Clarke Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 666 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed by the Chemical Workers for a unit or units of viscose, bleach,
spinning, and laboratory employees.
We shall at this time direct elections in the following voting groups :
(1) All maintenance pipefitters, excluding all other employees and
all supervisors as defined in the amended Act.
(2) All maintenance electricians, including the electrician oiler, but
excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the
amended Act.
If a majority of those employees in voting group (1) vote for Local
Union No. 91, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL, or if a majority of those employees in voting group
(2) vote for Local Union No. 1629, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL, they will be taken, in either case, to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and
the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organiza-
tion seeking and selected by the employees in each group for such
unit, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority
in either or both voting groups vote for United Textile Workers of
America, AFL, the Board finds their inclusion in the existing plant-
wide unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a cer-
tification of results of election to such effect.
[The Board dismissed the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 10-RC-2493,
10-RC-2494, I I)-RC-2495, 10-RC-2496, 10-RC-2506, and 10-RC-2507
by Local 985, International Association of Machinists, AFL, and the
petition filed in Case No. 10-RC-2527 by International Chemical
Workers Union, AFL.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
CLARKE MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OFD AMERICA, CIO. Case
No. 15-CA-490. August 3,195
Decision and Order
On September 4, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices al-
109 NLRB No. 103.
CLARKE MILLS 667
leged in the complaint, .and recommending that the complaint be dis-
missed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a supporting brief,
and the Respondent filed a brief in reply to the exceptions and in
support of the Intermediate Report.
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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions contained in the Intermediate Report.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBERS PETERSON and BEESON took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
Intermediate Report
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region issued a complaint against Clarke Mills, herein
called the Respondent, on May 29, 1953, alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein
referred to as the Act. The issuance of the complaint followed the filing of a
charge on June 4, 1952, and a first amended charge filed June 16, 1952, by Textile
Workers Union of America, hereinafter called the Union, by a representative of
its parent body, Congress of Industrial Organizations.
The complaint in substance asserts that the Respondent has been engaged in and
is engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, in that it discharged and
has refused and now refuses to reinstate three named employees because of their
activities for and on behalf of the Union; that the Respondent has interrogated
its employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires; that the
Respondent has solicited employees to withdraw from the Union and cease their
union activities; that it has threatened employees with discharge, shutdown of the
plant, or related reprisals if they did not withdraw from the Union and "cease or
refrain" from engaging in concerted action on behalf of themselves and the Union;
and that the Respondent threatened to keep under surveillance "the union and con-
certed activities of its employees." At the hearing before the Trial Examiner, sev-
eral amendments to the complaint were allowed on motion to include the names of
certain persons alleged to be officers or agents of the Respondent who severally
engaged in some of the unfair labor practices as described in the complaint, and
to include an allegation to the effect that the plant superintendent had instructed
one of its supervisory personnel to interrogate its employees and elicit information
concerning its employees' union activities and desires. By verified answer filed
June 10, 1953, and by amendments made at the hearing after the amendments al-
lowed to the complaint, the Respondent effectively denies the substantive allega-
tions of the complaint regarding its asserted contraventions of the Act, and re-
quests that the complaint as amended be dismissed.
On the issues raised by the complaint and answer and pursuant to notice, the
hearing in this matter before the Trial Examiner was commenced on July 13, 1953,
at Jackson, Alabama, and was closed on July 17, 1953. At the hearing, the General
Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union was rep-
resented by an International representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, to
argue orally upon the record, and to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and pro-
posed conclusions of law were afforded all parties. Motions to strike and to dismiss
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made by counsel for the Respondent at the hearing are here resolved by the findings
of fact and conclusions of law set forth below.
Upon the entire record of the case, from his observation of the witnesses, and
after careful consideration, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Clarke Mills, is an Alabama corporation with its principal office
and place of business at Jackson, Alabama, where it is and at all of the time perti-
nent hereto has been engaged in the manufacture of lingerie and related products.
In the course and conduct of its business operations at Jackson, Alabama, during
the year 1952, a period representative of all of the times material herein, the Re-
spondent received raw materials and supplies valued in excess of $500,000 from
points outside the State of Alabama; and during the same period of time shipped
finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, to points outside the State of
Alabama.
The Respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vanity Fair Mills, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation.'
The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, admitting
to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent employs and during the times pertinent hereto employed several
hundred persons at its mill in Jackson (a town of some 5,000 inhabitants), who were
engaged in occupations necessary to the production and manufacture of lingerie
and similar products.
The premises occupied by this plant at Jackson are owned by Clarke-Washington
Industries Corporation, said to be an Alabama corporation. The premises are leased
to the Respondent under a lease agreement which is renewable for successive terms
of 5 years each until the year 1974 or later, the rental therefor being computed on
a percentage of the value of the plant including certain improvements and expenses,
the lessee having the right to exercise an option to purchase the plant from the lessor
during the term or any successive term of the lease. Performance of the lease agree-
ment by the Respondent is guaranteed by its parent corporation, Vanity Fair Mills,
Inc. The machinery and equipment is owned by the Respondent. The property
is located within the town, a few short blocks from the main business district.
For operational purposes, the mill is divided into several departments includ-
ing, among others, the throwing and warping departments, the sewing department,
and the knitting department. Less skill is demanded from the machine operators
in the throwing and warping departments, although attention to the job is as
requisite there as in the other departments. The turnover in jobs, in the year 1952,
was considerably higher in throwing and warping than in other departments-ap-
parently the Respondent has adopted a policy of promoting or transferring steady,
reliable operators from throwing and warping to other comparatively higher-paid
jobs involving knitting and sewing.
Manufacturing operations in the above-mentioned departments are carried on in
three shifts from Monday through Friday each week, the first, or day shift running
from 7 a. in. to 3 p. in., the second shift from 3 p. in. to 11 p. in., and the third
shift from 11 p. m. to 7 a. in. A plant superintendent is in overall charge of opera-
tions, being assisted by a director of manufacturing and a personnel manager, whose
duties are substantially as their respective titles imply. The superintendent with the
assistance of the director of manufacturing is responsible for mill output and the
meeting of orders. The throwing and warping departments are headed by one gen-
eral foreman who reports directly to the superintendent and is advised by him or the
director of manufacturing as to schedule requirements. The general foreman then
'On motion made at the hearing the captions of the complaint and answer were
amended by striking the parentheses and the words "Subsidiary of Vanity Fair Mills, Inc."
enclosed therein.
