by the next morning to pick her up.
Taylor never came by so Delaney did not go to work.
The following Monday when she went to punch in Day stopped Delaney at the clock and took
her to the office telling her it would do no good for her to check in. In the office Day told
her he was going to let her go for not coming in to work Saturday. He also reminded her
when she had come back to work at the plant she had begged him to let her come back.
Delaney tried to explain to him. He would not listen but left her in Personnel Officer Oliver's
office for her time. There Delaney told Oliver that she thought Day was discharging her
because she was on the union committee . Oliver thereupon left the office and returned with
Day. Day took Delaney back into his office and told her "not to try to scare hum about the
union." Delaney got her time and left.
15 The General Counsel's witness, William E. Hill, Jr., testified that, although the Company's
policy was to keep repair costs as low as possible, it was their purpose to fix machines to the
best of their ability; that no instructions were issued to do improper work. Their object
was to fix machines so they would stay fixed
5 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On cross-examination Delaney testified that the first Saturday she failed to come in she
called Oliver about it who said it was all right. She also testified that on the second Friday,
mechanic Roy Smith was working on her machine 15 or 20 minutes before quitting time and
asked if she were going to work the next day. She replied that if she were she would use
another machine. She also testified at first that she had already spoken to Rogers about
working. Later she changed her testimony saying she had not yet spoken to Rogers at that
time. She further testified on cross-examination that her ride having failed to materialize,
she called Oliver again and that explanation was accepted. She also admitted that Day had
told her it wasn't true that Taylor was to have picked her up; that Taylor had told him she
knew nothing about it and that on the contrary Delaney was supposed to have picked up
Taylor.
Taylor's testimony about the matter was that the brother had never conveyed Delaney's
request about picking her up that morning, that she waited for Delaney to pick her up,
having driven with her all that week, 16 but finally took her own car and was almost late to
work as a result. At work Rogers asked Taylor why she had not picked up Delaney. Taylor
said she did not know she was supposed to.
Taylor further testified that the following Monday she talked to Day about the matter
asking him why he discharged Delaney. Day told her it was because Delaney failed to come
in the two Saturdays. Taylor explained why Delaney had not come in. Day then said that it
was not only the failures to come in, but that he was going to discharge her anyway, that she
was not showing any progress in her work and "that she was apparently asking for trouble"
that she had been signing girls for the union "had threatened to burn houses down" and had
told other employees that if she were they "she wouldn't work but 40 hours a week."
On direct examination Roy Smith testified that during the last half hour on Friday the 17th
he was working on Delaneys' machine. About 5 minutes before quitting time he asked her if
she would be in to work the next day so as to know if he should finish it that night. Delaney
replied, "No, I won't be here. I work here five days a week and that's enough for anyone."
Later he told Day he had not finished Delaney's machine but would do so in the morning.
Day said he thought Delaney was supposed to be in to work the next day. Smith told Day what
Delaney had said about not coming in. On cross-examination Smith testified he did not
recall nor did he think that Delaney had said that she would not be in the next day if she did
not have a machine to sew on.
Respondent's credible evidence shows that Saturday work was for the purpose of making
up on operations that had lagged so that the subsequent operations would be sufficiently
supplied with a flow of work to avoid layoffs during the ensuing week and provide a smooth
flow of production.
Rogers testified that she had requested Delaney to work on both the Saturdays in questions.
The first Saturday, Oliver had informed her that Delaney had called about car trouble. The
following Friday, assured that Delaney wanted to work, Rogers admonished her to be sure
to come in. The next day about 8:30 Oliver informed her that Delaney had called saying that
Taylor was supposed to have picked her up but did not do so. After speaking to Taylor about
it Rogers reported to Day.
Whether or not Delaney made the flat assertion about not coming in attributed to her by
Smith, and whether or not she asked or was asked to work on the two Saturdays in question,
I believe the record supports the Respondent's position that her discharge was for cause and
not discriminatory as alleged by the General Counsel. I so find. Smith may have misunder-
stood the tenor of Delaney's remark or he may have deliberately misrepresented it to Day.
In any event it seems to me that in piecing together on that Saturday morning the whole
story as it was revealed by Smith, Rogers, Oliver, and Taylor, Day was justified in assuming
that Delaney had deliberately and even untruthfully taken advantage of the Company regard-
ing her rights as an employee. 17
16Delaney testified that normally both she and her sister drove to work in their own cars.
