Corinth Hosiery Mill, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1939

16 N.L.R.B. 414 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of CORINTIi HOSIERY MILL , INC.' and AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF HOSIERY WORKERS
Case No. C-76.9.-Decided October 25, 1939
Full-Fashioned Hosiery Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, and
Coercion : surveillance ; expressed hostility ; threats of reprisals ; creating situa-
tion where further organization activity practically impossible ; respondent held
responsible for anti-union activities of mayor on ground of close cooperation,
open endorsement of mayor 's anti-union utterances, and close financial connection
between city and respondent-Discrimination: refusal to reinstate one employee ;
charge of . dismissed as to two other employees-Reinstatement Ordered: of em-
ployee refused reinstatement-Back pay: awarded single employee-Settlenment:
refusal to be bound by ; where respondent simultaneously with agreement engaged
in anti-union conduct.
Mr. Berdon M. Bell, for the Board.
Mr. F. M. Curlee and Mr. Richard F. Moll, of St. Louis, Mo., and
Mr. William H. Kier, of Corinth, Miss., for the respondent.
Mr. Herbert G. B. King, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges 2 duly filed by the American
Federation of Hosiery Workers, herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued
its complaint dated March 15, 1938, against Corinth Hosiery Mill,
Inc., Corinth, Mississippi, herein called the respondent, alleging that
i The complaint and other formal papers referred to "Corinth Hosiery Mills," but it was
stipulated at the hearing that the correct name is "Corinth Hosiery Mill, Inc."
2 The original charge was filed with the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region
(New Orleans, Louisiana) on July 7, 1937. On August 13, 1937, the Board ordered that
the case be transferred from the Fifteenth Region to the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia)
and consolidated with a case there pending entitled "In the Matter of Lengil-Fencil Hosiery
Company and American Federation of Hosiery Workers." On October 26, 1937, the Board
issued an order revoking its order of August 13, 1937, in so far as it pertained to consoli-
dation of the two cases. On January 26, 1938, the Board ordered that the case here
involved be retiansferred and continued before the Regional Office for the Fifteenth Region.
16 N. L. R. B., No. 43.
414
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 415
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 - (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accom-
panied by a notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent
and upon the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
in substance that the respondent had (a) by threats, warnings, de-
rogatory statements, surveillance, and numerous other acts set forth
in the complaint, discouraged membership in the Union and inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and (b) discharged
Ernest 13. Davis on March 1, 1936, A. L. Leatherwood about June 8,
1937,3 and L. C. Johnson about September 29, 1937, and had since
failed and refused to reinstate the said persons, for the reason that
they joined the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection.
On March 23, 1938, the respondent filed its answer and during the
hearing, an amended answer, denying, that its operations affect inter-
state commerce and that it had engaged in any of the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. The amended answer further
alleged that, if the Act was applicable to the relationship between the
respondent and its employees, the Act was in violation of various
provisions of the constitution of the United States and amendments
thereto. By way of affirmative defense, the amended answer alleged
that on June 8, 1937, an agreement was reached by the respondent,
the Union, and counsel for the Board wherein the respondent agreed
to adjust certain grievances of the Union and to post a notice drafted
by. counsel for the Board; that the respondent fulfilled the terms of
such agreement; that all parties agreed at such time that said action
by the respondent was in full and complete release, satisfaction and, dis-
charge of all complaints and grievances based upon unfair labor prac-
tices committed by the respondent prior to June 8, 1937; and that, in
view of the aforesaid facts, neither the Board nor the Union has a right
to complain of unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint to have
been committed prior to June 8, 1937.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from March 28 through
April 2, 1938, at Corinth, Mississippi, before L. Richard Insirilo, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the re-
spondent, and the Union were represented by counsel and participated
in the hearing. 'Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
3 The complaint was amended at the hearing to substitute the date "June 18,1937" for
the date "June 8 , 1937."
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
was afforded all parties. At the beginning of the hearing, the respond-
ent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the charge and
the complaint do not allege any facts constituting unfair labor prac-
tices. At the close of the Board's case , the respondent moved to dismiss
on the ground of a failure of proof. The Trial Examiner overruled
these motions. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the
Board's case the Board's attorney moved to conform the pleadings to
the proof. The Trial Examiner granted the motion. The ruling is
hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on other motions and upon objections to the ad-
mission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no. prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On July 14, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report,
copies of which were duly served on all parties, in which he found that
the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act. He recommended that the
respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices; that it
make whole and offer reinstatement to Ernest B. Davis, A. L. Leather-
wood, and L. C. Johnson to their former positions without prejudice
to their seniority and other rights and privileges; and that it take cer-
tain other affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
On July 26, 1938, the respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and to rulings made by the Trial Examiner on
motions and to the admission of evidence. In its exceptions, the
respondent alleges on information and belief that, contrary to Section
32 of the Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, the
Intermediate Report was not prepared by. L. Richard Insirilo, and
does not represent the findings and recommendations of said Trial
Examiner , based upon the record and his observation of witnesses,
but is the report and the findings and recommendations of the Board
in Washington, D. C., or some agent or agency thereof unknown to
the respondent other than the said Trial Examiner. The respondent
prays that it be served with a copy of the findings and recommenda-
tions of the said Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to a request made by the respondent, the Board duly
served upon all parties notice of oral argument before the Board in
Washington, D. C., on January 24, 1939. Prior to the date set for
the oral argument, the respondent filed a request for a postponement
of the oral argument for approximately 1 month. This request was
denied by the Board. Neither the respondent nor the Union
appeared for the oral argument before the Board.