CLARKE MILLS 669 ,
makes up his instructions with respect to schedule of runs of yarn or changes in
existing schedules, which are posted each day for each shift, on each applicable
machine in operation , so that the operators and others working in the throwing
and warping rooms have constant instruction and information before them.
The-throwing room , or department , prior to July 1951 , was a simple pilot opera-
tion; the Respondent then employed outside firms , called commission throwsters, to
throw or twist the yarn used by it in the making of apparel. It having been deter-
mined by management to set up a throwing unit , the Respondent proceeded to make
necessary building construction and machinery installation . During the pilot opera=
tion in the throwing room , learner operators from the warping department were used
on the three shifts under the direction of the plant superintendent and under the
supervision of the foreman in charge of the warping department . The erection and
installation being completed , production in the new throwing department began dur-,
ing the month of December 1951. In March 1952 some 20 persons (exclusive of
learners) were employed on each shift in this department. About 50 persons were
employed on each shift in the warping department, which had been in full operation
as an established department of the mill before the start of production in the throw-
ing room.
Robert H. Logan, general foreman of the throwing and warping departments, was
employed by the Respondent and assumed duty on October 12, 1950. He previously
had been employed, for the years 1940 through 1949 by E. I. du Pont de Nemours
(Dupont) at the first nylon plant constructed by Dupont at Seaford, Delaware, where
he performed the duties of an area supervisor , for a time in the throwing area. Upon
his assumption of duty as general foreman of the throwing and warping departments
at Clarke Mills, the throwing department was a pilot operation only, consisting of 1
spooling machine and 5 twisting machines , requiring the services of 3 or 4 persons
called throwing learners on each of the three shifts; thereafter, Logan took general
charge of operations in the warping department and, after completion of construc-
tion and installation and the start of production of operations , in both departments.
At the time of Logan 's arrival , Earl V. Sawyer was foreman in the warping depart-
ment , and thereafter continued in that position , as a subordinate of Logan, until
his employment was terminated by the Respondent on March 13, 1952.2
Harold Humphreys, an attorney specializing in labor and personnel matters and
a consulting attorney engaged by Vanity Fair Mills, Inc., for a number of years,
visited the Respondent at Jackson from Tuesday, March 11, through Sunday,
March 16, specifically to consult with management concerning a personnel problem
involving differences between Logan, general foreman of the warping and throwing
department , and Sawyer, foreman of the warping room , and to advise with respect
to,the union organization campaign in progress at the time . Management representa-
tives with whom he principally conferred were Adam, plant superintendent, and
Ward Ostberg, director of manufacturing. He advised them concerning the Act,
and that day and night and the following day worked out a plan to determine which
of the employees of the Respondent occupied positions as supervisors within the
meaning of the Act, so that supervisors could be instructed concerning the Respond-
ent's responsibilities under the Act. He consulted with department heads concerning
the actual duties of each person classified as a line supervisor , or as a shift leader,
and made a determination in each case as to whether the person was or was not a
supervisor . He thoroughly investigated the situation in the warping department,
and as a result of his recommendations Sawyer, Logan 's assistant there , was dis-
charged on March 13.
Among the jobs examined by Humphreys were those of the shift leaders in the
throwing department . Here, 1 day-shift leader was employed steadily on the first
shift, and 3 other shift leaders worked on each 1 of the 3 shifts, rotating each week,
so that after 3 consecutive weeks each of these 3 shift leaders would have worked
on the first, second, and third shift. Also examined was the job of the head machine
fixer in the throwing room. At this time, E. C. Boykin was the head machine fixer
in the throwing room. Humphreys concluded that none of these five employees
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and they all therefore were to be
regarded by management as eligible for membership in the Union. According to
his own testimony, Humphreys made a full and complete examination of the func-
tions and duties, not only of these five individuals, but of each job within the plant
where there might be a question of supervisory status in relation to lines of authority
and company management policy and execution . He undoubtedly was qualified
through experience and training to perform the assignment . The Trial Examiner
finds that his conclusions and recommendations were made in good faith and his
findings should be considered on that basis.
2 Unless otherwise shown, all dates hereinafter mentioned are for the year 1952.
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Logan's hours of work have been and are such that he is present and on duty on
the overlapping or changes of the shifts-he lives 3 blocks from the plant and
seems to be available by telephone call any time he is not physically present at the
mill.
In this highly mechanized operation, the operators of the throwing or twisting
machines are actually machine watchers; the machines do the work and the operators
are there to correct or to report any unusual condition of the machine or irregu-
larity in the running of the yarn.
In the throwing room, four employees have been assigned as shift leaders since
August 14, 1951. The girls selected for these jobs by Logan were Mabel Canfield,
Johnette Horsley, Willodene Jordan, and Bernice Strickland, the latter being replaced
by Mary Du Bose on February 2, 1952. Before their designation as shift leader,
Canfield, Horsley, Jordan, and Du Bose had been throwing machine operators as
learners on the pilot operation, Canfield having had the greater length of service and
consequently more experience. Canfield was made shift leader on the first shift
and has always worked on that shift. The other shift leaders rotate, so that Canfield
and 1 of the others are always on duty during the first shift and 1 of the others is
on duty on each of the other 2 shifts. At the time of creation of these jobs, production
in the throwing room was being set toward full run.
When new girls were hired as operators they were all hired to begin work on the
first shift, so that the group-3, 4, 5, or more-could be turned over to Canfield
at first, for preliminary instruction. Canfield would make a record of the name
of each person, and instruct her in what she would need in the way of personal
equipment for the job, such as hair net, apron, and scissors. Canfield would then
demonstrate the operator's job for a week or more, after which each new girl
was assigned by Logan for work on the rotating shifts. (This training program
seems to have been first personally supervised by Logan and later, after his employ-
ment in April 1952, by George Heard, personnel manager.) After assignment on
a rotating shift, each operator was assumed or expected to be trained for the job.
After such a permanent assignment was made, the shift leader on that particular
shift-Jordan, Du Bose, Horsley, or Strickland, as the shifts fell-was there to
help in or demonstrate the work. (In this case, as will appear below, the issue has
been raised as to whether Canfield and Jordan, among others, were supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, because of alleged antiunion statements attributed
to them by certain employees in the throwing departments of the mill.) The shift
leaders actually are teachers, or demonstrators, and work with the other operators.