There is no indication in Delaney's testimony that she had driven her sister to work the
previous week in any event, it appears from Taylor's testimony that she and Delaney drove
home from work together on the 17th.
17 In spite of crediting Taylor's testimony as to her conversation with Day about her
sister's discharge I reach this conclusion While Delaney's union activity may have been
in Day's mind when he discharged her, from the record and the tenor of Day's remarks
to Taylor I do not believe that it was the major motive for Day's action. I conclude, there-
fore, that absent any union connection, Day would nevertheless have discharged Delaney
BLUE BELL, INC. 535
8. Shirley Frederick
Sometime in July the Respondent sent a 5-page campaign letter signed by its Vice-Presi-
dent Weant to all its employees setting forth arguments against the Union. The union ad-
herents drafted a reply to this letter. It was addressed to Weant and signed by Shirley
Frederick who volunteered to sign it. The letter was mimeographed and designated copies to
all employees and to the Board. A typed copy was mailed to Weant.
Each of the major paragraphs of the letter was directed to points covered in Weant's
letter. Paragraph 1 commented in part, "Your obvious contempt for the truth is indicated
in the first paragraph of your letter wherein you stated ...," etc. The second paragraph
starts, "You deliberately misrepresented the facts again when you said ...." The third
paragraph begins, "You lied again when you said...." The fourth paragraph reads as
follows:
We know that you take a lot of pride in running sweat shops . You gloat that you don't
have a union in your 23 shops . WHAT YOU FAILED TO SAY IS THAT YOU ARE RAKING
IN THE PROFITS ON OUR SWEAT AND HARD WORK AND PAYING US ONLY WHAT
THE LAW FORCES YOU TO PAY.
On July 23, 2 or 3 days after the letter was sent, Frederick was called into Day's office.
Her testimony was as follows:
The first thing he said, "You are fired," and I asked him why, and he said, "For
disrespect to my office and Mr. Weant," and I told him Ididn't think Mr. Weant had
too much respect for me to send me all that propaganda, and by that time I think Mr.
Mann stepped in and said, "Surely, I guess you know Blue Bell could sue you for this."
And I looked back at Mr. Day then, poor little me, and said, "Give me my time." I
didn't have anything else to say.
Mann testified that Day asked Frederick if she wrote the letter and signed it. Frederick
replied that she did saying, "I called him a liar because he is a liar." Day testified that
Frederick had said, "He told lies in his letter, I answered it." In Mann's words Frederick
was discharged because "Mrs. Frederick had written a letter that showed extreme dis-
respect for my boss. We felt that it would interfere and disrupt normal discipline within the
plant, that we could not afford to let breaches of discipline like that go unnoticed. We dis-
charged her for extreme disrespect to Mr. Weant." The General Counsel contends that
Frederick's discharge was discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. No authority is
cited by either side to support its position.
Although I have been unable to find a case directly in point, an analysis of the cases
bearing on the issue convinces me that Frederick's discharge interfered with rights guaran-
teed employees in Section 7 of the Act and violated Section 8 (a) (3) thereof.
There is no contention that the letter was libelous or otherwise tainted by illegability. The
letter was not a gratuitous act of the Union but a campaign missive made in direct and
specific reply to campaign arguments made by Respondent. It involves no conduct directly
connected with the course of employment or the performance of duties. 18 Although blunt and
forceful it is strictly and obviously a campaign document and essentially no more intem-
perate than arguments advanced against the Union by Respondent. 19
I believe the situation here is analogous to the situation involving the relationship of a
union and an employer in bargaining negotiations. The Board has said in Butcher Mfg.
Corp., 76 NLRB 526, "A frank, and not always complimentary, exchange of views must be
expected and permitted the negotiators if collective bargaining is to be natural rather than
stilted. The negotiators must be free not only to put forth demands and counterdemands, but
also to debate and challenge the statements of one another without censorship, even if, in the
course of debate, the veracity of one of the participants occasionally is brought into question."
18I fail to see how, as contended by Respondent, discipline in the plant would be affected.
Respondent offered no evidence to support its conclusion
19In this connection the credited evidence is that Maudie Beasley had reported to the
Union that Mann had told her the Union "didn't do a thing but tell lies." Beasley so testi-
fied When examined by Respondent's counsel about the matter Mann testified he did not
recall making such a statement to Beasley but was quick to volunteer the assertion, "But
the Union does tell lies." I credit Beasley
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, in the words of the Board in Electronic Equipment Company, Inc., 94 NLRB
62, I conclude that the letter in question involves "no more than a somewhat unrestrained
variety of what is usually accepted as campaign propaganda," and as such was within the
proper bounds of concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act. 20 It follows that
Frederick's discharge was discriminatory within the meaning of the Act.