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 417
The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respondent
and, except as consistent with the findings, conclusions, and order
set forth below, finds them to be without merit. We find in this
connection that allegations of the exceptions relative to the prepara-
tion of the Intermediate Report are so vague and lacking in
particulars as to raise no substantial or material question.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, a Delaware corporation, has its general office in
Reading, Pennsylvania, and its manufacturing plant in Corinth,
Mississippi, where it is engaged in the manufacture of full-fashioned
hosiery, employing 389 employees. 'The respondent does not pur-
chase any raw material or sell its finished product, but operates
entirely on a contract-commission basis. It receives the raw material
usually in the form of bobbins of silk and sometimes of cotton from
the contracting party, and processes it to the "stage of griege," which
is completed hosiery in all respects except that it has not been dyed.
The respondent then packs its completed product and returns it to
the contracting party. At the time of the hearing the respondent
was engaged in processing hosiery to the "stage of griege" exclusively
for the Vertex Hosiery Corporation of Allentown, Pennsylvania.
During • the year preceding the hearing the respondent received all
of its raw material from sources outside the State of Mississippi, and
shipped all of. its finished products to points outside the State of
Mississippi.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization
which at the time of the filing of the charges and at the time of the
hearing was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, ad-
mitting to its membership all employees of the respondent, exclusive
of supervisory and clerical employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The chronology of events
In October 1935, W. J. Frazier, an organizer for the American.
Federation of Hosiery Workers, arrived in Corinth, and initiated
the first labor organizational activities among the employees at the
respondent's plant. Shortly after his arrival. in Corinth, Frazier
arranged for a number of organizational meetings which were held
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Frazier's hotel room and at the home of Oscar Strickland, an
employee of the respondent. Frazier testified that while a meeting
was in progress at Strickland's home he and others saw Charles O.
Weibel, the respondent's superintendent, driving very slowly by the
house in his automobile. He also testified that following a meeting
at his hotel room he saw Weibel and another person come out of the
next room. Weibel admitted in his testimony that, having heard
of the activities of the respondent's employees and that a meeting
was to be held at the Strickland house, he drove past the house
several times to see how many cars were there. He denied, however,
that he had been in a room next to that occupied by Frazier. In
view of the entire record, we cannot give weight to this denial and
find that Frazier's testimony is to be accepted. We think it clear
that Weibel was at this time also engaged in spying upon the organi-
zational meeting of the respondent's employees.
A few days after Frazier's arrival in Corinth, a Mr. Sutton, city
alderman, informed Frazier by telephone that E. S. Candler, the
mayor of Corinth, and other city officials desired to talk with him.
Frazier went to Candler's office where he talked with Candler and.
members of the city board of aldermen. Frazier was asked to present
his credentials and questioned as to the nature of his business in
Corinth. Frazier presented his credentials and stated that he had
come to Corinth to determine whether the workers wanted to or-
ganize. According to Frazier's testimony, Candler then stated that
the city of Corinth had invested heavily in the respondent's plant,
that 'it did not want any labor trouble, and that if Frazier knew
what was "good for" him he would leave Corinth. Frazier also
testified that Sutton interrupted to state, "This fellow is a Red, an
agitator, and he should be run out of town." Frazier further testi-
fied that Weibel, who had come in during the conversation, thereupon
stated -that he had an agreement with the American Federation of
Labor which provided that the respondent's plant was not to be
organized for a year; that the respondent's employees were one big
happy family and did not want any outside interference; and that
the respondent did not intend to have, any organization at its mill.
Candler testified that he advised Frazier that it would be best for
the mill and for the community if he returned "from where he came
from," but denied that he ordered Frazier to leave Corinth. He
further testified that he did not hear Sutton, who did not testify,
make the remarks attributed to him by Frazier. Weibel did not in
his testimony testify with respect to the remarks which Frazier
testified to above. We find that Candler, Sutton, and Weibel made
the above statements attributed to them by Frazier.
After being in Corinth a number of days, Frazier found it neces-
sary to return to the headquarters of the American Federation of
CORINTH HOSIERY HILL, INCORPORATED 419
Hosiery Workers at Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he arrived at
the depot in Corinth, accompanied by various employees of the
respondent, to take the train for Chattanooga, he was met by Weibel
and several other persons. Frazier testified that Weibel picked up
a stray dog and thereupon remarked to Frazier, "Here is your
brother." He further testified that Weibel who appeared to be under
the influence of. liquor took hold of his coat, but that a police officer
intervened. Weibel testified that, having heard that Frazier was
leaving Corinth and believing that Fra.zier's' departure would alle-
viate the existing confusion at the respondent's plant, he and several
other persons drove to the depot to "see if this fellow does leave
town." He further testified that while at the depot he put out his
hand to shake hands with Frazier inasmuch as "I wanted to tell
him goodbye because I sure hated to see him go." Weibel denied.
that he picked up a dog and made a slurring remark to Frazier,
but admitted that a police officer had threatened to arrest him fog
causing a disturbance at the depot. Under all the circumstances,
we conclude that Frazier's testimony regarding the foregoing is to be
credited.
About October 8, 1935, Frazier, together with Frank J. Ward,
another organizer for the American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
returned to Corinth to resume organizational efforts. Soon after
their arrival, Frazier and Ward held a series of meetings it the Cox
Hotel in Corinth and at the homes of various employees. On Octo-
ber 10, Ward made an appointment with Mayor Candler in order
to explain his presence in Corinth. Together with Frazier, Ward
had a talk the same afternoon with Candler at the latter's office. At
the outset of the talk, Candler asked for Ward's credentials and then
stated that the city of Corinth had a large investment in the respond-
ent's plant and that the city would not under any circumstances
allow anything to happen which would prevent it from receiving
the sums payable to it from the respondent's plant. Candler also
told Ward and Frazier that the "best thing that they could do for
the peace of Corinth was to fold up their tent and go home."
