Burson Knitting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1940

19 N.L.R.B. 806 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

I ti the Matter of BunsoN KNITTING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, BRANCH 64
Cases Nos. C-733 and R-807.-Decided January &9, X940
Hosiery Knitting Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: supervisors
interrogating employees regarding their satisfaction with working conditions at
start of organizing efforts; attending employees' organizing meeting; circulating
statements for signature by employees indicating withdrawal from union ; mak-
ing hostile remarks to union-Company-Dominated Union: originated by super-
visor coincident with initial organizing of "outside" union; solicitation by super-
visors during working time; incorporation by supervisors under terms vesting
control in incorporators ; only meeting held in plant; clues collected by foremen ;
income arranged from plant vending machines ; disestablished, as agency for
collective bargaining-Contract: with company-dominated union abrogated-
Discrimination: charges of, not sustained-Remedial Order: cautionary order:
reinstatement of three employees by seniority on account of discrimination
arising from employers' unfair labor practices-Investigation of Representatives:
petition for dismissed without prejudice on account of lapse of time since filing.
Mr. Jack G. Evans, for the Board.
Fyffe cC Clarke, by Mr. John Harrington, of Chicago, Ill., for the
respondent.
Mr. Leon M. Despres, of Chicago, Ill., for the Hosiery Workers.
Mr. Edward S. Foltz, Jr., of Rockford, Ill., for the B. E. A.
Mr. Joseph Forer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges 1 duly filed by American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, Branch 64, herein called the Hosiery Workers, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the
Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois),
issued its complaint dated April 11, 1938, against Burson Knitting
Company, Rockford, Illinois, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
' The original charges were not made a part of the record herein.
19 N. L. R. B., No. 86.
806
BUdiSOV IKNITTING O01'CPANY 807
(3), and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor(2).
Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the com-
plaint and notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent
and upon the Hosiery Workers. On April 16 , 1938, the respondent
filed its answer to the complaint . On April 20, 1938, the Regional
Director issued an amended complaint alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( 1), (2), and ( 3) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7 ) of the Act.2
On April 20, 1938, the Hosiery Workers duly filed with the
Regional Director a petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the
respondent , and requesting an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 ( c) of the Act. On April 23, 1938,
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article II,
Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2 ), of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, or-
dered an investigation , authorized the Regional Director to conduct
it and to provide for in appropriate hearing upon clue notice, and
further ordered that the two cases be consolidated and one record
of the hearing be made.
Pursuant to notice of hearing and continuance thereof, a hearing
was held in Rockford , Illinois, on April 21, 22, and 23, 1938 , before
Peter F . Ward, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.
At the commencement of the hearing , Burson's Employees Associa-
tion,3 herein called the B. E. A., was granted by the Trial Examiner
leave to intervene . The respondent , the Hosiery Workers, and the
B. E. A. acknowledged service of the amended complaint and of the
petition , and waived notice of the hearing upon said petition and of
the order providing for the consolidated hearing. Counsel for the
B. E. A. requested and was granted permission to- file an answer to
pertinent allegations of the amended complaint subsequent to the
close of the hearing, which answer appears of record herein.
Regarding the unfair labor practices , the amended complaint al-
leged , in substance , that the respondent ( 1) dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the B. E. A., a labor organ-
ization of its employees , and contributed support thereto; (2) dis-
couraged membership in the Hosiery Workers by discharging Wil-
liam Middleton , Leo Naughton, and George Smith on account of
their membership and activity in the Hosiery Workers; and (3) by
2 At the hearing , pursuant to statements of record by counsel for the respondent, - the
answer of the respondent was permitted to stand as an answer to the amended complaint,
without modification.
3 The name of the Association appears variously in the record. We adopt the form used
in Its articles of incorporation.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the foregoing and other acts interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act. The respondent's answer to the complaint denied the
unfair labor practices. The answer of the B. E. A. denied that the
respondent dominated or interfered with the formation or admin-
istration of the B. E. A., denied that the respondent contributed sup-
port to the B. E. A., and further denied the allegations relating to the
alleged discriminatory discharges.
The Board, the respondent, the Hosiery Workers, and the B. E. A.
were represented by counsel at the hearing, participated therein, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made a number
of rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
After the hearing the Hosiery Wo^ker,s submitted a bi-ief, aiid
thereafter, on June 25, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Inter-
mediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties.
