Dan River Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 645 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 645
Dan River Mills, Incorporated , Alabama Division and United
Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-2847.
August 27,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 28, 1958, Trial Examiner Ralph'Winkler 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
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.'
The rulings, except as already indicated, are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby, adopts the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the following additions and modifications.2
1. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by its interrogation
of employees concerning their union views and activities; threaten-
ing to shut down the mill and not deal with the Union if the Union
organized the- mill;, 3' requiring a, discharged employee to renounce
his adherence to the Union as a condition of reemployment; threat-
ening to discharge employees because of their union activities; par-
ticipating in and otherwise encouraging and condoning physical
assault on discharged employees and a union organizer peacefully
engaged in distribution of union leaflets outside the plant gate; and
engaging in surveillance of a union meeting.
2. We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner and for the
reasons set forth in the Intermediate Report, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) by discharging James A. Clark,
I We find that the Trial Examiner erred in striking from the record Wilkerson 's testi-
mony as to his alleged coercion in signing an authorization card. However , as we hereby
overrule the Trial Examiner and reinstate Wilkerson ' s testimony in the record, we find that
this ruling was not prejudicial . Wilkerson 's testimony and the issues relating thereto are
discussed in the text.
2 In summing up his reasons why be finds that Howard was discriminatorily discharged,
the Trial Examiner inadvertently states that he discredits McDaniel and two other named
witnesses . It is clear from the context that the Trial Examiner meant Booker instead of
McDaniel . The Trial Examiner also inadvertently found that there were 324 employees
in the unit , whereas there were, in fact , 332. We hereby correct these errors, which do
not affect the findings and conclusions herein.
8 However , we do not pass upon the Trial Examiner's finding that Division Manager
Gurley 's speeches to the employees on December 17, 1956, violated Section 8 ( a) (1).
121 NLRB No. 82.
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wilton Russell Bryant, George Newman, Berley L Howard, and
James Elton Gibson because they engaged in protected concerted
activities 4
With regard to Gibson, the Respondent contends that it did not
discharge him for his union activities but rather that it discharged
him because he did not perform part of his duties, namely, clean
the air vents on his machine, and also because he had a low produc-
tioh record. In support of this contention, the Respondent points to
the 5 "writeups" 5 on Gibson submitted in evidence
Gibson was employed by the Respondent in October 1956, and was
a picker tender on the third shift, his supervisor being Overseer Phil-
lips He was discharged on February 12, 1957
One writeup, signed by Superintendent Dockery,' alleges that, after
Gibson failed to report for work one day without prior notice to the
Respondent, Dockery had Gibson report to him "Monday morning,
March 4" [1957], and Dockery warned hint about his behavior How-
ever, Gibson was discharged before this date, on February 12, 1957
Accordingly, we give no credence to this writeup
Gibson admittedly did not clean the aar vents on his machine on
Tuesday, February 5, 1957," and two writeups by Overseer Phillips,
dated February 5 and 6, allege that he spoke to Gibson about his
failure to do so However, Gibson testified that Phillips at no time
spoke to him about his failure to clean the air vents Although the
Trial Examiner did not pass upon this specific conflict in evidence, he
otherwise credited Gibson wherever his testimony was in conflict with
Phillips The Trial Examiner also discredited the testimony of Phil-
lips wherever it conflicted with other witnesses ' Accordingly, we
do not credit Phillips in the instant matter, either, and we find that
Phillips never spoke to Gibson about his failure to clean the air vents 9
* In finding that the Respondent discharged Newman for his union activities , we do not
rely; -ac did the Trial Examiner , on the fact thaVOW Respondent hired additional em
ployees after Newman's discharge We find, however , that the other facts related by the
Trial Examiner show that the Respondent had an unlawful motive in discharging Newman
E The Respondent purchased the plant involved herein in August 1956 About December
1956 or January 1957, it instituted the practice of "writing -up" employees , i e, making a
written report by supervisors "on job performance or relating to other matters which it
was necessary to call to the attention of employees or about which they were warned"
and placing these reports in the employees' flies
8 The date of this writeup has been written over and it is not clear from the date
whether it was allegedly written in February or March
7 The evidence is uncontradicted that this was the only time that Gibson bad failed to
clean the air vents
8 In one instance , the January 8 writeup on Howard by Phillips , the Trial Examiner
found, and we agree, that the writeup falsely charged employee Howard with mis
ponduct, since the misconduct allegedly occurred , at a time subsequent to the submission
of the writeup by Phillips
9 As the Supreme Court stated in N L R B v Pittsburgh. Steamship Company, 337
Il S 656, 659
the facts disputed in litigation are not random unknowns in isolated equa-
tions-they are facets of related human behavior , and the chiseling of one facet helps
to mark the borders of the next Thus, in the determination of litigated facts, the
testimony of one who has been found unreliable as to one issue may properly be
accorded little weight as to the next
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 647
Another writeup on Gibson by Phillips, dated January 29, 1957,
states that Gibson was absent from work that night without prior
notice to Phillips. Gibson testified that on only one occasion was he
absent from work and that Superintendent Dockery cautioned him to
give prior notice of any future absence.
Another writeup on Gibson dated January 1, 1957, by Phillips,
states that he talked to Gibson about his, low production. Gibson
denied that Phillips ever spoke to him about low production, and testi-
fied that the only one who ever did was Dockery, as related more fully
below. In view of Gibson's denial, we do not give any credence to this
writeup, for the reasons stated above.
We find that the reasons given by the Respondent for the discharge
of Gibson are manifestly pretences and that the true cause was his
adherence to the Union, as shown by the following circumstances :
Gibson signed a union card on December 11, 1956, and wore a union
button in the mill from January 5, 1957, until his discharge on Febru-
ary 12. Shortly' after Gibson began wearing his, union pin, Phillips
advised him "not to fool with the Union ... just forget about it be-
cause there wasn't going to be no Union at the plant." Phillips also
advised Gibson to stop wearing the pin because it "had too much in-
fluence on the other people there in the plant," and Phillips further
told Gibson that the mill wouldn't operate with the "third party" and
would shut down if the Union, came in. Gibson, nevertheless, told
Phillips he would continue wearing the union button.
About February 4, Gibson attended a union meeting, which Dockery
kept under surveillance, and Dockery mentioned the fact to Gibson
that Dockery had seen Gibson at the meeting hall that night. On
February 5 Phillips met Gibson at the plant gate as Gibson was re-
porting for work and Phillips told him to return home and to report
to Superintendent Dockery the next morning. When Gibson reported
to Dockery, as. directed, the latter remarked,."I see you're still wearing
your [union] pin." Dockery then began reading a paper and said,
"I see you got low production, would not cooperate with your over-
seer." Gibson denied this, and during the ensuing conversation
Dockery said that he had been confusing Gibson with someone else.
That same night, when Gibson asked Phillips about the matter, the
latter replied that there was some mistake as he had not said anything
to Dockery about Gibson.
The last time Gibson worked before his discharge on February 12
was the night of 'February 6, when union adherents attempted, to
distribute leaflets at the gate and were forced to leave, as described
in the Intermediate Report. The same night, Phillips approached
Gibson in the mill and asked him whether he had heard about the
incident. Gibson said he had not, whereupon Phillips told him that
the millhands had "run the union guys from out there at the gate"
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that they "wouldn't be back any more " Gibson advised Phillips
that he, Gibson, thought the Union men would return and that he
didn't want to discuss the matter further with Phillips, Phillips com-
mented that that was what he "wanted to know "
When Gibson reported for work on February 11, his next scheduled
workday, Phillips directed him to see Dockery the next morning.
