Coats & Clark, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 146 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the
Decision and Direction of Election herein.]
MEMBER LEEr o1Vr took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
Coats & Clark , Inc. (Acworth Plant ) and Textile Workers Union
of America , CIO. Case No. 10-CA-1941. April 14, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 10, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 brief, and the entire record in
the case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following addition."
We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Walker Glover. The Respondent con-
tends that it discharged Glover because it had received numerous com-
plaints concerning his frequent and inordinately long absences from
his place of work, and because on the day of his discharge he disre-
garded his instructions to stay on a specifically assigned job until it
was completed.
The record shows that Glover, a twister cleaner, had been a "pretty
good hand," and that the Respondent had made no complaints about
his work for a period of 6 years. Then, on August 20, 1953, he signed
a union card and became active in the organization of the Respond-
ent's employees. The Respondent knew of and disapproved Glover's
union activities,2 and, significantly, its appraisal of him and his work
performance began to deteriorate simultaneously with this knowledge.
Furthermore, in the period that followed, it unlawfully interrogated
Glover on 2 occasions, and on 5 other occasions, it either threatened
'The Tiial Examiner incorrectly repotted that Mr. and Mrs Glover attended a union
meeting on October 17, 1954 The correct date is October 17, 1953.
2 Although the Respondent denied knowledge of Glover' s union activities its witnesses
admitted that they knew In August 1953, that Glover was talking to other employees about
the Union . In November 1953, the Respondent 's second shift overseer told an employee
that the union organizer was not going to do his work for him, and if lie was lined up
with the Glovers, " to liell" with him.
112 NLRB No. 27.
COATS & CLARK, INC. 147
employees with job reprisals or unlawfully interrogated them con-
cerning union activities. It also referred to the organizing activities
as the spreading of propaganda and poison.
Although the Respondent alleges that it received numerous com-
plaints concerning Glover's absences from his place of work, it never
threatened him with discharge and was able specifically to identify
only two occasions on which he was reprimanded for any reason. On
February 26, 1954, the day of Glover's discharge, he was instructed
to stay on his job and set up and start a twisting machine. Subse-
quently, he was allegedly discharged for leaving his place of work
twice, once to go to the supply room to get supplies, and once to go
to another part of the plant where he assisted his wife and another
female employee by doffing the spindles on their winding machines.
The record shows that getting supplies from the supply room had
been a part of Glover's duties, and at the time in question he was
getting supplies for use in the job to which he had been assigned.
There is no showing that he was ever instructed to refrain from going
to the supply room to get supplies.
Although doffing spindles was not considered a part of his regular
duties, it had been Glover's practice in the past to assist his wife and
the other winding help in this manner. He did this on ills own initia-
tive and was never criticized for doing so. On the day of Glover's
discharge the Respondent asked Mrs. Glover, a winder in the winding
department, to perform extra work because another employee was
absent. Mrs. Glover consented to do a job and a half but stated that
in view of her physical condition, she was 51/2 months pregnant, she
was afraid to doff all the spindles. The Respondent's overseer, Brown;
told her that he would do the doffing for her. An hour later Mrs.
Glover informed the overseer that her spindles were ready, and he told
her he would come over and doff them. However, when another hour
had passed without the overseer's coming, she looked for him again,
and, being unable to find him, she went to Glover's department and
asked an employee to tell her huband to come to her assistance. When
Glover returned from the supply room, he was informed of his wife's
request, and he went to her place of work. After he had finished
doffing his wife's spindles, at his wife's suggestion, he doffed the
spindles for another woman winder who was also doing a job and a
half. Immediately thereafter, he left the winders to return to his
work. On the way he was met by the Respondent's overseer, Brown,
who asked him on whose authority he had doffed the spindles. Glover
said it was at his wife's request. Brown then discharged him.3 On
3 According to the credited testimony of Mrs. Glover , about 30 minutes after Glover
was discharged she had a conveisation with the Respondent ' s overseer , Jack Brown, in
which she asked him, "Jack, did you fire walker for doffing my flame" and he replied,
"That wasn't what I flied him for "
369028-56-vol 112-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this occasion Glover had been absent from his work for only 10 or 12
minutes. In spite of his absence and discharge, the twisting machine
that he was instructed to work on was placed in operation in the
normal time required for this activity.
That the Respondent did not take any action against Mrs. Glover,
an active union supporter, or any other employees because of union
activity, itself does not establish that the Respondent did not dis-
criminate as to Glover as our dissenting colleague suggests.4 Neither
does the fact that Glover left his job twice on the day of his discharge
require a conclusion that his discharge was disciplinary and not
motivated by antiunion considerations. These events must be viewed
in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the effect of the
absences upon the Respondent's business in deciding whether they
provide the real reason for the discharge or only a pretext. At the
time of his discharge Glover had been in the Respondent's employ
for 6'/z years, and, as noted above, during the first 6 years of his em-
ployment the Respondent admits that he had had a good work rec-
ord. There is no showing that the Respondent's operations were
hindered in any way by his absences on the day of his discharge.