9. Willie Lee Smith
According to Respondent's evidence Willie Lee Smith was laid off for a 2-week period as
a disciplinary measure for distributing copies of the Frederick letter during working hours
and outside of working hours. Not only the distribution of the letter itself, but the contents are
ascribed as reasons for Respondent's action.
Smith testified that on the day of her layoff, July 23, she had been passing out copies of the
Frederick letter from about 6:30 a. m. to about 6:50 a. m. Realizing that "they" had been
watching her activity she went to her machine a few minutes before 7 to make sure that "I
was going to be at my machine and ready to go to work when 7:00 o'clock whistle blew, which
I was." A couple of minutes after the whistle blew Day came over and said, "Willie, I
understand you are handing out some letters." Smith admitted it. Day said, "You know
that's against the rules" and took her over to show her the rules. About 55 minutes later
Smith was called to Day's office. There Day told her, "Willie, you know as well as I do this
is against the rules, I can terminate you on this. Right now I am just going to give you a
discharge for two weeks." Smith asked Day if he saw her handing out the letters. He told
her no. She then asked who told him. He replied that the supervisors had observed her.
Smith testified that at no time did she pass out the letter on work time.
Day testified that about 10 minutes before work commenced "the operator" came to him
and told him that Smith was passing out some kind of literature in the plant. About that time
a supervisor also gave him the same information. Day then spotted Frederick "all the way
across the house from where she worked." He "kind of kept an eye on her," but "didn't
see her pass out any" himself.
After the horn sounded at 7 o'clock Day went to his office. In about 5 minutes an operator
came in and told him Smith had given Mae Belle Prichard "some kind of circular" Day
asked if it had occurred after the horn had sounded the starting time and was told it had.
The name of that operator was Frances Scott. She testified that about 5 or 6 minutes after
work started she saw Smith, standing at her machine facing the machine behind her, take a
folded piece of paper out of her pocket and hand it to the girl at the other machine. Scott
testified that the missive was a copy of the letter in question. Instead of discussing it with
her supervisor, Scott immediately went to Day with her information. It is obvious that at
this point Scott had no way of knowing what the paper in question was. Moreover her explana-
tion of how she knew what the paper was is incredible on its face. 2i
In any event, even if I were to credit Respondent's version of the incident, which I do not,
I would find that in view of the disparity of the treatment accorded the mechanics regarding
the petition circulation, the action here taken against Smith was discriminatory within the
meaning of the Act. Respondents contention that the subject matter of the letter itself made
its action privileged is disposed of by my conclusions regarding Frederick.
10. Ira Jewel Taylor
According to Taylor's testimony she had started with Respondent in 1949 setting and
closing hip pockets, had a break in employment, and returned to work early in 1951 on the
20Cf. N. P Nelson Iron Works, 98 NLRB 1270 cited by the Board in Electronics Equip-
ment case supra where the Union circulated an election statement accusing the employer
of "cheating" the employees, called him a "bully" and another unspecified name described
in the circular as a "five letter unprintable word."
2iShe testified on cross-examination that the recipient did not show her the paper but had
come into the restroom when Scott was there. Scott testified that the woman "went in the
place there " When she came out Scott went in. It was Scott's testimony that before the
woman had gone in, the letter was not there but was there when the woman came out Scott
would have had to have gone in "there" twice. There is no showing that she did so Her
only testimony was that she went in after the other woman had been "in there."
BLUE BELL, INC. 537
same operation. 22 Her conversation with Day the Monday after the discharge of her sister,
Delaney, has been set forth. At that time, it will be recalled that Taylor had not yet joined
the Union which fact caused Day to say she was smart He also told her at that time that he
liked her and that she did her work well.
Shortly thereafter Taylor joined the Union. The latter part of March, after joining the
Union, Taylor asked mechanic Alva Jackson at her machine during working hours if he was
for the Union. He replied that he was not but knew that she was. Moreover, he said he
could name the people on the union committee and proceeded to name several.