Testimony was given by some employees at the hearing to the effect that the shift
leaders made assignments of work and issued instructions concerning work to be
done. The instances cited demonstrating exercise of authority, such as a shift
leader telling a serviceman to move boxes, are unconvincing. Work assignments
are made by the general foreman; in fact, all instructions originate with him, and
principal orders and other matters relating to operations are entered by him or
at his instruction in a daily log book, consulted and referred to by shift leaders
and other employees, and recognized by them as an established and usual way for
them to receive instructions. The shift leaders in the warping and throwing
departments are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and the Trial
Examiner so finds.
E. C. Boykin was hired by Logan on October 30, 1950, shortly after Logan
had been appointed general foreman of the warping and throwing department and
put in charge of the installation of the throwing machines, after it had been deter-
mined to go into full production in the throwing department. He was assigned
steadily to the day shift, on which 1 of the other machine fixers rotates, so that
there were always Boykin and another on the day shift, and 1 on each of the other
2 'shifts. The major machine repairs, other than the fixing required during the
running of the machines, are made by the two fixers on the day shift. The larger
part of the time of each is devoted to making necessary adjustments and repairs
to machines which are in actual operation. The job of a machine fixer in Respond-
ent's mill is the job of a mechanic. Because Boykin trained at least one employee
as a machine fixer, and showed another how to perform a routine job, and on
the basis of certain orders transmitted by Boykin upon the instructions of Logan,
it is contended that Boykin was and is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
However, like the shift leaders, Boykin has not nor ever has had the authority or
discretion of a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. He is not a
supervisor, and his antiunion statements as set forth in the record herein, if made
and accurately described, were, so far as is shown, his own as an employee and
may not be charged as activities for which the Respondent may be held responsible.
CLARKE MILLS 671
B. Union and antiunion activities
On or about February 23, 1952, Rayford E Junkins, an organizer for the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations , came into Jackson, after receiving a telephone
request (while he was in Mobile) from one of Respondent's employees, who asked
Junkins to meet with him and some other employees and advise them of the possi-
bilities in connection with union representation. Junkins was in and around Jackson
until early April, when John Engler, a field representative of the Union, relieved
him. During the time Junkins was active, he, with the aid of some of Respond-
ent's employees, obtained, according to his testimony, 237 signed cards evidencing
membership of that many employees in the Union. After being relieved by
Engle, Junkins returned to the CIO offices in Mobile.
The record herein identifies Hassell Bounds, James Gillmore (now deceased),
Preston Cannady, "Red" Woodsen, and C. W. Pierce as men engaged in several
different business enterprises in Jackson, and Pierce as president of the local
Chamber of Commerce.
The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Bounds and Cannady
acted as agents for the Respondent in the commission of unfair labor practices in
that they, among others, solicited employees to withdraw from the Union and
cease their union activities; and that they, among others, threatened employees with
discharge, shutdown of the plant, or related reprisals if they did not withdraw from
the Union or cease or refrain from engaging in union and concerted activities.
On Saturday, March 15, 1952, John Clark,3 then employed as a machine fixer in
the throwing room of Respondent's plant, testified that Boykin, then employed as
head machine fixer in the throwing room, called him out of a barber shop and handed
him a number of "withdrawal cards,"' saying that they had to get them signed or the
mill would shut down at 5 o'clock that afternoon, that Clark questioned this, and at
the suggestion of Boykin arranged to meet the latter at 3 o'clock that afternoon; that
the appointment was kept and Clark together with Wilbert Howard, another employee,
then drove with Boykin to see Bounds, who owns an appliance store in Jackson. They
waited for Bounds at his store and he arrived there shortly after their arrival in the
company of Cannady, the proprietor of a drug store.
According to Clark, Boykin told Bounds and Cannady that he had "two boys willing
to cooperate with their campaign in stopping the Union if they could get some direct
information"; that Bounds said that the Chamber of Commerce had decided to set
up and control a "private organization" to act in the interest of the employees of the
Respondent; and that there was some discussion concerning the signatures of
employees to a statement (herein referred to as withdrawal slips) indicating their
withdrawal from the Union. The group left Bounds' store and went over to Cannady's
drug store and sat down at a table where there was a stack of withdrawal slips. While
they were sitting there, said Clark, Phillip Huff, an employee of the Respondent, came
in with a number of signed withdrawal slips and turned them over to Cannady and
that after some further discussion, Cannady said he was going to take them to "some-
body that would tell them that the mill would shut down." Thereupon they were
driven in Bounds' car to the mill; they stopped in front of the mill and Cannady
entered after leaving Clark, Howard, and Boykin with some reading matter consisting
of newspaper clippings and magazine stories bearing on why industry had moved to
the South; and that Cannady came out of the mill after about 5 minutes and motioned
for them to enter. The three employees with Bounds and Cannady then went into
the office of J. Brooke Adam, plant superintendent. Further, according to Clark, the
group conferred with Adam and an attorney, Cannady introducing them as employees
who were "willing to cooperate, if they can get some direct information." Clark
said the attorney spoke first in connection with labor laws and gave the employees
his assurance that no one would be fired for union activities, and said that Adam
stated that his office was always open and that "at any time anybody was not treated
right to come in and see him"; that he (Clark) said "Well, I come for one sole purpose.
I hear rumors around town, all over the place, numerous people saying the mill would
shut down if we didn't get a certain percentage of withdrawal slips signed from the
Union," and that the attorney then said "That will be all. Good day, gentlemen";
that the group then proceeded in Bounds' car to Boykin's house; and that while in
the car, and before leaving the other three, Cannady and Bounds gave Clark a number
of withdrawal slips and told him to get as many signed as he could and further said
that if they got "100 percent, it would look better for them."