On the contrary, by doffing the spindles for his disabled wife, and
thus making it possible for her to resume operations, and by getting
supplies for the job to which he had been assigned, Glover was
plainly acting in the Respondent's interest. Moreover, it is to be
noted, that he did the doffing only after Mrs. Glover had waited an
hour in vain for Overseer Brown who had agreed to perform the
function. We do not believe that a nondiscriminatorily motivated
employer would have discharged Glover under such circumstances.
It is much more reasonable to infer that Glover's union activities,
toward which Respondent had been hostile, were the real reason for
his discharge.
On the basis of the above facts, and the record as a whole, we find
that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the reasons
given for Glover's discharge were not the real reasons, but that they
were a pretext to hide the antiunion motivation of the Respondent.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act by discharging Walker Glover.'
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, Coats & Clark,
4 N L. R. B v. W. C. Nabors Company, 196 F. 2d 272, 276 (C. A. 5), cert. denied 344
U S. 865 , Rschards and Associates, 110 NLRB 132
5 N L R. B. v. Kibler- Camp Phosphate Enterprise, 216 F. 2d 113 , 115 (C. A.
5) ; N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co, 192 F. 2d 160, 162-163 (C A. 2) ; The Plastic
Holding Company, Inc, 110 NLRB 2137
COATS & CLARK, INC. 149
Inc. (Acworth Plant), Acworth, Georgia, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with economic reprisals because of their
union affiliation and activities.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their membership in, or
activities on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, or
any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference,
restraint, or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Discouraging membership in Textile Workers Union of Amer-
ica, CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis-
charging any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating
against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or any 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, and to refrain from any or all of such ac-
tivities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion 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 Walker Glover immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him in the manner provided in the sec-
tion of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back
pay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its plant in Acworth, Georgia, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of such notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
6In the event that this Order is enforced by 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 "
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply therewith.
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part :
I do not believe that the record shows that the Respondent discrimi-
natorily discharged Walker Glover.
On February 26, 1954, the day of Glover's discharge, the Respond-
ent's production was being held up because of building repairs and an
insufficient number of operating twister machines. To alleviate this
situation, the Respondent decided to set up and start another twister
machine. The Respondent assigned Glover, a twister cleaner, and two
other employees to do this job. According to testimony credited by
the Trial Examiner, Plant Manager Hilley told Glover, "Walker, we
have got to get this twister started up, and we are getting complaints
about you leaving the job and being gone too long. Stay on the job
today and get this twister started up." Getting the twister started up
was an 8-hour job. The plant manager also told Overseer Brown,
according to the credited testimony, that Glover had been leaving the
job entirely too much, that he was to "stay on him and get this twister
started up," and that he was to discharge Glover if the latter left his
work except to go to the warehouse or to the canteen for his supper.
Notwithstanding the plant manager's order to stay on the job, Glover
left his work twice, once to go to the supply room, stopping to talk to a
watchman, and a second time to doff the spindles of his wife and those
of another worker. Doffing spindles was not part of Glover's regular
job, although he performed that work on occasion.
The evidence is undisputed that Glover did not ask the permission
of his supervisor, Overseer Brown, to leave his job either to go to the
supply room or to doff the spindles. Brown, however, learned that
Glover had left to go to the supply room, and saw Glover talking to
the watchman. Noticing that Glover was missing a second time,
Brown went to the warehouse and there observed Glover doffing
spindles. When Brown asked Glover on whose authority he had left
his job to doff the spindles, Glover answered that he had done so at
his wife's request. Brown thereupon discharged him.
The Trial Examiner found that Glover's deviation from his instruc-
tions, although a valid reason for Glover's discharge, was a pretext
and not a real reason. He found that the real reason for the dis-
charge was the Respondent's hostility toward the Glovers because
they had taken an active and open part in the Union's organizing
COATS & CLARK, INC. 151
campaign. I do not agree that the General Counsel has established
the pretext theory by a preponderance of the evidence. Before being
assigned to the twister job on February 26, Glover was warned about
his frequent absences and was instructed to stay on the job. He
ignored the warning and instructions and absented himself from the
job without the approval of his supervisor. Overseer Brown then
discharged him in accordance with his own previously received instruc-
tions. There is no evidence here of entrapment, as the Trial Examiner
insinuates but, significantly, does not find to have been the case.
The order to Glover to stay on the job was clearly reasonable in the
circumstances. No action whatever was taken against Mrs. Glover.
Nor is there any showing that any action was taken against any other
employee because of union activity. Although the evidence shows
some hositility on the part of the Respondent toward the Union and
toward Glover because of his union activities, that evidence, without
more is not sufficient, I believe, to convert what clearly is a discipli-
nary discharge into an unfair labor practice. The fact that an em-
ployee is active on behalf of a union does not give him a privileged
status. Nor does an employer's hostility to a union deprive him of
the right to take warranted disciplinary action against an employee
for reasons unconnected with the latter's union activities.