During the course of Candler's talk with Ward and Frazier,
Weibel arrived at Candler's office and shortly thereafter Weibel and
Candler went to the respondent's plant. At a change in shift at
the plant, Weibel called a meeting of the employees and introduced
Candler who made a speech. In his introductory remarks, Weibel
stated that the plant was not ready to be organized and that if the
respondent could not make any money the plant would be shut down.
In his speech, Candler informed the employees that the city of
Corinth had a large investment in the respondent's plant and re-
ceived considerable income therefrom; that if the plant should close
down, it would cripple the city and affect everyone in the city; that
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the city of Chattanooga was a place where strikes and strife had
been the results of the Union centering its activities there; that if
the respondent's plant could not operate profitably it would be
closed; that local people could run their own affairs much better
"than letting some one from some out of town organization tell you
what to do"; that there was no law against the respondent going
elsewhere to get workers if the people of Corinth did not have the
necessary requirements of competency, efficiency, and faithfulness;
that he had told the union representatives that afternoon that the
best thing they could do for the peace of Corinth was to fold their
tent and go home; that he had also stated that the union representa-
tives were furnishing ammunition to stir up trouble and strife; and
that the present was-not the time for any such organization as was
being advocated. In concluding his remarks, Candler stated that it
was a free country and that everyone could exercise their own judge-
ment, but that he desired to declare what was the city's interest in the
respondent's plant.
Ward and Frazier left Corinth on the day Candler made his
speech to the respondent's employees and the organizational efforts
slackened. There was filed with the Board about this time a charge
that the respondent had discharged one Allen McClure in order to
discourage union activity. The respondent brought injunction pro-
ceedings to enjoin the Board from taking any action with respect
to the charge. Shortly before the hearing on the injunction, two
petitions were circulated in the plant during working hours. The
petitions were to the effect that the employees were satisfied with
conditions at the plant and did not want any help from outsiders
and that Weibel had never said anything against the union organiza-
tion. After the hearing on the injunction, Weibel called a meeting
of the employees at which he thanked those who had signed the
petitions and stated, "I am not going to forget it, but I can say to
you that did not sign it, you might as well start looking for a job
now."
About May 10, 1937, John McCoy and Lester Adams, organizers
for the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, arrived in Corinth
for the purpose of instituting a second organizational drive among
the employees of the respondent. McCoy and Adams communicated
with a number of the respondent's employees and arranged for a
meeting at the home of Talmage Bumpass, an employee, on the night
of May 11. On the afternoon of May 11, Weibel called a meeting
of the respondent's employees and at that time stated that "they are
having a union meeting down at Talmage Bumpass' place, you go
down there and hear them and join the union if you want to, I am
not telling you not to join, but if you do, the union ain't going to
hold your jobs for you, I will tell you that."
CORIN TH HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 421
About 14 employees of the respondent attended the meeting at
the Bumpass house on the night of May 11 and most of them
signed, applications for membership in the American Federation of
Hosiery Workers. The following day about 12 of the respondent's
employees, including G. W. Ambrester, Cecil Tate, and Harold Hin-
ton, sought out McCoy and Adams at the Cox Hotel in Corinth,
stating that the respondent's employees were satisfied with existing
conditions and advising McCoy and Adams to leave Corinth since
it "wouldn't be healthy" for them there. Nevertheless McCoy and
Adams continued to hold meetings of employees and within 2 weeks
had obtained approximately 120 signed union application cards.
About May 15, 1937, Weibel called another meeting of the respon-
ent's employees at the plant. He informed the employees that he
would not tolerate a union and that if a union was formed he would
eliminate the "toppers" and require the "leggers" to do their own
"topping on." 4
About this same time, G. W. Ambrester and a number of other
employees circulated in the plant during working hours petitions
to the effect that the persons signing the same did not care to join
any organization or union and that their names were not to be
considered in determining any majority status of the Union. Don-
ald Ambrester, an employee and brother of G. W. Ambrester, testified
that he signed such a petition in Weibel's office after obtaining a copy
from Syd Wood, a foreman. This testimony was not controverted
and we find accordingly.
During the latter part of May 1937, the respondent laid off a
number of employees and transferred others. The respondent main-
tained that this action was made necessary by a shortage of silk.
The Union claimed that the action was based on the union activities
of the employees affected and filed it charge with the Board.
On June 8, 1937, a conference was held in Corinth relative to ' a
settlement in regard to the charges which had been filed. The con-
ference was attended by Weibel, Adams, McCoy, William H. Kier,
an attorney for the respondent, and Gerhard Van Arkel, a Board
attorney, As a result of the conference, the following stipulation
was signed as a settlement:
JUNE 8, 1937.
Pursuant to the filing of charges to a representative of the
national labor board, following settlements were made pertain-
ing to certain employees of the Corinth Hosiery Mill :
Ely Peyton will remain on Ludwig and will, be paid 50¢ an
hour, the usual time work basis of payment on this machine for
41t appears that the "leggers " were paid on a piece -work basis . Hence requiring the
"leggers" to do their own "topping on" would result in reducing the earnings of the
"leggers."
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the proper length of time. Mary Kinney will remain at the
position she has and will be paid usual rates of 300 an hour for
the work for a reasonable period of time. Talmage Bumpass
will be changed from third shift Ludwig to second shift
Helscher on Monday, June 13. Vera Bumpass will, remain
where she is at the present time. Management agrees to give
proper consideration to both concerning a day job. Ann Hoover
will be placed back to work Monday, May 14, provided however,
that examiners work that day. If they don't, will be placed
when they resume work. A form notice drawn up by Mr. Van
Arkel will be posted on the bulletin board in the mill.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
GERHARD VAN ARKEL,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS,
JOHN MCCOY.