Clark's alleged discriminatory discharge is discussed below
' Referred to also as "withdrawal slips"-a statement directed to and advising the
Union that the signer was no longer interested in the Union.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The testimony of Harold Humphreys, who was the attorney referred to by Clark
in the latter's testimony , is much more clear regarding the substance of the conversa-
tion between all of the parties in the superintendent's office on that afternoon. Accord-
ing to Humphreys, Cannady had telephoned Adam and asked for a meeting and that
he (Humphreys) met Cannady at the reception desk in the outer office upon Cannady's
arrival; Cannady told him that he and others wanted to set up a committee of citizens
to handle grievances on behalf of employees; that Humphreys agreed to listen to the
plan, and ushered the group in to meet with Adam; that Cannady set forth the pro-
posed plan at some length and Humphrey said that he could not commit the Company
to such a course at that time; and that then the Union was mentioned and when Clark
asked about the plant moving, the meeting was terminated without further discussion
.or without any discussion regarding those rumors. Humphreys had explained that
the Company was aware of union organizing activities then being carried on and felt it
would be improper, that he and Adam were without authority to discuss or to approve
the plan as presented by Cannady for the handling of grievances through a committee
.comprised of members of the Chamber of Commerce and that Cannady acted as
spokesman for the group, that he considered the terms of the conference limited;
and that Adam and he had reassured the group as to Respondent's neutrality regarding
the right of its employees to join the Union.
Some 92 withdrawal slips, all bearing the date of March 14 and bearing signatures
purporting to be the names of individual employees of the Respondent, were received
by Junkins at the office of the Congress of Industrial Organizations in Mobile, by
registered mail in nine envelopes bearing registry dates of March 16, 17, 18, and 19,
the envelopes bearing the return address of the Jackson, Alabama, Chamber of Com-
merce. It would appear therefore that the Chamber of Commerce, or some of its
members were quite active in securing signatures to these withdrawal slips. Junkins
testified that when he was in Jackson, he spent about 2 hours with C. W. Pierce,
president of the Chamber of Commerce, and had talked to him about the possibility
of union organization at the Respondent's plant, and that Pierce told him that he had
talked to plant management and knew that "the plant would not operate if the Union
came in." This meeting, at which several employees were present, was arranged by
Junkins at the suggestion of Bennie Ray McClintock, the employee who first consulted
him; it may be inferred that this was Pierce's first knowledge of union activity.
Charles Patrick, who was employed by the Respondent during the middle of
March 1952 as a warping operator , testified that one James Moates, another operator
in the warping department, brought him a withdrawal slip which he took to Otto
Milstead, the shift leader on that shift, and asked him (Milstead) why withdrawal
slips could be brought into the plant and union cards could not, to which Milstead
replied he did not know; that about that time he saw Charles Sellers, one of the most
active of the employees in soliciting union membership, and Bounds enter the plant
together; and that Sellers came to his machine and asked him to go outside and talk
to Bounds and that later when Sellers came in, he asked Sellers what he wanted-
Sellers told him that he and Bounds had permission from Adam to talk to employees
outside the plant concerning the Union. The implication of Patrick's direct testimony
was that Hassell Bounds and Sellers were in the mill together-actually it appears
that Bounds at no time was in the mill but at all times was outside the mill in his car.
On another occasion at about this time Patrick said that Sellers, McIntyre, another
employee, and he called at Pierce's house (Pierce being the president of the Chamber
of Commerce at that time) and that Pierce told them that he had been told by John E.
Barbey, president of the Respondent, that if the Union was successful in organizing
the plant it would be closed; according to Patrick he told Pierce he did not believe it;
and that the next day Pierce reiterated what he had stated and said that the Chamber
of Commerce would help the employees and see that none of them lost their jobs if
they "dropped" the Union.
According to Patrick, Joseph Palmer, the principal of a high school 6 or 7 miles
from Jackson, visited him at his home and advised Patrick that he had been approached
by businessmen in Jackson and asked to talk to people who had gone to school and
were now working at the mill and ask them not to join the Union.
An open meeting was held at the community house at Jackson early in April 1952,
the meeting reportedly being opened by Mrs. Mertice Craven , an employee of the
Respondent. At this meeting the main speaker was reported to be Gillmore who,
during the course of his remarks, read an article which he said was from a newspaper
in Reading , Pennsylvania , regarding the closing of a plant in Reading because a union
got in, and then asked whether or not history would repeat itself. Bounds also spoke
briefly and is reported to have said that in this case the Union was like a leaky boat.
Woodson spoke, among others, and after the speakers had concluded their remarks,
a so-called workmen's loyalty club was formed after Mertice Craven, who had resumed
the chair , announced that such a club would be formed for the benefit of employees
CLARKE MILLS 673
of Clarke Mills only at no cost to them for purposes of mutual aid in their relations
with the Respondent. The record is silent as to whether or not this club ever func-
tioned; apparently the General Counsel was content to leave an inference, which the
Trial Examiner fails to draw, that the Respondent somehow was connected with this
meeting.
C. Alleged discriminatory discharges
John Clark was employed by the Respondent for a period of approximately 1 year
until his discharge on April 3, 1952. After being hired as a laborer, he became a
machine fixer in the throwing department after having been trained for the job by
Boykin. In early March 1952, he signed a union authorization card and obtained
the signatures of some 30 other employees and apparently was otherwise active in
support of the Union. His conversations with Boykin, his participation in the dis-
cussions with Bounds and Cannady, and his presence at the meeting with Adams and
Humphreys on March 15, have been described above.
According to Clark, the machine fixers in the throwing department alternated
in working on Saturdays, and he worked on Saturday, March 29; that on that
day he reported to work at about 6.50 a. m., that as he went in, he noticed a signal
light showing on an oven used to condition nylon yarn; that he proceeded past
the oven into the throwing room to start his work on the machine, that he knew
that Frank Robinson, a yarnman who had worked the preceding shift, was on
duty until 7 a. m., but that no yarnman was on duty on Saturday after the end
of the third shift at 7 a. m.; that on that day, upon his return from lunch, he found
a skid of yarn in the oven, and reported to the warping department shift leader that
there was a skid of yarn in the oven that had been there about 41/z hours overtime;
and that he put a note on the yarn to that effect, weighed it, and put it in the warping
department.
Clark claims that a few weeks prior to this day, a notice had been pinned on
a tool cabinet to the effect that the fixers were not to handle the yarn, nor were
the yarnmen to do any fixing on the machines. His testimony in this respect stands
alone. Opposite to this, it seems clear enough that the departments of the mill,
as such, closed down on Saturdays, and that the machine fixer who worked overtime
on Saturday was expected to handle yarn, if necessary. It certainly does not seem
logical that management would not assign a yarnman to Saturday work, and still
require the machine fixer on duty that day to refrain from handling yarn. The
Trial Examiner accepts the testimony of Logan bearing on the nature of the instruc-
tions in effect regarding the handling of yarn at the oven on Saturday, making the
machine fixer responsible for the work, over the claim of Clark that the machine
fixers had received instructions in the form of a written notice which, so far as
the record herein shows, was seen by no one other than him.