Accordingly, I would find, contrary to the Trial Examiner and
my colleagues, that the Respondent discharged Walker Glover for
cause, and not for discriminatory reasons.
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
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 threaten our employees with economic reprisals
because of their union affiliation and activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their member-
ship in, or activities on behalf of, Textile Workers Union of
America, CIO, or any other labor organization, in a manner con-
stituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Textile Workers Union
of America, CIO, or any other labor organization of our employ-
ees, by discharging any of our employees or in any other manner
discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employment or any term or condition of employment, except to
the extent permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Textile Work-
ers Union of America, CIO, 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 col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and 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.
WE WILL offer Walker Glover immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to the seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by him, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
COATS & CLARK, INC. (ACWORTH PLANT),
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended (61 Stat . 136), herein referred to as the Act, was heard in Marietta,
Georgia, May 25, 1954, pursuant to due notice. The complaint as amended at the
hearing was issued April 30, 1954, by the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board.' Based on charges duly filed and served , the complaint alleged in
substance that Respondent 2 had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act by: ( a) Discharging Walker N. Glover on
February 26, 1954, because of his union activities and (b ) on various occasions
interrogating its employees regarding their union activities ; threatening its employees
with reprisals or promising them benefits in connection with their union activities;
and keeping under surveillance its employees' union activities.
Respondent 's answer denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , to introduce relevant evidence,
to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Briefs were received from both Respondent and the General Counsel.
At the end of the General Counsel's case-in-chief Respondent 's motion (opposed
in part by the General Counsel) to dismiss the surveillance allegations of the com-
plaint was granted.
i The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board . Coats & Clark,
Inc (Acworth Plant ), is referred to as the Respondent and sometimes as the Company;
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is referred to as the Union
The "Acworth Plant" portion of the name was added by amendment at the hearing
COATS & CLARK, INC. 153
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
For the calendar year prior to the issuance of the complaint Respondent, in the
operations of its Acworth plant, purchased raw materials, equipment, and supplies
valued in excess of $500,000 of which more than $250,000 worth were purchased
and shipped from outside the State of Georgia. During the same period at the
Acworth plant, Respondent sold finished products valued in excess of $500,000 of
which more than $400,000 worth were sold and shipped to points outside the State
of Georgia. I find Respondent to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue
The main issue in this case is whether or not the discharge of Walker Glover, an
employee of 7 years' standing, was for cause or, as contended by the General Counsel,
was motivated by his union activity. The facts, as found below in more detail,
show that Respondent was disturbed and antagonized in the latter part of 1953 and
the first part of 1954 by a union organizing campaign involving its Acworth and
Clarksdale plants. Respondent's opposition to the Union was reflected in several
demonstrations of interference , restraint , and coercion towards its employees with
respect to their union activities. Particularly pointed was Respondent's preoccupation
with and animosity toward Glover and his wife ( also an employee) for the part
they were taking in support of the Union. In this background and the light of 61h
years of admittedly good work, Glover was discharged ostensibly because he had
disregarded instructions to stay on a specifically assigned task until it had been com-
pleted. This instruction allegedly was motivated by a preceding 6 months' period of
complaints and warnings to Glover about time-wasting in the performance of his
work.
B. Respondent's opposition to the Union outside the 10 (b) period
Two or three days after the union organizer called at the Glovers' home on
August 20, 1953, and got them to sign union application cards, according to Walker
Glover's testimony, Hoyt Gilbert,3 then second hand on the second shift (the same
shift that both Glover and his wife worked), said to Glover, "I hear there is a union
man coming to your house " Glover admitted it. Gilbert said, "I wouldn't have
thought you would think of such a thing." Glover replied that he was undecided
about the Union. Gilbert left and returned shortly with Overseer Jack Brown.
The latter asked Glover, "where was you when the war was going on?" Glover
replied, "I was in the army; where was you?" Brown said , "didn't you know soldiers
did not like strikes when the war was going on? If you signed a union card I want
you to quit." Gilbert also told Glover, "If you signed a card it will follow you the
rest of the days of your life and you can't get a job anywhere."
The following day Brown and Plant Manager Hilley, the latter looking angry,
came to Glover. Hilley said, "I hear you are not happy." Glover confirmed the
information. Hilley said, "If you are not happy, why don't you quit?" Glover
replied, "I ain't ready to quit. If you all find anything the matter with my work,
lay me off." Later that day Brown returned and told Glover, "If you signed a union
card we want you to quit."
