Carolina Mirror Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 1712 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Carolina Mirror Corporation and United Glass and Ceramic
Workers of North America, AFL-CIO
Carolina Mirror Corporation and James E. Anthony, Lawrence
Kerley, Bon Lee Riddle , Arnold B . Wyatt, Walter L. Wood.
Cases Nos. 11-CA-1039, 11-CA-10415, 11-CA-1089, 11-CA-1190,
11-CA-1245, 11-CA-1p246, 11-CA-1247, 11-CA-1260, and 11-CA-
1261. June 18, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 28, 1958, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, 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 a certain unfair labor
practice, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in that
respect. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.' The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the modifications and additions noted below.2
1 The Respondent contends, because such acts were not specifically alleged in the com-
plaint , that the Trial Examiner erred in finding violations of a settlement agreement and
of Section 8(a)(1) by the following post-settlement conduct: Production Manager
Thomas Ray's statement to Marvin T. Brown that the Respondent looked after faithful
employees ; Ray's statement to Floyd Nance that he had information that Nance had
attended union meetings and had signed a card; Ray's asking James Anthony -how he felt
about the Union and if he felt that they needed a union in the plant ; Ray's statement to
Anthony when he said President Gardner got riled up at times, that Ray had been told
"to fire this man and that man" and that it would be difficult for Anthony to get a job
with only one eye; and, Vice President Donald Culler's statement to Anthony when he
was laid off January 23, 1958, to the effect : "Jim, we will take you back when work
picks up and . . . don't you think that this damn Union ain't causing shortage of work
because no company wants to buy glass from a company that is going to be closed down."
We find no merit in this contention because these issues were fully litigated at the hearing
and the Respondent does not show that it was prejudiced in any respect. See Martel
Mills Corporation, 118 NLRB 618, footnote 3; James Thompson & Company, Inc., 100
NLRB 456, footnote 2.
a The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent committed independent violations of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by various acts of interrogation, threats, by circulating an
antiunion petition, and by otherwise interfering in the employees' union activities, as de-
tailed in the Intermediate Report and herein. We adopt these findings, but in so doing
123 NLRB No. 199.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1713
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by the promulgation of the no-solicitation rule.
The Respondent excepts to this finding. The record shows that on
June 27, 1956, shortly after the Union's organizational campaign had
begun, the Respondent posted on its bulletin boards a notice "To all
employees." This notice, which remained posted at all times between
June 27, 1956, and February 27, 1958, read in part:
No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities
in the Plant during working hours. Anybody who does so and
thereby interferes with his own work or the work of others will
be discharged.
At the same time the Respondent continued in effect an existing rule
permitting other solicitation if permission were granted by a super-
visor. In view of all the facts and circumstances in this case, we find,
contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the institution of this rule does
not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.'
2. For the reasons set forth in the Intermediate Report, Chairman
Leedom and Member Jenkins agree with the Trial Examiner's finding
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by posting
the so-called "blue banded notice." 4 They, however, along with
Member Rodgers, do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that the
Respondent violated the Act by partially covering the settlement
agreement notice with the blue-banded notice. As detailed in the
Intermediate Report, the Respondent posted its notice in such a
manner that on one of four bulletin boards it overlapped a corner of
the settlement agreement notice for 17 out of the 60 days that the
settlement agreement notice was there. Thus the Respondent's notice
covered the words "This notice must" in the first line and "and must
not be altered, defaced," in the second line of the following portion
of the settlement notice :
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
In these circumstances, we believe that the covering of the settlement
notice was too insubstantial to warrant a finding that the Respondent,
by such conduct, violated the terms of the settlement agreement.
we do not rely on the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) by ceasing its contributions to the flower fund, and by reinstituting the prac-
tice of giving employees used paint buckets and scrap lumber.
' N.L.R .B. v. United Steelworkers of America, CIO, et al. ( Nutone, Inc ., Avondale
Mills ), 357 U.S. 357.
4 Member Rodgers does not concur in the finding that the posting of the blue - banded
notice constitutes a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. He would find that the
contents of this notice , even considered in the context of the settlement agreement and
events preceding its execution , constitute nothing more than a view , argument, or opinion
protected under Section 8(c) of the Act.
508889-60-vol. 12 3-10 9
1714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we do not find that the Re-
spondent violated the Act by Foreman Clint Wilcox's statements dur-
ing the preelection period to a group of employees that "If a union
were to come into this plant that would cause layoffs, maybe short
work, that there would be more damage to us than there would be
good." In our opinion, the statement at most conveyed a prediction
of possible future events beyond the control of the Respondent, which
the Board has held to be protected under Section 8(c) of the Act 5
4. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Re-
spondent discriminatorily selected James Anthony for discharge, we
note the following facts: Because of an economic slump in early
1958,6 the Respondent told John Gant, the foreman of the cutting
department, to let go any employees he could "do without." The
foreman selected two cutters, who were James Anthony and Lawrence
Kerley, and also a pincher and a stockman. When Anthony was laid
off on January 23, 1958, he was told by Production Manager Ray that
he was laid off because there was a shortage of work, and that he had
been selected instead of two less senior cutters because he talked on
the job. Gant testified that he chose Anthony to be laid off because
he could not keep him on the job. The credited evidence, however,
shows, contrary to Gant's assertions, that Anthony did not spend long
periods in the restroom, had been very careful not to talk too much
during his last year or so of employment, and had not bothered the
other employees at work. Moreover, in the approximately 8 years
that he worked for the Respondent, Anthony continually received
raises, which fact indicates that he was considered a satisfactory
employee.
With respect to Anthony's seniority and skill as compared with the
other cutters, the record shows that, in addition to several cutters
who received $1.45 and $1.50 an hour, there were five cutters in the
same pay-rate group who received $1.40 in hour. These in order of
seniority were : Percy Billings, James Anthony, Elmore Billings,
Lawrence Kerley, and Mac Wood. While the Respondent had no
formal seniority system, Gant stated that where the Respondent had
two men equally capable of doing a job, and with equal attitude, the
Respondent would consider an employee's length of service. Anthony,
unlike Percy Billings, Elmore Billings, and Mac Wood, who were
retained, had performed replacement work' for approximately 3
months. This job required more skill than shadow box cutting, cut-
ting mirrors for medicine cabinets, or straight line cutting of glass.
There is no question that Anthony, like the three cutters who were
5 See Sunset Lumber Products, 113 NLRB 1172, 1173; Cary Lumber Company, 102
NLRB 406, 409.
0In all, some 30 or 40 employees were laid off.
4 Replacement work involves receiving a ticket for a "reject" and starting a new piece
of glass through the plant's operations to replace a defective piece.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1715
retained, could do medicine and straight line cutting. In fact Gant
admitted that Anthony could perform all the work which Percy
Billings or Elmore Billings could do. Although there was no re-
placement work, because the person formerly engaged in that job was
reinstated pursuant to the settlement agreement of October 1957, there
was work available of the type that Anthony was qualified to do, as
evidenced by the fact that three cutters with no greater skill were re-
tained, and by Gant's testimony that "we had some" straight line
work in cutting culls.
That the Respondent had full knowledge of Anthony's activities in
connection with the Union and that the Respondent had denmon-
strated animus against Anthony for such activities is shown by the
following conduct, which has been the basis of the finding of 8 (a) (1)
violations by the Trial Examiner, in which we concur : (1) On June 25,
1956, Gant interrogated Anthony as to what he was doing up the road
on Sunday, the clay of a union meeting; (2) in November 1957, Pro-
duction Manager Thomas Ray asked Anthony how he felt about the
Union and if he felt they needed a union in the plant; (3) in Novem-
ber 1957, Thomas Ray told Anthony that President Gardner got riled
up at times and that Ray had been told "to fire this man and that
man"; and at the same time Ray reminded Anthony it would be diffi-
cult for him to get another job since he had only one eye; (4) in
November 1957, President Gardner asked Anthony, in substance,
what he thought about the Union; and (5) on January 23, 1958, Vice
President Culler told Anthony, "Jim, we will take you back when
work picks up, and . .. don't you think that this damn union ain't
causing shortage of work, because no company wants to buy glass
from a company that is going to be closed down."
In the circumstances detailed above, it appears that Anthony was
selected for discharge at a time when less senior and less skilled men
were retained in the department, and when there was work available
which he could do. Further, it does not in fact appear that Anthony
was an undesirable employee because he did not stay on the job, or
for any other reason. Moreover, the Respondent had demonstrated
animus against Anthony for his union activities. Accordingly, on
these facts and on the entire record considered as a whole, we find
that James Anthony was chosen for layoff- because he was a union
adherent. Accordingly, we find that by such discriminatory selection,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Carolina Mirror
1716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Corporation, North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in United Glass and Ceramic Work-
ers of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of
its employees, by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
their employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee
because he has filed charges or given testimony under the National
Labor Relations Act.
(c) Threatening employees that it will close the plant rather than
tolerate a union in the plant.
(d) Threatening that : A foreman had done the right thing is dis-
charging an employee who was working for the Union; the Company
had let two men go for lying to its president about the Union; if
the foremen did not fire the men over the Union the Company's presi-
dent was going to fire the foremen and fire the men himself; the
Company was not going to work any man who dealt with the Union
and the only way employees could continue working for the Company
was to discontinue all of the employees' union activities; and the
Company was going to discharge four employees for lying to its
president about attendance at a union meeting.
(e) Posting concurrently with the notice posted pursuant to this
Order any company notice which negates the former notice.
(f) Threatening employees that if they did not drop their union
activities the old man was really going to make it tough on them.
(g) Threatening employees that its president had given orders the
previous week that anyone who had anything to do with the Union
should be discharged.
(h) Informing its employees that they were being discharged be-
cause of United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees.
(i) Threatening employees that they are on the spot or are being
checked very closely because of their suspected or actual activities on
behalf of United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees.
(j) Threatening its employees that its president is a man of such
standing in North Wilkesboro and Wilkesboro that he can keep any
employee from getting a job anywhere in town.
(k) Threatening its employees that their names are on a list of
employees to be discharged because of their activities on behalf of
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of its employees.
(1) Attempting to dictate how employees shall vote at representa-
tion elections by making threats of reprisal or promises of benefit.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1717
(m) Circulating antiunion petitions in the plant and soliciting
employees' signatures thereon with threats of reprisal and promises
of benefit.
(n) Interrogating its employees concerning their union member-
ship, sympathy, activity, or plans, in a manner constituting inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act, and as to how they intend to vote in a representation
election.
(o) Instructing employees to inform on other employees concern-
ing their union membership, sympathy, activity, or plans, and how
they intend to vote in a representation election.
(p) Making statements to its employees creating the impression of
surveillance of the employees' union meetings and union activities.
(q) Threatening to discharge employees because of their union
membership, sympathy, activity, or plans.
(r) Accusing employees of being ringleaders in the Union, or hav-
ing union meetings in their homes.
(s) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the aforesaid union, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or
to refrain from any or all of 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 James Anthony, John Edsel, and Floyd Nance im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed, and make each such employee
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Re-
spondent's discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its plant at North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted by the Respondent immediately and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
8 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a 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."
1718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and in-
cluding each of Respondent 's bulletin boards. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. Both pages of said notice
must remain completely exposed , and must be posted next to each
other.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writ
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act with respect to the discharge of Arnold B. Wyatt
and insofar as it alleges violations of Section 8(a) (1) not herein
found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations , to join or assist United Glass and
Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes 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 re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the plant or to close its
doors forever because of the activities of employees on behalf of
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of their jobs or
other reprisals because of their activity on behalf of United Glass
and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that any employee has been
discharged because of his activities on behalf of or, because he
lied to us about matters concerning, United Glass and Ceramic
Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization of our employees.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1719
WE WILL NOT inform any employee that he is "on the spot" or
being closely watched in order to forestall activity on behalf of
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten that employees discharged by us could
be kept by us from obtaining other employment in North Wilkes-
boro and Wilkesboro.
WE WILL NOT inform any employee that his name is on the list
of employees to be discharged because of his activity on behalf
of United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT attempt to dictate how employees shall vote at
any representation election by making threats of reprisal or
promises of benefit.
WE WILL NOT circulate antiunion petitions in the plant and
solicit employees' signatures thereon by threats of reprisal or
promises of benefit.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
membership, sympathy, activity, or plans, in a manner constitut-
ing interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, or as to how they intend to vote in
a representation election.
WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to inform on other em-
ployees concerning their union membership, sympathy, activity,
,or plans, or how they intend to vote in a representation election.
WE WILL NOT make statements to our employees creating the
impression of surveillance of our employees' union meetings and
union activities.
WE WILL NOT accuse any of our employees of being ringleaders
in the Union, or of having union meetings in their homes.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United Glass and
Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization of our employees, by discriminating in any
manner with regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in any man-
ner against any of our employees because they have filed charges
or given testimony under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to James Anthony, John Edsel, and Floyd
Nance immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will make
each such employee Whole for any loss of pay suffered by him by
1720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason of the discrimination practiced against them, in the man-
ner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The Remedy."
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from be-
coming or remaining, members of the above-named Union or any
other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8(a) (3) of the
amended Act.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION,
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.
Both pages of this notice must at all times remain completely exposed,
and must be posted next to one another.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed against Carolina Mirror Corporation, herein called Re-
spondent, by United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, and a number of individuals, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board I issued his amended consolidated complaint dated
May 20, 1958, alleging, as amended at the hearing, that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of
the charges, the complaint, and the notice of hearing were duly served upon the
parties.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint, as amended before and
at the hearing, alleged inter alia in substance that Respondent (a) at all times since
June 19, 1956, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by inter-
rogating them concerning their union membership, sympathies, and activities, by
making threats and promises of benefits to them, by initiating and circulating a
petition, by altering working conditions, by indicating to employees that their union
meetings were being spied upon, and by posting notices saying Respondent's policy
toward the Union had not changed alongside a Board settlement agreement notice;
(b) discharged two employees, James Anthony and Arnold B. Wyatt, in January
1958, because of their actual or suspected union sympathies or activities, and dis-
charged two witnesses, John Edsel and Floyd Nance, shortly after their testimony
in this proceeding because of their union activities and because they gave such
testimony. In its answer the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, on
August 18 to 21, 1958, before Alba B. Martin, the duly designated Trial Examiner.
The Respondent, the Union, and the General Counsel were represented by counsel,
and all parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence relevant to the issues. During the
hearing decision was deferred upon Respondent's motion to dismiss all charges,
allegations, and evidence tending to show a violation of the Act occurring prior to
the date of a settlement agreement settling the matters contained in Cases Nos.