C. LESTER ADAMS.
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL.
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL,
By CHAS. 0. WEIBEL.
The notice, which the respondent agreed to post for 30 days, read as
follows :
Pursuant to the terms of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Corinth Hosiery Mills recognizes the right of its employees
to self-organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid
and protection.
The Corinth Hosiery Mills further agrees :
1. That it will not interfere with, restrain or coerce its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. That it, will not discourage membership in the American
Federation of Hosiery Workers by discharging or threatening
to discharge any employee for membership in or affiliation with
the American Federation of Hosiery Workers or any other
labor organization.
3. That it will not discriminate against any employee as to
any term or condition of employment for assuming membership
in or affiliating with the American Federation of Hosiery Work-
ers or any other labor organization.
The Corinth Hosiery Mills has made certain adjustments in
the working conditions of certain employees at the request of the
National Labor Relations Board and the American Federation
CORINT}1: HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 423
of Hosiery Workers pursuant to charges filed with the National
Labor Relations Board.
June 8, 1937.
( S igned) GERHARD VAN ARKEL,
Attorney.
'I'lie notice was posted on the bulletin board at the respondent's
plant on June 10, 1937.
On the afternoon of June 10, Adams asked Weibel for permission
to post a notice announcing a meeting of employees for June 12 at
the Cox Hotel in Corinth at which E. F. Callaghan, International
Vice President of the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, was
to speak and for permission to speak with Walt Wheeler, an
employee, concerning the meeting. Weibel stated that it was against
the respondent's rules to call anyone out of the plant, but that he
would inform Wheeler about the notice and that the ' latter could
announce it at a meeting of employees which was to be held the
folloiving day. Weibel testified that he informed Wheeler about the
notice and also informed him that he could make any announcement
concerning the meeting.
On June 11 Weibel called a meeting of the employees at the plant.
At the meeting Weibel stated, "I think somewhere in the constitution
you will find the privilege of free speech. I believe in free speech and,
therefore, I am going to make a speech . . ." He then stated in sub-
stance that if the employees did not get "this damn mess cleared up
by Monday" the plant might be closed down; that he could go to the
coast and fish; that it would be the employees who would suffer and
.not him; that the employees could ask for a closed shop until they
were "black in the face" but that they would not get it; that he was
not going to permit any C. I. O. organizer, any Federal attorney, or
any so-called Wagner Act tell him how to run the mill; that he had
run the mill to'suit himself before and that he would continue to do so.
During the course of his remarks, Weibel asked if any of the union
members desired to announce the union meeting for the next afternoon.
When no reply was made, Weibel stated that such a meeting was to
'be held and advised the employees as follows :
Go down and hear Mr. Callaghan. Go down and hear that sil-
ver-tongued orator; I will guarantee that he is good. If you are
not careful, he will sell you an idea. I heard him on the stage in
a theatre in Philadelphia one time, and he had me laughing one
minute and crying the next, and when I came to myself I wondered
what in the hell I was crying about. That is the way this is- going
to be. When this is all over you will wonder what in the hell you
are crying about.
247383-40-vol. 7.6--28
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the meeting called by Weibel, G. W. Ambrester announced that he
had been requested by a number of workers to call a meeting to be held
outside the mill. Mary Kinney testified that Weibel declared that such'
a meeting was a good idea and that "we will get a meeting in ahead of
them." This testimony was uncontroverted. ' We find that Weibel
made the statement attributed to him. It was then decided that the
meeting should be held the following morning at the respondent's mill
but outside the mill building.
At the meeting on the morning of June 12, G. W. Ambrester, who
presided, stated that George Meinig, the respondent's president, had
spent a million dollars fighting organized labor and that he was in-
formed that another million was ready to be spent. Ambrester intro-
duced a Mr. McEachern, secretary of the Corinth Chamber of Com-
merce, who stated that he could not tell the employees not to join the
Union, but if they did so the mill would probably be closed down.
He also declared that the respondent's mill had always aided the city
of Corinth and had supplied much employment. He added that if the
respondent's mill closed down, the city of Corinth would not be able to
take care of the persons laid off inasmuch as the workers already on
relief were in excess of the number the city could provide for. Syd
Wood, a foreman, and Mrs. Weibel, wife of the respondent's superin-
tendent, were among the persons attending the meeting.
At the close of the aforesaid meeting, someone suggested that the
union organizers "be run out of town." A large number of the persons
attending the meeting then proceeded to the Cox Hotel where McCoy
and Adams were awaiting the arrival of Callaghan. Wood and Mrs.
Weibel were among those who went to the Cox Hotel. At the hotel,
McCoy and Adams were advised to leave town and Mrs. Weibel, who
had a fire extinguisher in her hand, informed McCoy that she would
like "to bounce" it off his head.
Shortly after 2 p. in. in the afternoon, Callaghan arrived in Corinth
and soon thereafter attempted to address a meeting at the Cox Hotel.
He was, however, constantly interrupted by questions and by threats
of bodily harm. At least one person attending the meeting was armed
with a pistol and another displayed an open knife. Callaghan finally
decided to give up his attempt to make a speech and further decided
to terminate the attempt to continue the organizing campaign among
the employees at the respondent's plant. Accordingly, Callaghan,
McCoy, and Adams left Corinth on June 12.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In view of the fact set forth above, it is clear that the respondent,
through its officials and also through officials of the city of Corinth,
has engaged in numerous acts of interference, restraint, and coercion.