Marie Glover also testified that about 3 days after she signed the union applica-
tion card Gilbert told her he heard that there was a union man coming to her
house. As did her husband, she admitted it. Brown commented that he hoped
that the employees would not organize because the mill would close. He also said,
"Clark wouldn't have a contract." Mrs. Glover showed him a copy of a contract
in effect at the Respondent's Pawtucket mill. Gilbert told her that the Pawtucket
3It was stipulated that Hoyt Gilbert (who gave his name In the record as John Hart
Gilbert), Jack Brown, Joe Sandors, and Paul Hilley at all times material herein were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act I so find
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mill had not run full time since it had been organized . On the same day Brown also
told her the mill would close if they organized . He further stated that unions caused
nothing but trouble and confusion and that unionism was nothing but a branch of
communism.
The substance of the foregoing was denied by Brown in his testimony but was not
denied in Gilbert's . Notwithstanding Brown's denial I credit both of the Glovers in
this instance . Gilbert was an evasive witness-even at the questioning of his own
counsel. An example of Brown 's lack of reliability appears in his denial on the
stand that he knew Glover was for the Union until Respondent "got that indict-
ment," 4 having just before that testified about accusing Glover 2 days before his
discharge of "strewing propaganda and poison" around the plant which Brown
clearly identified on the stand as prounion statements.
As I pointed out at the hearing, pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the Act I would
make no finding of unfair labor practices involving incidents which occurred more
than 6 months before the filing of the charge . Since the foregoing matters fall with-
in that limitation I attribute no unfair labor practices to Respondent as a result
thereof. Nevertheless , the evidence does serve to show an aggressive antiunion atti-
tude on the part of Respondent.
C. Interference , restraint , and coercion
On Saturday , October 17 , 1954, Glover and his wife attended a union meeting at
Powder Springs for the Clarksdale plant employees . The following Monday ac-
cording to Glover's testimony, Gilbert asked him "what did you learn over at the union
meeting Saturday? Did they promise you a job?" Gilbert further commented, "all
they [the Union] are after is your money. They never run a spindle of yarn in their
lives." Glover also testified that after attending another weekend union meeting at
Powder Springs about February 20, 1954, Brown asked him the following Monday,
"what kind of a time did you have over at the meeting Saturday ?" Glover replied
that he had had a "pretty good" time. Brown then asked , "who all went from the
plant over there besides you ?" Glover replied, "Jack, I can't speak for nobody but
myself and I sure as hell was there myself ." Brown retorted , "I have got the exact
figures on how many was over at that meeting and there was 34."
Marie Glover also testified about attending the October 17 meeting at Powder*
Springs. According to her testimony , the following Monday, Brown asked her who
in the plant was for the Union telling her he felt she would know because the union
man had been coming to her house so often . On the same day Gilbert asked her how
many of the employees had attended the union meeting at Powder Springs.
Sometime in November 1953, Brown took Mrs. Glover to the lower end of the mill
and showed her some machinery that had been shipped into the plant , telling her
it was from Respondent 's Pawtucket plant which had closed or was closing as fast
as it could to avoid operating under a union contract. Mrs. Glover commented that
she did not dispute Brown's honesty but did not believe him . Brown said she was
trying to bring "outsiders" into Respondent 's employee relationship and if she was she
should be laid off . According to Mrs. Glover 's further testimony , the night before her
husband 's discharge Brown told her that she and her husband must be getting paid
well for the "work and talk" they were doing for the Union.
Mrs. Benson testified that 2 or 3 weeks before Glover 's discharge , she and three
other employees (Edna Burnette , Betty Baker, and a boy named Jordon ) had been
taken for a tour of the plant by Brown . Besides discussing the plant operations,
Brown told them at this time "Mr. Clark had sworn and be damned that he wouldn't
have an organized mill in the South ." 5 Brown also told them "he wasn't going
to make any bones about it," that the employees knew how management felt and vice
versa and went on to say that "Marie and Walker Glover were getting paid plenty for
what they were doing for the CIO ." On May 18, 1954 , when Brown learned that
Mrs. Benson had been subpenaed by the Board, he asked her if she had made any
statement as to what he had said on the tour of the mill . Hearing that she had, he
said "Good Lordy Mighty."
About a week after the above tour Brown asked Mrs. Benson if Mrs. Glover had
talked to her about the CIO lately . On or about March 2, 1954, when it was
learned in the Acworth plant that the Union had lost the election at Clarksdale, Brown
asked Mrs . Benson what Mrs. Glover had said about it. Mrs. Benson replied that
Mrs. Glover had made no comment but that "she kinda looked sick."
4 The "indictment" could only have been the charge or the complaint which was not
served upon Respondent until after Glover's discharge.
6 In substance this was corroborated by the testimony of Baker.
COATS & CLARK, INC. 155
According to Mrs. Baker's testimony prior to the time she was taken on the
plant tour by Browns he asked her how she liked her job, reminding her that it
was only temporary but adding, "well, if you do good I think things will work out all
right but it is not that you could use a knotter that you got the job, we have girls who
can beat you all to pieces, you don't want to listen to any of those rumors and you
don't want to mess up your reputation by going against the Company."