The Trial Examiner found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and
desist from the unfair. labor practices so found, and take certain
affirmative action of remedial nature, including, reinstatement with
back pay of Middleton, Naughton, and Smith. The respondent filed
exception,s to the conduct of the hearing and the Intermediate Report,
and a brief in support of the exceptions. The Hosiery Workers filed
a reply brief, to which in turn the respondent replied with a brief.
The Board has considered the exceptions and the briefs and, in so
far as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions,
and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE 13USINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 4
Burson Knitting Company is an Illinois corporation having its
principal office and plants in the city of Rockford, Illinois, where it
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various kinds of hosiery
and knitted scarfs. The respondent has sales representatives whose
4 The facts set forth In this section were stipulated to by the respondent and counsel for
the Board.
B.JRSON 1NIrT1NG GO\[PAN'Y 809
activities cover the entire country, with offices at Chicago, Minneap-
olis, New York City, and Boston. During 1937 the respondent
purchased yarns (cotton, lisle, wool, silk, and rayon), dyes, chemicals,
paper boxes, and miscellaneous items, representing a total cost of
$457,454.24. Of this amount, $359,674.23 was accounted for by goods
shipped to the respondent's plants from points in Rhode Island, New
York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Kentucky. Some of the dyes were shipped from England, Germany,
and Switzerland. During 1937, the respondent's sales aggregated
$896,166.26, representing about 200,000 dozen pairs of hose. Of the
total sales, $608,607.25 represented shipments from the respondent's
plants to points in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky,
Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, California,
Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch 61, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Textile Workers Organizing Com-
mittee 5 and through it with the Committee for Industrial Or-
ganization.' It admits to its membership hosiery production and
maintenance workers in Rockford, Illinois.
Burson's Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation incorporated in Illinois, admitting to its membership employees
of the respondent only.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Sometime prior to May 9, 1937, Leo Naughton and George Smith,
then employed as knitters by the respondent, asked an American
Federation of Labor representative named Collins to assist them in
organizing their fellow workers. Collins telephoned the respondent's
office and spoke to William H. Rank, superintendent of knitting,
who referred Collins to Delos E. Prescott,•the respondent's secretary-
treasurer and general manager. Prescott, however, was absent.
Naughton and Smith then turned to another of the respondent' em-
ployees, Ray McGee, who sent them to his brother-in-law, an organizer
for a furniture workers' union. The organizer, Naughton, and Smith
then participated in making arrangements for a mass meeting of
textile workers.
5 Now by change of name Textile Workers Union of America.
Now by change of name Congress of Industrial Organizations.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This meeting was held on May 9, 1.937, in Good Templars Hall,
Rockford, and was attended by employees of several local textile
manufacturers. George Stewart, secretary-treasurer and business
manager of United Furniture Workers Local Union No. 707, acted
as chairman and secretary of the meeting. After a discussion of
wages and working conditions in some of the Rockford textile plants,
a motion was carried to hold a second meeting on May 15. A com-
mittee of six persons, named to prepare for and popularize this
meeting, included four of the respondent's employees, Naughton,
McGee, William Middleton, and Florence Lindsay.
Between the hours of 6 and 7 a. m. on May 13, 1937, Middleton
distributed approximately 200 handbills announcing the projected
meeting of May 15 in front of a, plant located a block from the
respondent's plants. Some employees of the respondent received
these handbills. At 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Middleton went to
work in the respondent's plants. Within his first working hour his
foreman, Henry Ferdinand, told Middleton to shut down his ma-
chines, after which Superintendent Rank took Middleton to Pres-
cott's office, leaving him there with Prescott and W. S. Parker, a
stockholder of the respondent and apparently Prescott's advisor.
These two interrogated Middleton on his attitude regarding working
conditions, rates of pay, and the respondent's bonus system and group-
insurance plan. Middleton expressed his dissatisfaction with the
matters raised.
On or about the same day, knitters Fred Soderbloom and Oscar
Magnuson, of whom at least the former had attended the meeting of
May 9, were separately called to the respondent's office for similar
discussions with Prescott. Soderbloom was asked if he had any
grievances against the respondent, how long he had been employed,
and similar questions. Magnuson was asked if he was satisfied with
his work.