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 425
That the respondent is in the instant case properly deemed responsi-
ble not only for the acts and statements of its officials but also for the
acts and statements herein considered of the officials of the city of
Corinth would appear to be beyond question. The evidence shows
that not only did Weibel, the respondent's superintendent, work at all
times in close cooperation with Candler, the mayor of Corinth, and the
other city officials, but also that Weibel openly endorsed the views
expressed by the city officials and indeed introduced Candler at a
meeting of employees at which Candler expressed his opposition to
the union activities which were being. carried on and stated that the
city of Corinth had a substantial financial interest in the respondent.
It is to be noted in the latter connection that the city of Corinth owns
considerable stock in the respondent and receives an income of approx-
imately $1,000 a month on such investment.
At the beginning of the organizational activities among the em-
ployees, Weibel kept under surveillance a number of the meetings of
employees. Thereafter, Candler questioned Frazier, the organizer for
the American Federation of Hosiery Workers, concerning his activi-
ties and advised him to leave town. Sutton, a city alderman, charac-
terized Frazier as a "Red" and an "agitator" and stated that he should
be "run out of town." 'At this same time, Weibel stated that the re-
spondent did not want any outside interference and did not intend to
have any organization at its mill. When Frazier left Corinth on one
occasion for Chattanooga, Weibel went to the station and made a slur-
ring remark with respect to him. After Frazier and Ward, another
union organizer, returned to Corinth in October 1935, Candler spoke
at a meeting of employees at the respondent's plant, being introduced
to the employees by Weibel. At this time, Candler expressed opposi-
tion to the union activities which were being carried on and to the
activities of the union organizer. In his introductory remarks, Weibel
expressed opposition to the union organization and indicated that the
plant might be closed down. Thereafter, at a meeting of employees,
Weibel intimated that employees who had not signed a petition stating
that the employees were satisfied with conditions at the plant and that
Weibel had not expressed opposition to union organization, would lose
their jobs.
Shortly after the arrival in Corinth about May 10, 1937, of McCoy
and Adams, for the purpose of instituting a second organizational
drive, Weibel called a meeting of employees at which he threatened
them with loss of their jobs if they attended a meeting arranged by
McCoy and Adams. At a meeting of employees a few days later,
Weibel stated that he would not tolerate a union at the plant and
threatened to impose additional work on the employees. About this
same time, Syd Wood, a foreman, furnished to an employee a copy of
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a petition which stated that the person signing the same did not desire
to join any organization or union.
Shortly after a settlement had been agreed upon relative to charges
of unfair labor practices on the part of the respondent, Weibel called
a meeting of employees at which he stated, among. other things, that
he was not going to permit any C. I. 0. organizer, any Federal attor-
ney, or any so-called Wagner Act to tell him how to run his business,
and threatened to close down the plant "unless this damn- mess cleared
up by Monday." At this same meeting Weibel spoke in a deprecatory
manner concerning Callaghan, International Vice President of the
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, who was scheduled to speak
to a meeting of employees the following day and endorsed a meeting
of employees proposed by G. W. Ambrester, an employee who had
previously manifested hostility to union organization. As an after-
math of the latter meeting, so endorsed, the employees favorable to
union organization were prevented from having their meeting and a
situation was created which made practically impossible further or-
ganizational activity at that time.
We find that by the acts and statements set forth above the respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
C. The settlement agreement
The respondent contends that it signed the settlement agreement
of June 8, 1937, and thereafter posted at its plant the notice drafted
by an attorney for the Board on the understanding that if it did so
"the slate would be wiped clean" and that "if any charges or com-
plaints were in the future filed or made against the respondent it
would be for things and acts occurring from and after June 8, 1937."
It asserts that for this reason the Board may not properly consider
any unfair labor practices alleged to have been engaged in.prior to
June 8, 1937. We cannot concur in this contention. We think it
plain that any understanding reached was not understood by the
parties to be a bar to any determination by the Board if the re-
spondent immediately thereafter resumed its unfair labor practices.
It asserts that for this reason the Board. may not properly consider
with- the signing of the settlement agreement and the posting of the
notice the respondent began anew its interference, restraint, and
coercion. The Board is fully aware of the importance and desira-
bility of the enforcement of agreements between employers and labor
organizations and realizes that effective administration of the Act
and furtherance of its policies require that it pay scrupulous regard
to any representations or undertakings of its agent relating to
CORINTH HOSIERY 'MILL, INCORPORATED 427
adjustment .' It will , therefore , in a proper case, in the exercise of
its discretion refuse to disturb a' settlement .. 'It is clear , however,
that no such case is here presented.'
D. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
Ernest B. Davis was first employed by the respondent in June 1931
and worked until he voluntarily quit in January 1935. He was again
employed in June 1935 , and worked as a "legger " until March 1, 1936.
He joined the Union in October 1935 and thereafter engaged openly
in union activities . When Frazier arrived in Corinth in October
1935, Davis was the first employee with whom he communicated and
Davis assisted both Frazier and Ward in their organization work.
After Ward and Frazier left Corinth , Davis openly continued his
attempt to organize the respondent 's employees . On one occasion
during October 1935 , Davis left the plant because of illness; the fol-
lowing clay Weibel, the plant superintendent , questioned him as to
whether he had gone home or "was out doing a little missionary
work. " Davis testified that the quoted words referred to "union
work." We have noted above, that Weibel kept^ . surveillance. on a
number of union organizational meetings. Davis attended these
meetings . We think it clear and find that the respondent knew of
Davis' union activities.