About the middle of September Tayjpr was called into Day's office and asked what had
happened to her unit hour. She told Day it had dropped to 42 because she had had a lot of
machine trouble and rejects. Day told her she shouldn't be getting rejects back and could
not be missing any more work Then he added, "And some of the girls have been telling me
that you have been getting the names and addresses down" and asked why. Taylor told him
that Mr. Knight 23 wanted them. Day replied that the union drive was over and that they
might as well go back to work. This testimony being undenied, I credit Taylor
Taylor had never been called in about 1 day's production before. Admitting that her
production may have dropped on occasion she testified credibly that she had always main-
tained production on the weekly average. Furthermore her production was acceptable after
Day talked to her on this occasion.
Late Sunday afternoon on October 7, Taylor learned of the death of an uncle at Columbia,
Mississippi. She left immediately for Columbia telling her husband to call the plant the next
day to inform them that she would be absent several days. The services were on Tuesday
evening. Because her mother was living alone in Columbia, Taylor stayed with her the
following day. On the 11th Taylor returned to Natchez and went to the plant at about 10 a. m.
There she told Oliver the reason she was gone so long. Oliver told her that Day had said
the funeral was only 1 day so not coming in they had already terminated her.
Day testified that between February 13 and October 1 Taylor had missed 30 days of work
some excused, some not. Her absenteeism thus is advanced as the reason for her discharge.
In addition, Day testified that neither Taylor nor anyone else called him about her absence
for the funeral. Taylor's husband testified that he called the plant Monday morning and
talked to some woman whom he assumed was Oliver and who said it was alright. Oliver did
not testify. On the basis of this record and on the basis of Oliver's remark to Mrs. Taylor
that Day had said the funeral was only 1 day thus resulting in her discharge before she
arrived at the plant that Thursday morning, I find that Taylor's husband did call as he
testified and that Day was aware of the reason for her absence before she was terminated.
No absentee records were introduced regarding Taylor or any other employee.24 On
cross-examination, however, Day admitted that other employees had been absent "some"
and that Sylvia Lazarus "probably" had been absent 2 days a month and that this "could"
have been going on for years with respect to Lazarus.
While the above testimony does not establish a clear cut disparity of treatment with
respect to Taylor's absenteeism, it does raise a question as to the seriousness of the penalty
she received for it. That Respondent must have had a great deal of absenteeism is reflected
by Day's testimony that, "I know when we have girls who are constantly out, because I
check the absentee reports with the supervisor every day and I do know who is out."
Considering Day's early approbation of Taylor as an employee when it was clear she
was not in the Union and her acceptable production record it would seem that her absence
at her uncle's funeral was a tenuous and inept excuse to justify her discharge. It seems
inconceivable that she would have been denied the leave had she been in position to request
it before leaving for Columbia. Day's uncredited denial of receiving her husband's report
22 It appears that Taylor got a pregnancy leave in 1950 returning to work in February
1951 She worked 2 or 3 days and got an additional 2 or 3 weeks' leave.
23A union organizer
24Day attempted to read a summary of Taylor's record on the witness stand. The General
Counsel objected on the grounds that the original records were the best evidence and that
he was entitled to the Company's records While Respondent's counsel offered to make
Taylor's records available, they were not then in the courtroom and I sustained the ob-
jection. Day was permitted, however, to read his summary and testify from his memory
which he did. There is no indication that Day's memorandum contained absentee dates
regarding other employees. Nor was any direct testimony offered by him regarding ab-
senteeism of other employees.
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about his wife's bereavement and expected absence so implies. Moreover, Taylor's absentee
record, which she did not deny, was admittedly partially excused. Furthermore, it occurred
at a time when she was adjusting her life to a new baby. Recognizing that that personal
circumstance or lack of culpability makes employee inefficiency hardly more acceptable
to an employer, there is evidence in this record that such things were taken into considera-
tion by Respondent in other situations. 25 The preponderance of the evidence as to the cir-
cumstances of Taylor's discharge considered in the light of Day's discovery that she was
working for the union cause convinces me that her absenteeism was largely a pretext for
her discharge and that the real reason was her union activity. I so find.
11. Bettie Necaise
Necaise testified that she started with Respondent in June 1950 as a seat seamer--a job
she held until she was terminated August 28, 1951. She was a member of the organizing
committee. Two days before the election she was called to Day's office and accused of
"threatening'' the colored employees which she denied. Day apparently did not mention the
election nor make any explanation of the charge. Although she testified that she did not know
what he was talking about, she told Day, "They're old enough to know what they want" Day
admonished her that if he heard any more rumors like it it would mean her job.