The meeting of textile employees occurred as planned on May 15,
1937. Henry Ferdinand, the respondent's night foreman, and Assist-
ant Superintendent Persson were seen at the meeting by several em-
ployees. Middleton testified that Rank and Werner Sandell, a knit-
ting foreman, were also present, and his testimony in that respect
was not contradicted. We find that Ferdinand, Persson, Rank, and
Werner Sandell attended the meeting.
About May 21, 1937, Carl L. Linker, an organizer for the Hosiery
Workers, began active organizational work in Rockford. The Hosiery
Workers, which had been inactive since the time it was chartered in
1.933, was reconstituted, and in June 1937, its membership elected
officers and appointed committees. On July 1 Linker and a commit-
BURcO\ KNITTING COJMPPANY 811
tee of the Hosiery Workers began a series of conferences with Pres-
cott, Parker, and R. S. Williams, the respondent's vice president.
The second of these conferences was scheduled for July 9, 1937. Dur-
ing that day, Foreman Werner Sandell circulated among the respond-
ent's employees while they were at work statements to the effect that
the signers withdrew from the Hosiery Workers and understood
that they would not be discriminated against by the respondent.
In some instances, Sandell accompanied his requests for signatures
with remarks hostile to the Hosiery Workers. Thirteen of the em-
ployees signed these statements. A similar statement was circulated
among women employees of the respondent while they were at work
and was signed by 44 of them. Sandell gave the signed statements
circulated by him to Persson, assistant superintendent, and the state-
ment signed by the women was turned over to L. R. Sandell, an assist-
ant superintendent, by Stewart Walker, foreman of the hemming
department, who told Sandell that it had been given to him by the
first signer.
The record clearly shows that Werner Sandell is a supervisory em-
ployee of the respondent exercising the normal functions of a fore-
man, although without the powers of hiring and discharging. His
activities are attributable to the respondent.
We find that the respondent, through the actions of its supervisory
employees in (1) interrogating Middleton, Soderbloom, and Mag-
nuson regarding their satisfaction with working conditions at the
start of organizing attempts by its employees; (2) attending the
organizing meeting of May 15, 1937; (3) circulating for signature by
the employees. statements indicating withdrawal from the Hosiery
Workers; and (4) making remarks hostile to the Hosiery Workers,
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Domination o l the B. E. A.
As has already been seen , the second meeting of the textile work-
ers was held on May 15, 1937 . The initial steps in organizing the
B. E. A. began promptly afterwards. On May 18 Axel Larson, fifth-
floor foreman, Paul Ba.tutis, foreman in the winding room, and Sam
Bruneni, a knitter, began soliciting the respondent 's employees while
they were at work to sign ' papers headed "Burson 's Employees Asso-
ciation:" To some employees Larson, Bat.utis, and Bruneni repre-
sented that the projected association was to have purposes of a social
nature only ; to others , they admitted that.. it was to be a labor organi-
zation. The women working in the pairing department went in turn
to the foreman 's desk to sign the papers in the presence of Foreman
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Batutis. The papers were signed by a large number of the respond-
ent's employees, includingeahnost all of its supervisory personnel.
Rank, one of the supervisors who signed, informed Prescott of
the solicitation then going on, but Prescott took no steps other than
to advise Rank that because of the Act wage deductions would be
made for the time lost by the men passing around the papers. The
deductions were made. Some weeks after the papers were first cir-
culated, Larson on several occasions approached employees while they
were at work and asked their to sign B. E. A. membership cards.
On May 21, 1937, seven of the respondent's employees executed
articles of incorporation for the B. E. A. The incorporators included
Foremen Larson and Batutis and knitter Bruneni. The other incor-
porators, Leo T. Colloton, Mathilda F. Shatters, Esther N. Lind, and
Louella V. McDonald, were all supervisory employees of the
respondent.
On June 4, 1937, a B. E. A. meeting was held in the respondents
machine shop. This was the only meeting of the organization held
until the time of the hearing. Foreman Larson testified that the
meeting, as well as formation of the B. E. A., was his idea, and that
use of the machine shop was undertaken on his own responsibility.
The respondent's employees were notified to attend the meeting by
supervisors, including Assistant Superintendent Persson and Fore-
man Werner Sandell. Some of the, women employees were permitted
to leave work before the end of their shift in order to attend. Ap-
proximately 200 of the respondent's employees came to the meeting,
at which Edward S. Foltz, Jr., attorney for the B. E. A., read its
constitution and bylaws.