The next day, Dockery handed Gibson his termination papers for
signature, the papers gave low production and refusal to cooperate
with overseers as the reasons for discharge Gibson refused to sign
and, as he walked out, the paymaster handed him. his final check
In view of Gibson's open avowal of, and sympathy for, the cause
of the Union, the Respondent's declared hostility to the Union, which
it did not hesitate to implement by discriminatory discharges of four
other employees, and the absence of any credible evidence that Gibson
was reprimanded for either of the alleged causes of his discharge,
namely, low production or failure to clean air vents, we find that the
Respondent did not discharge Gibson for the reasons alleged by it,
but rather because he was engaging in protected concerted activities
Accordingly, we find that in discharging Gibson the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act
3 The Respondent contends that its refusal to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union did not violate Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act
because, 'inter aha, the Union did not, in fact, represent a majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit In support of this conten-
tion, the Respondent attacks the validity of many of the authoriza-
tion cards for various reasons We shall discuss these arguments,
seruzt'im
(a) The Respondent contends that various named employees who
signed authorization cards did not do so in order to designate the
Union as bargaining representative,-but rather that their intent in
signing the cards was to secure an election in the plant We find no
merit in this contention It is well settled "that an employee's
thoughts [or afterthoughts] as to why he signed a union card and
what he thought that card meant, cannot negative the overt action of
having signed a card designating the union as bargaining agent " io
(b) The Respondent contends that the cards of the following
employees should not be counted on the ground that some of the
writing on the cards has been erased and altered George Newman,
James W Cochrane, C H Sims, Gladys Cockrell, D H Carroll,
Frank Ball, A T Abston, Jr, Q B Wright, Helen Hall, Charlie
Luker, and Charlie Nelson
' JQ y Salk Mslls Inc v N L R B , 1,85 F 2d 732 (C A, D C), cent denied 341
II S 914
See, also, eases cited by the Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report at footnote 5
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 649
We find no merit in this contention. These employees testified
that they either signed the cards themselves or authorized someone
to do it for them and that the (timely) date of signature shown by
the cards is correct.
The Respondent contends that Mary Dockery testified, that she did
not date the card herself or did not know or remember when it had
been signed. To the contrary, Mary Dockery testified that she did
sign and date the card herself and that the date was correct.
The Respondent attacks the validity of the card of Henry H. Sims
on the ground that he did not remember the date he signed it. Sims
testified that "to the best of my knowledge" the date on the card was
correct.
(c) The Respondent contends that the cards of Mary Alma Mont-
gomery, Barclay Dunehoo, J. K. Powell, Sarah Jo Hubbard, and
Joe C. Kee should not be counted. These five employees testified that
they could not remember when they signed their cards. (The cards
bear timely dates.) As the Union has the requisite majority of au-
thorization cards even without these 5, we do not find it necessary to
pass upon this issue and we shall not count these 5 cards.
(d) The Respondent argues that the card of G. B. Wilkerson should
not be counted. It also contends that the Trial Examiner erred in
striking from the record his testimony concerning alleged coercion in
signing his card and offered to prove at the hearing by means of
Wilkerson's testimony that he signed the authorization card because
he was afraid that otherwise he would lose his job.
We find that testimony relating to alleged coercion is relevant. Ac-
cordingly, as stated above, we have overruled the Trial Examiner
and reinstated Wilkerson's testimony in the record." As the Re-
spondent's offer of proof is limited to Wilkerson's testimony in the
record, we find ,that the Trial Examiner's rejection of the offer of proof
was not prejudicial.
Wilkerson's sole testimony on this issue was that "it was just talk
among the help" that if the plant "went union" those who did not
sign authorization cards would lose their jobs.'
As Wilkerson's card is not necessary to sustain the majority status
of the Union, we do not find it necessary to, and we do not, determine
whether he was coerced into signing his card and we shall not count it.
The Respondent apparently does not contend that anyone else was
coerced into signing a card.12 Nor, indeed, could it reasonably do so.
n The Trial Examiner . stated at the hearing that he would permit testimony as to
alleged coercion , as well as fraud, in signing the cards . However, he struck Wilkerson's
testimony at the objection of the General Counsel on the ground that it was hearsay evi-
dence We find that the testimony is not hearsay.
v It is not clear whether the Respondent contends that Joe C. Kee was coerced into
signing a card. It argues that gee "had been told and he understood that if he did not
sign the card at that time he would be required to join the union later and pay a fee
of $50 11 gee's testimony is ambiguous . It is evident that he "heard talk," but what it
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no evidence in the record that this "general talk" emanated
from a union source, there is nothing to show how many people heard
the talk, and there is no evidence to show that anyone who heard it
signed cards, apart from Wilkerson Even if we were to find that
Wilkerson were coerced, which question we do not pass upon, the
coercion of 1 individual in a unit of 332 employees is not sufficient by
itself to invalidate the 172 valid cards secured by the Union 13
We note that even if the Respondent were to contend that many
others besides Wilkerson were coerced by this "general talk," this
would be inconsistent with its argument that the reason a large per-
centage of employees signed cards was merely to secure an election
The parties stipulated that there were 332 employees in the unit
when the Union requested recognition as bargaining representative.
The General Counsel originally submitted 188 cards at the hearing
Two were. rejected by the Trial lxamin-er and 8 were withdrawn by
the General Counsel We are not counting six cards, as indicated
above This leaves 172 valid cards, while only 167 are necessary for-
a majority Accordingly, we find that the Union represented a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit when it requested
recognition as bargaining representative
4 The Respondent contends, that, in any event, as the Union did
not seek to represent an appropriate unit, the Respondent was under
no duty to bargain
The Union, by letter dated December 16, 1956, to the Respondent,
claimed to represent a majority of the employees in the "maintenance
and production departments " The Union filed a petition on Decem-
ber 17, 1957, in which it sought a unit of production and maintenance
employees, excluding, inter aka, guards The Respondent, by letter
dated December 21, refused to recognize the Union because it, allegedly,
did not represent a mad ority of the employees
At the representation hearing, the Union sought to include in the
unit 4 full-time watchmen-firemen and 1 regular part-time watchman-
fireman, contending that they were not guards However, the Board
found that they were guards and excluded them from the unit
First, it is clear that the unit in which recognition was sought, as
spelled out in the letter and petition, was for a production and main-
tenance unit, excluding guards The fact that five employees, who
were in a classification frequently disputed in representation pro-
ceedings, were subsequently found to be guards by the Board in no
way militates against the appropriateness of the requested unit That
was exactly the record does not reveal It would appear that he believed that he would
only have to pay the $50 "if I [Kee ] joined" the union [voluntarily9 ] later on In any
event we have not counted Kee's card for the reason given in the text, supra
Is See West Coast Luggage Co , 105 NLRB 414, 418-19 Amerxean Rubber Products
Corporation, 106 NLRB 73 , 77, enforcement denied in part , on other grounds 214 P 2d 47
(CA7)
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 651
the Respondent was neither uncertain as to'the scope of the unit
sought 14 nor believed that the Union wished to include these five
individuals is shown by the fact that, in its letter of December 21
refusing recognition, the Respondent did not contend that the unit
sought was inappropriate or raise any question concerning it, but
refused recognition solely on'the alleged ground that'it did not believe
that the Union represented a majority of its employees. Moreover,
this letter was sent before the representation hearing at which the
Union for the first time sought to include the firemen-watchmen.
In, any event, the Board has held that, even where guards are
improperly included in the unit for which a union seeks to' bargain,
this is no defense to a charge of a refusal to bargain.15 Accordingly,
we find this contention to be without merit.
5. The Respondent also asserts that, as the Union filed a representa-
tion petition with the Board, thus raising a question concerning repre-
sentation, the Board is precluded from finding that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (5) by refusing to bargain with the Union.
In support of this contention, the Respondent cites Aiello Dairy
Farms, 110 NLRB 1365. We find no merit in this contention.
In Aiello, after requesting recognition, the union filed a petition
for certification, proceeded to an election which it lost, and then filed
charges that the company had refused to bargain with it in violation
of the Act.
The Board declined to find a violation on the ground that it could
not permit its processes to be abused. Since a representation proceed-
ing and an unfair labor practice proceeding alleging refusal to bar-
gain are mutually inconsistent,1e the union, by delaying the filing of
its 8 (a) (5) charge, circumvented the Board's sound practice of not
conducting a representation election when an 8 (a) (5) charge is
pending and caused the Board to conduct a futile election, as the union
knew that the company had engaged in conduct which would prevent
a fair election. Accordingly, the Board would not permit it to revert
to an 8 (a) (5) proceeding as a means of establishing its representative
status.