Clifford Morris testified that the latter part of November or the first part of De-
cember 1953, in a discussion about the Union among employees at the mill canteen,
Gilbert had made the comment that if the employees were frank they would admit
that "everybody that works for Coats & Clark was better off today than when they
went to work for Clark Thread Company." Morris said, "I can't see that I am" and
walked off. Thereafter Brown came over to Morris and said, "Cliff, let me tell you,
Mr. Porter [the union organizer] is not going to come over here and doff these
winders for you, I have been good to you and paid you more than any of the rest of
them are getting and if I find out you are lined up with Pat and Walker, to hell with
you." 7 This is undenied by Brown. Except for this failure to deny on the part of
Brown and his explanation of what comment he made to the four employees given
the plant tour,8 the foregoing was substantially denied by both Brown and Gilbert.
I nave already stated one appraisal of Gilbert and Brown as witnesses. Besides
those noted deficiencies, the air of exaggeration and generalization that pervades their
testimony also detracts from their reliability. 9 On the other hand as to Mesdames
Glover, Benson, and Baker nothing in their demeanor or deportment on the witness
stand nor in the straightforward plausible presentations they made gives rise to any
suspicion or doubt concerning the veracity of their testimony. Therefore, I credit
their testimony as set forth above and reject the denials of Gilbert and Brown and
also reject Brown's version as to what comments he made pertaining to the Union
on the occasion of the plant tour. 10 Since Glover's testimony as set forth involves
incidents similar to those already found. I credit it as I also credit the undenied
testimony of Morris.
Thus, from the foregoing evidence it would appear and I find that Respondent
engaged in conduct which tended to interfere with, coerce, and restrain its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in the Act by:
1. Brown's statement to Glover after questioning him about the Powder Springs
union meeting of February 20, that he had the exact figures on the number of em-
ployees who attended. 11
2. Brown's statements to Mrs. Glover in November 1953 that the Pawtucket plant
was closing to avoid operating under a union contract and that if she was trying
to bring outsiders into the relationship between Respondent and its employees she
should be laid off. 12
3. Brown's statement to the four employees on the plant tour in February 1954
that Respondent would not have an organized mill in the South. 13
4. Brown's statement to Mrs. Baker in early February 1954, that she did not want
to listen to "those rumors" and "mess up" her reputation "by going against the
company" coupled with his remarks that she did not get her job because she was
able to run a knotter-that there were girls who could beat her "all to pieces."
She did not recall the approximate date Since at the time of her testimony on May 25,
1954, she had been working only about 4 months, I find this incident to have occurred
during the first part of February 1954, sboitly after she started on the job
The reference to "Pat and Walker" I find was to Marie and Walker Glover In her
testimony, Mrs Walker referred to a comment made to her by Brown the night before she
got her maternity leave in which lie addressed her as "Pat" saying, "Pat, I hear Walker
is mighty sore at me for firing him" adding, "Sometimes we have to do things that we
don't want to do " This was admitted and reasonably explained by Brown in his testimony.
8l3rown explained that what he said was, "Mr. Clark doesn't have any mills organized
in the south, whether he would operate one is a question, but I doubt seriously if he
would "
9 To a lesser extent the two latter qualities are also demonstrated in Walker Glover's
testimony For that reason, coupled with inconsistencies between his direct and cross-
examinations, I do not credit Glover elsewhere in his testimony as will be shown.
10 l:rown testified that it was the policy to try to give new employees a tour of the plant
so as to give their an understanding of the operations. His admission of including com-
ments on the subject of unionism in this tour tends to detract from his denials of other
comments on the subject
"Kohler Co. 108 NLRB 207 (footnote 18)
la The threatening implications of these two statements is obvious.
33 Lakeside Packing Company, 104 NLRB 902, 906.
156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Brown's remark to Morris that if he found Morris "lined up" with the Glovers-
i. e., in favor of the Union, "to hell" with him.
6. Also the interrogation of the employees by Brown and Gilbert as found above
I find under the circumstances herein to be violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
While it is no longer the policy of the Board to hold that an employer's interrogation
of his employees about their union activities is a per se violation of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act, such interrogation may still be an unfair labor practice depending on the
circumstances. 14 Here, in view of Respondent's illegal opposition to the Union
and its characterization of union advocacy as the strewing of poison and propaganda
it would seem unrealistic indeed to consider any interrogation about such a subject
as being innocuous and uncoercive.
D. The discrimination
Walker Glover had worked for Respondent since 1947 as a twister cleaner. Until
August 1953 he had been "a pretty good hand." On August 20, that year, Glover and
his wife signed application cards in the Union as a result of a visit to their home by
an organizer. Thereafter, until Glover's discharge on February 26, 1954, they took
an active and open part in the organization campaign being waged by the Union
in connection with Respondent's Acworth plant and its plant at Clarksdale some
20 miles away. In addition to collecting signed union applications cards at the plant
the Glovers, particularly Walker, were outspoken among the employees in their
support of the Union and attended several union meetings at Clarksdale.