The B. E. A.'s articles of incorporation provide, in part, for vest-
ing the organization's management in a board of directors, which for
the first year of corporate existence shall consist of the incorporators.
Its constitution and bylaws make a similar provision, and also stipu-
late that the corporation's officers are to be elected annually by the
directors' from their own number. Directors are elected fora 1-year
term, and can be nominated only by a committee chosen for that
purpose by the incumbent board of directors or by 25 members of the
Association who file nominations not less than 7 days before the elec-
tion meeting. Voting for directors must be by acclamation. Pro-
vision i's made for an annual meeting; other meetings can be called
only by the board of directors or on the written request of 50 mem-
bers of the Association.. Membership is open to any person who has
been employed by the respondent for a period of 1 month. The con-
stitution and bylaws may. be 'amended only by a vote of five of the
seven directors at a meeting at which all directors are present, fol-
BUR^oN K--\ rTTI\G COMPANY 813
]owed by ratification by a majority of the general membership at an
annual meeting.?
Within 3 days after July 1, 1937, the day on which the respondent
had first met with the Hosiery Workers, the respondent employed
its accountants to conduct an election among its employees to ascer-
tain whether they wished to be represented by the B. E. A., the
Hosiery Workers, or neither. The election was held but its results
were never made public and are not a part of the record.
On July 21, 1937, the respondent entered into a contract with
the B. E. A. The contract recites that the B. E. A. has a member-
ship of 327 of the respondent's 401 employees and that the respond-
ent 'recognizes the B. E. A. as the sole and exclusive representative
of all of the respondent's employees, with the exception of officers,
directors, and stockholders, for the purpose of collective bargaining.
The contract further provides, in part, that if the B. E. A. will adopt
any bylaw requiring all new employees of the respondent to become
members of the B. E. A. the respondent will require all persons hired
after receipt by it of notice of adoption of such bylaw to join the
B. E. A. as a condition of -employment. By its terms, the contract
was in force until May 30, 1938.
Dues for the B. E. A. have been collected by the respondent's fore-
men and turned over by them to the B. E. A. secretary. The re-
spondent has permitted the B. E. A. to maintain in the plant machines
for the vending of candy and a popular beverage. The B. E. A. has
received from the machines a monthly income of $15.
The elements of the respondent's domination of the B. E. A. are
so obvious that they require no extended discussion . Just when the
respondent's employees began efforts at self- organization , a supervisor
openly initiated a rival "inside" labor organization. Supervisors
solicited membership therein from the employees at work and them-
selves signed the initial papers circulated in the plant on its behalf.
Meanwhile, the "outside" union was subjected to hostile action by the
respondent. The only meeting of the B. E. A. was held on plant
property. It was incorporated by a group of seven persons without
any mandate from the employees at large. The incorporators, of
whom six were supervisors, effectively vested control in themselves
by the terms of the articles of incorporation, and by a constitution and
bylaws whose origin, though unknown, can in no event be attributed
to the organization's general membership. Thereafter the respondent
granted a contract to the organization created by it. Dues were col-
lected by the respondent's foremen, and a regular income from vend-
ing machines in the plant was arranged for the organization.
' The amendment provision refers to amendment of the bylaws only, but the governing
rules of the B. E. A. are labeled "Constitution and By-Laws" with no distinction indicated
between constitutional and bylaw provisions.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record we find that the respondent dominated and
interfered with the formation and administration of the B. E. A. and
contributed support thereto, and that it thereby interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The alleged discriminatory discharges
On May 14, 1937, the respondent laid off William Middleton, Leo
Naughton, and George Smith. We have already described the activ-
ities of Naughton and Smith in arranging the first textile workers'
meeting of May 9, 1937, the appointment of Middleton and Naughton
to popularize the meeting for May 15, Middleton's distribution of
handbills on May 13, and his interrogation that same day by Parker
and Prescott. Middleton testified, also, that at some time between
May 9 and 14, 1937, Henry Ferdinand, his foreman, told him that he
"would never gain anything from the Company by joining the C. 1. 0.
or any other union" but would just get himself into trouble, such
as losing his job and getting blackballed. This testimony, however,
was contradicted by Ferdinand. We do not find it necessary to resolve
the conflict. At the time Middleton was laid off, he was paid his
share in the bonus plan, although bonus payments were not due
until the following June.