On August 27 Necaise was put on samples by her supervisor, Geneva Parkhurst. She
finished the samples about 3:05 p. m., and then commenced working on a bundle of her
rejects that had come to her some 10 minutes previously. She finished what she could of
the rejects by quitting time stacking the finished rejects on her rack in one pile and placing
the unfinished rejects in a pile adjacent.
The next morning she was unable to find the unfinished rejects although the completed
ones were still where she had placed them the day before. When Parkhurst came down the
line Necaise told her the unfinished rejects had disappeared. Parkhurst made no reply.
Necaise then resumed work. About 9:30 Necaise was called to Day's office. Parkhurst and
Supervisor Daisy Kyzar were there. So also were the unfinished rejects. Day asked, "Do
you call yourself fixing these rejects9 " showing them to her one by one. Necaise did not
answer. Day said, "We can't tolerate a thing like this. I am going to have to let you go."
Necaise was silent except for the statement that she would not wait for her check which they
could mail to her along with a statement as to why she was being fired. Necaise further
testified that she had never been called into the office before and that she rarely took a rest
period, usually knocking off only for lunch.
Day's testimony was that upon instructions to improve quality, he and other officials had
been checking work for several afternoons after hours at various stages of the operation
all over the plant. On the 27th they had been checking the work on Necaise's line and had
looked through her rejects "to see if they had been repaired, because the tickets were
checked as being repaired, and we looked to see if they had been repaired and if they were
being repaired properly." Out of 26 rejects they found 16 that had not been repaired or had
not been properly repaired. They left them where they were.
The next morning Day told Parkhurst "to ask all the girls up and down the line to fix
their rejects if they hadn't fixed them." He further testified that Parkhurst did so and that
when she mentioned it to Necaise the latter stated she had them all repaired but 2 or 3.
Parkhurst told her to be sure and fix them all and later checked again with Necaise who
informed her that "she had repaired them and put them in the reject bin."
The next thing Day did was have "the supervisor to get the bundle boy to bring some into
(his) office. That was about 8:00 o'clock." He wanted to look them over to see if they had
been fixed. Examining them he found the same 16 rejects they had inspected the night before--
still unrepaired. As soon as he could get around to it that morning he had the supervisor
bring Necaise to his office where he showed her the rejects one by one asking her if that
was the best she could do on fixing rejects. Necaise offered no explanation.
Mann's testimony confirms Day's as to the inspection of the rejects the night before
adding, however, the admission that he had seen operators make out and ticket their rejects
before working on them and that if they did them that way it could hardly be called breaking
a rule.
25 In explaining the drop in production of one of the operators who was low in production
among the side and inseamers Mann testified "but she was having some problems of a
personal nature that she had discussed with her immediate boss "
BLUE BELL , INC. 539
Parkhurst 's testimony in general corroborates Day's , revealing however, some signifi-
cant discrepancies . She testified that about an hour after work started she asked Necaise
if she had finished her rejects. Necaise replied that she had finished all but 2 or 3. Park-
hurst asked if she would stop right then and do them , Necaise said she would . About 30 or
40 minutes later Parkhurst again inquired of Necaise if she had finished the rejects . Necaise
replied that she had and had put them in the reject bin. Sometime later Day took Parkhurst
into the office and showed her Necaise's rejects . Parkhurst looked them over . They were in
bad shape. Necaise was then brought into Day's office.
Parkhurst was unable to say just how the rejects got into Day 's office.
On the basis of the discrepancies between the testimony of Parkhurst and Day and on the
basis of Day 's evasiveness on the witness stand I have no difficulty in crediting Necaise's
version . At the outset it is apparent that the matter of Necaise 's rejects was not a Helen
Pepper situation where an attempt was made to destroy the identification of the rejects so
as to avoid responsibility for them . Furthermore , considering the type of imperfections
involved in some of the rejects, 26 simple logic requires the conclusion that Necaise could
not have thought that simply by ticketing them as repaired they would pass inspection. Since
she made no attempt to conceal her responsibility for them she must have known they would
be returned to her. 27
Although Day testified he had the supervisor tell the bundle boy to bring in some of the
rejects Parkhurst was unable to say how they got to Day's office . Moreover , it was not
until at the very time Day had allegedly asked Parkhurst to send in the rejects , that Park-
hurst had her first conversation with Necaise about them , learning , according to Parkhurst,
that Necaise still had some to repair. Another circumstance from which I draw an inference
adverse to Respondent 's position is its failure to put the bundle boy on the stand or to
explain its failure to do so . There is no showing that Necaise was a marginal or submarginal
operator . Indeed a contrary inference is compelled by her having been chosen to work on
samples the day before.28
Having found that Necaise had handled her rejects in the manner she testified , it is obvious
that the only criticism that could be leveled at her was placing repaired tickets on them
before they were repaired . While this may have been in technical violation of the rules it is
apparent from Mann 's testimony that the practice was condoned . Having rejected Respond-
ent's version of the matter , I also reject as a defense to Necaise 's discharge, the facts as
I find them to have been . I conclude and find therefore that here again , Respondent was
attempting to utilize a pretext to cover its discriminatory purpose of eliminating an em-
ployee undesirable because of her union adherence.