11-CA-1039, I1-CA-1045, and !11-CA-1089. This motion is hereby disposed of in
'The General Counsel and the staff attorney appearing for him at the hearing are
referred to herein as the General Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as
the Board.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1721
accordance with the findings and conclusions made herein. Although given an
opportunity, no party made oral argument nor filed briefs. Shortly after the con-
clusion of the hearing, the General Counsel submitted a written motion to the effect
that the record be reopened for the purpose of receiving in evidence his motion and
two letters attached to it. An order to show cause was issued October 3, 1958, giv-
ing Respondent an opportunity to present its opposition, if any, to this motion.
Respondent having filed no opposition, and it appearing to me that the two attached
letters are pertinent to the proceeding, the General Counsel's motion is hereby
granted. The three documents have been placed in the original exhibit file as
follows: General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1TT, the General Counsel's motion, consist-
ing of two pages; as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1RR, a copy of a letter dated
May 7, 1958, from James R. Webster, Acting Regional Director, to the Respondent;
as General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1SS, a letter dated May 8, 1958, from Blakeney &
Alexander to the office of Regional Director, attention Mr. James R. Webster. The
affidavit of service of the order to show cause has been placed in the original ex-
hibit file as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 2, and a copy of the order to show cause
as Trial Examiner's Exhibit No. 1.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, Carolina Mirror Corporation, is a North Carolina corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture and sale of mirrors. It maintains its principal office and
place of business, with which we are here solely concerned, and referred to herein
as the plant, at North Wilkesboro, North Carolina. During the calendar year prior
to the issuance of the complaint, which period is representative of all times material
herein, Respondent, at the plant, manufactured, sold, and shipped, finished products
valued in excess of $100,000 to customers located outside the State of North
Carolina. During the same period, Respondent purchased raw materials, supplies,
and equipment valued in excess of $2,000,000 which originated outside the State of
North Carolina, and were shipped in interstate commerce to the plant. It is found
that Respondent is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act admitting to membership employees
of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent 's efforts to defeat the Union prior to the settlement : Interrogations,
threats, the petition
Respondent 's reaction to the original efforts of the employees to organize into the
Union was immediate and vigorous . Insofar as the record shows, the employees'
first meeting toward this end occurred on June 24 , 1956 , although Respondent's
president , Edd Gardner , testified that he first learned that a union was trying to
organize his employees on June 18 , 1956. The only other employees ' meeting
specifically referred to in the record occurred in a cow pasture a few miles from
the plant on Tuesday, July 17, 1956.
On June 27 , 1956, Respondent posted on its bulletin boards in the plant a notice
addressed "to all employees ," printed in large type on stiff paper 19 inches high by
161/2 inches wide. A red band one-half inch wide was printed across each of its
corners. The notice read as follows:
Since the Union has started up a campaign here, some of you have been
asking questions in regard to the following matters. We have decided to state
the Company 's position on these subjects as clearly as we can for everybody
alike:
(1) In the first place, it is our definite view that if the Union were to
get in here, it would work to your serious harm.
(2) In the meantime, we would like to make it clear that it is not
necessary, and it is not ever going to be necessary, for anybody to belong
to the United Glass and Ceramic Workers CIO Union, or any other
Union, in order to work for this Company.
1722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) Those who might join or belong to the Union are not going to get
any advantages or any preferred treatment of any sort over those who do
not join or belong to any Union.
(4) Whoever is caused trouble in the Plant, or put under pressure by
other employees to join the Union, should let the Company know, and
we will see to it that this is stopped.
(5) No person will be allowed to carry on Union organizing activities
in the Plant during working hours. Anybody who does so and thereby
interferes with his own work or the work of others will be discharged.
Any body who tells you anything contrary to the foregoing is not telling
you the truth.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORP.
This "red-banded" notice remained posted at all times between June 27, 1956, and
February 27, 1958. This was the first time the Company had ever posted a rule
concerning union organizing or union solicitation on company time, and, insofar as
the record shows, only union organizing activities during working hours are barred
absolutely. Both before and after the posting of the rule stated in paragraph (5) of
this notice, the Company's rule concerning solicitations generally, has been and is
that solicitations are permitted if permission is asked of and granted by a supervisor.
To be noted is the fact that the rule in paragraph (5) does not allow a supervisor to
grant permission to carry on union organizing activities in the plant during working
hours.
Another change in working conditions immediately consequent upon the self-
organization efforts of the employees, related to the flower fund. Prior to June 29,
1956, there was a flower fund contributed to by both the employees and the em-
ployer, and administered by a committee of employees together with one employee
from the office. The fund was used to purchase flowers for sick persons. In a
speech to employees on June 29, 1956, Respondent's president, Edd Gardner, in
substance announced the abolishment of the flower fund. Since then if employees
want to collect funds for flowers they have the right to ask for permission from their
supervisors to do so, but the Respondent makes no contributions for flowers.
A third change in working conditions effectuated on June 29, 1956, related to
used paint buckets and scrap lumber. At some point prior to this date Respondent
had discontinued its practice of letting the employees request and receive these items.
In a speech to the employees on June 29, President Gardner announced the resump-
tion of this perviously abandoned privilege.
During late June and July 1956 a number of Respondent's supervisors, including
its president, interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies, Respondent
sponsored an antiunion petition, and Respondent's president told the employees,
among other things, that he was going to correct the inequalities in the wages of
some of the older employees.
According to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Vaughn Pendergrass,
who impressed me as a very honest witness, sometime after he attended the June 24
meeting of the employees, Sanford Moore, a first-shift foreman, came to where the
witness was working and said to him in substance that he was sorry to learn from
someone that all of the first shift had been at the meeting and that only three or four
of the second shift had been there. In substance Moore wanted to know what he
had done wrong, he being the first-shift foreman. Sometime after that Moore re-
turned and asked Pendergrass how he felt about the Union, Pendergrass replying
that under existing circumstances he was in favor of the Union. Sometime later
Moore returned a third time and asked Pendergrass if he would tell President Edd
Gardner the same thing, Pendergrass replying that he would. Somewhat later
Moore returned the fourth time and asked Pendergrass to go with him to the office,
where Pendergrass had a conversation with Gardner in the presence of Moore.
President Gardner asked why Pendergrass was against him. Pendergrass replied
that he was not against Gardner, that he was against the ones "between me and
you." Gardner said "there are things going on in here that I don't know anything
about, that I don't approve of, but I can't be here all of the time . . . anytime you
aren't treated right, the door will be open and there will be something done about
it." Gardner then asked Pendergrass to think this thing over and let him know
about it. A day or two later President Gardner asked Pendergrass if he had thought
it over, and the latter replied that he had. Gardner asked what his decision was,
Pendergrass replying that he would have to be for the boys, that he had obligated
himself to stay with the Union.
Lawrence Kerley, another very credible witness, testified without contradiction
that in late June 1956-the witness -believed it was June 28 or 29-his foreman,
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1723
John Gant, came to him and told him that Mr. Gardner wanted to see him in his
office. They went in together and President Gardner told Gant to remain, that "he
wanted him to hear it too." Addressing himself to Kerley, Respondent's president
said "Lawrence, I want you to be honest with me . .. what have you got to do
with the Union?" Kerley did not answer. Gardner said "I am not going to
threaten you but you leave here and go back to your job and finish working." Then
Gardner accused Kerley of being one of the ringleaders and of having meetings at
his home-which Kerley denied. Kerley admitted that he had been to some of the
union meetings and Gardner replied that that was his privilege. Again Gardner
said something about not threatening him. Then Gardner asked him what his in-
terest was as far as the Union was concerned, Kerley replying that he had worked
under a union before and that he liked the working conditions under a union.
Gardner asked him where he had worked under a union and Kerley replied at
Detroit, Michigan. When Gardner asked if the cost of living was not higher in
Detroit, Kerley replied that he did not think it was. Gardner then pointed out the
"benefits" which Respondent had been giving to the employees. During the con-
versation Gardner stated that he knew that Kerley was one of the group which had
gone to the union meeting in Elkins (a nearby town), that some 20 others had gone,
and that he was going to try to see each and every one of them before they quit
work that afternoon. During the conversation he also told Kerley "that he wasn't
going to let a union or anyone come in there and tell him what to do or how to
run his business."
According to the uncontradicted testimony of employee Ted Walker, just before a
short early July vacation, the superintendent of the second shift, Harvey Prevatte,
asked Walker if he wanted to play ball "with us?" Walker replied "no, I didn't want
to play ball with anybody." After the vacation Prevatte again went up to Walker
and asked "are you ready to play ball with us?" Walker replied "no, I didn't like
to play ball." Prevatte replied, "I hear you have been going to these cow pasture
meetings they have been having around."
Uless Mastin testified in substance that shortly before his discharge in about
July or August 1956 President Edd Gardner came up to his machine just as the
witness was leaving it and said to him that he had been wanting to see him.
Gardner then asked the witness what he was doing about the union business.
Mastin replied "nothing." Gardner said "well, you started out with it, didn't you?"
Mastin replied "well, I signed a card." Gardner then asked "what did you do that
for?" M'astin replied, "well, I don't know, because everybody else did, I guess."
Gardner then said "what are you going to do from here on about it? Are you going
to be for the Union or for the Company?" Gardner then asked him if he would
promise him that he would vote for the Company, to which Mastin replied that he
would rather not say either way. Gardner said "I had you figured for a pretty
loyal employee . I would like to know what you are going to do about this.
It would be a good idea for you to vote for the Company."
James P. Elledge testified that sometime during the week following the June 24,
1956, employee meeting, Foreman Clint Wilcox came up to him while he was at his
work station working and asked him how he felt about the Union. Without giving
him time to answer the question Wilcox continued, "I know you are for the Union."
Wilcox added that "if we didn't drop this union activity, the old man . was
really going to make it tough on us." Elledge stated that "the old man" referred to
President Gardner. Elledge, who was on the night shift, did not show up for work
on July 12, 1956. The next evening he was discharged by Superintendent Chick
Blackburn. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Elledge, in discharging
him Blackburn told him in substance that he was not being discharged because he
was absent the night before, but in fact because of the Union. When Elledge asked
if there was not someone with whom he could discuss the matter so that he could
continue to hold his job, Blackburn replied that there was no one. Elledge asked
"well, what about Mr. Gardner?" Blackburn replied "no, he give us our orders
last week, anyone that had anything to do with this Union, let them go."
James C. Reavis testified without contradiction that on about June 29, 1956,
Foreman Vance Watson told him that Mr. Gardner wanted to see him in his office.
The witness went into the office with Watson and Watson stayed during the con-
versation. Gardner said "I hear you have been handing out union cards." Gardner
also asked why the 'men wanted to put the Union between him and them. Gardner
stated that he had been good to the men, and he said that he could not pay union
wages.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of James Anthony, on the Monday
after the June 24, 1956, meeting Foreman John Gant asked Anthony what he was
doing up the road on Sunday. Anthony replied that he went to a union meeting.
1724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Later that day Gant said something to Anthony about sending him to the office to
:see Mr. Gardner. Anthony replied that he would go but that he did not believe
Mr. Gardner would want to talk to him. The conversation was concurred with
Gant's statement "no, I guess it is best not. I guess you and him would fight."
Without contradiction Arnold B. Wyatt testified that sometime during the week
after the June 24 meeting, Foreman Clint Wilcox said to Wyatt at Wyatt's work
station and in the presence of one Owen Houck, who was presumably another em-
ployee, that there would probably be less work if the Union got in. The three of
them were discussing the Union and Wilcox asked Wyatt how he thought the Union
could help. Wyatt replied that he thought the Union would bring about better
wages and working conditions. Wilcox's reply was that if the Union got in, there
would probably be less work. Under the circumstances of this conversation, I find
that Wilcox's remark was a view, argument, or opinion protected by Section 8(c)
of the Act.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Clay Blackburn, an employee, after
the short vacation during the week of July 4, 1956, Foreman Charles Absher "asked
me about the Union, and I told him that I hadn't had anything to do with it, and
wasn't going to have anything to do with it."
On about June 29, 1956, President Gardner had the employees assembled and
spoke to them about a number of subjects. According to Lawrence Kerley, Gardner
stated that he knew what was going on, that the men had had a meeting on Sunday
and that something was said about the insurance at Carolina Mirror Corporation.
He said that someone had asked about the insurance at the Company and who paid
for it, and that someone else had answered that the employees paid for it. Gardner
expressed surprise that this answer should have been given, contrary to the complete
facts. Gardner said further that he did not think he had been fair in the past about
the wages of the older employees, and that he was going over the books and try to
correct that. He also asked for a show of hands as to whether the employees
would prefer a Christmas bonus or a paid vacation. He stated that if they brought
the culls down to a certain percentage point, he would give the employees a wage
increase of a certain percentage. He announced the discontinuance of the flower
fund, and the reinstatement of the privilege of asking for used paint buckets and
scrap lumber. He said he would not stand for partiality of supervisors among the
employees. He went over in detail the insurance plan and the retirement plan in
effect at the plant.
Five employees testified concerning a so-called petition, which was obviously pre-
pared and sponsored by the Respondent, signatures being sought and obtained be-
ginning on about Friday, July 13, 1956. In substance the petition stated that those
who signed it below did not want to,belong to the Union and agreed not to have
anything to do with it. Edward Osborne, who impressed me as a very honest and
,credible witness,2 testified most fully concerning this petition, and his testimony was
.uncontradicted and undenied. Osborne's foreman, Halley Walker, first told Osborne
.about the petition, and according to Osborne, sent Osborne and every other man in
his department into the office of Superintendent Chick Blackburn to sign it. Walker
"kept asking me to sign it, and I told him that I wouldn't sign against the Union,
and he -came to me and told me that all the men in the department had signed the
book and that that is going to show you up a little if you don't sign." While
Osborne was in Blackburn's office discussing the petition Blackburn told him that
he did not have to sign it, that it was his privilege. Blackburn also said that "Mr.
Gardner is going through the raise books on Monday, and this will look nice on
his desk. . . Blackburn said that Osborne's name would look good if it is on
there, when Gardner goes through his raise books. Osborne signed the petition, and
then he noticed that in fact not all members of his department had signed it, because
one Cicero Call, of his department, had not signed. Upon returning to his depart-
ment Osborne told Foreman Walker that Cicero Call had not signed the petition
and that Osborne was going back to take his name off the petition. Halley Walker
replied "you had better leave your name on there to see how this thing goes. You
don't want to stand out like that. If you do, they will know where you stand.