In the instant proceeding, however, the facts are different. The
Union requested recognition from the Respondent on or about Decem-
ber 16,1956, and filed a petition with the Board on December 17. By
14 We find no merit, in any event, in the Respondent ' s contention that the Union's
demand was defective because the Union did not specify the "production and maintenance"
employees which it sought to, represent.
ss American Rubber Products Corp, supra , at p 76. Washington Coca-Cola Bottling
Works, 117 NLRB 1163, set aside and remanded 257 F. 2d 194 (C A., D C) cited by the
Respondent to sustain its contention that the Union's bargaining demand was defective, is
clearly distinguishable on its facts
16 A representation petition requires the Board to find that a question of representation
exists, to be resolved by an election , while a charge of unlawful refusal to bargain under
Section 8 (a) (5) must allege in effect that there is no such question and that the union
involved is in fact the exclusive representative with whom the employer must bargain.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
letter dated December 21, the Respondent refused recognition A
hearing on the petition was held on January 17, 1957, and on February
28,1957, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election The
original charges in the instant case were filed on February 20, 1957,
and amended charges, alleging a refusal to bargain, on March 13
The complaint herein was issued by the Regional Director on May 29,
1957. The Union requested permission from the Board to withdraw
its petition on May 21, 1957, and the Board, on June 5, 1957, dismissed
the petition
Thus, unlike Aiello, where the labor organization proceeded to an
election and afterwards filed charges, the Union here filed charges
before the election and requested permission to withdraw its petition,
which was granted. Thus, the Union timely determined which course
of action it was going to follow and did not attempt to abuse the
Board's processes as did the labor organization in Aiello 17
6 The Respondent contends finally that it withheld recognition of
the Union because it had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status It is clear, and we find, as set forth fully in the Intermediate
Report, that the Respondent did not decline recognition because it had
a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority, but rather that the Re-
spondent refused recognition in order to gain time within which to
undermine the Union and to dissipate its representative status through
coercive tactics Accordingly, we find, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner, that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act
7 With regard to the remedy, the Trial Examiner recommended, in
view of Division Manager Gurley's speeches and the relationship of
such speeches to the Respondent's other coercive activities, that either
the division manager or plant superintendent read the contents of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report to all plant shifts We do
not believe that such a novel remedy is warranted by the circumstances
of this case and we will not adopt this recommendation
ORDER
Upon the basis of 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,
17 Nor may the Respondent fairly contend that the Board 's action herein of finding a
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) is inconsistent with its finding that a question concerning
representation existed in the representation case There , our finding was based upon the
record before us, which contained no evidence bearing on the Respondent 's good faith or
lack thereof in-refusing to recognize the Unionas majority representative Such evidence
was, of course , not relevant to the issueS 's*hleh the Board may properly consider in a
representation hearing It is in the instant proceeding, the Union having made a timely
choice of which procedure it wished to pursue , that the Board has had its first opportunity
to determine the question of good faith in the Respondent 's refusal to recognize the Union
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 653
Dan River Mills, Incorporated, Alabama Division, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Alice-
ville, Alabama, plant, including frequency checkers, laboratory assist-
ants, and overseer clerks, but excluding assistant cashiers, payroll
clerks, and all other office clerical employees, watchmen-firemen,
guards, the plant superintendent, the cashier, overseers , the master
mechanic, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.18
(b) Discouraging membership in United Textile Workers or in any
other labor organization of its employees by discharging and/or re-
fusing to reinstate them or in any other manner discriminating against
them in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
(c) Interrogating employees concerning their union views, mem-
bership, and activities or how they would vote in Board elections;
maintaining surveillance of union meetings of employees; partici-
pating in or otherwise encouraging and condoning physical assault
on employees and union organizers because of their union activities;
preventing or otherwise interfering with the distribution of union
literature outside the gates of Respondent's plant property ; threaten-
ing shutdown and other economic loss and threatening not to deal
with the Union if the mill became organized; warning individual
employees against wearing union buttons, accepting union handbills,
attending union meetings, and otherwise participating in union activi-
ties; and in any other manner interfering with, restraining, oir coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist United Textile Workers
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in- concerted
activities for the purposes of mutual aid or protection as guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment 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) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Textile
Workers as the exclusive representative of all employees in the above-
IsThis conforms to the unit found appropriate by the Board in the representation
proceeding herein, Case No. 10-RC-3766 ( unpublished).
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
doscnibedappropriate unlit, and embody any understanding reached
in a signed agreement
(b) Offer James A Clark, W Russell Bryant, George Newman,
Berley L Howard, and James Elton Gibson immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them, in the man-
ner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy "
(o) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon
request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to determine-the amount of back pay
due
(d) Post at its mill at Aliceville, Alabama, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix B " 18
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places including
all places where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith
19 In the caption of the notice , the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner"
shall be changed to "A Decision and Order " In the event that this Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order " the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed by United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, a labor organization herein called the Union , the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint dated May 29, 1957, against
Dan River Mills, Incorporated , Alabama Division, herein called Respondent, alleging
that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Labor Management Relations 'Act, 1947, 61 Stat 136 , herein called the Act Copies
of the charges and complaint were duly served upon Respondent, m response to
which Respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices alleged
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Ahceville , Alabama, before the duly
designated Trial Examiner All parties were represented and were given full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues , they were also given opportunity for oral argument and to
submit briefs as well Respondent's motions to dismi§s the complaint are disposed
of in accordance with the following findings and conclusions
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED • , , ' 655
Upon the entire record in the case , and upon observation of the demeanor of
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent Dan River Mills, Incorporated , Alabama Division , has plants in
various southeastern States, including a plant in Aliceville, Alabama, where it is
engaged in the manufacture of cloth and textile products. During the 12-month
period immediately preceding April 1, 1957, the production at Respondent's
Aliceville plant exceeded a value of $500,000, more than 50 percent of which was
sold and shipped outside Alabama.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union began organizing Respondent's Aliceville employees in December 1956,
holding its first organizational meeting at the VFW Hall in Aliceville on December 11
and its next such meeting at the local Armory on December 15, following which it
held other meetings at the Armory. A majority of the employees, as I find herein-
after, signed union designation cards on or before December 15. On or about
December 16, 1956, the Union advised Respondent by letter that a majority of
Respondent's production and maintenance employees had designated the Union
as their bargaining representative and that it was accordingly requesting Respondent
to recognize and meet with the Union as such representative. The aforementioned
letter also stated that the Union was prepared to prove its majority if Respondent
had any question concerning the matter, by submitting promptly to a card-check
before a "mutually agreeable impartial person , or in an immediate secret election by
the National Labor Relations Board, or some other acceptable agency." By letter
dated December 21, 1956, Plant Superintendent James L. Dockery replied to the
Union that Respondent did not believe the Union was the majority representative,
that Respondent could not accept the Union's statement as to the validity of whatever
cards the Union did have, and that Respondent must therefore decline to meet with
the Union.
On December 17, 1956, the Union filed a representation petition as to the afore-
mentioned employees in Case No. 10-RC-3766. A hearing on the petition was
held on January 17, 1957; and on February 28, 1957, the Board issued a Decision
and Direction of Election in the matter. The original charges in the instant case
were filed on February 20, 1957; on March 13, 1957, the Union meanwhile filed
amended charges, thereby adding a refusal-to-bargain allegation, and on May 29,
1957, the Regional Director issued the instant complaint alleging, among other
things, an 8 (a) (5) violation. By order, dated June 5, 1957, the Board dismissed
the mentioned representation petition, without an election having been held, because
of the outstanding 8 (a) (5) charge and complaint, mentioned above.
The General Counsel contends in effect that Respondent engaged in a con-
temporaneous campaign of its own to undermine the Union and to repel its organiza-
tional efforts and the complaint specifies various types of unlawful conduct in which
Respondent is alleged to have engaged. The complaint thus alleges, inter alia, un-
lawful threats, interrogation and surveillance , in addition to five cases of dis-
criminatory discharge and the refusal to bargain.
Ray C. Gurley is Respondent's division manager, having charge of the Alice-
ville and seven other plants; he is Plant Superintendent Dockery's superior in the
plant hierarchy. Gurley testified that Respondent purchased the Aliceville and
six other plants from Alabama Mills, Incorporated, in August 1956. During busi-
ness hours on December 17, 1956, Respondent assembled all its Aliceville em-
ployees, and Gurley separately addressed each of the plant's three shifts. Gurley
testified that he "had been informed by the Plant Superintendent [Dockery] and
by some of the local citizens that the United Textile Workers had sent men into
Aliceville to organize our plant, and that also there were employees who had
complaints , that they wanted an audience , and they wanted some information.