On February 28, 1936, Davis was employed on the night shift
which worked from 3'p. in. to midnight . At about 7:30 p. in., fol-
lowing the usual lunch period, Davis went to the washroom in the
plant and smoked a cigarette . As he was about to leave the wash-
room I . S. Strickland ,? his foreman , entered , saw the smoke-filled
room, and asked Davis if he "didn't know it was against the rules
to smoke in there." When Davis replied in the affirmative , Strick-
land stated , "Well, I am going to have to lay you off ." When Davis
asked as to the length of the lay-off , Strickland replied, "I am laying
you off indefinitely."
Davis testified that on the following afternoon he went to Weibel's
office, stated that Strickland had laid him ' off the previous night, and
asked if he was "just laid off or fired"; that Weibel replied "Either
one that you want "; that when he (Davis ) stated that he did not
want to be fired Weibel turned his back and made no reply; that he
(Davis ) then stated that if he was fired he wanted his money; and
'Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill
& Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Ina. and
Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 2188, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, 12 N. L. R. B. 568.
"Matter of Ingram Manufacturing Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
5 N. L. R. B. 908 ; Matter of The Kelly -Springfield Tire -Company and United Rubber
Workers of America, Local No . 26 at al., 6 N. L . R. B. 325.
7 Strickland died prior to the date of the hearing.
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Weibel replied that he could have it if he wanted it and handed
his secretary Davis' time card which was already on Weibel's desk.
Weibel's version of the above incident differs somewhat from that
of Davis. Weibel testified that Strickland reported to him that
Davis was found smoking in the washroom and that he sent for Davis
and told him "to take off for a while,"; that Davis inquired about
the duration of the lay-off but in accordance with his custom he re-
fused to name a definite period; that Davis stated that he did not
want to be fired and that he replied, "you are not fired, but you.just
take off like the rest of them"; that when Davis then insisted upon
knowing the length of his lay-off and stated that he wanted his
money, he replied, "If you want your money all right, you have your
choice, either your vacation or the money"; and that Davis took the
money. In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report of the Trial
Examiner, the respondent alleges that "the record shows that Davis
was discharged for the reason that he did on March 1, 1936, and
prior thereto violate the company's rules by smoking in the plant and
by refusing to accept the usual and customary disciplinary measures
of an indefinite lay-off, by demanding that he be advised how long
he was to be laid off and by demanding immediate payment of his
wages."
The evidence establishes that since 1931 there had been in effect a
rule prohibiting smoking at the plant and that a number of notices
were posted in the plant relative to this matter. The record is clear,
however, that it was not the practice of the respondent to enforce
the rule prohibiting smoking by discharge of employees. Weibel
testified that it was the respondent's practice to lay off employees who
were caught smoking and then to recall such employees to work after
a length of time which would depend upon the circumstances of each
particular case, including the manner and attitude of the employee
involved. He testified that on one occasion he had refrained from
laying off three women employees who were caught smoking so as
not to embarrass them, but that all other employees caught smoking
were immediately laid off. Several employees testified that they
were laid off the first. time they were caught smoking. On the other
hand, Davis testified that it was the practice of the plant to warn
employees one or two times about smoking before laying them off
and testified that a number of employees, including Donald Am-
brester and Cecil Wood, had been warned a number of times about
smoking before being laid off. Ambrester testified that he had been
laid off for smoking on one occasion, but did not testify as to whether
or not he had previously been warned. Wood did not testify at the
hearing. L. C. Johnson testified that he was caught smoking on one
occasion and was merely cautioned not to do so again.
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 429
While Davis' case is by no means free from doubt, we are not
persuaded by the evidence that Davis' union activities were the
cause of his discharge. It is admitted that Davis broke the re-
spondent's rule against smoking in the plant. In this connection
the evidence as a whole does not sustain Davis' contention that it was
the respondent's practice to warn employees one or two times before
laying them off. The .respondent's normal practice, it is true, was
to lay off rather than to discharge employees who had been caught
smoking. However, we believe that Weibel was provoked into dis-
charging Davis by his refusal to accept the usual and normal
discipline of an indefinite lay-off, his insistence that he be advised
of the duration of the lay-off and his demand that he be immediately
paid his wages.
We accordingly find that the respondent, in the case' of Davis, did
not discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of employment and
thereby discouraged membership in a labor organization. The alle-
gations of the complaint with respect to Ernest B. Davis will be
dismissed.
A. L. Leather-wood was employed by the respondent as a legger on
May 15, 1933, and worked regularly until June 18, 1937. He joined
the Union in May 1937 and was active in its affairs. Mike Mc-
Clamroch, his foreman, testified that he had heard that Leatherwood
was active in the Union.
On June 18, 1937, Leatherwood's machine got out of order and, it
being the rule that only foremen were allowed to make repairs of
any consequence, he asked McClamroch to fix it. McClamroch who
was at the time engaged in repairing another machine informed
Leatherwood that he would do so as soon as he got time. After
repairing the machine upon which he was working, McClamroch
repaired the machine of a second employee and then began -repairing
the machine of a third employee. He testified that the employees
who operated these machines had sought his aid prior to the time
that Leatherwood did so. While at work on the third machine,
Leatherwood again asked McClamroch to fix his machine. There
is conflict in the testimony as to what occurred at this time. Leather-
wood testified that McClamroch cursed him and told him to go to his
machine and wait until he got there and that when he reached his
machine McClamroch came over and told him to "punch out" and
wait outside of the mill. McClamroch denied that he used abusive
language toward Leatherwood and testified that he told Leatherwood
that he did not know how long it would take to repair the machine
he was then working on and that he should punch out if he could
not find anything to do on his machine. He further testified that
when Leatherwood did not follow his instructions but instead made
a circle about the mill and engaged in a conversation with Eli Peyton
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
he went to Leatherwood and asked him why he had not done as he
was told. According to McClamroch's testimony, Leatherwood then
stated that he (McClamroch) had been picking on him ever since
he joined the Union-and added, "I have got a good mind to slap
hell out of you and a couple of fellows right behind me will back
me up." When questioned on cross-examination as to whether he
had threatened McClamroch, Leatherwood testified, "If he didn't
hush cussing me, I told him I was going to knock hell out of him."