Thirty-nine out of forty men in the red room have signed." Osborne several times
asked Walker for the petition and, according to Osborne, Walker kept giving him
excuses that the petition was down in the lower end of the plant being handled by
the foremen down there. The petition had started between 4 and 6 o'clock on the
second shift, on which Osborne worked, and at about 10 o'clock that night Osborne
2 Osborne was on the witness stand longer than any other witness . His testimony com-
prises some 113 pages of transcript . Despite some minor self -contradictions he was a
credible witness.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1725
saw Chick Blackburn coming from "down there" with the petition , at which time
Osborne told Blackburn that he wanted his name removed from the petition.
Blackburn replied that he would have to see Mr. Gardner and see what he says
about it . Blackburn went away and returned in about 10 or 15 minutes , and then
said to Osborne that Mr. Gardner had said it was okay to put "undecided" by
Osborne's name . Osborne replied that he was not undecided , and that he wanted
to write "void" beside his name. Blackburn then handed him the petition and
Osborne wrote "void" beside his name.
Employee Clay Blackburn, a very distant relative, if any, to Chick Blackburn,
testified that Superintendent Chick Blackburn brought the petition to him and told
him that he was under no obligation to sign it and for him to use his own judgment.
Clay Blackburn did not sign . Employee Ted Walker testified that during about the
week of July 4, 1956 , Foreman Bill Lee came to him and asked him to go in to
the restroom with him, saying that he had something he would like Walker to read.
Walker went with Lee and read the petition . Lee asked Walker what he thought of
it and Walker replied that he did not think enough of it to sign it. According to
the uncontradicted testimony of Arnold B. Wyatt , sometime in July 1956 he reported
to his foreman , Clint Wilcox, that the light over his machine had gone out, and he
asked Wilcox to get it replaced . Wilcox said "I will if you sign this ." Wilcox
then showed Wyatt a paper addressed to Mr. Gardner which said , according to
Wyatt, "we the undersigned agree not to have anything to do with the Union."
Wyatt did not sign it and he returned to his machine . John Edsel testified, without
contradiction , that when he was in the shipping room office Robert Pegram ( foreman
of the shipping and cleaning department , second shift ) told him that Superintendent
Chick Blackburn was going to bring the petition around; that Blackburn brought
the petition into that office, that Edsel read it and handed it back to Blackburn.
On the day of the cow pasture meeting, July 17, 195:6 , shortly after he had re-
ported for work on the second shift at 3 : 30 p.m ., Foreman Halley Walker said to
employee Edward Osborne, "I hear you had a union meeting at your home today."
Osborne's home was located about one-half mile from the cow pasture. When
Osborne denied this, Foreman Walker said , "Mr. Gardner said four men come and
told him there was a union meeting planned at your home ." Osborne said "I had
better see Mr. Gardner and get this thing straightened out." Walker said that he
could arrange for Osborne to see Gardner . Asked on cross-examination what it
was that caused him to go in and talk to Gardner about the cow pasture meeting,
Osborne replied in substance that he wanted to do so because Halley Walker re-
turned from a foremen 's meeting and told Osborne that Osborne was on the spot.
Walker told Osborne that Gardner "was just real angry and red ," and that Gardner
was under the impression that the union meeting had been held at Osborne's home.
Later that evening, from about •8 p.m. until 8 : 45 p.m., by arrangement of Halley
Walker, employee Osborne talked with President Gardner in the latter 's office.
Walker was in and out of the office during the conversation . Osborne's remem-
brance concerning this conversation was remarkable and convincing , as well as
undenied.
Sometime during the conversation, probably early in it, Foreman Walker told
Gardner that he could vouch for Osborne , that Osborne 's word was good, that
Walker had known him for a long time . According to Osborne , early in the con-
versation President Walker was very angry, but as it wore on he relaxed somewhat.
At the beginning Osborne said that he would like to get it straightened out that the
union meeting was not at his home and that he was not at the meeting . Gardner
said "what the hell do you want with a damn union?" Osborne replied that he
would like to make better wages than he was. Gardner replied that Respondent
pays better wages than anybody within 30 miles; then he enlarged it to 50 miles;
and then he enlarged it to 100 miles . Gardner disputed Osborne's statement that
he had not been at the meeting, by saying that four men had told him that Osborne
was there. Gardner asked the employee if he had signed a union card , and Osborne
replied that he had. Gardner asked who gave him the card. Asked on cross-
examination what was his purpose in wanting to straighten out the union meeting
when he had already told Gardner that he had signed a card and was for the Union,
Osborne replied "well, they were firing so many around there , I didn't want to get
fired at that time . I knew I was going to be right there next." Shortly Gardner
asked Osborne how the men in his department felt. When Osborne evaded an
answer , Gardner said "do you think I am going to have a damn bunch of foreigners
running my business? . . . If a union came in here, I couldn't even come around
and tell you what to do. . Before I'd let a union come in. . . . According to
Osborne, Gardner didn't finish that sentence." He said , "I can go on the road
and sell anything . I don't have to run this business ." Early in the conversation
1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Osborne told Gardner that the meeting was held in a cow pasture belonging to
Ralph Wood's father, and that Ralph had been fired for union activities and that
he was the first. Naming the foreman who had discharged Ralph Wood, Gardner
said the foreman fired him and that is what any man would do, that the foreman
found out that Ralph Wood was working for the Union and the Company too and
drawing checks from both places. During the conversation Gardner told Osborne
that he had let two men go for lying to him about the Union, naming them.
Gardner said "if these damn yellow foremen don't fire the men, I am going to fire
the foremen and fire the men myself." He said that he was not going to work any
men dealing with the Union, and that the only way Osborne could continue work-
ing for him was to discontinue all of his union activity. Osborne told him that he
would discontinue. Gardner said that Osborne certainly had "guts to come in and
talk to me like this." He said that he was going out and talk to those four men
who told him that Osborne was at the union meeting and that if he found "but
different" those four men were going to be out of jobs. He said that Osborne had
probably saved a lot of men jobs, that he, Gardner, had intended to go out there
and do some firing.
As he left the office Foreman Halley Walker said to Osborne that he had done
the right thing by going in and seeing Gardner and straightening it out. He said
that he only wished that Cicero Call had done the same thing.
About 30 days after the distribution and signing of the above-mentioned anti-
union petition, which would place this conversation in the middle of August, em-
ployee John Edsel had a conversation in the shipping room with Superintendent
Chick Blackburn. According to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Edsel,
Blackburn said that he would like to have a man-to-man or heart-to-heart talk with
Edsel, and, in Edsel's language,
He went on to say that he belonged to a union one time, a Brick Masons
Union, and that they went out on strike and he needed to come home some-
where, I don't remember exactly the place, and he asked them for twenty to
go home, $20, and that $10 was all the Union would let him have, and he
said that after he went back to work, they took it out of his first check, and
that he didn't think a union could really help us... .
During this conversation Blackburn told Edsel that "Mr. Gardner was a man of such
standing in the town that he could keep me from getting a job anywhere in town."
Blackburn also "said that it was a man-to-man talk and that if I wanted to bring
it up or say anything about it, that he could deny it, and that it was my word
against his."
When Marvin T. Brown was rehired by Respondent in September 1956, it was
Ray Gardner, personnel manager for Respondent and brother to Respondent's presi-
dent, who hired him. After a "friendly conversation" concerning Brown's family
and after getting out Brown's record and looking up his previous employment, Ray
Gardner said, according to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Brown,
"Marvin, I suppose you have heard about our troubles." Brown allowed that he
had heard something about them. Then Ray Gardner "asked me how I felt about
the Union, and then he went on in the conversation to say that Carolina Mirror
Corporation would not operate with a union there."
While conducting ,a survey among the employees in the fall of 1956, Ray Gardner
talked with at least two of the employees about the Union. After asking Edward
Osborne a number of questions about his dependents, whether he owned his home,
the names of his children, etc., Ray Gardner asked him how he felt about the
activity now going on. Osborne replied that he had been interested at the be-
ginning but that after he had talked with Edd Gardner he had discontinued activity.
Then Ray Gardner asked him how the men in his department felt about the
activity. Osborne replied that he did not know, that the men did not talk to him
very much. Ray Gardner said "you go out and find out how they feel and come
back and let me know." Gardner added that another man from another depart-
ment, after talking with Ray Gardner had gone back out to his department and the
first man who asked him what was said in the office was a union man. Ray Gardner
said that is the way you find out who is a union man and who is not.
About 2 weeks later Osborne met Ray Gardner at the "coke machine" near
Gardner's office and Ray Gardner invited him in, saying, "I want to speak with
you." In the office Gardner said "you haven't learned anything. . . . I thought
you were going to go and find out how the men stood and let me know." Osborne
replied that the men did not trust him very much as he had been in the office a
few times. Osborne added that they won't tell me anything." Asked on cross-
examination if at this time he in fact had discontinued his union 'activities, Osborne
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1727
replied that there was not very much activity at that time, that the men were under
a strain , that there was not much activity because one man would hardly speak to
another at that time. He said that he had slowed down in his union activities and
that everyone had slowed down. Asked why the men would not trust him, Osborne
replied "there was mistrust among all of them after the firings. Each man was
called in the office separately and talked to and that formed a mistrust among all
the men. You didn't know where the other man stood. . They began to think
I was for the Company." Asked what made them think that Osborne was for the
Company, Osborne replied, "I don't know. They wouldn't have anything to do with
me, the men in my department."
On one day during the fall of 1956 Foreman Halley Walker called Osborne out-
side of his department and said to him "they want me to check you real close to
see if you have been having anything to do with the Union. . . . They have got
something on you. . . . Watch your moves. See who you talk to."
A trucking company named something like Roy Stone Trucking Company hauled
mirrors for Respondent. It had a 3-week strike of its employees in about August
and September 1956. The day after the conclusion of the strike, President Edd
Gardner assembled his employees on each shift and spoke to them concerning that
strike and its lack of relationship with him. According to the undenied and credited
testimony of three employees, Edward Osborne, Clay Blackburn, and Arnold B.
Wyatt, toward the conclusion of his remarks Gardner said in substance that he would
never tolerate a union in his plant, and that he would close his doors forever before
he would do so.
Edward Osborne was discharged,by Respondent in July 1957. Without contra-
diction Osborne testified that several times in June and July of 1957 his foreman,
Halley Walker, came to his machine and warned him. In summary, during these
warnings, Walker told Osborne that Edd Gardner, Ray Gardner, Chick Blackburn,
and Harvey Prevatte, had all talked with Walker about Osborne, that they had
something on Osborne, but that Walker did not know what it was. Walker told
Osborne that "if I have to fire you, don't feel bad toward me . I will have to
do it to keep my job." Walker informed him that he was regarded as a good contact
man. Walker said that Edd Gardner had asked him if Walker and Osborne were
good friends and whether their families visited with one another. One evening
Walker told Osborne that when he, Walker, had come to work that evening, Good-
man Bloomfield, a foreman on the first shift, had told him (Walker) that Bloomfield
had fired one man on his shift and that there were two men on Walker's shift on
the list, Ralph Hayes and the TV man. On the side Osborne was in the TV busi-
ness. In the same conversation Walker asked "I don't believe Ralph Hayes has
ever had anything to do with the Union, do you?" Osborne replied that he did not
know, that he did not think so.
B. The settlement
Pursuant to an original charge filed July 5, 1956, in Case No. 11-CA-1039, an
original charge filed July 23, 1956, in Case No. 11-CA-1045, and an original charge
filed January 23, 1957, in Case No. 11-CA-1089, and amended charges filed in the
first two of these cases-all of the charges having been filed by the Union-the
General Counsel issued a complaint in the above three cases on June 7, 1957.
The hearing, originally set for July 23, 1957, was rescheduled to August 27, 1957.
On August 27, 1957, nunc pro tunc for August 23, 1957, the Regional Director
postponed the hearing indefinitely, "the parties having decided to adjust this matter
by settlement." The Respondent and the Union entered into a settlement agreement,
executed on October 2, 1957, and approved by the Board's Regional Director on
October 3, 1957, which provided that Respondent would post the usual notice for
60 consecutive days and would comply with all terms and provisions of the notice.
The last sentence of the agreement read, "contingent upon compliance with the
terms and provisions hereof, no further action shall be taken in the above case." 3
In pertinent part the notice provided that Respondent would not interrogate its
employees concerning their membership in, sympathies with, or activities on behalf
of, the Union, would not urge, persuade, warn, or coerce its employees by threats of
reprisal, or force or promise of benefit, to refrain from becoming or remaining mem-
bers of the Union; would not threaten its employees with discharge or other economic
reprisals to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the
Union; would not threaten its employees with surveillance, or create the impression
3 The agreement also called for the reinstatement with back pay of six employees and
back pay to an additional six employees.
1728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of surveillance of their union activities or meetings ; would not in any manner inter-
fere with , restrain , or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under the
Act; or would not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment against any employee because of his membership
in or activity on behalf of the Union.
C. After the settlement
1. Repudiation , threats, interrogation
The record does not contain the precise date that the settlement -agreement notice
was posted , although the parties in their questions assumed, and the General Counsel
does not claim to the contrary , that it was posted for the full 60-day period.4 Two
stipulations of counsel and certain testimony of Production Manager Thomas Ray
disclose that a portion of this 60-day period fell between December 1 and 17, 1957,
during which a so-called blue banded notice posted on one of the bulletin boards
by the Respondent covered up a small (and disputed ) portion of the settlement
notice. The parties stipulated that the blue -banded notice was posted on this bulletin
board from about December 1, 1957, until about February 27, 1958. The parties
stipulated further that General Counsel's attorney , Jerry B. Stone, who appeared
for the General Counsel in the hearing before me, visited the plant on December 17,
1957. Production Manager Thomas Ray testified that he saw the blue-banded
notice on the bulletin board a day or so after it was posted and that insofar as he
knew it remained in the same position all the time until the visit of Jerry B. Stone
on December 17. It follows , it is probable, and it is found that Respondent 's blue-
banded notice was posted on the same bulletin board with the settlement notice for
approximately 17 of the 60 days the notice was there.
