Douglas Silk Products Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, CIO
Case No. 10-C-1623.-Decided October 2 , 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 11, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in a copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On
August 23, 1945, the l oard heard oral argument at Washington, D. C.
The respondent participated in the argument; the Union did not
appear.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the additions noted
below.
1. In its exceptions and brief before the Board, the respondent
does not dispute the findings of fact from which the Trial Examiner
concluded that the respondent violated the Act. Indeed, in its answer
to the Board's complaint, the respondent admitted the allegations
that the respondent, through Treasurer J. S. Gordon and Superintend-
ent H. C. Greenwood, threatened to close down its plant at Douglas,
Georgia, urged and persuaded its employees to withdraw their mem-
bership from the Union, and initiated, formed, sponsored, and pro-
moted the Committee. In the oral argument before the Board, coun-
sel for the respondent conceded that the speech of Treasurer J. S.
Gordon was coercive and violative of the Act. Upon the entire record
and in view of the respondent's admissions we find, like the Trial
63 N. L. it. B., No. 203.
1280
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1281
Examiner, that the respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section
8 (1), (2), and (5) of the Act.
2. At the oral argument before the Board , counsel for the respond-
ent contended , in substance , that after its. refusal to bargain and its
commission of other unfair labor practices , a turn-over in personnel
destroyed the Union 's majority and that, therefore , the Trial Exam-
iner's recommendations that the respondent be ordered to bargain
with the Union should not be adopted . The defections in the Union's
ranks at the time of the refusal to bargain were caused by the respond-
ent's unfair labor practices , fully described in the Intermediate Report,
and hence did not impair the Union's previously established majority
status.' Assuming , as the respondent contends , that the Union there-
after lost the majority status which it thus had at the time of the
respondent 's unlawful refusal to bargain , we perceive no valid reason
for departing from our usual remedial order. We have frequently
held that the employer's unlawful refusal to bargain collectively with
its employees ' chosen representative , as well as the commission of other
unfair labor practices , tend to disrupt the employees' morale, to deter
their organizational activities , and to discourage membership in and
adherence to labor organizations by both old and new employees.
Under the circumstances we find that the Union 's previously estab-
lished majority status remains unimpaired because any loss in such
status was caused by the respondent 's unfair labor practices. More-
over, for the reasons expressed in our Supplemental Decision in Matter
of Karp Metal Products Co., Inc.,' we find that the policies of the Act
will best be effectuated by requiring the respondent to bargain collec-
tively with the Union.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent Douglas Silk Products Company,
Douglas , Georgia, and its officers , agents, successors , and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of the Com-
mittee, or with the formation and administration of any other labor
organization , and from contributing financial or other support to the
Committee or to any other labor organization;
(b) Recognizing the Committee, or any successor thereto, as the
representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it con-
IN. L R B V Bradford Dyeing Association , 310 U. S. 318; Franks Bros. Co. v.
N. L. R. B , 321 U. S 702; N. L. R. B. v. Burke Machine Tool Co., 133 F. (2d) 618, 621
(C C A 6).
251N L R. B. 621.
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its
employees in its Douglas, Georgia, plant, exclusive of watchmen, cler-
ical, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees or effectively recommend such action;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in con-
certed activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other
mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Committee as the represen-
tative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or conditions of work, and completely disestab-
lish the Committee as such representative;
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its
employees, excluding watchmen, clerical, and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively rec-
ommend such action, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms or conditions of employment;
(c) Post at its plant, at Douglas, Georgia, copies of the notice at-
tached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked Appendix "A".3
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt-thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily,posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3 Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof the words "Recommendations Of A Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu
thereof the voids, "A Decision and Order "
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1283
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. Mortimer H. Freeman and Albet t.D Maynard, for the Board
Messrs. I. Harvey Levinson and Louis Rosenfeld, by Mr. Louis Rosenfeld, of
Chicago, Ill, and Mr. George Mingledorff, of Douglas, Ga, for the respondent.