More important , it had come to my ears that a number of the employees were
under the impression . that the Dan River Mills had bought these plants in order
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to liquidate them And I wanted to dispel that illusion I wanted to make it
clear that it was our intention to continue to operate these plants if we
could do so " Gurley told the employees in his speeches that Alabama Mills
had been on the verge of bankruptcy , that the plant properties and equipment were
run down , and that it would take much money, time , and effort to restore the mills
to an efficiently running basis "And I told them ," Gurley continued , that Respondent
was a leader, considered to be a leader, both in its styling, its merchandising,
its manufacturing, and in its employe relations , and we have been Just as
quickly as Dan River can afford to do so, they share with the employes, in-
creased fringe benefits, increased wages It's been our pattern, in history,
since I've been with them, 1942 But that we had a job ahead of us of earn-
ing those things, that we could not share them until we had earned them
I then went right into the matter of the union situation here that had been
reported to me, that the same union that operated in Danville had sent men
down to Aliceville and was trying to win the support of our employes I
told them that Dan River recognized that every person had a right to join
a union or not to join a union , as they pleased , just as they have to join a
lodge or any fraternal or civic club That was their business But as far as
Dan River was concerned , we would prefer to operate without a union, that
we had had more than enough experience with unions over many years That
to deal with the union , as far as management was concerned , was time con-
suming It took the men from their jobs, men who should be more properly
weaving cloth, rather than making palaver That we felt that we would deal
with our employes individually with a great deal more ease and less time con-
sumed than to have to deal with them through a third party
I explained to them that from our experience the union had brought nothing
but trouble, strife I outlined to them the strikes that we had been subjected
to in Danville for past years, the loss of wages , production , attendant upon
that the violence that accompanied it I explained to them that I could pic-
ture this situation at Aliceville, possibly developing something like this That
the organizers, who had a job to do, would come in and attempt to win the
employe's affection and support by promising improved wages, improved
working conditions, improved fringe benefits That's the customary pattern
That if they succeeded in influencing the majority of our employes to vote
for a union , if a vote was ever held, that the union, having gotten a certifica-
tion , would then propose those same demands or requests to the management
And that I could tell the employes flatfootedly, that with the present state of
our financial condition, with these mills losing money , that we would be forced
to deny such requests or demands , and that the only recourse then that the
union would have left would be to ask the employes to strike to get them
That has happened before, and it would happen again So that when you
project yourself into the future, that was what I could see developing if the
union was successful in its campaign here That it started with union organiz-
mg, and following to its logical conclusion , you finally wound up with a strike
And that was the only weapon that the union had to use I explained to them
that we had been through that in Danville , that this same union had called
an ill-advised, costly, lengthy strike , had lost its check-off as a consequence
That, to the best of my knowledge, its financial condition was not such that they
could help the employees to Aliceville
I wound up by telling them that we wished their support That we would so
conduct ourselves as to earn it, and that together we were all in the same
boat , overseers , mill superintendents , the employes, and myself That if we
expected to continue to work, we 'd have to put Ahceville on a profitable basis
Gurley also told the employees, according to his testimony, that "with all we
had to do in this plant , that I felt it would be almost impossible to operate the plant
and deal with the Union at the same time" When one of the employees asked
Gurley at the meeting whether Gurley's remarks meant that Respondent would
shut down the plant if a union came in, Gurley answered by repeating to the em-
ployees, according to his testimony , that it would be "impossible" to run the plant
and deal with a union at the same time During his speeches, Gurley referred to
the Union as the "third party," and he further advised the employees that he
wouldn't sign a union contract and they should go elsewhere if they wanted a union
The record establishes , and I find , that the overseers and the master mechamc are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act
Overseer Vernon Phillips testified that he explained Gurley's talk in conversations
with individual employees , informing them that the Aliceville null was a "marginal"
one and that "it would be impossible to operate the mill under the union
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 657
demands or what they would bring about." "You heard what Gurley said," Phil-
lips told employee Romulus Pate in December 1956, "they couldn't operate with the
third party." A day or two after Gurley's speeches, Phillips asked employee Noah
Corley whether Corley owned his own home; Corley replied that he did. Phillips
thereupon told Corley that he, Phillips, also owned his own house and that "if this
thing goes down, I don't know how we're going to make it through." About 6 weeks
later, Phillips told Corley that Phillips had heard that Corley had attended a union
meeting in a neighboring town and that "I [Phillips] didn't think you'd do me no
such a way." During this same conversation, Phillips also asked Corley whether
Corley had decided how to vote in the Labor Board election and Phillips stated,
according to Corley's credible testimony, that Phillips "hoped I'd [Corley] made-
up my mind the right way." Phillips, on one occasion, called employee Thomas
Scarbrough's attention to Gurley's statement that Respondent "couldn't run under the
third party," and on another occasion Phillips inquired how Scarbrough would vote
in the election, stating his hopes that Scarbrough "would vote right." When Scar-
brough replied that he didn't know how he would vote, Phillips continued to press
him on the subject and said that Scarbrough was either for or against the Union and
that Phillips wanted an answer within 3 days. A few days after the Union's first
meeting on December 11, Phillips inquired of employee Dewey Carrol whether Car-
rol had attended the meeting. Carrol said he had, whereupon Phillips remarked that
"everything's running pretty smooth tonight and may not be running this time next
week." During March 1957, and while the Board's direction of election was out-
standing, Phillips again approached Carrol and asked how Carrol "stood about this
thing"; Phillips told Carrol that he, Phillips, "was supposed to find out whether
[Carroll was for the Union or not."
On or about January 17, 1957 (the date of the representation hearing), Phillips
told employee Henry Grayson that "these unions" are going to shut down the plant
and that he wanted Grayson to vote "right." About the time of Gurley's speeches,
Phillips told employee Annie Wood that he wanted to give her the "facts" about the
Union, namely, that Respondent would "shut down and we'd all be on starvation"
if the Union came in. Phillips made similar remarks to employee Annie McGahy in
January or February 1957; and a few days after the Union's first organizational meet-
ing, Phillips told employee Albert Hayes, according to Hayes' credible testimony,
"I don't want your opinion . . . I'm stating what I know . I know what I'm
talking about." Then Phillips told Hayes that the plant would shut down if it "went
Union," that Respondent "had cancelled an order for supplies," and that "there's a
monkey wrench been going into that on account of this."
Overseer Eugene Jackson is Overseer Phillips' superior. In or about the early
part of January 1957, Jackson told employee Sam Junkin , according to Junkin's
credible testimony, that "the mill could not operate under a third party, and he had a
lot of friends that worked there, and he'd hate to see anything happen . . . and hate
to see them lose [their homes]." Also in January 1957, Jackson told employee
Dewey Carrol that he, Jackson, had worked at organized plants and the mills had
shut down. "That is what could happen here," Jackson continued , and "when the
mill shuts down, the Union will move on out and leave you setting here without a
job." Jackson also told employee Mary Alma Montgomery in March 1957, that he
wanted to know "how you feel about this thing." Montgomery didn't reply, where-
upon Jackson further stated that "we haven't got time to fool with the Union. I'm
telling you for your own,good." Jackson himself testified to having had conversations
with employees about the Union; he further testified that he couldn't recall any such
particular conversations except that he did tell several employees that "I had worked
at a mill where there was a union. And trouble, strikes, and things that they had
at that mill, that I did not think that a union would do them any good here, that that
mill shut down, and I'd hate to see it happen to this mill."
Later in the evening of the Union's first meeting on December 11, Superintendent
Dockery asked employee Lucius Estes whether Estes had attended the meeting and
remarked that "you all had a nice crowd down there, didn't you." After the hearing
in the aforementioned representation case, Dockery asked employee Dewey Carrol
whether Carrol remembered that Gurley had said that "the company could not
operate under a third party." Dockery remarked on this occasion that, as Carrol
was wearing a union button at the time, it was unnecessary "to inquire which side
you are on"; Dockery further told Carrol to "let me know" if Carrol decided "to go
against the Union and pull off your button." Employees Wallace Jones and James
Gibson testified that one night in February 1957, they saw Dockery and one Stokes
parked directly across the street from the Armory during a union meeting which
Jones and Gibson attended and Jones further testified, credibly, that Dockery re-
mained in the parked car for 4 or 5 minutes. Dockery's version of the incident,
487926-59-vol 121-43
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which I do not credit, is that he and Stokes were merely passing by at the time and
that he pulled over for "a minute or two" in front of the meeting hall to let another
car pass, later he testified to having stopped "just a second or two " Dockery after-
wards told Gibson in the mill that he had observed Gibson on that occasion
W R Bryant, James Clark, George Newman, and Eugene Counts (a union or-
ganizer) distributed union handbills at the plant gate during the 2 p m. shift change
on February 6, 1957 They were standing on a public street during such distribu-
tion They returned for further distribution at 10 p m, at the end of the second
shift and beginning of the third shift When they returned for their second distribu-
tion, according to the credible testimony, Overseer Lee McCool was standing just
outside the gate, leaning against a parked car, and about 15 or 20 employees on the
second shift remained in the immediate vicinity and about 4 or 5 of the third shift
employees came back outside the plant Various employees in this group held coke
bottles, sticks, opened pocket knives, and one of them had brass knuckles Two of
these employees, Bob Jones and Will Fortenberry, went outside the gate to within a
step or two from McCool's position, they grabbed the handbills from Counts and
began hitting him in the face with them Jones told another employee in the group,
Marvin Brown, to,"get" Bryant, whereupon Brown grabbed Bryant and they scuffled
a bit During this melee, Overseer Phillips was standing at a lighted window on the
second floor of the plant overlooking the scene at the gate, he jumped up and down
and clapped his hands and shouted to the crowd below, "Get 'em boys Get 'em.