The typed and mimeographed settlement-agreement notice was on paper, size
81/2 by 14 inches. The blue-banded notice, gotten up like Respondent's earlier
notice posted on June 27 , 1956, as seen above, was printed in large type on stiff
paper, size 16'/z by 19 inches . A blue band, one-half inch wide, was printed across
each of its corners . Thus the so -called blue-bordered notice was a much more
impressive document in appearance than the settlement-agreement notice. The
blue-bordered notice, addressed "to all employees" read as follows:
We understand that some of you have the impression that the position of
this Company in regard to the Union has been changed and that the Company
is no longer opposed to the Union.
We want you to know that the attitude of this Company with regard to the
Union is exactly what it has always been. We are opposed to the Union and
we intend by every proper means to prevent it from coming into this plant.
It is our sincere belief that if the Union were to get in here, this would not
work to your benefit but to your serious harm.
We would like to make it absolutely and positively clear to all of you that it
is not necessary , and that it is not ever going to be necessary , for anybody to
belong to the Glass Workers union , AFL-CIO , nor to any other Union , in order
to work for this Company.
Anybody who tells you, or tries to lead you to believe anything contrary to
any of the foregoing is not telling you the truth.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORP.
According to the uncontradicted testimony of employee Marvin T. Brown, at
about the time the settlement notice was posted President Edd Gardner addressed
a companywide meeting of employees and spoke to them concerning the settlement.
In Brown's language Gardner said that he had , "made a settlement with the Labor
Board. He said that he was giving some of the employees a second chance to come
back and go to work. That he thought he [sic] deserved it. He said he thought
they got off very light , and that they had made a small settlement with the court."
Through witness Arnold B. Wyatt the General Counsel contended in substance
that for several days Respondent 's so-called blue-bordered notice covered most of
the last two paragraphs and the Company 's signature on the settlement notice.
Wyatt testified that after first seeing the two notices in this position he later noted
that the upper left-hand corner of the blue -bordered notice had been folded down
and, he believed , held down by a thumb tack. Through the testimony of Produc-
tion Manager Thomas Ray, Respondent contended in substance that when originally
The agreement , approved October 3 , 1957 , provided that upon approval of the agree-
ment , the Employer would "immediately " post the notice.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1729'
posted the upper right-hand corner of the blue -bordered notice was turned down.
and then that notice posted in such a way as to cover up only a small portion of
the lower left -hand corner of the settlement notice, including a substantial portion.
of the last sentence on the settlement notice reading as follows:
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not:
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
In the Company 's version remaining uncovered in the first line of this sentence were
the words "remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and remaining un-
covered in the second line of this sentence were the words "or covered by any other
material." The blue-bordered notice, which is in evidence as General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 2, and which the parties stipulated was the notice posted, has a crease
along the blue band in the upper right-hand corner and no crease across the upper
left-hand corner . In view of this fact , as witness Ray's testimony on this point was
more complete and more convincing than Wyatt's, and as Ray's testimony was
more consistent with the stipulations of counsel , I credit Respondent 's testimony on
this point.
The Union filed a petition for an election on July 5, 1956 .5 After four post-
ponements the R-case hearing was finally held on October 15, 1957, following which
the Board 's Decision and Direction of Election issued on December 3, 1957. Pur-
suant to this the election was originally set for December 20, 1957, and the Board's
customary election notices were posted on Respondent 's bulletin boards from
December 13 to 19, 1957 . The election was postponed until February 27, 1958,
shortly prior to which election notices were again posted.
During the posting of one of these election notices employee Marvin T. Brown's.
foreman sent Brown in to talk with Production Manager Tom Ray in the latter's
office. Ray, who was assisting Personnel Manager Ray Gardner in making a survey
of personnel , asked Brown many questions concerning himself and his family and.
wrote the answers on a piece of paper. Respondent contended that it had been
making personnel surveys every year since 1951, usually in the fall of the year, but.
according to the testimony of Floyd Nance, considered below, the subjects covered.
in the survey in 1957 were considerably wider than they had been in previous years.
Thomas Ray asked employee Brown for his full name, address , marital status, how
many children he had, if he owned a car , about how far he lived from the plant,.
who should be notified in case of an accident , if he was happy in his work , if he had.
any suggestions for the improvement of the plant's operations , whether he was willing
to accept more responsibility. After this type of question , according to Brown,.
Thomas Ray then asked him if Brown had seen the election notice on the bulletin.
board, and then told Brown that the Company wanted loyal employees , employees,
who would not let the Company down , and stated that the Company looked after
its employees so long as the employees were faithful and loyal to the Company.
While the election notices were posted in December 1957, employee Floyd Nance's,
foreman, Clint Wilcox, sent Nance into Thomas Ray 's office, where Ray asked him
a number of questions related to the personnel survey. According to Nance's un-
contradicted testimony , this was the first time in a survey that the Respondent had.
asked him concerning such matters as how far he lived from work, whether he liked
his job, whether he would accept additional responsibilities , and whether he owned.
his home. Nance testified that this was the first time that he was ever called in and.
asked what was going right with his job and what was going wrong with it and that.
sort of thing . Nance testified that after the series of questions related to the survey,
Thomas Ray asked him if he had noticed the election notices on the bulletin board,.
and then asked Nance how he felt about "this." Then Thomas Ray asked how the
other fellows outside felt about it, to which Nance replied that "it is quiet. You
don't hear them moving out there. I thought this was all over with ." During this
part of the conversation Thomas Ray told Nance, according to the latter, that he
had information that Nance was attending meetings and signed a card. When
Nance told him that he had signed a card and had attended a union meeting.
Thomas Ray asked him if he felt obligated in any way.
In Thomas Ray's version of these conversations both Brown and Nance first raised
the subject of the election notice. Although Ray gave different versions than. the
two employees of his conversations with them, he did not deny telling Brown that
the Company desired faithful and loyal employees and looked after its employees,
so long as they were faithful and loyal; and he did not deny asking Nance how he
felt about the election and how the other fellows felt about it, nor did he deny tell-.
Case No . 11-RC-876.
508889-60-vol. 123-110
1730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing Nance that he had information that Nance had attended meetings and signed a
card, and asking him if he felt obligated in any way to the Union. As Brown and
Nance were credible witnesses, and as their version of these conversations is con-
sistent with Respondent's past practices I credit the testimony of Brown and Nance
concerning what Ray said and asked in these conversations.
Substantively Ray testified that one of the reasons for conducting the survey in
the fall of 1957 was to "find out which men were best fitted for which job in case
of transfers," and "to find out if there [was] anything in the plant that would cause
us any trouble now or later." As from Respondent's point of view a principal cause
of trouble for it in the plant was the union organizational movement, I find on this
evidence and all the evidence on the subject of the 1957 survey, that one of the
purposes of the 1957 survey was to check on the strength of the union movement
at that time.
During one preelection period Foreman Clint Wilcox "called us together and
talked with us about several different things, about our work, the culls, but he would
like for us to try to keep the culls down a little more." Wilcox also said, accord-
ing to the uncontradicted testimony of Floyd Nance, "there is going to be an elec-
tion here and Mr. Gardner would like for each and everyone of you to vote, and
we do 'hope you fellows will vote the right way." Wilcox also said, "if a union
were to come in to this plant, that it would cause layoffs, maybe short work, that
there would be more damage to us than there would be good."
During the period of the posting of the preelection notice during December 1957,
Arnold B. Wyatt's foreman sent him to the office of Personnel Manager Ray
Gardner, saying that Gardner wanted to talk with him. Wyatt and Gardner gave
substantially different versions of this conversation. In substance Wyatt testified
that after asking the usual questions about whether he owned his home, had a car,
etc.-questions relating to the survey-Gardner asked Wyatt what job he preferred
doing at the plant, Wyatt replying that he preferred roughing to his present job of
running beveling machines, because he had more experience as a rougher and be-
cause it was an easier job and it paid more. According to Wyatt he also suggested
that each beveling machine operator operate only one machine instead of two.
Then, according to Wyatt (Gardner denying), Gardner asked him what he thought
of the election notice on the bulletin board, Wyatt replying that he thought it was
a good idea. Gardner then asked why he thought so and Wyatt replied that he
thought that if the Union came in the men would get better pay and working con-
ditions. To this Gardner replied that the Company was paying all that it could
without going in the hole. Wyatt replied that the increased sales would probably
take care of that. Gardner rejoined that if the Union got in Respondent's sales
would be cut by one-third. Ray Gardner's version was that after a number of
questions he asked Wyatt if he was satisfied with his job, Wyatt replying no.
Asked what job he would prefer Wyatt replied he would rather be a "rougher,"
adding that he had never liked the beveling machine, and that if they had a union
here Wyatt would be a "rougher." Gardner then said that from that statement he
concluded that Wyatt was for the Union. Wyatt replied that he definitely was for
the Union. Gardner said well, that is a matter of opinion.
Although Ray Gardner denied that he brought up the subject of the election
notice, and thereby the Union, on all the evidence concerning the 1957 survey and
Respondent's other interrogations after the settlement agreement, I credit Wyatt's
testimony that Gardner did.
Early in November 1957 employee James Anthony had two or three short con-
versations with Production Manager Thomas Ray in the plant, which led to Ray's
driving out to Anthony's home that evening and of continuing the conversation
there. Although in substance Ray contended that the entire initiative in the con-
versations was taken by Anthony, Ray did not deny that he drove out to Anthony's
home that evening for the purpose of discussing the Union and Anthony's attitude
toward it. Concerning these conversations the testimony of Anthony and Ray are
in conflict. According to Anthony, Ray stopped him in the aisle of the plant and
asked him how he felt about the management; then in substance he asked him how
he felt about the Union; then he asked if Anthony felt they needed the Union in
the plant. Later that day, according to Anthony, Ray returned to Anthony's work
table and said he wanted to talk to him some more about the same subject, but
Anthony was about to punch out and had to go with his transportation. Ray asked
if he could come out to Anthony's house and they set a date for that evening.
According,to Anthony, Ray said to him at Anthony's home "Jim, the way you take
our management is a slap in the face." Anthony replied that he believed that a
union was fair to both company and employees. Ray said that he would like to have
Anthony on their side, Anthony replying that he would like to be on their side but
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1731
-could not. Ray said that he had found Mr. Gardner to be a fair man, that although
he admitted that Gardner gets riled up at times, that "I have been told to fire this
man and that man," that nevertheless Anthony knew that Ray had not fired anyone
since he had been in management. Ray had come to Respondent's plant in Decem-
ber 1956 as a consulting engineer to make a cost survey, but he had not become a
part of management until July 1, 1957, when he was made production manager.
Ray said that he would like Anthony to read Romans 12 before he "decided to
vote." He also asked Anthony if it would not be hard for him to get another job
.since Anthony was blind in one eye. According to Ray's testimony, Anthony
brought up the subject of the Union in the plant, during which Ray told him that
"the Union would do us no good here. 1 can see no advantage to having it in the
plant." Then Anthony said that he would like to discuss this matter further and
invited Ray out to his home. Ray testified that Anthony was completely mixed up
about what he thought about the Union and he was inviting Ray's comment. Ray
told him that he did not see how the Union could be of any advantage "to us in
the plant." . . . "I just plainly told him that I didn't see how it could do anything
but cause us serious harm." He told him that under a union setup management
and employees could not have free discussions one with another. On cross-
-examination Ray admitted that he may have told Anthony that Anthony's attitude
was a slap in the face to management. He admitted that he said something about
Romans 12. He admitted that he had told Anthony that Mr. Gardner had gotten
riled up at times about various things that were not right in the plant. He admitted
that he told Anthony that he thought Gardner was a fair man to deal with but
denied saying that he had been'told to fire this man and that but in fact had not
fired anybody. Ray admitted telling Anthony that it might be difficult for him to
get another job, having only one eye. Ray explained this statement this way: "He
was telling me about being fired at Chatham Blanket Company, that was the way
that it came up as I recall, or at some place in Elkin. His wife said, `James, I am
surprised that you are mixed up in this thing. I didn't know you were a union
man,' . . . and he said 'well, maybe I'm not. I am just interested in it' and she said
'well, I certainly hope you don't lose your job like you did over in Elkin.' I said,
"James, with one eye like you have, it probably will be hard for you to get another
job.' I wasn't telling him that he would lose his job in any sense of the word."
For Production Manager Ray to have initiated these conversations concerning the
Union with employee Anthony would have been consistent with Respondent's be-
havior throughout its antiunion campaign as disclosed in this record. In view of
this, and in view of the fact that Anthony impressed me as an honest and credible
witness, I credit Anthony's testimony concerning his conversations with Ray.
Late in November President Gardner stopped at Anthony's work table, and after
preliminary conversation about Anthony's work assignment, asked Anthony in sub-
stance what he thought about the Union. Anthony replied that he believed in the
Union. Gardner replied that they did not need it here. The following afternoon
Anthony's foreman sent him to see President Gardner in the latter's office. Anthony's
testimony concerning this interview with Gardner is undenied. Gardner initiated
the conversation by saying that Superintendent Chick Blackburn had said that
Anthony wanted to talk to him. Anthony replied that he did not tell Chick that,
but that Anthony would talk to Gardner. Gardner then said that he had been
thinking about what they had been talking about and wanted to talk some more
about it. Then Gardner asked what he had done to make Anthony want a union.
Anthony reminded him that one time Anthony had come to him asking him to give
the men permission to open some windows which Gardner had asked to be closed,
and in the conversation Gardner had said that if Anthony did not like it to get the
hell out. In substance Gardner said that he did not remember that and he apolo-
gized for it if it happened. Then he said "I would sure like to have you on my
side. I want you to be on my side and put your shoulder against the wheel and help
me fight this thing." Anthony replied that he would not promise but that he would
study the matter and try to see it Gardner's way. At the end Gardner said it was
Anthony's decision to make, not Gardner's.
About 2 days later Anthony went back to Gardner's office and told Gardner, in
the presence of Thomas Ray, that he was going to try to be on Gardner's side.
,Gardner said "alright Jim, get out and help me win this thing."
Three days later Anthony went to Thomas Ray and told him that he had changed
"back to where I stood, that I had done my best to be on their side, that I could
not find relief in doing so," that he would go and report to Gardner on Monday.
'Thomas Ray replied "No, don't do that because you don't understand how that tears
his heart up." So Anthony did not go and tell Gardner of his change of mind.
1732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions : Respondent 's activities , detailed above , establish beyond any doubt
that after entering into the settlement agreement with the Union , Respondent vio-
lated both the spirit and letter of the agreement , hereby demonstrating that the:
efforts at adjustment failed to accomplish their purpose.