Seemingly simultaneously with his interest in the Union, Respondent's favorable
reaction to Glover as an employee began to deteriorate. From November 1953 on,
according to Respondent's evidence, Glover's supervisors received "numerous" com-
plaints about his work from his fellow cleaners. These complaints, unspecified as
to identifying details involved (1) Glover's inordinately long absences in the water-
house which tended to shift more work to his fellow cleaners and (2) his slowness
in getting supplies which tended to keep his fellow employees idle.15 It appears
that the complaints about Glover also pertained to his union activity. Thus, about
2 weeks before Glover's discharge in a discussion about the Union between L. E.
Simmons, J. D. Brooks, and Glover in the Waterhouse, Simmons told Glover "that
the Union couldn't force Coats & Clark to run," that Respondent could close the
mill if it pleased. Glover departed looking angry, but later stopped to pursue the
question with Simmons further. At that time Glover became profane in his com-
ments. Simmons finally told Glover, "the best thing you can do is get out and
leave me alone" which Glover did. Simmons reported the incident to Second Hand
Shelton.is
From the testimony of Supervisor Jack Brown, it appears that 2 days before
Glover's discharge the second hand told Brown that Glover was "trying to sell Mrs.
McPherson with the idea she wouldn't have to operate 34 sides if they organized."
On the basis of this report Brown told Glover he had to stay on the job and "stay
out of other parts of the mill strewing his propaganda and poison." The evidence
shows and I find that Glover's duties took him to other parts of the mill. Besides
cleaning twisters in the warehouse he also got supplies for the cleaning work which
were located at the opposite end of the mill some 400 feet from the twister room
where the major portion of his work was located.17
The occasion of the above reprimand to Glover is I of 2 incidents prior to the
day of his discharge specifically identified in Respondent's evidence although Gilbert
and Brown both testified about Glover's being reprimanded concerning his work
14 Blue Flash Express, Inc, 109 NLRB 591.
16 There is no showing that enforced idleness of the cleaners affected their earnings ;
they were paid on an hourly basis.
16 Simmons was asked the leading question whether he told Shelton that Glover's con-
duct had upset him or interfered with him in any way. Simmons' answer was "It flew
over me a little bit." What he meant by that remark was not explained In any event
there is nothing in his testimony to show that his reaction to Glover's remarks was men-
tioned to Shelton
17 According to Gilbert's testimony, about the middle of November he discussed Glover's
time wasting over supplies with Brown. The latter instructed Gilbert not to send Glover
for supplies anymore unless he was compelled to. Gilbert testified that he followed this
instruction. Nevertheless, on the day of his discharge, it appears that Glover was still
getting supplies, apparently without special instruction or compulsion. Again I am unable
to credit Gilbeit's testimony.
COATS & CLARK, INC. 157
on numerous occasions from about November 1953 until his discharge . 18 Glover
flatly denied having ever been criticized about his work . Passing over for the
moment the resolution of this matter we turn to the details of Glover's discharge.
On February 26, according to Respondent's testimony, Glover, and two other
employees had been instructed to set up and get started a twisting machine which
had just been moved back into the main building. According to Hilley's testimony
he told Glover, "Walker, we have got to get this twister started up and we are
getting complaints about you leaving the job and being gone too long . Stay on the
job today and get this twister started up." In the office with Brown , Hilley told
Brown, "Jack , this fellow has been leaving the job entirely too much . . . . Stay on
him today and get this twister started up . . He further told Brown that if
Glover persisted in leaving his job and being "gone without any reasons for any
length of time other than going to the water house and to the canteen for his supper"
to discharge him. Glover in his testimony at first denied he had received any in-
structions about the twister that day except that his coworker, Red Bennett, had
told him it "was getting ready to start up." On cross -examination he admitted that
he had been told to get the twister ready and started which he conceded was an 8-hour
job. I credit Hilley on the matter.
On February 26, Glover's wife and Mrs. Benson were each working a job and
a half due to the absence of one of the other winder hands . Their work was being
performed in a warehouse some 300 feet from the main building which , since the
first of the year, had been used to house machinery temporarily removed from the
main building to permit floor repairs there. From the undenied and credited testi-
mony of Mrs. Glover it appears that at the start of the shift when she was asked
to take over the extra work, Mrs. Glover told Brown she did not mind running
the job and a half but , being 51h months' pregnant , she was afraid to doff the 55
spindles under her charge.19 Brown told her he would doff them for her when they
were ready. About an hour after the start of her shift (both she and her husband
worked on the second shift from 3 to 11 p. m. ) Mrs. Glover went to the canteen
where she told Brown her spindles were ready to doff. He said he would be over
shortly. After a lapse of about an hour Mrs. Glover went to the main building
to look for Brown again Not finding him she asked one of the hands to tell her
husband she wanted him to come over to the warehouse . Glover went to her and
at her request doffed her spindles which by then she had already "broken back."