Get 'em away from here We don't want them here " Counts et al then retreated,
with the mob in pursuit holding the coke bottles and knives McCool followed with
the crowd as they drove Counts and companions into Counts' car i
On or about February 14, 1957, Overseer Willie Davis summoned employee Madie
Sherrill to the mill office and stated, "You want to work in here, don't you7" Sher-
rill replied that she did, whereupon Davis continued, "Well, you'd better not have
anything else to do with the Union You'd better not take any more handbills
[which she had therefore accepted from the Union] or go to any other meetings,
and you'd better not have anything else to do with it You'd better not talk If
you do, I'll know about it "
B Discrimination, additional interference, restraint, and coercion
James A Clark was employed as a fly frame tender at the Aliceville mill for 10
years until his discharge on December 12, 1956 Phillips was Clark's overseer
Clark attended the Union's first meeting on December 11, on which occasion he
distributed and collected union designation cards
Clark worked on the third shift beginning at 10 p m After attending the men-
tioned meeting on December 11, Clark went into the plant about 1 0 minutes before
shift change, which was customary, and he stood around his job location and then
walked over to join several other men W L Huddleston, was the fly frame tender
on the second shift, his job site adjoining Clark's Shortly before shift change,
and after the clocks on Huddleston's job had rung, Clark asked Huddleston whether
Huddleston had signed a union card Huddleston said he had not and he asked
Clark for one, Clark gave Huddleston a card, which Huddleston then signed and
returned to Clark Overseer Phillips observed this incident, and Phillips testified
that he also observed Clark in other parts of the mill before and after 10 o'clock
that night. (Clark also had spoken to J 0 Hollis outside the plant before shift
change that night about signing a union card and Clark also had given a card to
James Gibson shortly before shift change in the plant, Gibson and Hollis both
worked on the third shift) Phillips called Superintendent Dockery at about 10 30
that night, Dockery immediately came to the plant, had some discussion with
Phillips, and then went over to where Clark was working Dockery asked Clark
whether Clark had been roaming through the mill, which Clark denied to Dockery,
Dockery also asked whether Clark had passed out some cards and Clark said he
had, although he denied giving a card to Huddleston that night 2 Dockery then
asked Clark for a card and Clark gave him one, whereupon Dockery directed Clark
to shut down his machines and leave the plant and to report to Dockery the following
morning
Clark returned the next morning, as directed, but Dockery asked him to come back
later that day, which Clark did Dockery informed Clark on this latter occasion
1 Phillips denied seeing the incident in question and McCool denied, in effect, that there
even was an incident, as descriped I do not regard either witness as trustworthy or
otherwise entitled to belief
2 Clark testified that he so denied to Dockery because "I figured my Job was in stake
if I told [Dockery] "
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 659
that Clark was being discharged and that Clark's termination papers were already
prepared for Clark's signature . Dockery told Clark 'at the time, according to
Clark's credible testimony which Dockery denied , that "you're the fourth man I've
let go. I ought to let 40." The termination papers stated in effect that Clark was
discharged for "interfering with the help and neglecting [his] job." Clark refused
to sign the papers unless, as Clark testified he told Dockery, the papers stated "what
I [Clark] was doing," to which Dockery remarked, "Well, you want your. pay, don't
you?" Clark walked out and the next day he received his final wages by registered
mail.
Clark's mother, Mrs. Lessie Lee Jones, works on the first shift and was pres-
ent, with all other first shift employees, when Division Manager Gurley addressed
the employees on December 17, as set forth above. At that meeting immediately
after Gurley's speech, Mrs. Jones asked Gurley to rehire Clark, informing Gurley
that Clark had a wife and children to take care of. Gurley said he would talk to
Clark and would let Mrs. Jones know later on. Gurley sent for Clark that same
afternoon and inquired whether Clark "had changed" his mind. Gurley told Clark,
according to Clark's credible testimony denied by Dockery who was present at
the time, that Clark might get his job back if he "forgot about this third party that
[Clark] was connected up with." Clark said he needed the job but he refused to tell
Gurley that he had "changed" his mind. Gurley told Clark he would be in touch
with Clark, and about 2 weeks later he sent for Clark. Gurley again asked Clark
whether Clark wanted to work and Clark again replied that he did. They apparently
repeated the earlier conversation and Gurley told Clark, according to Clark's
credible testimony, that "you've still got this third party on your mind" and that
"the Company did not have time to fool with [the Union]." Gurley said he would
inform Clark of his decision. Clark has not heard further from Gurley or any
other Respondent representative.
Gurley denied, in part, Clark's version of the foregoing conversations and testified
in effect that he told Clark on the first mentioned occasion after the discharge that
he had been informed that Clark had been discharged for interfering with other
employees, that he (Gurley) asked Clark whether Clark wanted to return to work,
and that he (Gurley) did not feel that Clark was sincere in replying that Clark did
desire a job because, Gurley testified further, Clark gave a "rather reluctant sort
of a yes." Gurley testified with respect to the second mentioned conversation that
"I tried to get a definite statement out of him that he really did want his job back,
and that he was not going to conduct himself in a manner similar to that which he
conducted himself on the first instance for which he had been discharged." Gurley
further testified that Clark asked during this meeting, "Why won't a union work in
this plant?" and that he then informed Clark that "with all the things that we have to
do, we are not going to have the time to operate the plant and fool with the Union."
In the period between Clark's two conversations with Gurley, Mrs. Jones also
called upon Superintendent Dockery seeking reemployment for her son who was,
as she explained to Dockery, in a difficult financial situation. Dockery told Mrs.
Jones, according to her testimony,3 that he could not rehire Clark because Clark is
"riding around with a Union man, and he can't make up his mind," and that she,
too, would also lose her job "if you're seen riding around with a Union man" and
that "it would mean the job of anybody seen riding around." Dockery testified that
he could not remember whether or not Mrs. Jones had spoken to him on her son's
behalf and that he did not remember telling .her the matters to which she testified.
Shortly after Clark's final conversation with Gurley, as related above, Gurley
also told Mrs. Jones, according to Mrs. Jones' credible testimony, that he could not
rehire Clark because Clark is "riding around with a third party, and he can't make
up his mind."
Respondent asserts that it discharged Clark for interfering with other employees
on the night of December 11, and it also asserts in such connection that his union
solicitation violated an alleged company rule which purportedly forbids solicitation
of any employee during working hours without express permission. Dockery testi-
fied that he posted such rule on February 26, 1957, and that he had posted similar
rules on two prior occasions which he did not specify in terms of month or even
year. Employees Pate and Corley testified that they had never heard of a rule
against talking on the job and they also testified that the plant practice was for
employees to talk and even to leave their job location when caught up in their
work. As indicated above, it also was customary for employees to enter the plant
premises and stand around the production floor before the earlier shift had ended.
The record, in my, opinion , does hot establish the existence of the purported rule
8 Mrs. Jones was an honest and otherwise trustworthy witness, and I credit her version
in any conflict in testimony with Gurley and Dockery.
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on December 11, and I also find that the record also does not establish that Clark
interfered with any employees on December 11, or otherwise impeded his own
or other employees' work
Wilton Russell Bryant was hired as a maintenance worker in November 1956 by
Superintendent Dockery and Master Mechanic Sam Cochran Bryant's son, Sonny
Bryant, has been employed at the Ahceville plant of the Westinghouse Company
for several years and he is president of another local union there Sonny was
instrumental in obtaining the VFW premises for the Union's first organizational
meeting for Respondent's employees which was held on December 11 Bryant
attended this meeting with his son and assisted that night in arranging the meeting
room, distributing union cards, and assisting employees to sign the cards Bryant's
son called the meeting to order and, after speaking a few minutes, turned over the
meeting to Union Organizer Brown Bryant joined the Union at this meeting.