Clark testified that on the following work day, Boykin told him he had been
questioned concerning his (Clark's) ability and that he thought Clark was going
to be given a raise, and that the best thing Clark could do, in his opinion, would
be to go up to the office "and sign a withdrawal slip from the Union, and clear
yourself."
Logan investigated the failure of Clark to handle the yarn, and concluded that
he had demonstrated a lack of judgment and reliability which the 'Respondent
could not afford to condone. The nylon yarn used by Respondent which was in
the oven, was valued at about $1,400-this yarn is not available in unlimited quan-
tities, but is received by manufacturers, including the Respondent, by allotment.
Upon Logan's recommendation, Clark was discharged.
Boykin was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, so that the statement
attributed to him by Clark, if made, was not binding on the Respondent and, in
the absence of any evidence whatsoever that Boykin was acting at the behest of
or with the approval of the Respondent, can only be regarded as an expression
of Boykin's personal feeling or opinion.
The Trial Examiner finds, in the absence of any showing of union animus by
the Respondent, that Clark was discharged for cause, and that his discharge was
in no way connected with his union activities.
William Munroe Purvis was hired by the Respondent on or about May 12, 1951,
and was employed as a bobbin cleaner in the warping department until his discharge
on April 25, 1952. As a bobbin cleaner, Purvis was considered something of a
service, or handy man, in the warping room. His chief duty was to clean bobbins,
or perns-that is, to remove the unusable threads of nylon yarn left on the pern
after the bulk of the thread had been run through the warping machine. In April
1952, the Respondent made an arrangement with its supplier of nylon yarn to
return the perns, uncleaned, to the supplier, which in effect did away with Purvis'
job. Another employee, Harrell (who was older in length of service) occupying
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a comparable job in the knitting department , was assigned the few odd remaining
jobs left over as a residue from Purvis' job after the abolishment of pern or bobbin
cleaning in the warping department.
Purvis also drove a bus between the plant and a neighboring community, regu-
larly supplementing his income at the Respondent's mill through this outside occu-
pation . When he was informed by Logan and Heard that his job was about to be
abolished, he was asked by Logan if he cared to transfer to another job in the mill.
He replied that he would rather keep his job driving a bus. His job as bobbin
cleaner, or serviceman , was on the first or day shift-the job offered to him by
Logan would have meant that he would work rotating shifts in the knitting or
sewing departments, as was customary among all of the production workers in
either 1 of those 2 departments. Accordingly, Purvis' employment was terminated
through elimination of the job formerly held 'by him.
Purvis seems to have engaged in a minimum of union activity. According to
him he signed a union authorization card in the first part of March 1952, and
thereafter secured signatures of other employees to union cards at various places,
including obtaining some on the bus driven by him. He attended one union meet-
ing. Actually the records show through authorization cards made available for
examination at the hearing, that Purvis secured only one signature.
Purvis testified further that he was approached three different times by Canfield-
the first time she told him he was going to be fired if he did not sign a withdrawal
slip, and the second and third times she merely asked him if he had signed a
withdrawal slip. He said that he saw Sellers and Bounds in the mill, that on another
day he saw employees approach Bounds' automobile, which was parked outside
the plant, one by one, and that on another day Sellers asked him to sign a with-
drawal slip.
When Purvis was recalled to testify, Sellers was said by Purvis to have given
the latter authorization cards and that he obtained signatures thereto. The record
is barren of proof that Purvis obtained any signature other than the one witnessed
by him as disclosed by the authorization cards examined at the hearing. Clark,
when recalled, after it had been shown that he had witnessed six cards, testified
that he did not witness all of the cards obtained by him. Purvis and Clark were
recalled to testify after a close examination of the withdrawal slips returned or
mailed to the Union at its Mobile office, apparently by the Chamber of Commerce,
and after examination of the union authorization cards made during the course of
Junkins' appearance on the witness stand. Clark, it will be recalled, testified that
he had obtained 30 or more authorization cards and Purvis testified that he had
obtained signatures to authorization cards not only on the bus operated by him
but at other times and places. In the face of the documentary record, the testimony
of Purvis and Clark regarding their obtaining of signatures must be seriously
questioned.
Thelma Mitchern was employed by Logan on August 13, 1951. He instructed
her to report to Canfield the following morning, which she did with several other
girls. Canfield instructed them with respect to their duties and they remained
on instruction for about a week. On the first day Canfield had taken some personal
record from them in connection with where they lived and so on , had started instruct-
ing them in the tying of nylon knots, and then had started instruction concerning
the operation of the machines. At the end of this preliminary training period,
Mitchem was assigned to a regular shift, first to the day shift, and then rotating
from that to other shifts.
Mitchem said that Canfield and the other shift leaders , but more particularly
Canfield, were supervisors and as reasons therefor she said that Canfield and Jordan
made up luncheon schedules, that other shift leaders reported to Canfield from
time to time, that Canfield looked after the machines and saw that everybody was
present to take care of the machines, and that when an operator was absent, the
shift leaders would make assignments of girls present in the doubling up of work,
and that the shift leader at first orally and later in writing instructed the operators
as to when they could take their rest periods.
Her testimony with respect to the supervisory status of the shift leaders, like
the testimony of other employees on the subject, obviously consisted partly of sur-
mise and in no way established that Canfield or the other shift leaders were actually
in supervisory positions. The testimony of Mitchem and the other employees in
this confirms in substantial part the testimony of Logan which shows clearly that
the shift leaders were not supervisors in the true sense but in fact were older and
more experienced employees designated by Logan to perform certain nonsuper-
visory functions which made their jobs more responsible ones than the job classified
as machine operator.