1. To the knowledge of Respondent 's production manager, for an appreciable:
period of time during the agreed -upon posting of the settlement notice, Respondent
actually covered at least a corner of one copy of the settlement notice with another
notice published by Respondent . Sufficiently covered so as to make them un-
intelligible to employees not familiar with their meaning were the words of the
settlement notice: "This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,-
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material ." The notice
posted by Respondent , impressively contrived so as to attract employees ' attention,
informed the employees that "the attitude of this Company with regard to the:
Union is exactly what it has always been ." This attitude , as the employees well,
knew from having heard it from the lips of Respondent 's president and other super-
visors, was that rather than tolerate a union in his plant, President Gardner would.
close the doors of the plant forever. This attitude , as the employees well knew,.
involved summoning the employees to the president 's office and interrogations ands
threats by the president and other lesser officials and supervisors for the purpose of-
discouraging membership and activity in the Union . These threats and interroga-
tions, and the effect of the antiunion petition, were not erased from the employees"
minds by the choice of the word "proper" in the next sentence of Respondent's,
notice because , for all the employees knew, Respondent had considered and still
considered the threats , interrogations , and petition as perfectly "proper." That
Respondent 's real purpose in posting this notice was to renew in, the. employees"
minds the full impact of its earlier antiunion campaign is further established by the
fact that substantively the only new thought in this notice was that Respondent's.
attitude had not changed, the sentiments expressed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this,
notice being identical to the sentiments expressed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
Respondent 's earlier "red-banded" notice which was still posted ' on the bulletin:
boards during all of the time that the "blue -banded" notice was posted . Under all
the circumstances , including the other violations of the settlement agreement dis-
cussed below, I conclude that by posting the "blue-banded " notice, and by partially
covering the settlement notice with it, Respondent violated the settlement agreement
and Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
For a few days the settlement notice was partially hidden from view by stacks.
of cartons on skids pulled up in front of it. As there is no evidence the skids were"
put there to block vision of the notice , presumably they were - put there in the"
ordinary operation of the plant and without any intent to cover up; the settlement
notice. Under all the circumstances , I do not find an additional violation in this.
situation.
2. When Thomas Ray told Marvin T . Brown that the Company looks after its.
employees so long as the employees are faithful to the Company , he inferred that
the Company does not look after its employees when the employees are unfaithful
to the Company . This statement by Ray was made during a preelection period and'
just after Ray had asked Brown if he had seen the election notice-which shows that
Ray intended Brown to understand that voting against the Union would be an act
of faithfulness toward the Company and that voting for the Union would be an act:
of unfaithfulness toward the Company. Ray's statement , in this context, was an,
implied promise of benefit to employees if the Union lost the election and an implied
threat to employees if the Union won the election . By Ray's making this state-
ment, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights.
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , Respondent thereby violating the settlement
agreement and Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
3. In December 1957 Thomas Ray's telling Floyd Nance that he: had, information:
that Nance had attended union meetings and had signed a card " violated the
settlement-agreement provision that Respondent would not create the impression of'
surveillance of the employees ' union activities or meetings .. Ray's , asking Nance:
how he and the other fellows felt about "this," meaning the election , and if he felt
obligated in any way ( to the Union ) was a violation of the settlement -agreement
provision that Respondent would not interrogate its employees concerning their"
membership in, sympathies with, or activities on behalf of , the Union, and his.
interrogations reasonably tended to restrain or interfere with the exercise of rights
guaranteed in the Act , Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a) (T)' of the Act.
4. During a preelection period in December 1957 or February 1958 , Clint-
Wilcox's threat to a group of employees in substance that if the Union won the
election there would be layoffs, maybe "short work," and more, damage to the
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1733
employees than good , interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating the settle-
ment agreement and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. In November 1957, when Thomas Ray asked James Anthony how he felt about
the Union and if he felt they needed a union in the plant, Respondent violated the
settlement-agreement provision that Respondent would not interrogate its employees
.concerning their sympathies with the Union, and his interrogations reasonably
.tended to restrain or interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act,
Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. In November 1957, when Thomas Ray told James Anthony that President
Gardner got riled up at times and that Ray had been told "to fire this man and
.that man," and in the same conversation reminded Anthony that it would be difficult
for him to get another job since he had only one eye, Respondent impliedly threat-
ened Anthony with discharge to induce him to refrain from becoming or remaining
a member of, or active in, or in favor of, the Union, Respondent thereby violating
the settlement agreement and Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
7. In November 1957, when President Gardner asked Anthony in substance
what he thought about the Union, Respondent violated the settlement-agreement
provision that Respondent would not interrogate its employees concerning their
sympathies with the Union, and his interrogation reasonably tended to restrain or
:interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act, Respondent thereby violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. In December 1957, when Personnel Manager Ray Gardner asked Wyatt what
he thought of the election notice on the bulletin board and why he thought it was
a good idea, thereby initiating a conversation concerning the Union, his interroga-
tions violated the settlement agreement and reasonably tended to restrain or inter-
fere with the exercise of rights guaranteed in the Act, Respondent thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
9. In addition to the above, in January and August 1958, after the settlement
:agreement, as will be seen below Respondent unlawfully discharged three em-
ployees, thereby violating the settlement agreement as well as the Act.
10. The General Counsel sought, but in my judgment failed, to prove that Re-
:spondent further violated the settlement agreement by failing to offer one James W.
Shew his former or substantially equivalent employment. The record established
that Respondent sent a letter to Shew and that Shew reported in some 2 months
later, at which time Respondent apparently refused to employ him because he came
in too late. The check for Shew's back pay was mailed to the same address, and
the check was cashed. Under all the circumstances I do not find a further violation.
D. Conclusions with respect to Respondent's violations before the
settlement agreement
It is a well established Board policy,6 approved by the courts,7 to go behind a
-settlement agreement which has been breached by subsequent unfair labor practices,
,of a similar nature, and to consider evidence of conduct both before and after the
settlement agreement. This practice is based upon the salutary policy of protecting
parties to a settlement agreement against violations of the agreement. As here the
settlement agreement has been breached and subsequent unfair labor practices have
occurred, I now summarize the presettlement violations disclosed by the evidence.
1. Threats and promises of benefit
In about September 1956, just after the conclusion of the "Roy Stone strike,"
President Edd Gardner told a group of his assembled employees that he would
never tolerate a union in his plant and that he would close his doors forever before
he would do so.
On July 17, 1956, President Gardner stated to employee Edward Osborne, "do
you think I am going to have a damn bunch of foreigners running my business? .. .
"J. E. Hamilton & Sons, Inc ., 120 NLRB 1468; International Brotherhood of Team-
sters etc .. Local No . 554 (Clark Bros . Transfer Company ), 116 NLRB 1891, 1892, 1911 ;
Courier Post Publishing Company, 102 NLRB 26 , 28 ; Wooster Brass Company, 80 NLRB
1633, 1634, and cases cited; Larrance Tank Corporation, 94 NLRB 352 , 353; Rice-Stim of
Arkansas , Inc., 79 NLRB 1333, 1334 , and cases cited.
7 The Wallace Corporation v. N.L.R.B ., 323 U.S. 248 , 254-255 ; N.L.R.B. v. May Depart-
ment Stores Company, 154 F. 2d 533, 539 ( C.A. 8) ; Hawk & Buck Company, Inc., 120
F. 2d 903, 905 (C.A. 5) ; The Canyon Corporation, 128 F. 2d 953, 955-956 (C.A. 8) ;
Poole Foundry and Machine Company v . N.L.R.B ., 192 F. 2d 740 ( C.A. 4).
1734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a union came in here, I couldn't even come around and tell you what to do .-
before I let a union come in here . 1 can go on the road and sell anything..
I don't have to run this business." During the same conversation Gardner stated
that the foreman in firing Ralph Wood, had done what any man would do, that the
foreman had found out that Wood had been working for both the Company and
the Union, and drawing money from both. During the same conversation President.
Gardner told Osborne that he let two men go for lying to him about the Union,
naming them, and added, "if these damn yellow foremen don't fire the men, I am
going to fire the foremen and fire the men myself, that he was not going to work
any men dealing with the Union and that the only way Osborne could continue
working for him was to discontinue all of his union activities." He said further-
that he was going out to talk to the four men who had told him that Osborne was
at the union meeting and that if he found "out different" those four men were going.
to be out of jobs. He added that Osborne had probably saved a lot of jobs, that he,
Gardner, had intended to go out there and do some firing.
By these statements President Gardner identified himself as one of the employers.
Congress was referring to in its Findings and Policies under Title I of the Act as
amended, one of the employers who denies "the right of employees to organize"
and who refuses "to accept the procedure of collective bargaining." By these
statements it is found that President Gardner repudiated the right to organize, the
procedure of collective bargaining, and also "the exercise by workers of full
freedom of association," which is a part of the declared "policy of the United
States." By these threats, and each of them, Walker interfered with, restrained,.
and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
A number of Gardner's supervisors faithfully followed their president's lead in
his campaign against the Union. On the basis of the entire record it is found that
by the following threats or promises of benefit by the following supervisors, Re-
spondent interfered withi, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1):
1. During the last week in June 1956, Foreman Clint Wilcox's statement to em-
ployee James P. Elledge that if they did not "drop this union activity, the old
man . . was really going to make it tough on us."
'2. Superintendent Chick Blackburn's statement to James P. Elledge on July 13,.
1956, that he was discharging him because of the Union, that President Gardner
gave "us our orders last week, anyone that had anything to do with this Union,
let them go."
3. On July 13, 1956, Foreman Halley Walker's statement to Osborne that if his
signature was not on the petition "they will know" that Osborne was a union man.
Although the consequences of Osborne being a union man were not stated, the en-
tire record establishes that Walker's warning amounted to a threat that dire con--
sequences would befall Osborne if "they" knew that Osborne was holding out
against the Company and was for the Union.
4. On July 13, 1956, Superintendent Chick Blackburn's statement to Osborne
that his name would look "good" on the petition which would be on Gardner's desk
when Gardner went through his "raise books" on Monday. By this statement
Blackburn made an implied promise of benefit that if Osborne signed the petition
he would be favorably considered by Gardner for a raise.
5. On July 17, 1956, Foreman Halley Walker's warning and threat to Osborne
that at a foreman's meeting just held President Gardner was "just real angry and
red" that a union meeting had allegedly been held that day at Osborne's home, and
that Osborne was "on the spot."
6. In mid-August 1956, Superintendent Chick Blackburn's statement to employee
John Edsel that "Mr. Gardner was a man of such standing in the town that he
could keep me [Edsel] from getting a job anywhere in town."
7. In September 1956, Personnel Manager Ray Gardner's statement to Marvin T.
Brown that the Company would not operate with a union. In substance this was
a threat that Respondent would close rather than deal with the Union if the Union
established its majority status.
8. Foreman Halley Walker's warnings to Osborne in the fall of 1956, and in
June and July 1957, shortly before Osborne's discharge, to the effect that the
Company had something on Osborne, that "they want me to check you real close
to see if you have been having anything to do with the Union," that if Walker had to
fire Osborne, the latter should not blame Walker, that Walker would have to do it
to keep his own job.
9. In June or July 1957, Foreman Halley Walker's statement to Osborne that
Foreman Bloomfield had fired one man on his shift and had told Walker that there
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1735
were two men on Walker's shift on the list, Ralph Hayes and the TV man-Osborne
being the TV man. That that conversation related to the Union was shown by
Walker's further observation that he did not believe that Hayes was connected with
the Union. In substance Walker's statement amounted to a threat that Osborne
was on a list of employees to be fired because of their union activities.
2. Changing the solicitation rule; and the petition
On June 27, 1956, at the very beginning of the self-organizational efforts of the
employees, when Respondent was threatening and interrogating employees concern-
ing the Union, by instituting a new rule prohibiting union solicitation absolutely in
the plant, for the clear purpose of defeating the Union, while continuing the previous
rule permitting all other solicitation if permission was obtained from a supervisor,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
After Respondent had first posted its notice announcing the above change in its
solicitation rules so as to bar union solicitation in the plant on company time com-
pletely, Respondent, through its supervisors, circulated an antiunion petition and
solicited employees signatures on it with threats of reprisal and promises of benefit,
all on company time in the plant. As was obviously intended, this circulation and
solicitation interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1).
3. Other changes in working conditions
Other changes in working conditions instituted immediately after the beginning
of the self-organizational activities of the employees, concurrently with the threats
and interrogations, and the change in its solicitation rule, and obviously calculated
to affect those activities, were Respondent's cessation of making contributions to the
flower fund and the abolishment of the flower fund; and also the resumption of
making used paint buckets and scrap lumber available to the employees upon re-
quest. By making these changes in working conditions at this time, for the purpose
of defeating the organizational efforts, of the employees, Respondent interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 thereby
violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. Interrogations
Under all of the circumstances of this case, the following interrogations by
officers and supervisors reasonably tended to restrain or interfere with the exercise
of rights guaranteed in the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act:
(a) In June 1956, Foreman Sanford Moore's asking employee Pendergrass how
he felt about the Union.
(b) In June or July 1956, President Edd Gardner's question to Pendergrass as
to what his decision was.
(c) In late June 1956, President Gardner's questions to Lawrence Kerley as to
what Kerley had to do with the Union and what his interest in the Union was; also
his accusing Kerley of being a ringleader of the Union and of having union meetings
at his home.
(d) In July 1956, Superintendent Harvey Prevatte's query to employee Ted
Walker as to whether Walker wanted to play ball "with us," and later, as to whether
Walker was "ready to play ball with us." The latter inquiry was made in the same
conversation in which Prevatte informed Walker that he had heard that Walker
had been going to these cow pasture meetings that they have been having around,
which indicates that the "play ball" questions related to the Union.
(e) In July or August 1956, a number of questions put by President Gardner to
employee Uless Mastin, including questions as to what Mastin was doing about
the union business, as to whether Mastin had started out with the Union, as to why
Mastin had signed a card, as to what Mastin was going to do from here on out
about the Union, as to whether Mastin was going to be for the Union or for the
Company, as to whether Mastin would promise Gardner that he would vote 'for
the Company.
(f) During the last week of June 1956, Foreman Clint Wilcox's question to
employee James P. Elledge as to how Elledge felt about the Union.
(g) President Gardner's question to employee James C. Reavis as to why the
men wanted to put the Union between Gardner and them.
1736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(h) On June 25 , 1956, Foreman John Gant's question to employee James
-Anthony as to what he was doing up the road on Sunday.