On December 12, the day after the mentioned union meeting and the same day
as Clark's discharge, Bryant met Superintendent Dockery at the mall at about 11 30
a m Dockery asked Bryant, according to Bryant's credible testimony, "who was
this young Sonny Bryant I hear so much talk about?" Bryant told Dockery that
Sonny was employed at Westinghouse and was his son Dockery asked what con-
nection Sonny had with the Union, to which Bryant replied that Sonny was the
union president at Westinghouse "He's a pretty good union boy, isn't he9,"
Dockery further asked, according to Bryant's testimony which Dockery denied,
when Bryant said he was, Dockery stated, "Well, that's all I want to know " Bryant
returned to work, and about 2 hours later Cochran advised Bryant that he had "some
bad news," namely, that "we're going to have to let you go [on] Dockery's
orders " Bryant then left the mill
Bryant returned to the mall the next day to get his paycheck and he also inquired
of Dockery on this occasion concerning the reason for the termination Dockery
told Bryant that work was "scarce" and that he had to divide it up Bryant then
asked Dockery, according to Bryant's credible testimony denied by Dockery, whether
it wasn't a fact that "my activity with the Union, together with my son's activities is
why you fired me9" Dockery replied, "Well, if that's the way you want it, that's
all right with me I want it to be a lesson to the rest of the employees "
Cochran testified that Bryant and Lee Montgomery were hired as temporary
maintenance men for carpentry and painting and that Bryant was retained until com-
pletion of a particular project Montgomery was released sometime after Bryant's
termination Since then, according to Cochran, some production employees, who
have not been employed full time at production work, have been doing some of
the maintenance work, but Cochran was unable to testify whether or not these
same production workers were also on a partial work basis when Bryant was hired
Bryant's brother, Garvin Bryant, was and still is employed in the maintenance de-
partment Garvin testified that the day before his brother's discharge, Cochran
advised Garvin that there wasn't enough painting work for both Montgomery and
W R Bryant and one of the two would have to be laid off Cochran asked Garvin
which man Garvin wanted to retain Garvin refused to make the selection and
Cochran then told Garvin, according to Garvin's credible testimony, that Cochran
was thinking of retaining Bryant Cochran's testimony, on the other hand, is that
he told Garvin on this occasion that he (Cochran) thought he would retain
Montgomery, and Cochran further testified that Montgomery had previously worked
under him and that he knew Montgomery could paint but he didn't know whether
Bryant also could do so Cochran then was asked whether there was "any choice
between their [Montgomery's and W R Bryant's] work as you observed it," and
he said there wasn't and he also then testified that "they could paint about equally
as well "
George Newman worked in the cardroom of the Aliceville null from August 1956
until February 5, 1957 He joined the Union in December, wore a union button
in the mill, and attended and made speeches at union meetings In the latter part
of December 1956, sometime after Gurley's aforementioned speeches to the em-
ployees, Superintendent Dockery stopped Newman in the mill, referring to the fact
that Newman was wearing a union pin at the time, Dockery asked Newman what
Newman "thought that the Union could get me [Newmanl besides fired or my job "
Dockery asked if Newman believed what Gurley had said about the mall operating
with a "third party" and if Newman "thought the mill would shut down if it op-
erated with a third party " Newman replied that he didn't think so and that Dockery
didn't think so, whereupon Dockery said that Newman would "just have to wait
and see" and that Newman should reconsider the matter Newman asked whether
Dockery was then firing him, to which Dockery replied, "No, there's plenty of time
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 661
if that was necessary ." Dockery testified that he discussed the "union situation
in the plant" with Newman , but denied telling him "it may get his job."
Overseer Phillips also spoke to Newman about the Union on several occasions.
On the first such occasion in the plant , on or about January 8 , 1957, Phillips told
Newman , according to Newman's credible testimony , that Phillips "was under
instructions to talk to anyone about the Union and about the disturbance that it would
create here in Aliceville if the Union did organize here . That he had orders, that
he had been told to tell each and every man or woman that worked for him that if
we organized a union here , that the mill was not financially able to support and
carry on union activities , and that it would close down ." On either this same or a
later occasion , Phillips told Newman that "it was necessary that he [Phillips] know
how I [Newman ] voted if it came to a secret election ." When Newman then told
Phillips that Newman didn 't think "it was going along even with my constitution
or any other thing for him [Phillips ] to ask me how I voted in a secret election,"
Phillips replied that Newman should be "more considerate of the mill and the
employment of it."
As indicated earlier , Newman last worked for Respondent on or about February 5,
1957. One night at work the week before the week of February 5, Newman's
overseer (apparently Phillips ) told Newman not to come in the following day, that
it would be a short week for Newman , and that Hollis Scott would perform Newman's
job that day . Scott was a drawhand frame operator and Newman asked Phillips why
a drawhand frame operator would be doing Newman 's, a card operator 's, work.
Phillips replied , "that's just the way we do things here." Newman said he would
take up the matter with General Foreman Jackson , which he did the next day. On
this occasion Jackson informed Newman that Scott had had a day off since Newman's
last day off and that it was Newman 's turn . Newman informed Jackson that he
would discuss the matter further with Superintendent Dockery. When Newman
reported for work a few days later ( on or about February 5, 1957), and before he
had seen Dockery about the aforementioned matter, , Phillips met Newman at the
entranceway and directed Newman to go home and to see Dockery the next morning.
Newman did speak with Dockery the following day and Dockery told him , "George,
I understand that you don 't understand why you was off last week." Newman re-
plied that he understood he was off because of a "short work week " but that he
"did question the drawhand man running my job instead of a card operator;"
Dockery thereupon stated , according to Newman 's credible testimony , "Well, George,
because you don't understand , I'm going to lay you off and call it no work available."
Dockery testified that Newman was laid off , not discharged as the General Counsel
alleges; Dockery further testified that the layoff resulted from a change in styles in
the weave room and that Newman was selected for layoff as the least senior man
in the cardroom . (There is no showing of a seniority practice in the plant before
or since Newman worked for Respondent .) Dockery further testified in connection
with Newman 's 1-day layoff the previous week, that work had been staggered among
the regular cardroom employees to provide more employment for the spare hands
and he also testified that the drawhand frame operators and card operators were
considered as one group for this purpose. The record establishes that Respondent
has hired additional employees since Newman 's purported layoff and Dockery testi-
fied that he had not recalled Newman because someone had been in the plant office
inquiring about Newman during this period and allegedly had stated that Newman
had moved . Neither Jackson nor Phillips testified in connection with Newman's
termination.
Mrs. Berley L. Howard was employed as a spinner at the Aliceville mill from 1946
until her discharge on February 20, 1957. Overseers Vernon Phillips and Eugene
Jackson had been her supervisors for about 10 years. Howard signed a union card
at the meeting of December 15 and , beginning in January 1957, she wore a union
button in the mill for approximately 2 weeks. The day before the December 15
meeting, Overseer Phillips told Howard that "we couldn 't operate under the third
party, that we would just have to shut down if it went Union."
Overseer Jackson informed Howard on February 20, 1957 , that he was discharging
her and , if she liked , that she could discuss the matter with Superintendent Dockery.
Howard then went to Dockery's office and Dockery read from some papers, called
"writeups ," purportedly written by Phillips and stating that Howard had left her
job in a "mess" for the third shift spinner (Jessie Lou Booker ) who followed Howard
on the same frames. Dockery then handed Howard a termination slip for her
signature stating as the reason for termination that Howard could not keep up her
job. Howard told Dockery she would not sign the slip because, she told him, the
stated reason was untrue.