CLARKE MILLS 675
In the latter part of March 1952, Engler, a union representative for the Transport
Workers Union who had replaced Rayford Junkins, conducted union meetings, held
at the home of Mitchem and extended into April, the last one being about 3 weeks
after the discharge of Mitchem by the Respondent on April 24, 1952. Mitchem
testified that she had solicited about 10 employees and as a result obtained the sig-
nature of 1 employee on a union card. She said that at the first meeting held at
her house four automobiles, occupied by, among others Woodson, Cannady, and
Gillmore, drove back and forth before her house during the course of the meeting;
this happened again during the course of the second meeting at her house in which
she identified other persons who were not employees of the Respondent but were
businessmen in the town and that she invited them into her house after they had
parked their cars in front of it; and that the same incident or similar incident occurred
another time. She related an incident involving herself and Janice Stacy. She said
that Stacy told her she had heard that she (Mitchem) was going to beat her up
and that when the two girls reported to work Jordan, the shift leader, asked them
about their difficulty; that later at about 3 a. in. on that shift Logan, having been
called from his home, talked to both of the girls but that neither of them would dis-
cuss their difficulties or difficulty with him. It seems however that Mitchem had
accused Stacy of telling someone that she (Stacy) had signed an authorization card
as Mitchem had and that she wanted to tell Logan that she had torn up her card
so that her job would not be endangered because of her union membership; and
when Mitchem heard about this she accused Janice of advertising the fact that she,
Mitchem, was also a member of the Union. Apparently the purpose of this testi-
mony is intended to prove that Logan had full knowledge of Mitchem's membership
in the Union before she was discharged. Mitchem claims that M. O. Lee, Respond-
ent's vice president, after Lee had addressed the employees over the public address
system, stopped by her machine and among other things told her that there had
been no union in Vanity Fair for 50 years and that the plant would be closed before
the Respondent would deal with the Union; she testified that Boykin told her she
ought to sign a withdrawal slip from the Union; and she said that on another occasion
Boykin stopped her at a time when she was with one Mabel Robinson, another
employee, and told them that Logan wanted her to join the workmen's club. She
testified that at the meeting at the community house, referred to above, about 300 or
400 employees of Respondent were present and that after Gillmore, Cannady, Bounds,
and Woodson had spoken Mertice Craven and others organized the so-called work-
men's club that night, elected officers, and after the meeting took in members. She
testified that Canfield before Mitchem's discharge had said that Mitchem's sister-in-
law had reported that Mitchem was working as a committee for the Union; that
Boykin, Jordan, and another were spies; and warned Mitchem to do her best work
to avoid being fired.
Just prior to her discharge, Mitchem testified that Boykin kept close account of
the time that she spent at work on her machine and that on another occasion she
saw Boykin and Heard watching her and talking apparently about her while she
was at work.
On the day she was discharged she went with Heard to Logan's office, was told
that she had been taking too much time for her job, that her work was unsatisfactory,
and was advised that her employment was being terminated.
From the incidents related by Mitchem, and on the basis thereof, it is claimed
that a discriminatory discharge has been shown.
The Respondent, in answer to these charges of discrimination , undertook to show
that Mitchem had become an unsatisfactory employee-that she was constantly car-
rying on conversations with other operators in the throwing department, that she
was inattentive to her duies, and that she was absent from her machine for consid-
erable periods of time and those absences were frequent. The Trial Examiner
believes that the Respondent has shown a case of justified discharge in the case of
Mitchem and that she was not discharged because of her activities for or on behalf
of and membership in the Union. Mitchem's statements in several respects obvi-
ously were based upon her own conjecture and her own conclusions without regard
to actual facts,- for instance she testified that Cannady, Gillmore, Woodson, and
others were "stockholders" in Clark Washington Industries, Incorporated, yet it turned
out that her information was based completely on hearsay; her testimony with respect
to Canfield's reporting to work each day in advance of the beginning of shift opera-
tions was completely mistaken; her reports of conversations with other employees
including Canfield and Jordan, the shift leaders, and with Boykin, as reported by her,
did not to the Trial Examiner seem to be completely authentic; and the discrepancies
and inadvertencies in other parts of her testimony, referred to in argument by coun-
sel for the Respondent, are apparent upon the record. That she was singled out
334811-53-vo1 109-44
676 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Heard for watching, is a figment of her imagination-he assumed his duties on
April 1, and thereafter was constantly on the floor of the mill, observing all opera-
tions and the work of all operators. For these reasons, her credibility is in grave
doubt on quite important matters of fact involved in the resolution of this whole
case. The Trial Examiner cannot accept in full her testimony regarding the duties
of the shift leaders. It appears from other parts of the record that Canfield, Du Bose,
Jordan, and Horsley were all comparatively inexperienced young girls when first
engaged by the Respondent; that they had never occupied a supervisory position;
and that the reason they were chosen as instructresses, designated as shift leaders, is
because they each had had experience in the pilot operation in the throwing depart-
ment before that department went into full operation. The Trial Examiner accepts
the testimony of Logan, rather than of Mitchem, with respect to the actual duties
and responsibilities of these shift leaders.5
With respect to the alleged discriminatory discharges, it will be noted that neither
Clark, Purvis, nor Mitchem were extremely active in the Union and that Junkins,
the International representative of the CIO who first started organizing activities at
Jackson, first went there in response to a call from Bennie Ray McClintock and that
Charles Sellers, Charlie Patrick, James Davis, McIntyre, and McLean were the orig-
inal organizing group and were most active in starting organizational activities under
the guidance of Junkins and Engel. Mitchem obtained 1 union membership card,
Clark claimed to have obtained about 30 and actually seems to have obtained 6,
while Purvis, despite his statement that he was active in securing authorizations on
the bus driven by him and elsewhere, and to have secured many signatures, appears
to have secured but 1. With respect to Purvis, the General Counsel failed to make
out or at least almost failed to make out even a prima facie case of discriminatory
discharge; with respect to Clark and Mitchem, the dearth of competent credible testi-
mony in support of allegations of discrimination against them by the Respondent,
impels the Trial Examiner to find, as he does, that they were discharged for cause
and not because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union.
D. Other alleged acts of discrimination
Just prior to the discharge of Sawyer on March 13, 1952, a number of employees
in the warping and throwing departments were called into the office of Adam and
questioned concerning the reported differences between Logan and Sawyer. There
is some testimony in the record to the effect that during the questioning of 2 or 3
of these employees, Adam took occasion to ask about their activities or the activities
of the Union at the mill. Adam is said by Purvis to have stopped in at a store in
a neighboring town, saw him working there after he had left the employ of the
Respondent, and talked to the proprietor of the store out of earshot of the employee,
who the next day discharged him. Betty Williamson, the supervisor of McLean in
the knitting department, is said to have questioned him about his having a union card
and commented that Sawyer had better let the Union alone; Heard, the personnel
manager, is alleged to have kept certain employees under surveillance during working
hours at the mill; and one Mrs. Bessie Howard, an employee who had left the
employ of the Respondent on May 17, 1952, testified that following the day on
which Clark was discharged, she said she had a conversation with Boykin, in which
he said that he had warned Clark about the Union, but that Clark had "admitted
everything"-the inference being, it is supposed, that Boykin knew that Clark had
been discharged because of his membership in or activity on behalf of the Union.