At his wife's request he also doffed Mrs. Benson's. According to Glover's credited
testimony as he was doffing the last of Mrs. Benson 's he saw Brown watching him
momentarily before walking out of the building . Glover left immediately to return
to the twister job. In the yard on the way he encountered Brown who asked him
upon whose authority he had gone over to doff spindles . Being informed that it
was at his wife's request, Brown discharged him.
There is no conflict as to the details of Glover's discharge. However, certain
additions are alluded to in Brown 's testimony : After Hilley had directed Glover
to keep at the twister job and Hilley had discussed the matter in the office with
Brown, the latter, on his way from the office, noticed that Glover was not at the
twister job. Upon inquiry he learned that Glover had gone for supplies. He further
testified :
I stayed quite a bit and checked all over the mill and met the first shift over-
seer and we walked down the railroad track and I said, "where is Walker, he is
taking too much time," and when we got to the railroad track I saw Walker in
the shop talking to the watchman and presumably he saw me and we started
down on the railroad track and spent 15 or 20 minutes talking and I was
19 Brown also testified about talking to Glover in December telling him he was a good
man "and he ought to go ahead and do his work and quit fooling around "
19 The spindles or spools when sufficiently full (a matter left to the experienced discre.
tion of the operator ) weigh 31/2 to 4 pounds It is at this stage that they are doffed or
taken off the machine . Before doffing it is necessary to "break them back "-i. e , ap-
parently to sever the thread being wound Mrs Glovem , small in stature , testified credibly
that in doffing it was necessary to lift the spools above her head She also testified credibly
that on this particular occasion all of the spindles would be coming off at the same time
having been started at the same time by the previous shift-a practice which was unusual
but sometimes occurred While not specifically denying that such was the case on this
occasion Respondent , by showing that it was customary to stagger the running of the
spools so that doffing would not take place for the entire run at one time, apparently would
cast some aspersion on Mrs Glover 's motives or her testimony I credit Mrs . Glover
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watching the shop and he didn't come out and I went toward the shop-and
Walker left and went toward the supply room.20
Brown did not see Glover come out of the supply room, because at that point Brown
went to the canteen. He next saw Glover back working on the twister while Brown
and Shelton were talking nearby. During this conversation Brown noticed again
that Glover was missing. Learning that Glover's wife had sent for him, Brown
went to the warehouse where he was in time to see Glover doffing the last of Mrs.
Benson's winders.
In his testimony Glover insisted that his job was a potpourri of duties (including
the doffing of winders) almost all of which as an experienced hand he performed
without orders or instructions. It would appear, however, from an official descrip-
tion of the duties of twister cleaner that doffing was not a regularly recognized duty
of the job. Nevertheless doffing winders could be and on occasion was required to
be done by the cleaners. Moreover, whether or not it was a common practice for
the cleaners to assist the distaff winders by doffing for them without directions from
supervision, I find on the testimony of Mrs. Glover and Mrs. Benson that on occa-
sion doffing was done for them at their request and without the specific sanction of
supervision. I also find in accordance with their testimony, and that of Clifford
Morris and Walker Glover that the latter did more doffing than the other cleaners,
which was unauthorized by but nevertheless known to management. I also credit
the Glovers' undenied testimony that they were never criticized for either asking
for help with the doffing or for volunteering such help nor were they ever directed
to refrain from such conduct.
Glover testified that he spent no more than 6 minutes doffing for the two women
that evening. Gilbert testified that it would take 20 to 25 minutes to doff 110
spindles "like they are supposed to be doffed." It did not appear in Gilbert's testi-
mony whether this included "breaking back" the spools. Glover's doffing for his
wife and Benson, of course, did not include that operation.
The foregoing constitutes the essential evidence pertaining to Glover's discharge.
As already indicated, I believe and find that Glover, on the day of his discharge,
was instructed to stay on the twister job as testified to by Hilley. However, in the
face of Glover's flat denial and long record of satisfactory employment it would be
difficult to credit Respondent's vague generalizations as to the "numerous" other
criticisms that were allegedly leveled at him 21 Certainly, as already found, if com-
plaints were made to Glover by management they did not include criticism of or
restriction on voluntary doffing by him.
The issue thus narrowed is whether or not Glover's deviation from his instruc-
tions that day when he went to doff for his wife and Mrs. Benson was really the cause
for his discharge or whether, as alleged by the General Counsel, it was a mere pre-
text seized upon to rationalize antiunion motivation. I find it to have been the latter.
It seems to me that on the facts herein it would be impossible to reach any other
conclusion. Respondent's opposition to the unionization of its employees and the
illegal tactics resorted to by Respondent to combat the Union are demonstrated in
the record. Also amply demonstrated in the record is Respondent's concern about
and preoccupation with the part played by the Glovers in the union campaign and
its antipathy and hostility toward them as a result thereof. In such light a normal
or otherwise impartial appraisal of or reaction to Glover's conduct on the job could
hardly be expected.