Eli Peyton, an employee, testified that when Leatherwood saw Mc-
Clamroch approaching, Leatherwood stated, "yonder comes the fixer,
you watch us, we are going to have it." On the basis of the entire
testimony, we conclude that McClamroch's version of the incident is
to be credited.
After the above incident, Leatherwood "punched out" and waited
nearby until McClamroch finished repairing the machine upon which
he had been working as well as Leatherwood's own machine. As
soon as his machine was repaired, Leatherwood returned to work.
After working for some 15 or 20 minutes, he was informed by Mc-
Clamroch, who had reported the aforesaid incident to Weibel, that
the latter wished to talk with him. When ^ Leather-wood reported
at Weibel's office, Weibel asked him to explain his action in the mill
and why he desired "to whip McClamroch." Leatherwood replied
that he did not like the way he was being treated and that others
felt the same way and would back him up in anything that he did.
He then mentioned Eli Peyton as among those who had stated that
they would back him up. Weibel summoned Peyton and asked him
whether Leatherwood's statement was accurate. Peyton stated that
if Leatherwood had made such a statement he was "just a damn
liar." Weibel then informed Leatherwood that he was being laid
off indefinitely and that he would be notified when he could return
to work.
. After his lay-off t eatherwood went to Chattanooga and had a
charge filed with the Board relative to his lay-off. He testified that
about a week after his return he went to Weibel's home and requested
reinstatement. According to his testimony, Weibel stated that he
could not use him, but that if he had stayed home and minded his
own business he would have been given his job back. He further
testified that Weibel asked if he was "on the union side" and stated
that the respondent had $15,000 with which to fight. Weibel testi-
fied at the hearing after Leatherwood testified, but made no reference
to the above testimony of Leatherwood. We find that Weibel made
the statements attributed to him by Leatherwood.
Although we think that Weibel's statements at the time Leather-
wood applied for reinstatement cast doubt on the respondent's claim
that Leatherwood's lay-off was predicated on his insubordination and
CORIN TH HOSIERS' MILL, INCORPORATED 431
threat that he would assault McClaniroch, we conclude that the evi-
dence does not sufficiently establish that Leatherwood's union
membership was the reason for the lay-off. We conclude- however
that Leatherwood's union activity and membership was the reason
that Weibel refused to reinstate him at the time Leatherwood re-
quested that he be allowed to return to work.
We find that by refusing to reinstate Leatherwood to employment
upon his application therefor the respondent discriminated in regard
to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the Union and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
While. working for the respondent Leatherwood earned approxi-
mately $25 per week. He was unemployed from June 18, 1937,
until about September 20, 1937, at which time he was employed by
the Baker-Moise Mills at Dallas, Texas, where he was working at
the time of the hearing. At the Baker-Moise Mills, Leatherwood
earned approximately $33 or $35 per week. He testified that his
home was in Corinth and that he desired reinstatement at the
respondent's mill.
L. C. Johnson. began to work for the respondent on September 2,
1935, and worked as a "legger" until September 29, 1937. He joined
the Union in May 1937 and was active in its affairs.
. Several months prior to September 29, 1937, Weibel instructed
Johnson to learn to operate a footer machine and promised that he
would be assigned from the legger machine to the "footer." Accord-
ingly, for the following 2 or 3-weeks, 'Johnson-went to.the,'millFeach
day, about 3 hours before starting time for his shift and devoted
,such time to learning to operate a "footer." It appears that about
this time Weibel instructed the leggers to learn the "topping on"
process.
On September- 28, 1937, all the employees on the shift on which
Johnson worked were informed that they would have to "top on"
that night. Weibel testified that several hundred ."top ons" had
.accumulated in the plant and that he had ordered everyone to "top
on" until the accumulated material was cleared up. Although we
have noted above that about May 15, 1937, Weibel threatened to
eliminate the "toppers" and to require each legger to do his own
topping on if a union was formed at the plant, we conclude that the
evidence as a whole does not establish that the order of September 28
was foil other than business reasons.
Johnson testified that he was unable to do the "topping on" be-
cause it was a difficult process requiring considerable training and
that he informed his foreman that he was unable to do the work.
According to Johnson's testimony, his foreman replied that he would
432 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS `BOARD
have to learn and that accordingly he tried the entire night to "top
on" but was wholly unsuccessful. He also testified that the following
day he informed Weibel that he was unable to do the work because
he had no training for such work and reminded Weibel- of his
promise to assign him to a "footer," but that Weibel told him to go
back and "top on" or "punch out." He further testified that he stated
to Weibel,'"Now, you don't feel like doing a damned thing for me,
and I know, why, because I joined the union" and that he did not
want to punch out, and that after the latter remark Weibel told him
to "go ahead and punch out" and that his money would be ready
'at- 9 o'clock the next morning. When questioned on cross-examina-
tion as to whether Weibel had suggested that he get glasses, Johnson
testified that Weibel had "said something about getting glasses."
He also testified on cross-examination that following his discharge
he had threatened to "beat up" Weibel.