-662 DECISIONS OF NAPIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAS?D
Howard testified that she received no complaints concerning her work until she
began wearing her union button , as stated above, she also testified , with corroboration
from employee Annie Woods, that her supervisors watched her much more closely
after such time Phillips testified that he had received several complaints from
Booker, the third shift spinner, to the effect that Howard left the job in poor con-
dition and Phillips testified that the first such complaint was 2 or 3 weeks before
Howard's discharge Phillips also testified that he reported two complaints to
Overseer Jackson concerning Howard Phillips testified, as Jackson testified to similar
effect, that he had been supervising Howard for 10 years and, in effect, had retained
her for such period even though he testified that her work was "below par compared
with a majority", Phillips further testified that Howard's "job attitude" changed
after Christmas 1956 in that she "paid less attention" to her work
Booker, the spinner who followed Howard on the same frames, testified that she
complained about "the last of December or the first of January" to Phillips regarding
the condition in which Howard left the frames Booker testified that she made the
first such complaint after Gurley addressed the employees, as described above, and
that she made the next such complaint 10 to 14 days later Later Booker testified
that she had "no idea," in numbers of days or weeks, how long before Howard's
discharge she made the last such complaint, and she also later testified that she didn't
know in which month or even in which year Gurley made the mentioned speeches
and she further testified that she had no idea how long after Gurley's speech she
made the first aforementioned complaint, in terms of number of days, weeks, or
even months
Superintendent Dockery testified that whenever an overseer "has to talk" to any
employee, the overseer writes up this incident and the so-called "writeup" is then
placed in the employee's personnel file Respondent instituted these writeups about
the end of December 1956 or the first of January 1957 and Phillips, Dockery, and
Gurley testified that Respondent has also been on a "quality" drive since December
1956 Overseer Jackson testified that he had spoken to Howard on several occasions
and that after January 1957 he made writeups on Howard He also testified that he
gave her a "final" warning about 3 weeks before her discharge but also testified
that he didn't prepare a writeup on that occasion Phillips testified that he pre-
pared a writeup on Howard on January 8, 1957, and gave the writeup to Jackson
(Phillip's supervisor) the next morning, Respondent introduced the particular
writeup in evidence This writeup is set forth, in part, on Appendix A hereof, and
it appears that the particular writeup also deals with alleged events occurring on
January 9 as well as January 8 Phillips was given an opportunity to explain the
discrepancy, namely, why a document dated January 8, 1957, and given to Jackson
on the morning of January 9, nevertheless refers to alleged events after such morning
and which document is signed but once and then after the recital of the alleged
events of January 9 Phillips had no explanation, or so he testified
It is not unusual for a job to become , what is known as, "stuck-up" and that is
what happened to Howard's job on February 20, 1957 According to employee
Bertha McDaniel, all the other spinners have had their work in much worse condi-
tion and Jackson also testified that he has seen jobs in poorer condition than Howard's
was on this occasion Dockery testified that he saw Howard's job getting stuck-
up on that day and that he directed Jackson to send her to him for discharge
James Elton Gibson was in Respondent's employ from October 1956, until his
discharge on or about February 11, 1957 Gibson was a picker tender on the
third shift, his supervisor being Overseer Phillips
Gibson signed a union card on December 11, 1956, and he wore a union button
in the mill from January 5 until his discharge Shortly after Gibson began wearing
his union pin, Phillips advised him "not to fool with the union just forget
about it because there wasn't going to be no union at the plant " Phillips also
advised, Gibson to stop wearing the pin, according to Gibson'a credible testimony
denied by Phillips, because it "had too much influence on the other people there
in the plant," and Phillips further told Gibson that the mill wouldn't operate with
the "third party" and would shut down if the Union came in Gibson told Phillips
he would continue wearing the union button
Gibson attended a union meeting the week of February 4, the same meeting
which Dockery kept under surveillance, as described above, and Dockery mentioned
the fact to Gibson that Dockery had seen Gibson at the meeting hall that night
On or about February 5, Phillips met Gibson at the plant gate as Gibson was report-
ing for work and Phillips told Gibson to return home and to report to Superintendent
Dockery the next morning When Gibson reported to Dockery, as directed,
Dockery remarked that "I see you're still wearing your [union] pin", Dockery then
began reading a paper and said, "I see you got low production, would not cooperate
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 663
with your overseer." Gibson denied this, and during the ensuing conversation
Dockery said that he, Dockery, had been confusing Gibson with someone else.
That same night at work, Gibson asked Phillips about the matter and Phillips replied
that there was some mistake as he had not said anything to Dockery about Gibson.
The last time Gibson worked before his discharge on February 1-1 was the night
of February 6 when Bryant and others attempted to distribute leaflets at the gate
and were forced to leave, as described above. After the incident that night Phillips
came back to Gibson in the mill and asked whether Gibson had heard about the
incident . Gibson said he had not, whereupon Phillips then told Gibson that the
mill hands had "run the union guys from out there at the gate" and that they
"wouldn't be back any more." Gibson advised Phillips that he, Gibson, thought
the union men would return and that he didn't want to discuss the matter further
with Phillips; Phillips commented that that was what he, Phillips, "wanted to know,"
and Phillips then left Gibson. (Phillips testified that he had discussed the afore-
mentioned incident with Gibson but that he couldn't remember what was said
at the time )
Gibson's next scheduled workday was on February 11; and, when he reported
on that morning, Phillips directed him to see Dockery the next morning. The
next day, according to Gibson's credible testimony, Dockery handed Gibson his
termination papers for signature; the papers gave low production and refusal to
cooperate with overseers as the reasons for discharge. Gibson refused to sign, and
as he then walked out, the paymaster handed him his.final check.
Charles Quinn was the fixer in Gibson's department during the period of Gib-
son's employment; he was responsible for maintaining the picking machines and
to see, in such connection, that the air vents were cleaned. Cleaning the air vents
was one of Gibson's functions and his instructions were to clean them on Tuesdays
and Thursdays. On occasions Quinn helped Gibson to clean the vents. Quinn
testified that Gibson did not clean the vents on Tuesday (February 5), that he
reported the matter to Phillips, without mentioning the fact to Gibson, and that
Gibson did not clean them on Wednesday (February 6). Quinn testified that Gib-
son had never before failed to clean the vents. Phillips testified that he discussed
the matter with Dockery and recommended Gibson's discharge for such reasons.
Respondent introduced in evidence a number of so-called writeups on Gibson,
the first of which is dated January 8, 1957, after Gibson began wearing his union
button, as stated above.
C. Conclusions: 8 (a) (1) and (3)
The record establishes that Respondent is opposed to the Union and that it em-
barked on an immediate course of conduct to defeat the Union and the organiza-
tional efforts of its employees. Cataloging in broad outline the widespread pattern
of coercion engaged in by Division Manager Gurley, Plant Manager Dockery, and
Overseers Phillips, Jackson, Davis, and McCool, it appears, among other things,
that Respondent interrogated employees concerning their union views and activities;
threatened to shut down the mill and not to deal with the Union if the Union organ-
ized the mill; required a discharged employee to forsake his union views and activ-
ities as a condition of employment; threatened to discharge employees because of
their union views and activities; participated in or otherwise encouraged and con-
doned physical assault on discharged employees and a union organizer peacefully
engaging in union distribution outside the plant gate; and engaged in surveillance
of a union meeting. Respondent has thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act. N. L. R. B. v. West Point Mfg. Co., 245 F. 2d 783 (C. A. 5); Limestone
Manufacturing Company, 117 NLRB 1689; Martel Mills Corporation, 118 NLRB
618; United Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc., 118 NLRB 883; 1. Taitel and Son, 119
NLRB 910.
Each of the five dismissals involved here was a separate incident and must there-
fore be individually examined; upon such consideration it appears that each is part
of the pattern of coercion engaged in by Respondent in order to destroy the Union
and to discourage the employee body from continuing along the path of union
organization. The facts and circumstances involved here are quite similar to those
portrayed in the aforementioned' West Point case; and I am mindful of the court's
stricture in that case that it is not alone sufficient that an employer engage in a
pattern of coercive conduct to support any or all particular charges of discrimina-
tion. It is interesting to note, in passing, that as in West Point case, there appears
here the "simultaneous extraordinary drive to improve the quality and quantity
of the production," simultaneous, that is, with the union organizational drive.