Moreover, in addition to the generalizations and exaggerations in Respondent's
testimony about Glover which detract from its convincingness, there are certain
aspects of the evidence that raise further doubt. Thus, after originally promising
Mrs. Glover he would doff her winders that evening, there is no explanation by
'Brown why he failed to do so-making it necessary for her to seek the aid of her
husband after having informed Brown her winders were ready to doff and having
waited for him for over an hour to doff them as he had promised.
Furthermore, in face of Hilley's pointed instructions to Brown to discharge Glover
if he was gone from his job "without any reasons for any length of time other than
going to the water house and to the canteen for supper," it seems odd that Brown
(if his testimony on the matter can be believed) would have permitted Glover to
spend 15 or 20 minutes talking to the watchman and have taken no steps to comply
at that time with Hilley's instructions.
20 The credited testimony of Glover shows that he was getting supplies on this occasion.
21 Evidence less general in nature has been held to be of little probative value. See
Heider Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB 1185 (footnote 10).
COATS & CLARK, INC. 159
Several possible explanations of this testimony occur to me:
1. Brown was not testifying truthfully . While the evidence shows that Glover
did talk to the watchman on the occasion of his getting supplies that day, it may
have been only for a moment rather than 15 or 20 minutes or have taken place si-
multaneously with the performance of his duties.
2. Brown testified truthfully but was reluctant to discharge Glover on this occa-
sion and chose to overlook the matter.
3. Brown testified truthfully but since Glover 's absence was in connection with
an official duty Brown felt it did not come within the letter of Hilley 's instructions.
4. Because of his support of the Union it had been decided to discharge Glover.
Since he had been helping his wife doff, particularly during her pregnancy, such
an occasion was to supply the pretext . To insure its occurrence that day, Brown
deliberately refrained from doffing for Mrs. Glover contrary to his promise to her.
In the meantime Glover presented an opportunity for discharge but because of pure
preoccupation with the plan or reluctance to deviate therefrom , or because he felt
that Glover 's conduct did not present a safe enough vehicle for discharge he preferred
to wait.
While the foregoing points to the possible entrapment of Glover I deem it unneces-
sary to make such a finding to support the conclusion that his discharge was dis-
criminatory within the meaning of the Act. In my opinion the preponderance of the
evidence in the record as a whole establishes that the reason given by Respondent
for Glover 's discharge was not the real reason but a mere pretext to hide Respondent's
discriminatory motive.22 Notwithstanding that the reason assigned by Respondent for
Glover's discharge was a valid reason, the mere existence of a valid reason is no
defense where the discharge is motivated by antiunion consideration.22
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I shall recommend that the Respondent offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Walker Glover to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of
pay resulting from the discrimination against him by paying him a sum of money
equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the
date of offer of reinstatement less his net earnings to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, 291-294. Earnings in one quarter shall have no effect upon the back-
pay liability for any other such period. It will also be recommended that the Re-
spondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to
facilitate checking the back pay due. F. W. Woolworth Company, supra; The Chase
National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch , 65 NLRB
827; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 444, 497-98.
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. Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Walker
N. Glover, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization , Respondent
22 That Respondent permitted antiunion considerations to govern its employment prac-
tices is also shown by Brown 's statement to Baker implying that she had been given her
job over better qualified applicants because of Respondent 's hope or expectation that she
would not "mess up" her reputation "by going against the company "
23 N. L R B. v Premier Worsted Mills, 183 F. 2d 256 (C A 4) ; N. L. R. B. v. Mont-
gomery Word & Company, 192 F 2d 160 , 162-763 (C A 8)
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Phelps Dodge Corporation , Copper Queen Branch and Interna-
tional Union of Mine , Mill and Smelter Workers, Independent,
Petitioner . Case No. 921-li'C-3708. April 14,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carl Abrams, hear-
ing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employ-
ees of the Employer's crushing and concentrating plant. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenors, Bisbee Miners Union, Local No. 22972,
AFL, herein called Bisbee Miners, and International Association of
Machinists, AFL, for itself and in behalf of its Local Lodge 1121,
herein called the Machinists, contend that their current contract,
known as the Continuing Agreement, operates as a bar to a determina-
tion of representatives at this time.
On October 6, 1951, the Employer and nine other labor organiza-
tions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, including the
Intervenors herein, executed a contract known as the Continuing
Agreement, covering the production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's Copper Queen Branch, in the vicinity of Bisbee, Ari-
zona, in a production unit and in separate craft maintenance units.
The crusher and concentrator plant, known as, and herein referred to
1 In view of our decision herein , we find it unnecessary to rule on the motions of the
Employer and the Intervenors to dismiss the instant petition on other grounds
112 NLRB No. 30.