The Objections to the Election
The Board 's order of December 4 , 1951 , directing a hearing on the Union 's objections to
the election in case No . 15-RC-513 does not direct that findings , conclusions , or recom-
mendations shall be made . Accordingly I make no findings , conclusions, or recommendations
with regard to the validity of the Union 's objections . Model Mill Company , Inc. 103 NLRB
1527.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with
the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close , intimate , and sub-
stantial 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.
26 Day testified that 3 pairs of pants had hip pockets sewn into the seat seam.
27 Necaise impressed me as an intelligent person.
28 The tenor of Respondent 's testimony is that it makes no effort to put the better operators
on sample work. Parkhurst testified that her picking Necaise to do samples was no tribute
to Necaise ' s ability , explained that as supervisor of the line for only about 3 weeks she knew
nothing about the girls , and had in effect picked Necaise at random because she "didn't
know which one did the best work and which one didn't "
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having laid off Willie Lee Smith and having discharged Bettie Necaise, Ira
Jewel Taylor, and Shirley Frederick because of their union activities , I recommend that
Respondent offer to each of the latter 3 immediate and full reinstatement to her former or
a substantially equivalent position29 without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and
privileges and make each of the 4 above -named employees whole for any loss of pay she
may have suffered by reason of Respondent 's discrimination against her, by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would have earned as wages from
the dates of the discrimination againstthem , tothe date they were reinstated or the date when,
pursuant to the recommendations herein contained , Respondent shall offer them reinstate-
ment, less the net earnings of each during said period . 90 Loss of pay shall be determined by
deducting from a sum equal to that which these employees would normally have earned for
each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings, if any , in other employment during that
period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for
any other quarter. The quarterly periods described herein shall begin with the first day of
January, April, July, and October. 31 It is recommended further that Respondent make avail-
able to the Board , upon request , payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking
of the amount of back pay due. 32
Because of the Respondent 's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and tendency, I
find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to other unfair labor prac-
tices proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from
the course of the Respondent 's conduct in the past.33 The preventative purpose of the Act will
be thwarted unless the order is coextensive with the threat . In order, therefore , to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor
practices , and thereby to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I will recommend that Respondent cease and
desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Blue Bell, ,Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Bettie Necaise,
Ira Jewel Taylor, Willie Lee Smith, and Shirley Frederick, thereby discouraging member-
ship and activity in the above-named Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
4. By interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, by threatening to
close its plant if the Union came into it, by discriminatorily enforcing a no-solicitation rule
and by other acts Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
29 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65
NLRB 827.
30 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440,497-8; RepubhcSteel Corporation v. N L. R B.,
311 U S. 7.
3iF. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
32 F W. Woolworth Company, supra.
33N. L R. B v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U. S. 426.
BLUE BELL, INC. 541
6. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging Ellie Myrl
Delaney, Helen Pepper, Myrtle Wisner, Sally Turner, Enna Ratcliff, Lois Golman, and Lamar
Felter.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our employees in Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, CIO , or any other labor organization , by discriminating in any
manner in regard to their hire , tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union membership , sympathies,
or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant if a union comes in.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily enforce a no-solicitation rule or other rules.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to join or assist the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America , CIO, to form, join , or assist any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection , and to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in .a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Ira Jewel Taylor, Shirley Frederick, and Bettie Necaise immediate
and full reinstatement to their respective former or substantially equivalent positions
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and jointly and severally make them and Willie Lee Smith whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining,
members of any labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
BLUE BELL, INC.,
Employer.
Dated . ..... .......... By............................................................................................. .
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
337593 0 - 55 - 36