On March 28, 1952, Lee read a speech to employees assembled in the mill in which
he referred to the necessity or desirability of the employees' being represented by the
Union or a union ; that thereafter Lee had his purported conversation with Mitchem
in which he said that Vanity Fair had been without a union for 50 years and that
it would never have one; and that Adam made certain antiunion remarks to employees
in the mill.
8 Discharges are not unusual at this mill According to information furnished at the
hearing monthly discharges since October 1947 have averaged 5, 6, or-7 employees per
month, the highest having been in October 1947 when 24 employees were let off for lack of
work The months of May and June 1948 were unusual months in the sense that many of
the terminations were for lack of work During all the other months, however, discharges
for other reasons were customary. Between February 5 and June 17, 1952, some 15 em-
ployees, including Clark, Purvis, and Mitchem were discharged for cause, of which four,
including Purvis, were discharged because of lack of work It was shown that the labor
turnover in the throwing department was considerably higher for year 1952 than any other
department in the mill.
CLARKE MILLS 677
Lacey Lloyd McLean was employed in the warping room until about November
17, 1952, when his employment was terminated by the Respondent . He testified
that Sawyer , on an occasion in about the second week of March , remarked, while
McLean was at work "Well, they have got a union started , haven 't they?" and that
McLean said he did not know anything about it. Again , he said Sawyer came up
to his machine and asked McLean whether he had heard anything else about the
Union , to which McLean answered "no"; and that Sawyer then said "Well, you all
can get a union in here if you want to. Mr. Barbey is going to close this mill down.
He is just operating it to give you a job . He has got enough money that he don't
have to operate ." At another time McLean testified that Adam told him that he
understood the union man was at McLean's house the day before and asked what
he wanted , that McLean replied that he wanted him to get some more cards signed
and that Adam then said "Well, Lloyd , you know we don 't need a union here. My
doors are open at any time that you have a problem back here, you can come up
and talk to me about it." McLean placed the time of this conversation around the
first part of March . McLean testified to having been called into Adam 's office some-
time in the middle of March and asked about the relations between Logan and Sawyer
and he told Adam that they did not work together well. Then, McLean said, Adam
asked him if he had seen any union books in the mill and McLean replied that he
had not . On another occasion , McLean said that Betty Williamson , his supervisor
in the knitting department, asked him if he had a union card ; that he replied he
did not have one but he had given it to Earl Sawyer , and that she then said "Earl
better leave that damn union alone." This conversation is alleged to have occurred
during the first week in March . McLean reported a conversation between himself
and George Heard , personnel director , which he said took place about the middle
of March , in which he said he asked Heard if he knew how many withdrawal cards
had been signed ; that Heard said no, he did not and further remarked that he did
not see why people would jeopardize their jobs "like that"; and that they then engaged
in a general conversation , during the course of which Heard remarked that he thought
they had good working conditions and that McLean agreed.
With respect to McLean 's report of his conversation with Sawyer, the latter, when
he, testified on direct examination confirmed the statements attributed to him by
McLean ; later he was not sure that the conversation as related by McLean and first
confirmed by him was as stated by McLean , and on cross-examination he changed
his testimony entirely and said that at the approximate time placed by McLean he
had walked by McLean , had not engaged in a conversation but simply remarked to
him that "it looks like they were going to organize a union "; and that the conversa-
tion related by McLean in which Barbey 's name was mentioned as having plenty of
money occurred long prior to union organizational activities at the plant. Adam
categorically denied the statements attributed to him by McLean , and it clearly
appears that Heard had not yet entered the employ of the Company at the time
McLean said he had his conversation with Heard . The conflicting statements of
McLean and Sawyer, the clear and unequivocal testimony of Adam and Heard, and
the comparative demeanor of these several witnesses leave the Trial Examiner to
believe that the testimony of McLean in these respects is completely worthless and
must be disregarded.
All of these alleged incidents and conversations are asserted by the General Coun-
sel to add up to surveillance , threats of loss of jobs and other reprisals , and other
specified allegations of unfair labor practices as set forth in the complaint.
One of the most serious charges against the Respondent in this connection appears
in the testimony of Sawyer. According to the latter , he left the mill for a 10-day
vacation but was recalled on March 7 and requested to report to Adam and Ward
Ostberg, director of manufacturing , who told him that McClintock , Sellers, and
Patrick , all employees under Sawyer , were leading the union organizing effort in the
mill; Adam and Ostberg are alleged to have instructed Sawyer to return to work
and find out what he could about union organization . Sawyer informed Adam and
Ostberg that all he had heard was that the third shift in the warping room or
department was going on a fishing trip and that it would look better if he went on
the fishing trip with them, which he did; that he returned the following Monday
morning, saw Adam , and told him that he had found out nothing on the fishing trip.
Adam later said to him that he and Logan were responsible for the Union and that
it was up to them to get rid of it. The following Thursday , March 13, Sawyer was
called into the office of Adam , was told that it had been determined that he and
Logan could not get along, and his resignation was asked for. On the witness stand,
Sawyer denied that there had been any difficulty between him and Logan-this is
in direct conflict with the testimony of Humphrey and Logan , among others-and in
the light of the circumstances of Sawyer 's discharge , cannot be believed . Sawyer
gave conflicting testimony with respect to his alleged conversations with McLean,
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and all in all the Trial Examiner does not regard Sawyer as having been a credible
witness.
With respect to the other instances of alleged interference and coercion , a close
examination of the record leaves only the impression gamed by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing, that most of these alleged instances were imaginary or that remarks
actually made were inflated beyond belief by employees who testified to their having
been made . Heard, Logan, Adam, and Lee, all officials of the Respondent with
attendant deep responsibility and interest in and for this matter, denied , each in
turn , the antiunion statements and actions attributed to them by the testimony above
referred to. They were credible witnesses , each of them. Upon the preponderance
of the testimony and because of the doubt in the mind of the Trial Examiner regard-
ing the credibility of much of the testimony presented on behalf of the General Coun-
sel, the Trial Examiner accepts their denials of the statements and activities attributed
to them, and finds that the unfair labor practices attributed to the Respondent by
their actions have not been proved on the record.