Mr. John Clifton, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union
Mr. Virgil H. Harrell, of Douglas, Ga, for the Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by American Federation of Hosiery Workers,
CIO, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Boaid, by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia)
issued its complaint dated January 2, 1945, against Douglas Silk Products Com-
pany, Incorporated, Douglas, Georgia, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the coin-
plaint together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly served upon the respond-
ent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent: (1) from on or about September 28, 1944, has discouraged
membership in the Union by threatening to discharge or lay off its employees, by
threatening to transfer production from the plant at Douglas, Georgia to other
plants, and by threatening to close down the plant at Douglas, Georgia; (2) from
on or about September 28, 1944, has encouraged employees to form and join com-
mittees and other groups engaged in urging employees to refrain from and to
withdraw from membership or activities in the Union, has assisted in forming
and has extended aid to such groups and committees, has vilified, disparaged, and
expressed disapproval of the Union, has urged, threatened, and warned its em-
ployees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining members of
the Union, has urged its employees to withdraw their membership in the Union ;
(3) on or about October 4, 1944, did initiate, form, sponsor, and promote The
Committee [of its employees], and from that date to the present has assisted,
dominated, contributed to the support of, and interfered with the administration
of The Committee; (4) on or about September 28, 1944, and at all times thereafter,
respondent refused and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit; and (5)
by such acts, respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees,
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On January 13, 1945, the respondent filed its answer. Therein, it admitted the
allegations of the complaint as to the nature and extent of its business ; the
appropriateness of the unit for collective bargaining set forth in the complaint;
that it had discouraged membership in the Union by threatening to close down the
plant at Douglas, Georgia ; that it had encouraged employees to form and join
.committees and other groups engaged in urging employees to refrain from and to
withdraw from membership or activities in the Union and had urged its employees
to withdraw from membership in the Union ; and that it had initiated, formed,
sponsored and promoted the Committee, and had assisted it. However, the
respondent denied the allegation that it had dominated or contributed to the
support of, or interfered with the administration of The Committee. Respondent
also alleged that a majority of its employees in the appropriate unit had with-
drawn their allegiance from the Union and did not wish to be represented by it,
662514-46-vol 63-S2
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Douglas, Georgia, on January 16,'
February 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1945, before the undersigned, Sidney L. Feller, the
Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and
the respondent were represented by counsel, the Union by representatives." Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties during the hearing.
Counsel for respondent moved to strike the testimony of members of the Com-
mittee as not binding on respondent. Decision was reserved. The motion is
discussed hereinafter. Decision was reserved on the admissibility of Board's
Exhibit 10, a statement given to a representative of the Board by a witness, Stacy
Edwin O'Steen. The objection raised to the admissibility of this document is
treated later in this report. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board
moved to conform the complaint to the proof as to names, dates, and places.
There was no objection, and the motion was granted as to both thq complaint and
the answer. Thereafter, counsel for the Board presented an oral argument.
Counsel for the respondent waived oral argument, but received permission to
file a brief. The time for filing was later extended, upon request, to March 12.
No.brief was received.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Georgia corporation, maintaining its principal office and place
of business at Douglas, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale
and distribution of full-fashioned hosiery.
In 1944, respondent purchased raw materials in excess of $85,000, of which
more than 90 percent was purchased and shipped from points outside Georgia.
During the same period, it manufactured finished products valued at more than
$120,000, all of which was sold and shipped to points outside Georgia.
Respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Hosiery Workers, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, and the Committee [of respondent's employees], un-
affiliated, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
'At the first session, counsel for respondent stated tliat J. S. Gordon, respondent's
treasurer, desired to he present at the hearing, but had been unable to arrange transpor-
tation Counsel requested a continuance until January 29 The undersigned indicated
that a continuance would be granted at the close of that day' s session , but not to the date
requested Later, counsel for respondent stated that he had received instructions from
Mr. Gordon to withdraw unless the request was granted in toto. Upon denial of this .
request, counsel withdrew and the hearing was continued until January 24: Subsequently,
respondent's request was granted in full and the hearing was continued until February 6,
and later, until February 8 Mr Gordon did not appear
z At the first hearing, respondent was represented by MacDougald, Troutman, and Ark-
wright, by Mr. Henry Troutman, Atlanta, Georgia A substitution of attorneys took
place before the second hearing Mr Matthew Lvnch appeared as representative for the
Union He was inducted into the armed forces shortly after the first hearing. Mr. Virgil
H Harrell appeared for the Committee at the first hearing. He was unable to attend the
other sessions because of illness It was stipulated and agreed by all parties, including
Harrell , that the hearing continue despite his absence.