I do not believe any purpose is to be served by restating or by extended discus-
sion of the cases of individual discrimination. Taking each case alone, I am satis-
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fled that Respondent unlawfully discriminated in each instance Clark and his
mother, Mrs Jones, were eminently honest witnesses and their testimony pre-
ponderantly establishes the discriminatory action against him Clearly, he was
fired for engaging in union activities and he was refused rehire because he would
not agree to change his views regarding the Union On the basis of Bryant's
testimony and his demeanor as a witness, I have no hesitancy in crediting his ver-
sion of the events as against my appraisal of the demeanor and testimony of Dock-
ery and Cochran, Bryant was fired, I find, either because of his own or his son's
union activities or for both reasons Newman was warned, in effect, about his
union views, but he remained obdurate, Respondent's stated reason for supposedly
laying off Newman is patently pretextual and I find that he was discharged because
of his union views and activities The "quality" drive accounts for Howard's dis-
charge, according to Respondent, despite her long tenure under the same over-
seers, and in support thereof Respondent adduces the writeups and related testi-
mony The simultaneity of the union campaign and the quality drive of Respondent
in this case has more to it than chronological coincidence However, I do not
necessarily predicate my findings as to Howard on such connection The testimony
recounted above convinces me that, in addition to my demeanor impressions, Phil-
lips, Jackson, and McDaniel were untruthful,-and I refer particularly-although
not exclusively to the testimony concerning the wnteup dated January 8, 1957
It is trine that Howard was not particularly active in the Union, but whatever reason
Respondent had for choosing Howard for termination in forwarding its antiunion
campaign, I conclude that Respondent did discharge her in furtherance of such
objective Certainly an, employer is privilegedi so far as this Act is concerned,
in discharging employees for any reason, no matter how trivial, so long as it does
not relate to union activities, and this would include discharges for not cleaning
vents But the circumstances of Gibson's discharge convince me that Respondent's
asserted reason is wholly pretextual, I find that Respondent discharged Gibson
because of his union activities and not for the reasons dammed
I conclude that Respondent discriminatorily terminated each of the foregoing
employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act See N L R B v
Houston and North Texas Motor Freight Lines, Inc, 193 F 2d 394, 398 (C A 5),
cert denied 343 U S 934
D Refusal to bargain
In its Decision in Case No 10-RC-3766, mentioned above, the Board found the
following unit of Respondent's employees to be appropriate
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Alice-
ville, Alabama, including frequency checkers, laboratory assistants, and over-
seer clerks, but excluding assistant cashiers, payroll clerks, and all other office
clerical employees, guards, the plant superintendent, the cashier, overseers, the
master mechanic, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act
This is substantially the same unit for which the Union sought recognition from
Respondent in its aforementioned letter of December 16, 1956
There were 324 employees in the aforedescribed unit on December 16, 1956, and
by such date, union cards were validly signed by or in behalf of at least 174 of these
employees 4 The cards recite, in part, as follows
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP -
I, the undersigned, hereby accept membership in the United Textile
Workers of America (A F of L) and authorize its representatives to bargain
for me in all matters pertaining to my wages, working conditions, Union obhga-
tions, and all other conditions of employment
(Signature of Member)
Early in the hearing the General Counsel objected to questions as to whether the
employees had read the cards before signing and what their understanding was
respecting the effect of such signing I overruled these objections Upon recon-
4 Including the cards of Joe Kee and Sarah Jo Hubbard, which are received in evidence
DAN RIVER MILLS, INCORPORATED 665
sideration later in the hearing , I advised the parties I was changing my ruling 5 and
I thereupon sustained objections to such questions except as to matters of fraud or
coercion , and no showing of fraud or coercion appears in this record . The effect of
changing the ruling is , of course , to strike answers previously given to such questions
and such answers become offers of proof.
It is recalled that Respondent, in its letter of December 21, 1956, refused the
Union's request for recognition and stated that it questioned the Union 's majority
status . In the circumstances of this case , the record preponderantly establishes and
I find that Respondent was not motivated by a good -faith doubt of the Union's
majority; I find, rather, that Respondent refused recognition in order to gain time
within which to undermine the Union and to dissipate its representative strength
through coercive tactics. It appearing that the Union represented a majority of the
employees in the aforedescribed unit on December 16, 1956, I conclude that the
Union was then, and at all times since has been , the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the aforedescribed appropriate bargaining unit ; and I also
-conclude that , by refusing to recognize and negotiate with the Union , Respondent
has violated Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act . See I. Taitel and Son, 119 NLRB
910; Traders Oil Company of Houston , 119 NLRB 746 ; N. L. R. B. v. Southeastern
Rubber Mfg . Co., Inc., 213 F. 2d 11, 15 (C. A. 5).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several
States and such of them as have been found to constitute unfair labor practices, tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in 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 , among other things , that the Respondent offer immediate and
full reinstatement to James A. Clark, W. Russell Bryant , George Newman , Berley L.
Howard , and James Elton Gibson to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions 6 without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make
them whole for any loss of pay resulting from the discrimination against them, by
paying each one 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 7
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 Respondent make available to the Board , upon request, payroll
and other records to facilitate checking the back pay due. F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, supra.
In view of Division Manager Gurley 's and Plant Superintendent Dockery's unlaw-
ful antiunion activities , and particularly in view of ' the character of Gurley's speeches
to the employees and the relationship of such speeches to Respondent 's other coer-
cive activities , I shall also recommend that either the division manager or plant
superintendent read the contents of the notice , hereinafter set forth , to all shifts
convened for such purpose during working hours, which recommendation I consider
reasonable and necessary in disabusing the employees of Respondent 's unfair labor
practices.
5 See E. H. Sargent and Co , 99 NLRB 1318, 1322-1323, and cases cited therein ; Stow
Manufacturing Co., 103 NLRB 1280, 1285, enfd 217 F. 2d 900, 902 (C. A. 2), cert. denied
348 U S. 964; Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v N. L R B., 185 F. 2d 732, 743 (C. A, D C.), cert.
denied 341 U. S. 914 ("It has been held that an employee's thoughts (or afterthoughts)
as to why he signed a union card, and what he thought that card meant, cannot negative
the overt action of having signed a card designating union as bargaining agent."), and
cases cited therein ; Nubone Company, Inc., 62 NLRB 322, 343-344, enfd 155 F. 2d 523
(C. A. 3).
6 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, 65 NLRB 827
Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent are of such a character and
scope that ,In order to insure the employees here involved their full rights guaranteed
by the Act It will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from III any
manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in their right to
self-organization
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the record as a whole,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's plant in Aliceville,
Alabama, including frequency checkers, laboratory assistants, and overseer clerks,
but excluding assistant cashiers, payroll clerks, and all other office clerical employees,
guards, the plant superintendent, the cashier overseers, the master mechanic, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
3 At all times since December 16, 1957, United Textile Workers has been and
continues to be the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the above-
described unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the Act
4 - By failing and refusing to bargain with United Textile Workers since December
16, 1957, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5 By discrimmatorily discharging James A Clark, W Russell Bryant, George
Newman, Berley L Howard, and James Elton Gibson, and otherwise discriminating
against James A Clark, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and, (1) of the Act
6 By interrogating employees concerning their union views, membership and
activities, and how they would vote in Labor Board elections, by surveilling union
meetings of employees, by participating in and otherwise encouraging and condon-
ing physical assault on employees and a union organizer peacefully engaging in
union activities, by preventing or otherwise interfering with the distribution of
union literature outside the gates to Respondent's plant property, by threatening a
shutdown and other economic loss and by threatening not to deal with the Union
if the mill became organized, and by warning individual employees against wearing
union buttons, accepting union handbills, attending union meetings, and otherwise
participating in union activities, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
7 The aforesad unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
APPENDIX A
1-8-57
Robert Jones asked me to say something tonight to Berley Howard
Later this same night I checked her job This same night, she was in the
bath room and stayed too long I showed her job to Gilbert Moore at ten oclock
The next night 1-9-57 she left her job stuck up again, the same thing happened
that did the night before
* * * * * *
VERNON PHILLIPS
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, to organize our employees, or refuse to bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of our employees
WE WILL NOT fire or otherwise discriminate in regard to any term or con-
dition of employment against any employee because of membership in or
f
N. SUMERGRADE & SONS 667
activity on behalf of United Textile Workers or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union views, member-
ship, and other activities or as to how they will vote in Labor Board elections.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union meetings.
WE WILL NOT assault or encourage assaults on employees or union organizers
engaging in union activities and we will not interfere with distribution of union
literature outside our plant gate.
WE WILL NOT threaten to shut down our mill or to fire employees if the
mill is organized by the Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of employees to attend union meetings,
to receive union bulletins , to wear union buttons, or otherwise to engage in union
or organizational activities.
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with United Textile Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit , with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other conditions of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody
such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees at our Aliceville mill, includ-
ing frequency checkers , laboratory assistants , and overseer clerks, but ex-
cluding assistant cashiers , payroll clerks , and all other office clerical em-
ployees, guards, the plant superintendent , the cashier, overseers , the master
mechanic, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL reinstate and make whole the following employees for any loss
of pay suffered by them as a result of our discrimination against them: James
A. Clark, W. Russell Bryant, George Newman , Berley L. Howard, and James
Elton Gibson.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
Union or any other labor organization except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act.
DAN RIVER MILLS , INCORPORATED,
ALABAMA DIVISION,
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.
Bernard, Saul and Harry Sumergrade d/b/a N. Sumergrade &
Sons 1 and Greater New York Joint Board, Textile Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Bernard, Saul and Harry Sumergrade d/b/a N. Sumergrade &
Sons 1 and Concepcion Rivera, Petitioner and United Textile
Workers of America, Local 229, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-RC-
9241 and 2-RD-385. August 27, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
On June 4, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Order dismissing
the petitions filed in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding.2
Thereafter, on June 19, 1958, the Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC-9241
(hereinafter called the. RC-Petitioner) and on June 25, 1958, the
' The Employer's name here appears 'as amended at the hearing.
2 Not published.
121 NLRB No. 84.