Concluding Findings
The General Counsel contends , in effect, that the Respondent , having obtained
knowledge of the activities of the Chamber of Commerce or some of its members
in activities inimical to the Union and its members , must bear responsibility thereof
because it did not affirmatively disavow these efforts to discourage membership in
the Union of employees of the Respondent.
There is no proof in this record , unless the Trial Examiner is mistaken in finding
that Boykin was not a representative or an agent of the Respondent , that the Respond-
ent had any part in the activities of Pierce , Cannady, Bounds, or any other of towns-
people in working against the interest of the Union. Indeed , the Respondent would
seem to have been well advised , in the circumstances, in having rebuffed Cannady
and Bounds when they offered the services of their group for the handling of griev-
ances of employees , and in maintaining a hands-off position . There can be no doubt
that there was strong antiunion sentiment in the town , but there is not the slightest
indication that the Respondent was involved in affirmatively using that sentiment to
oppose the Union , even though it readily may be inferred that the antiunion activi-
ties referred to resulted in the collapse of union organizing efforts.
Conjecture and surmise , in this case , cannot condemn the Respondent of complicity
with the business people of Jackson to forestall union organization . It is possible
that had Bounds been called upon to testify he might have said that he was concerned
about the outstanding installment payments for appliances due him from employees
of the Respondent in the event of the rumored closing of the mill; Cannady , in such
case may have said that a large part of his cash business came from the same employees
who worked 3 city blocks away from his drug store; Woodson may have said that he
depended on the sale , for cash or on credit , of furniture or of personal services to
these same employees ; and any of them may have said he had a financial interest in
the corporation which owned the mill property . The case of the General Counsel
as presented at the hearing , in the opinion of this Trial Examiner , falls short of com-
petent circumstantial proof of participation by the Respondent in the antiunion
activities of these and other townspeople.
Waynline, Inc., 81 NLRB 511, differs from the instant case-therein the Board
said in part (p. 512)
In view of the actions of the Respondent 's supervisors in allowing the Com-
mittee [of business men] to interrogate Faulk and Pye concerning union activi-
ties, to urge them to abandon the Union , and to promise them a wage increase,
and in view of the Respondent's subsequent payment of these employees for the
time they spent with the Committee, a clear responsibility devolved upon the
Respondent to disavow the actions of the Committee . By its silence under these
circumstances , the Respondent clearly . acquiesced in and approved the
interrogation of and promise of benefit to , its employees.
In L. cf H. Shirt Company , Inc., 84 NLRB 248, the Board in reviewing the report
of the Trial Examiner said (p. 252) :
The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent was responsible for the
coercive statements made at the employee meeting . . . by Cook, the local
banker, and Taylor and Horn, local businessmen . . . . we hold that in view of
the circumstances in which the statements were made , the Respondent was under
a duty to repudiate and deny their validity.
In the instant case, the circumstances are entirely different-there, at an open meeting
between management and employees , the banker and businessmen came into the meet-
CLARKE MILLS 679
ing, upon invitation , after it had begun , and made clear antiunion statements and
hinted the removal or closing of the plant if it became unionized, and so on, in the
presence of management. See and compare Goodyear Footwear Corporation, 80
NLRB 800.
The General Counsel contends that Boykin, Canfield, Jordan, and other shift
leaders "occupied positions which identified them with management in such a way
as to cause employees to look to them for guidance regarding Respondent's policies."
(Harrison Sheet Steel Co., 94 NLRB 81, 93 and cases cited therein.) Certainly, here,
no employee looked to any shift leader for guidance with respect to policy. It will
be remembered that the throwing department, during the pertinent times herein and
from its activation in 1951 and through March 1952, when the union organization
-campaign came on, was in a development or organizational stage and was adding to
its first staff of about 10 operators and others and building up to a 3-shift operation
of approximately 60 or 70 operators. The Trial Examiner agrees with the contention
of the Respondent that it is unreasonable to believe that the Respondent should have
put the responsibility of running this important department of the mill in the hands
,of comparatively young and inexperienced operators.
The General Counsel contends further that even if the shift leaders and Boykin
are not to be considered supervisors within the meaning of the Act, nevertheless they
acted as agents of the Respondent in carrying on certain forbidden activities. In
support thereof, the General Counsel cites a number of cases including Waynline, Inc.,
81 NLRB 511, Sioux City Brewing Company, 82 NLRB 1061, Union Twist Drill Co.,
88 NLRB 1361, and Harrison Sheet Steel Co., 94 NLRB 81.
In International Assn. of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 72, the Supreme Court
decided that in a contest between two unions, rank-and-file employees can be found
to be agents of an employer where the conduct of those rank-and-file employees is
such as to parallel the conduct of management so that other employees had just cause
to believe that these rank-and-file employees were acting for and on behalf of the
management; and also found an implied agency for those rank-and-file employees
engaged consistently in the same kind of conduct engaged in by management. In the
instant case the "pursued parallel courses of action" discussed in the cases cited by
General Counsel and in IAM v. N. L. R. B , cannot be found.
In deciding the other questions growing out of allegations of unfair labor practices
asserted to have been committed by this Respondent, the Trial Examiner has been
confronted with several questions of credibility; Credibility, because of inconsisten-
cies and vagueness in the testimony of witnesses presented by the General Counsel
generally has been resolved, insofar as the substantial or essential parts of proof are
concerned, in favor of the Respondent. In other respects, proof of alleged contra-
ventions of the Act remain unproved
With respect to the alleged antiunion statements of Betty Williamson, who the
Respondent concedes to have been a supervisor, the Trial Examiner is inclined to
disbelieve the testimony of McLean; but even were such statements made, the matter
is such an isolated one that it would not justify the recommendation of a remedial
order against the Respondent.
On the whole record of this case, and upon the preponderance of the evidence, the
Trial Examiner finds the facts as above stated, and grants the motions of the Respond-
ent made at the hearing to dismiss portions of the complaint containing substantial
allegations of contravention of the Act; and further finds with respect to allegations
of the complaint to which the motions of the Respondent were not directed that the
proof fails to sustain the allegations, and therefore the complaint should be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Trial Examiner makes the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Respondent, Clarke Mills, constitute trade, traffic, and
commerce upon the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. By discharging and refusing to reinstate John Clark, William Monroe Purvis,
and Thelma Mitchem, the Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]