Weibel testified that Johnson came to his office on the morning
of September 28 in, a highly excitable and nervous condition and
stated that he could not "top on" and was not going to do-so; that,
in response to his question as to why he could not do so, Johnson
stated that he "couldn't see them"; that he suggested that Johnson
get some glasses, but that Johnson replied, "They won't do me no
damn good-if I did get glasses"; that he informed Johnson that he
.would have to "top on" because every legger at the plant would have
to do so and that Johnson "got personal" and stated that "he didn't
like me a damn bit and didn't like the way that I was acting"; that
he replied to Johnson, "that is mutual, and so you just go your way."
Weibel testified further that Johnson thereupon asked for his money
and that he replied that he could get it at 9 o'clock the next morning.
A number of employees who worked on the same shift as Johnson
testified that Johnson stated on the night on which the legger began
to "top on" that his eyesight was too poor for him to do such work.
Although Johnson testified generally that his eyesight was good, he
Admitted on cross-examination that he was somewhat nearsighted.
At the hearing the respondent requested that Johnson have his eyes
examined by a competent oculist of his own choice and that the
oculist's report be included in the record but Johnson, upon the
advice of counsel for the Union, refused to have such examination
'made.
In light of the uncontradicted testimony of the employees who
testified that Johnson stated on the night that the "leggers" began to
"top on" that his eyesight was too poor for him to "top on," John-
son's admission on cross-examination that he was somewhat near-
sighted, and that Weibel may have said something to him "about
getting glasses," we believe that Weibel's version of the conversation
CORINTH HOSIERY MILL] INCORPORATED 433
surrounding the discharg' of -Johnson is more consistent with all
the facts, and accordingly we shall credit it.
Johnson testified that about 3 or, 4 days after his discharge, he
,asked Weibel to let him return to work and that Weibel replied "I
• don't know," "I will have to think it over," and "you damn boys get
mighty smart some time." He also testified that some weeks later
he again sought reinstatement and that Weibel stated, "I. am not
going to put you back in there, I have got enough trouble in there
already." He further testified that on one of the occasions on which
he saw Weibel he met Syd: Wood, a foreman, who in response to
.his request that he get Weibel to reinstate him, stated, "I couldn't
do much about it, Johnson . . . I don't know why you ever
signed up with the Union, I knew that you would get fired on
account of it . . . Johnson, I could have told you that -you
were going to lose your job, but it wasn't any of my business and
you wouldn't have paid no attention to me anyway." Although
Weibel testified at the hearing after Johnson testified, he made no
reference to the above testimony of Johnson. Wood did not testify.
We find that Weibel and Wood made the above statements which
Johnson attributed to them.
Despite Wood's observation to Johnson when he asked Wood to
get Weibel to reinstate him, which reveals an anti-union animus,
and throws suspicion on Johnson's discharge, we are of the opinion
that the weight of the evidence does not sustain the allegations of
the complaint that' Johnson was discharged and refused reinstate-.
anent because of his union activity. On the contrary, the evidence
as a whole indicates that for reasons unconnected with any union
-activity, the respondent insisted that all "leggers" would have to
"top. on"; that Johnson, due to his weak eyesight was unable to
"top on"; and that the next day a heated argument ensued between
Weibel and Johnson over Johnson's difficulty in "topping on" which
resulted in the latter's discharge.
We accordingly find that the respondent, in the case of Johnson,
did not discriminate in regard to hire and. tenure of employment and
thereby discourage membership in a labor organization. The allega-
tions of the complaint with respect to L. C. Johnson will be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III above, occurring in connection with operations of the respondent
-described in Section I 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 commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we will order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act;' aiid'to restore' as, nearly as,,possible -the conditions :which.: existed
prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices.
We have found that by refusing to reinstate Leatherwood to em-
ployment upon application therefor shortly after June 18, 1937, the
respondent discriminated against him. We shall order the respondent
to offer Leatherwood reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights 'and privileges. We shall also order the respondent to make
him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that which he normally' would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination to the date on which the
respondent offers him reinstatement, less : his • net, earnings 8 during
said period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
.entire record in the case, the Board makes time following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of A. L. Leatherwood, and thereby- discouraging membership
in the Union, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid'unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
"By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge or other discrimination and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment
elsewhere. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L. R. B. 440.
Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal , or other work-
relief projects are not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order, shall
be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to
the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal or other government
or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects.
C0111-NTH HOSIERY MILL, INCORPORATED 435
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, with respect to
Ernest B. Davis and L. C. Johnson.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the re-
spondent, Corinth Hosiery Mills, Corinth, Mississippi, and its officers,
agents; successors;,andsassigns;-shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers or any other labor organization of its employees by refus-
ing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner dis-
criminating with regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment because of membership in
American Federation of. Hosiery Workers or any other labor organi-
zation of its employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take" the following affirinative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to A. L. Leatherwood immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole A. L. Leatherwood for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against
him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he
normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimi-
nation to thwdate''on whichtheurespondent offersihiin=reinstatement,
less his net earnings during said period ; deducting, however, from
the amount thus to become due him, monies received by him during
said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, munici-
pal, or other work-relief projects, and pay over the amount, so de-
ducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county,
municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the
funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately and keep posted in conspicuous places in and
about its plant at Corinth, Mississippi, for a period of at least sixty
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(60) consecutive days, from the date of the posting, notices to its
employees stating that it will cease and desist in the manner set forth
in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b), and that it will take the affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in
writing .within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of. Section 8 (1) and (3) of
the Act, in so far as it concerns Ernest B. Davis and L. C. Johnson.
MR . WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.