Two employees other than Middleton, Naughton, and Smith were
also laid off from work on May 14, 1937, and as to these there is no
allegation of discrimination and no showing that they belonged to
the Hosiery Workers. The five men laid off were most junior in
employment of the respondent's employees, with the possible excep-
tion of one of the two concerning whom there is no charge of dis-
crimination. After the lay-offs, several employees, experienced in
knitting, were transferred to the knitting department from the twist-
ing department. The respondent claims that the lay-offs were necessi-
tated by a decline in production. The documentary evidence it
introduced to that effect, however, is too incomplete to prove that a
production decline required diminution of personnel. On the other
hand, although the respondent apparently increased the machine
load of its knitters after the lay-off, it cannot be found that there was
no relation between decline in production, revenues, or sales on the
one hand and the lay-offs on the other.
Since the three men who are alleged to have been discharged
discriminatorily were among the five employees having least seniority,
a finding of discrimination would under the circumstances be justified
only by a preliminary finding that the lay-offs were made not for
business reasons but for the purpose of reaching the three individuals
active in the Hosiery Workers. The record does not support any such
BURSON KNITTING COMPANY 815
findings. Accordingly, the allegation of the complaint that the
respondent discharged Middleton, Naughton, and Smith on account
of their Hosiery Workers membership or activities will be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE 'UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III A and
B above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respond-
ent 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act we shall order the
respondent to withdraw recognition from and completely disestab-
lish the B. E. A. as the representative of - any of its employees for
purposes of collective bargaining: The original contract between
the respondent and the B. E. A. has expired, but as it may have
been renewed or a new contract entered into, we shall order the
respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to any contract
entered into by it with the B. E. A.
We have found that Middleton, Naughton, and Smith were not
discharged on account of their membership and activity in the Ho-
siery Workers. However, in view of the respondent's unfair labor
practices as set forth in Section III A and B above, there is grave
danger that the respondent will not reemploy these three individuals
even if their former or substantially equivalent positions are open.
Accordingly, and since the respondent claims it laid off these em-
ployees for lack of work on a basis of strict seniority, we shall re-
quire it to include the names of these men on.a list of its employees
prepared according to strict seniority, and to offer them employment
when, in accordance with such list, suitable work for them becomes
ava.ilable.s
VI. THE PETITION
In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the filing
of the petition for an investigation and certification of representa-
8 Ct. Matter of Link Belt Company and Lodge 1604 of Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America, 12 N. L. R. B. 854 ; Matter of American Num-
bering Machine Company and International Association of Machinists , District x$15,
10 N: L. R. B. 536, and cases cited therein.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tives, we shall dismiss the petition without prejudice to the right
of the Hosiery Workers to file a new petition at any time in the
future.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the fol l owing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch 64, and
Burson's Employees Association are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering With the formation and admin-
istration of Burson 's Employees Association and contributing sup-
port to it , the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
5. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of William Middleton , Leo Naughton, and
George Smith, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the respondent , Burson Knitting Company, Rockford , Illinois, and
its officers , successors , and assigns , shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating and interfering With the administration of Bur-
son's Employees Association , or with the formation and adminis-
tration of any other labor organization of its employees , and con-
tributing support to Burson's Employees Association or any. other
labor organization of its employees;
(b) Giving effect to any contract entered into by it with Bur-
son's Employees Association ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own , choosing, and to engage in
B-CJRSOti KNITTING COAIPANNY 817
.concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Burson's Employees Associa-
tion as representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment; and
completely disestablish Burson's Employees Association as such
representative;
(b) Immediately include the names of William Middleton, Leo
Naughton, and George Smith on a list of the respondent's employees
prepared according to strict seniority of employment, and offer
William Middleton, Leo Naughton, and George Smith employment'
when, in accordance with such list, suitable work becomes available
for them ;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days, notices to
its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist as
provided in Section 1 of this Order and will take the affirmative
actions described in Section 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition of American Federa-
tion of Hosiery Workers, Branch 64, requesting investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of Burson Knitting
Company, Rockford, Illinois, be, and it hereby is, dismissed without
prejudice.