(i) In early July 1956, Foreman Charles Absher's inquiry to employee Clay
,Blackburn "about the Union."
(j) On July 17, 1956, President Gardner's inquiry of employee Edward Osborne
in substance as to why he wanted a union , whether he had signed a union card,
who gave him the card, and how the men in his department felt about the Union.
l(k) In September 1956, Personnel Manager Ray Gardner 's inquiry of employee
Marvin P . Brown as to how he felt about the Union.
(1) In the fall of 1956, Personnel Manager Ray Gardner 's inquiry to employee
.Edward Osborne as to how Osborne felt about the union activities then going on,
how the men in Osborne's department felt about it.
5. Instructing employee to inform on other employees
In the fall of 1956, Personnel Manager Ray Gardner instructed employee Edward
'Osborne to go out into his department and find out how the men in his department
felt about the Union and return and let Gardner know . He then told him at least
,one way that a union man can be discovered. About 2 weeks later Gardner chided
Osborne for not discovering anything and not letting Gardner know . By these
actions, and each of them , Respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced
employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
6. Creating the impression of surveillance
By the following statements through its president and supervisors , thereby creating
the impression of surveillance of the employees ' union meetings and union activities,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)( I) of the Act: 8
(a) In June 1956, President Gardner's statement to employee Lawrence Kerley
-that he knew that Kerley was one of a group who had gone to a union meeting in
Elkton , that some 20 others had gone, and that he was going to try to see each and
-every one of them before they quit work that afternoon.
(b) On June 29 , 1956, President Gardner's statement to a group of his assembled
employees that he knew what was going on, that the men had had a meeting on
'Sunday and that someone had asked about the insurance at the Company and who
paid for it , and that someone else had answered that the employees paid for it.
(c) On July '17, 1956, President Gardner's statement to Edward Osborne that
four men had told him Osborne was at the union meeting.
(d) In about July 1956, Superintendent Harvey Prevatte 's statement to employee
Ted Walker that "I hear you have been going to these cow pasture meetings they
have been having around."
E. The discharges
1. James Anthony
James Anthony worked for the Respondent for some .8 years, all of it being in
the cutting department . The two principal functions in the cutting department were
,cutting and pinching, both of which Anthony performed. He received a raise
shortly after he started work and received raises continually until he was selected
for layoff on January 23, 1958.
Respondent made a general layoff in early 1958 which its evidence attributed to
a slump in business . To be noted in this connection, however, is that the Board-
-ordered election was originally set for December 20, 1957, and was postponed until
February 27, 1958. In all some 30 or 40 employees were laid off, the record being
- silent as to the general basis for selection for layoff.
In the cutting department four employees were selected for layoff, two cutters,
-one pincher , and one man from the stockroom . The record is silent as to why four
employees were selected to go from this department rather than three or two or
five or six , the only evidence being that the foreman was told to let go any em-
ployees he could "do without" and he decided to lay off four and selected four.
Respondent did not attempt to explain on the basis of the work why two cutters
were selected , and only one pincher . For the most part the men worked in pairs,
one cutter and one pincher to a table.
Foreman John Gant testified that the rate of pay of a cutter "depends on how
-good a cutter is, and his ability and the production he turns out." At the time of
8 Thomason Plywood Corporation, 109 NLRB 898; Idaho Egg Producers. 111 NLRB 93;
-Newsprinting Co., Inc ., 110 NLRB 1265 ; Wagner Transportation Company, 110 NLRB 1179.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1737
the selection of cutters James Anthony and Lawrence Kerley for layoff there were
eight cutters in the department . The highest paid was Roscoe Williams at $ 1.50 an
hour. Williams was understudy to the foreman . Next was Curt Elledge at $ 1.45..
Gant believed that Howard Ratliff, who did replacement work which required a-
high degree of skill , was also paid $1.45. Then came five cutters who received
$1.40 an hour . Listed in the order of their seniority these cutters were Percy
Billings, James Anthony , Elmore Billings , Lawrence Kerley, and Mac Wood. Ac-
cording to Gant's test for the rates of pay it follows that since Anthony received.
the same rate of pay as Percy Billings, Elmore Billings, Mac Wood, and Lawrence
Kerley, Anthony must have been at least as "good" a cutter as they and his "ability"'
and "production" must have been on a par with theirs.
In some respects it appears that Anthony and Kerley had more skill as cutters.
than the other three in their wage level. For several months when the replacement
man, Ratliff, was away from the plant during 1957, Anthony performed his replace-
ment work-a job to which presumably he would not have been assigned had he not.
had the skill to perform it. Foreman Gant testified that doing replacement work
required more skill than doing "shadow box" and doing "shadow box" required.
more skill than cutting medicine cabinets , which in turn required more skill than
cutting "culls " or "salvage ." Kerley performed all types of cutting, including shadow-
box and cutting furniture patters, the most difficult work in the department-
although he had not had enough experience at the latter to have the requisite speed.
at it. Anthony could do shadow boxing, and did some of it. Neither Percy Billings,-
Elmore Billings, nor Mac Wood had the skill to do shadow boxing; and they worked
on medicine cabinets and cutting straight line, both of which required less skill than
shadow box or replacement work. On a make-work basis his last several weeks.
Anthony was assigned to cutting "culls" or "salvage," but Respondent 's evidence did.
not adequately explain why he, rather than one of the other cutters , was put on the
make-work basis. In the light of Anthony 's skill as disclosed by his actual per-
formance of certain work which neither Billings nor Wood could do, I do not credit
Foreman Gant's conclusion that Anthony was the least qualified cutter.
At the time of the selection of Anthony and Kerley for layoff, there were some
four or five pinchers, at least four of whom-Tony Marian, Leon Prevatte, Parks
Johnson, and Robert Cowles-were younger in seniority than Anthony . Pinching
being a less-skilled job than cutting, the top wage of the pinchers was $1.30 an.
hour. The evidence indicates that the pinchers did some cutting , usually as learners,
and that the cutters did some pinching.
Gant testified that Kerley was selected for layoff because at the time he was work-
ing on shadow boxing and there was no more of that work to do . For this alleged
reason Kerley was laid off and less-skilled cutters were kept.
On direct examination Foreman Gant testified that Anthony was selected for lay-
off because he would go to the restroom and stay 20 minutes at a time. On direct
examination Gant said nothing about Anthony's talking. On recross examination the
alleged reason became that Anthony "stayed off the job quite a bit, talking to the-
other boys , and loafing in the restroom . That's why I picked him to be laid off."
Gant testified that during his entire 8 years with the Company Anthony had always.
talked too much-but despite this Anthony had received raises and had been kept
as an employee . Gant testified that the longer Anthony worked for Respondent
the worse he got about talking, but given an opportunity , he did not state that
Anthony had been worse during January than during previous months.
During the General Counsel 's case-in-chief Anthony, who impressed me as a very
honest witness , testified on cross-examination in substance that Gant did not single-
him out for talking too much but that he would tell the entire group in the depart-
ment, including Anthony, that they were talking too much. Anthony denied ever-
"laying out" in the restroom , denied ever going to the restroom and staying for
20 or 30 minutes and taking a nap, and denied that Gant or anyone else ever said
anything to him about that . Anthony admitted that the replacement job, which he-
filled in Ratliff's absence , required more talking than the other jobs. However, he
said that he never .bothered anyone when they were at work and wanted to work-
and that he did not think he did any more talking than the average person , that he
did not talk "enough to bother our work." He recalled one incident shortly before-
his layoff when Thomas Ray appeared in what the employees called the red room,
door just at the moment that another employee passed Anthony and called to him
and Anthony looked up. According to Anthony , Thomas Ray "looked at me as if'
I were carrying on a big conversation , and a short while after that, the foreman did,
come to me and say that I had been talking." On rebuttal Anthony stated in sub-
stance that for a considerable period prior to that-6 months or more-he had not-
1738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been criticized for talking too much, "because I had been very strict myself since we
were under the strain of being real careful." Under all the circumstances of this
case, including the strain the employees had been put under by Respondent 's anti-
union threats, interrogations, petition, and other violations found above, it appears
.probable to me, and I find, consistent with Anthony's credible testimony, that
Anthony had been very careful not to talk too much during his last year or so of
employment, and that he had not spent long periods in the restroom and had not
bothered the other employees at work. I make this finding notwithstanding that
shortly after being laid off when he met Ray Gardner up town, Anthony said to
Gardner that he did not know why he talked so much, that he believed he got it
from one side or the other of his family-on which occasion Gardner said that they
all talked too much.
On January 23, 1958, as Anthony was punching in, Gant told him not to punch
in and that they would send for Anthony when they needed him. Gant gave
Anthony no reason for this action. Anthony then went immediately to Thomas
Ray's office where he found Ray and Donald Culler, Respondent's vice president.
In the ensuing conversation, according to the undenied and uncontradicted testimony
of Anthony, Anthony first asked why he was being laid off, Ray replying that
Anthony knew there was a shortage of work. When Anthony pointed out that in
fact there was work being done which he could do, Ray said in substance that
Anthony knew that Percy Billings, who was doing that work, was an older hand
than Anthony, thereby referring to seniority. Then when Anthony asked in sub-
stance why he was being selected for layoff and two other cutters younger than he
in seniority were being retained, Ray told him that they were laying Anthony off
for talking on the job. Ray did not say anything about laying out in the restroom.
During this conversation Vice President Culler said, "Jim, we will take you back
when work picks up, and . . . don't you think that this damn union ain't causing
shortage of work, because no company wants to buy glass from a company that is
going to be closed down." This statement by the vice president showed that in his
mind there was a close connection between Anthony and the Union. As there is no
evidence of any closing down except the Respondent's repeated threats to close down
.if the Union got in the plant, I find that this statement by the vice president was a
renewal of that threat-and was a further violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
Since the very beginning of the union organizational drive, Foreman Gant had
known that Anthony and Kerley were interested in the union movement. He had
asked Anthony the day after the first meeting what he had been doing up the road
on Sunday and Anthony had replied that he had been to a union meeting. Later
Gant had said something about sending Anthony to see President Gardner, but had
agreed with Anthony that he had better not because the two might "fight." At about
the same time Gant had sat in on the conversation when President Gardner had
interrogated and threatened Kerley concerning the Union and had heard Kerley
admit that he had been to some union meetings and liked the working conditions
under a union. In addition Gant had undoubtedly attended foremen's meetings at
which he had undoubtedly seen President Gardner get very excited over any recent
disclosure about the organizing drive. Further, Gant must have been as aware as
was Foreman Halley Walker, that if he did not carry out Gardner's antiunion policy
to the fullest extent possible, his own job might be the price of his failure.
It must have been very important to Respondent in late November and early
December 1957 to have Anthony on the Company's side fighting against the Union.
As has been seen above, Thomas Ray went out to Anthony' s house to try to convert
him to the Company's side-which he would not have done had not Anthony's
conversation been important to the Respondent. As has been seen above, President
Gardner told Anthony he wanted Anthony "to be on my side and put your shoulder
against the wheel and help me fight this thing." When Anthony finally informed
Ray that he could not be on the Company's side, Ray's reaction was to protect
Gardner from learning this, because it "tears his heart up." All of this occurred
just a few weeks before Anthony's selection for layoff, and it is inconceivable on
this record that information concerning Anthony's final decision did not reach the
ears of Gant.
In view of the facts and inferences found above , and on the entire record in the
case considered as a whole, it is clear to me, and I find, that James Anthony was
laid off in order to rid the Respondent of an unconvertible union adherent who
would surely vote for the Union in the forthcoming election, and for the purpose of
discouraging membership and activity in, and sympathy for, the Union-Respondent
thereby violating Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1739
2. Arnold B. Wyatt
Arnold B. Wyatt worked for Respondent several different times between 1947 and
his discharge on January 21, 1958. He was paid by the hour, not by piece rate. His
last continuous employment began in the summer of 1952. He was a beveling
machine operator, the beveling machines being automatic machines which put bevels
-on the edges of the glass. The angle of the bevel is determined by a micrometer
adjustment which is set to one-thousandth of an inch, and the cutting of the bevel
is done by four or five diamond cutting wheels. As a result of a study by Thomas
Ray, in October 1957, each operator (with one or two exceptions) was assigned to
operating two beveling machines rather than one, as had been the case before.
Apparently at this time one man, Tommie Laws, was assigned to assist the operators
of four machines. His duties included bringing in the unbeveled glass, removing
the paper from it, and putting paper string between the pieces of glass. He also
made minor adjustments to the machines if they were not producing quality bevel-
.such as putting on a new wheel, putting polishing powder in the tank, and keeping
the machines sharpened. The mechanic in the department was Ralph Pierce, whose
duty was to make all repairs to the machines.
As has been seen above Wyatt was known to Foreman Clint Wilcox, for whom
he used to work, and to Personnel Manager Ray Gardner, as a union sympathizer.
At the beginning of the union movement in June 1956, Wyatt told Wilcox that he
thought the men could get better wages and working conditions if the Union came
in. Shortly prior to the scheduled election in December 1957, Wyatt expressed to
Ray Gardner approximately the same sentiments.
The record establishes that the immediate cause of Wyatt's discharge on Janu-
ary 21, 1957, was the occasion of the bad performance of one of Wyatt's two
machines on that day, and what Wyatt did or did not do about it. All of the
beveling machines gave a certain amount of trouble; this machine was in a par-
ticularly bad mood that day. In a normal day's operation a beveling machine
would turn out an average of not exceeding 15 pieces of glass having "bad bevels,"
according to the credited testimony of operator Will Adams and Foreman Vance
Watson, each of whom impressed me as a credible witness. Wyatt allowed that the
machine in question turned out some 24 pieces having "bad -bevels" that last day;
Adams, who operated 1 or 2 machines nearby, and Watson put the figure at around
70 pieces, an excessive number. Considering all the evidence concerning this ma-
chine that day, and the credibility of all the witnesses who testified concerning it,
I credit the figure of Adams and Watson.
In substance Respondent contended that Wyatt was discharged because he did
not prevent this inordinate number of bad pieces and because he did not obey the
•orders of ,the foreman about stopping the machine.
Several times during the day, possibly four or five, at Wyatt's request Tommie
Laws worked on the machine; and then for a few minutes the machine would operate
:satisfactorily-only to revert then to its habit that day of producing bad bevels.
In order to test his adjustments it was necessary for Laws to run the machine a little
after each effort; then Wyatt would take over. Through Wyatt's testimony the
General Counsel's position was, in essence, that as each time Laws pronounced the
machine runworthy this somehow relieved the operator, Wyatt, of any ultimate re-
sponsibility for the correct operation of the machine. In fact Wyatt testified that
when, over his protest, Foreman Watson assigned him to operate two machines
instead of one, Watson told him that he would hold Tommie Laws, rather than
Wyatt, responsible for their operation. Through his testimony Wyatt contended,
further, that operating the two machines, which ran at two different speeds and on
two different sizes of glass, was more than he could do properly; and that Laws
was to blame because he could not get the machines adjusted quickly enough when
they went "bad." In the absence of Respondent's archaic repudiation of collective
'bargaining, this question of the workload might have been adjusted satisfactorily to
all concerned. The record does not establish, however, that Wyatt's assignment to
two machines instead of one was a discriminatory assignment or was in any way
related to the union movement.
Operator Will Adams testified that it is the operator's responsibility to see that his
machines are putting out good work. Foreman Vance Watson corroborated. Pro-
duction Manager Thomas Ray testified that it is the operator's responsibility to see
that the glass comes off the machine in good shape, that it is his job, rather than
Tommie Laws, to inspect every piece of glass that cones off and mark it good or
bad. All of this testimony concerning the responsibility of the operator appeals to
me as credible and probable. If the operator is not responsible for the quality
output of the machines under his control, and the responsibility rests in the helper,
1740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laws, then Laws would be responsible for the operation of the four machines he
brings glass up to and the two operators operating them would have merely the
routine tasks of seeing that glass is fed into the machine and removed from it and
be totally unconcerned with the quality of the product. Upon all the evidence and
the probabilities I believe and find that the responsibility for the operation of the
machine in question was Wyatt's, whether or not Laws pronounced it ready to run.
On the day in question, his last day of employment, Wyatt failed in the performance
of his duties under this responsibility.
According to the credited testimony of Foreman Watson, he checked on that
machine three times during the course of the day, early in the morning, again at
about 10:30 or 11 a.m., and then again at about 2:30 p.m. He learned early in ,the
morning that the machine was giving trouble. At about 10:30 or 11 o'clock. he dis-
cussed the problems with Laws and closed the machine down himself, and gave
instructions to Wyatt to leave it down until Ralph Pierce, the mechanic, repaired it
Watson noticed at this time that there were 21 pieces set aside as having bad bevels.
(Under all the circumstances Wyatt's testimony that Watson told him to leave the
machine down until "it was fixed" is not credited.) Watson directed Pierce to re-
pair the machine but Pierce who was busy on another machine which was breaking
glass, did not get to it prior to Wyatt's discharge. When Watson returned at about
2:30 he found the machine operating and about 70 pieces having bad bevels. He
told him to get his belongings and come to the office, if he could not do what Watson
asked him to do. On the way Wyatt told Watson that Tommie Laws was operat-
ing the machine, but Watson testified "I knew better than that." Wyatt testified that
about half the time the machine was operating that day Laws was operating it; also
that Laws operated it during Wyatt's half-hour lunch hour (which was Laws' regular
assignment ) during which Laws ran off nine bad pieces.
Although Wyatt was known as a union sympathizer the record does not establish
that this was the reason for his discharge. Under all the circumstances I find that
Wyatt was discharged for not fulfilling his responsibility of seeing that the machine
produced quality work and for not obeying the foreman 's instructions to let the ma-
chine remain idle until the mechanic had repaired it. This was discharge for cause.
Under the circumstances I shalll recommend that the complaint be dismissed as to:
the discharge of Wyatt.
3. John Edsel
As has been seen above in July 1956 when Superintendent Chick Blackburn
handed John Edsel the antiunion petition, Edsel read it and handed it back to him
unsigned. As has been seen above, in August 1956 Superintendent Blackburn found
it suitable to have a man-to-man or heart-to-heart talk with Edsel during which
Blackburn told Edsel among other things that he did not think a union could really
help "us" and also told him that Mr. Gardner had such a standing in town that he
could keep Edsel from getting a job anywhere in town.
Edsel was one of the employees who was put back to work with back pay in the
fall of 1957 pursuant to the settlement agreement.
Edsel testified under subpena in this proceeding before me late in the afternoon
of the first day of hearing, August 18, 1958. Edsel testified he left the witness stand
at about 4 o'clock. Of the eight witnesses who testified that day, all during the
afternoon session, Edsel was the seventh and next to last witness. The session that
day adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Edsel was in the courtroom from 10 o'clock on, waiting
to be called.
Without contradiction Edsel testified that on the previous Thursday, August 14,.
1958, he told Superintendent Chick Blackburn that he had been subpenaed to be at
the courthouse on Monday around 10 o'clock and that he did not know what to do,
whether to go or not. Blackburn replied that it was Federal Government business
and that he was not supposed to have anything to do with it. Edsel told Blackburn
that he did not want to go to court if he did not have to. Edsel asked Blackburn
what they could do with him if he did not go to court. In substance Blackburn
said that he did not know but he would find out and let Edsel know.
The following day, Friday, Blackburn came to Edsel at the latter's work station
and said that the subpena was "unlegal."
Blackburn's statement that the subpena was "unlegal" was consistent with what
Blackburn had heard Production Manager Thomas Ray tell Lawrence Kerley con-
cerning Kerley's subpena to testify at the hearing in Cases Nos. 11-CA-1039,
11-CA-1045, and 11-CA-1089, prior to the "settlement" of those cases. Blackburn
asked Kerley if he had a subpena, and then told him that Thomas Ray wanted to
see him in his office-Blackburn going along . In Blackburn's hearing, Ray then
told 'Kerley that the subpena was no good, that "a subpoena had to be signed by
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1741
someone else , I don 't recall just who it was . I believe he said it had to be signed by
a court judge." Thomas Ray testified that he did not remember this conversation
with Kerley but he did not deny it . He testified that "if anyone had asked me
about a subpoena , I would have told him that it was of course their own choice as
to whether to go or not." He testified further that , with reference to subpenas for
the present hearing, that "we told the foremen to tell the men that this was between
them and the Labor Board , that it was not between us and them , that we had
nothing to do with it , and that they would have to handle that with the Labor Board."
Although Blackburn sat in the courtroom during much of the hearing , he was not
called to testify . Under all the circumstances I credit Edsel 's testimony and find that
on Friday before Edsel was subpenaed to testify on Monday , Blackburn told Edsel
that the subpena was "unlegal."
Present in the courtroom while Edsel was testifying , and at least some of them
during the entire hearing day (and, indeed , throughout the entire hearing), were
President Edd Gardner , Personnel Manager Ray Gardner , Superintendent Chick
Blackburn , Superintendent Harvey Prevatte , Production Manager Thomas Ray, and
Vice President Don Culler.
According to Edsel, on Friday evening before his testimony on Monday, as he
was checking out he told his foreman , Clyde Stone , that he had to go over to the
courthouse at 10 o'clock on Monday morning. Clyde Stone replied "well, you
know what to say." Clyde Stone's version of this conversation was that on Friday
afternoon when he asked Edsel if Edsel wanted to work on Saturday (only a
skeleton crew worked on Saturdays and apparently no man had to ) Edsel replied
no, that he wanted off Saturday to see a lawyer about getting out of going to the
courthouse on Monday , that he did not want to go.
When Edsel reported to work on Tuesday morning , August 19 , he found his
timecard missing from the rack. He spoke to his foreman , Clyde Stone , and asked
him if he was going to work that day. In substance Stone held Edsel off and had
him wait until the arrival of Superintendent Blackburn . Stone testified that he told
Edsel that Stone would have to see Blackburn "before I can let you go to work."
When Blackburn arrived a few moments later Stone told him that he had to dis-
charge a man this morning , John Edsel, for unauthorized absence; also that Edsel
did not notify Stone that he "was out." Blackburn replied only "alright." Thus it
appears that Blackburn did not ask Stone when Edsel was supposed to have been
absent without authorization . Then Stone made out a note to the payroll clerk to
figure out Edsel's time, and then Stone got Edsel 's check from the payroll clerk and
took it out to Edsel and gave it to him along with his discharge slip. The reasons
for the separation given on the layoff slip was, "unauthorized absence 8 /18/58."
Stone testified that he gave his reason to the payroll clerk who actually typed up
the slip.
On direct examination Clyde Stone testified that when he discharges a man for
anything like unauthorized absence he usually gives the man's card to Superintendent
Blackburn who in turn gets the man 's check from the payroll department . In Edsel's
case Stone himself got the check and layoff slip from the payroll clerk, but not until
Blackburn had okayed the discharge with the word "alright ." Not until Stone re-
turned to Edsel with his check and layoff slip was Edsel discharged , and this was not
until Blackburn had approved of the action . On direct examination Clyde Stone
testified that when he first talked with Edsel that morning he asked Edsel if Edsel
had asked Chick Blackburn 's permission to be off on Monday. Stone would not
have made this inquiry if Superintendent Blackburn had not had , as a matter of
authority and practice , the right to give a man permission to be off.
On cross-examination after first testifying that he did not know the week before
that there was to be a Labor Board hearing beginning August 18 , Foreman Clyde
Stone later reluctantly admitted that he had heard from somebody , not any com-
pany people, or Blackburn , that there was to be a hearing on Monday, and that
General Counsel's attorney Jerry Stone was wanting to see people on Saturday.
Then he changed his testimony and stated that Blackburn had told him that Edsel
had received one of those letters to be at the hearing . Nevertheless Stone said he
did not know that Edsel was at the hearing on Monday.
From the above evidence I conclude that at the end of the previous week Super-
intendent Blackburn knew that Edsel had been subpenaed to testify in the Labor
Board hearing Monday, and Foreman Clyde Stone knew from both Edsel and
Blackburn that Edsel was under some kind of compulsion to be at the hearing.
As, to Respondent 's knowledge, he was under summons to appear and testify, as
most, if not all, of Respondent 's top officials , including Blackburn , heard him testify,
and as Blackburn approved of the discharge prior to the discharge , I conclude that
the asserted reason , "unauthorized absence 8/18/58" was a mere pretext.
1742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Of the 14 witnesses called to the witness stand by the General Counsel, Edsel and
Floyd Nance were the only 2 who were employed by Respondent at the time they
testified-with the possible exception of Clay Blackburn and Ted Walker, concern-
ing whom the record is silent. As has been seen above, in his original testimony
herein Edsel stated that Blackburn handed him the petition and that Edsel handed it
back unsigned; that later Blackburn told him that President Gardner w s a man of
such standing in the town that he could keep Edsel from getting a job anywhere in
town, but that, in substance, if Edsel ever repeated what Blackburn said the latter
could deny it. To be noted also is that Edsel was one of the discharged employees
who was reinstated with back pay in the "settlement" of the earlier cases. In view
of these facts, as Blackburn's telling Edsel on Friday that the subpena was "unlegal
was clear indication that Blackburn did not wish Edsel to testify, and upon the
entire record considered as a whole, I find that John Edsel was discharged on
August 19, 1958, because of his union sympathies, well known to Respondent, and
because he gave testimony under the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
4. Floyd Nance
As has been seen above Floyd Nance was one of the two witnesses (with two
possible exceptions) called by the General Counsel who were still employed by
Respondent at the time they testified. Both testified under subpena. As has been
seen above Nance's testimony was vital to the General Counsel's proof of violations
committed after the settlement.
Nance was the General Counsel's second witness. The first witness began testify-
ing shortly after 2 p.m. on the first day of the hearing and his testimony, together
with discussions of counsel and rulings, covered some 22 pages of transcript.
Nance's testimony covered some 11 pages. Altogether 8 witnesses testified that.
afternoon and their testimony, together with discussions and rulings, consumed
89 pages of transcript. It follows that Nance was probably excused from the wit-
ness stand sometime between 3 and 3:30 p.m. According to the uncontradicted
testimony of Nance he was excused from the witness stand but was not told he was.
excused from the subpena. I excused him from the witness stand but did not excuse
him from the subpena, not knowing that he had testified under subpena. Apparently
for reasons of his own the General Counsel also did not excuse him from the-
subpena. He remained in the courtroom listening to the rest of the afternoon session,
which adjourned at about 5:40 p.m. Most, if not all, of the officials of Respondentl
who were in the courtroom at the time of his testimony, remained until the end also.
In the courtroom and listening to his testimony while he was testifying were Presi-
dent Edd Gardner, Production Manager Thomas Ray, Personnel Manager Ray
Gardner, Superintendents Chick Blackburn and Harvey Prevatte, and Foremen
Vance Watson, John Gant, and Charles Abshur.
Nance had worked for Respondent for a little more than 4 years. At the time of
the hearing he was on the second shift, working from 3:30 p.m. until midnight..
On the opening day of the hearing he reported for work at about 7:55 p.m., ready
to work at the conclusion of the luncheon period which ran from 7:30 until 8 o'clock.
Seeing that his timecard had been removed from the rack he said to his foreman,
Clint Wilcox, that he took it for granted that Wilcox would either get him his card
or his "time." Wilcox asked, "Where have you been all day? Why didn't you get
word to me?" According to the credited testimony of Nance, Nance then told
Wilcox that he had been subpenaed to attend "court," to be there at 10 o'clock,
that "I never got away until late," until after 5 o'clock, that "I had chickens to feed
that hadn't been fed since early morning, and so I went home and fed my chickens.
So I came in at supper time."
Concerning the subpena Wilcox said in substance that Nance did not have to obey
it, that he should have spoken to Tom Ray or Ray Gardner about it and possibly
they could have fixed it up so that he would not have had to go to court. During
the conversation Wilcox said in substance that he had "warned you fellows to leave
this thing alone." Wilcox also said in substance that "they" had come to him and
told him that Nance had testified in court under oath that President Gardner had
told Wilcox to tell his men not to vote for the Unions Wilcox also told Nance that
0 Wilcox denied making this statement to Nance, but under all the circumstances his
denial is not credited. Although Wilcox's account of Nance's testimony, which has been
set forth earlier in this report, was a slightly garbled account, it was close enough to
Nance's testimony to show that prior to this conversation with Nance someone had re-
lated, or attempted to relate, the contents of Nance's testimony to Wilcox.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1743
other employees had gotten subpenas who did not have to go, that "they couldn't
make them go," that they had gone in and seen about it and they did not go to
court; and that Nance "didn't have to go and that I went on my own if I went."
During the conversation Wilcox said that he would have to see President Gardner
"about this," and he went away for a few moments. Wilcox testified that while he
was away he saw and spoke to Superintendent Harvey Prevatte, telling him that he
"had let Floyd Nance go and he wanted his check." Prevatte did not ask him why
he was letting Nance go. Prevatte had heard Nance testify earlier in the day, and,
presumably knew that Nance had remained in the courtroom until the session ad
-journed. All Prevatte replied to Wilcox was, "tell him to come back" tomorrow
morning.
During the conversation , presumably after Wilcox returned from speaking with
Prevatte, Wilcox told Nance that he was going to have to let him go, that Nance.
had not sent him any word. Nance replied, "I didn't see where that it would be any
benefit for me to send word as the superintendent and all were at the court and saw
me there. They knew what time it was and all. I didn't see no need of sending,
word when they all know where I was." Wilcox replied, "I will have to let you go.
As you know, according to company rules and regulations you were supposed to let
me know... . I hate to let you go. You are a good worker and all, but that is
the rule. . If you had come to me and let me know, I might have been able to
work something out for you but you did not give me any word." Nance admitted
that he had not informed Wilcox in advance that he was subpenaed or was going
to testify. He admitted that to Wilcox, and added that "I didn't know how long
I would be in court and then after I was at court, I didn't think it was necessary to
send the word since all knew where I was at."
Although Wilcox's version of the above conversation differed somewhat from
Nance's, Nance was the more credible witness. Wilcox admitted on cross-examination
saying a number of things to Nance during this conversation which he had not in-
cluded in his recitation of the conversation on direct examination, which admissions
make Nance's version the more probable statement of what was actually said.
Further, testifying on Thursday, the third day after the conversation, concerning the
conversation he had had with Nance on Monday night, Wilcox professed not to
remember whether a number of specific thoughts had been expressed-but he did
not deny them. Under all these circumstances Nance' s version is accepted and
credited.
When Wilcox asked Nance where he had been all day, Wilcox already knew the
answer. He admitted that around 4 p.m. that day, shortly after the beginning of
the shift, he had learned from Foreman Halley Walker that Nance was over in
Wilkesboro. In this plant of only some 365 employees, with all of the top officials
of the corporation and also Wilcox's shift superintendent, Harvey Prevatte, at the
Board hearing, it is probable, and I find, that knowledge that Nance was in Wilkes-
boro, where the hearing was being held, was equivalent to knowledge that Nance
was at the Board hearing. Under all the circumstances I find that when Wilcox
"pulled" Nance's card at around 4:30 p.m., he already knew that Nance was at the
Board hearing then going on in Wilkesboro. This finding takes into account, as re-
lated above, that during this conversation Wilcox undertook to relate to Nance a
portion of Nance's testimony which, Wilcox told Nance, someone had related to him.
The following morning Nance returned and was handed his check and a separa-
tion notice giving as the reason for his separation: "Unauthorized absence 8-18-58."
At this time Wilcox said to him, according to Nance's credited testimony, "Floyd,
I hate to let you go but . there's nothing I can do about it."
Two or three weeks before this in the case of Albert Matthis, there was some-
thing Wilcox could do about it. Matthis was a deaf mute who worked under
Foreman Wilcox, and who communicated mostly by writing notes . On this occasion
he arrived for work at the beginning of the second shift, some 40 minutes late.
Wilcox had already attached a piece of paper to his timecard saying, presumably,
unexcused absence. When he arrived he explained to Wilcox in writing that his
little girl had fallen and hurt herself and he had rushed her to the hospital in
Wilkesboro; that he had hurried to try to get to work on time but had not been
able to make it. Without, insofar as the record shows, speaking to any superin-
tendent about it, or any other official, Wilcox excused the tardiness, tore up the slip
of paper, and permitted Matthis to go to work. Wilcox admitted that Matthis could
have written his story and had someone else telephone in to Wilcox prior to the
beginning of the shift.
All of the facts in the discharge of Nance immediately after his testifying under
subpena by the General Counsel point to the conclusion that the real reason for the
discharge was because he had given testimony under the Act and because of the
1744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nature of that testimony ; and point further to the conclusion that the asserted reason,
unauthorized absence -because he had failed to tell Wilcox in advance that he was
going to be late, was but a pretext . Thus, when he first spoke to him after Nance
reported for work, Wilcox pretended not to know where Nance had been, although
in fact he had known since about 4 p.m. that day that Nance had been at the hear-
ing. When Nance gave his explanation that he had been at the hearing all day until
after 5 o'clock and then had to go home and feed his chickens ( Nance lived 8 miles
from the county courthouse where the hearing was held), nothing Wilcox said gave
any indication that it was within Wilcox's power to accept the explanation and excuse
the tardiness , as Wilcox had done just 2 or 3 weeks before in the Albert Matthis
situation . Rather Wilcox told him that he did not have to obey the subpena, that
rather than obey it Nance should have spoken to Thomas Ray or Gardner about
"fixing it up" so that he would not have had to testify ; that Wilcox had previously
"warned you fellows to leave this thing alone"; 10 that others who had been sub-
penaed did not have to go. Wilcox also quoted as Nance's testimony what someone
had told him concerning it, and the alleged testimony related to something Wilcox
himself had allegedly said to the employees.
Rather than accept Nance 's explanation and excuse his tardiness , Wilcox said that
he would have to see President Edd Gardner "about this" and disappeared-although
President Gardner testified that "firings" were not discussed with him and that he
did not know about them, and although a fair conclusion would be that normal
"firings" were not discussed with the president of the corporation . The mere fact
that Wilcox brought the name of the president into the conversation is indication
in itself that this was not an ordinary discharge case for the violation of a company
rule.
The record does not establish that in fact Wilcox spoke to Gardner . Rather, he
spoke to Superintendent Prevatte, who had heard Nance testify , quite evidently to get
Prevatte 's approval for the discharge. To be remembered in this connection is that
although Foreman Halley Walker actually discharged Edward Osborne he did so
pursuant to orders from his shift superintendent, Chick Blackburn . Without contra-
diction Osborne testified that Halley Walker told him he could not fire a man without
getting permission ; and that, upon the occasion of his discharge Walker told Osborne
"that he had Chick 's permission , that Chick had given the word to fire me, that I had
to go that night ." Also to be noted in this connection is that Walker had previously
warned Osborne that not only Blackburn "had something on" him, but that also Edd
Gardner, Ray Gardner , and Harvey Prevatte had something on him. To be remem-
bered in this connection also is that it was Superintendent Blackburn , rather than any
foreman , who actually did the discharging of James P. Elledge, and that John Edsel
was not discharged until the discharge was approved by Superintendent Blackburn.
All of these discharges apparently related to the Union and in each case it was the
superintendent who did the discharging or approved of the discharge . On the entire
record considered as a whole I find that when Wilcox spoke to Prevatte about
Nance, he did so because he realized the real reason Nance would have to go was
'because he had testified against the Respondent , and that under those circumstances
he did not wish to make the separation upon his own responsibility.
When Wilcox spoke to Prevatte , Prevatte did not ask why Nance was being dis-
charged, although presumably the superintendent did not customarily approve dis-
charges without making some inquiry of the circumstances . That Prevatte approved
this discharge without inquiring into the facts is indication either that he knew
Nance was slated to go or else that , in view of Nance's testimony that day, Prevatte
approved of his discharge regardless of any reason Wilcox might have for the action.
In view of the above facts and inferences , and upon the entire record considered
as a whole, I believe and hold that Nance 's failure to report that he would be late
was but a pretext , and that the real reason for his discharge was that he had
testified hurtfully against the Respondent , which was his right and duty under the
Act, and because of his union activities , Respondent thereby violating Section
8(a)(1), (3 ), and (4 ) of the Act.
N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent 's activities , set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with
Respondent 's operations described in section I, above , have a close , intimate, and sub-
10 This may have referred to Wilcox 's warning to his men during one preelection period
that "if a union were to come in to this plant, that it would cause layoffs , maybe short
work , that there would be more damage to us than there would be good," as testified
by Nance.
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1745
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 Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices set forth
above, I recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discharged James Anthony, John Edsel, and Floyd Nance
because of their union activities and/or because they gave testimony under the Act,
I recommend that Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against him by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as
wages from the date of his discharge, the date of the discrimination against him
(January 23, 1958, in the case of Anthony; August 19, 1958, in the case of Edsel
and Nance), to the date when, pursuant to the recommendations herein contained
Respondent shall offer him reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period.
Said back pay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by
the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
The violations of the Act committed by the Respondent are persuasively related
to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their com-
mission in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's con-
duct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the
order is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make more effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor prac-
tices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce,
and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner 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. Carolina Mirror Corporation is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. In about September 1956, by telling assembled employees that it would never
tolerate a union in the plant and that it would close its doors forever before it would
do so, 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.
4. On July 17, 1956, by threatening an employee in substance to close down
rather than let a union come in; by stating that a foreman had done the right thing
in discharging an employee who was working for the Union; by stating to the
employee that Respondent had let two men go for lying to its president about the
Union; by stating that if the foremen did not fire the men, Respondent's president
was going to fire the foremen and fire the men himself, that he was not going to
work any man dealing with the Union and that the only way the employee could
continue working for Respondent was to discontinue all of the employee's union
activities; and by threatening to discharge four employees for lying to him about
attendance at a union meeting, 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. In June 1956, by threatening employees that if they did not drop their union
activities the "old man was really going to make it tough on them," Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed 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.
6. On June 13, 1956, by telling an employee that he was being discharged be-
cause of the Union, that Respondent's president had given orders the previous week
that anyone who had anything to do with the Union should be discharged, Respond-
508889-60-vol. 123-111
1746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent 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.
7. On July 13, 1956, by threatening an employee with reprisal if his signature
was not on an antiunion petition circulated for signatures by Respondent, Respond-
ent 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.
8. On July 13, 1956, by impliedly promising that if an employee signed said anti-
union petition he would be favorably considered by Respondent's president for a
raise, or the light bulb over his machine would be replaced, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the 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.
9. On July 17, 1956, by threatening an employee that at a foremen's meeting just
held Respondent's president was red and angry over the fact that a union meeting
had allegedly been held that day at the employee's home, and that the employee was
"on the spot," 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.
10. In mid-August 1956, by threatening an employee that Respondent's president
was a man of such standing in the town that he could keep the employee from
getting a job anywhere in town, 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.
11. In September 1956, by threatening an employee that the Respondent would
not operate with a union, 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 Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
12. In the fall of 1956, and in June and July 1957, by threatening an employee
that Respondent was checking the employee very closely to see if he had anything
to do with the Union, that if a certain foreman had to fire the employee, the latter
should not blame the foreman because the foreman would have to do it to keep his
job, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise 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.
i13. In the summer of 1957, by threatening an employee that his name was on a
list of employees to be discharged because of their union activities, Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed 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.
14. On June 27, 1956, by instituting a new rule prohibiting union solicitation ab-
solutely in the plant, while continuing the previous rule permitting all other solicita-
tion if permission was obtained from a supervisor, 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.
15. On or about July 13, 1956, after first posting its notice announcing the above
change in its solicitation rule, by circulating an antiunion petition and by soliciting
employees to sign it on company time in the plant, Respondent interfered with, re-
strained, 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.
16. In late June 1956, by ceasing to make contributions to the flower fund and
by abolishing the flower fund, and by resuming the practice of making used paint
buckets and scrap lumber available to employees upon request, for the purpose of
defeating the organizational efforts of the employees, 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.
17. In the summer and fall of 1956, by interrogating employees as to: how they
felt about the Union; what their decision was concerning the Union; what they had
to do with the Union; whether the employees would play ball or were ready to play
ball with Respondent concerning the Union; what the employees were. doing about
CAROLINA MIRROR CORPORATION 1747
the Union; whether the employees had started out with the Union; whether they
had signed a union card; what they were going to do about the Union from then on;
whether they would promise Respondent's president that they would vote for the
Company; why the men wanted to put the Union between Respondent's president
and them; what they were doing up the road on Sunday; why they wanted a union;
who gave them a union card; how the men in a given department felt about the
Union; and by accusing them of being ringleaders of the Union and of having union
meetings in their homes Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees 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.
18. In the fall of 1956, by instructing an employee to inform on other employees
and by chiding him for not doing so, 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.
19. In June and July 1956, by making statements creating the impression of
surveillance of the employees' union meetings and union activities, Respondent inter-
fered 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.
20. After entering into the settlement agreement in October 1957, by partially
covering the settlement notice with an impressively contrived company notice that
the attitude of the Company with regard to the Union had not changed, Respondent
repudiated and violated the settlement and 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.
21. During a preelection period, by telling an employee that Respondent looks
after its employees so long as the employees are faithful to the Company, Respond-
ent violated the settlement agreement and 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) (l) of the Act.
22. In December 1957, after the execution of the settlement agreement, by telling
an employee that Respondent had information that the employee had attended
union meetings, and had signed a card, and by interrogating the employee as to how
he and the other fellows felt about the election and if he felt obligated in any way
to the Union, Respondent violated the settlement agreement and interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
23. During a preelection period after the settlement, by threatening employees
that if the Union won the election there would be layoffs, maybe "short work," and
more damage to the employees than good, Respondent violated the settlement agree-
ment and 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.
24. In November 1957, by interrogating an employee as to how he felt about
the Union and if he felt they needed a union in the plant, Respondent violated the
settlement agreement and 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.
25. In November 1957, by telling an employee that Respondent's president had
gotten riled up at times and had told Respondent's supervisor to fire this man and
that man, and in the same conversation by reminding the employee that it would
be difficult for him to get another job since he had only one eye, Respondent.
impliedly threatened the employee with discharge to induce him to refrain from.
becoming or remaining a member of the Union, or active in or in favor of it, Re-
spondent thereby violating the settlement agreement and thereby interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
26. In November 1957, by asking an employee in substance what he thought about
the Union, Respondent violated the settlement agreement and interfered with, re-
1748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strained, 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.
27. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James
Anthony, John Edsel, and Floyd Nance, thereby discouraging membership in United
Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, Respondent violated the
settlement agreement and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
28. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of John
Edsel and Floyd Nance because they gave testimony under the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(4) of the Act.
29. On January 23, 1958, by impliedly threatening to close the plant down if the
Union got in, 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.
The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
William L . Law, General Partner and William L . Law and Fred
V. Gardner , Marine National Exchange Bank, Trustees, d/b/a
Law Tanning Company and Leather Workers Union, Local
No. 47, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-2849 and 13-CA-
12877. June 19, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 13, 1959, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report together with a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the
case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean,
and Fanning].
123 NLRB No. 210.