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1285
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES a
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Self-organization started among the employees of the respondent when, on
September 26, 1944, Jack Minix was refused a wage increase by Manager
Greenwood who was in charge of operations at Douglas, Georgia. Minix quit
work and other employees walked out with him until there was a complete
cessation of operations. A group of the employees, including Allen Vickers,
Stacy O'Steen, and Verdayne Lankford,4 decided to obtain assistance from the
Union. They telephoned headquarters of the Union at Chattanooga, Tennessee.
One of them, Felton Mills, explained the situation to a union representative.
Mills reported back that he was told that a union representative would be sent
immediately and that the employees should return to work. The employees
did so at once.
The next day, September 27, Matthew Lynch, a representative of the Union,
arrived in Douglas. He held a meeting of the employees at the home of Virgil
Harrell, the fourth member of the Committee subsequently organized. He ex-
plained the purposes of the Union and secured signatures to membership cards.
Respondent soon learned of the organizational effort among its employees and
acted to forestall it.
The next day, September 28, Foreman Rogosky noticed that Stacy O'Steen was
wearing a union button and told him that the Union had caused him to lose three
homes.
That night Foreman Dove told Lonnie O'Steen that the Union was "rotten"
and that the Union had forced the closing of mills in Philadelphia. He also
adjusted Lonnie's machine so that be could knit more stockings and said, "See
what the C. I. O. has done for you. I am giving you a raise."
The same day, Greenwood asked Stacy O'Steen and Lankford what they hoped
to gain from the Union. The former said one week's vacation with pay and
hospitalization insurance. Greenwood responded that the employees would
have to pay for hospitalization insurance out of their salaries and that he had
been informed by General Manager Abe Wilcher that respondent had intended
to grant paid vacations to the employees, but had delayed making the announce-
ment s General Manager Witcher asked Jack Mipix why he was organizing a
union. Minix replied that Greenwood had refused him a salary increase. Wilcher
said that he did not want anything like that [a union] at the plant and that
Gordon, respondent's treasurer, would be down in a few days to help straighten
things out
On September 29, Greenwood had a conversation with Jack Minix and another
employee. He told them that he had belonged to the Union in the past, that the
Union had put all the mills in the North out of business, and that he had had to
come South for a job. He also talked with Allen Vickers and Virgil Harrell
and asked them what they expected to gain from union organization. Harrell
referred to vacations with pay and hospitalization insurance. Greenwood replied
8 The Board's case was based upon the acts and statements of respondent's supervisory
officials, Treasurer J. S. Gordon, General Manager Abe Wilcher, Manager H C Greenwood,
and Foreman Frank Rogosky and John Dove. None of these officials testified. All wit-
nesses, even those adverse to the Board, were in substantial agreement as to the facts.
Each witness' testimony complemented and lent emphasis to that of the others. Except
where indicated, the recital of events is based upon clear and uncontradicted testimony.
9 These three were members of the Committee, organized later.
E This incident was testified to by Stacy O'Steen who was openly sympathetic with
respondent's cause and proved a hostile witness for the Board. He also stated that in his
talk with Greenwood, "something" was said about the mill closing if the Union came in
to the plant.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the employees would get vacations but that they would have to pay for
hospitalization insurance out of their own salaries in any event, adding that he
did not see what the employees had to gain by joining the Union; that respondent
felt that it could riiu its own business without outside interference, that the
Union had caused much trouble at plants where Rogosky had previously been
eqiployed, that Rogosky had lost three houses because of its activity ; that the
company would never recognize a union in its plant ; that it had closed four
plants because of the Union; that he knew R;hat it would do with this plant
if the employees joined the Union; and that he knew that the men would not
like to leave home to look for other work ° -
Greenwood asked Harrell and Vickers to "go along" with respondent and "keep
that thing down." He suggested that they call a meeting of employees any time
on company property to try to persuade the employees to drop out of the Union.
Gordon arrived in Douglas the next week On the afternoon of October 4,
during working hours, the employees were summoned to a meeting on respondent's
premises to hear a talk by him Practically all the employees, approximately 65,
were present After an introduction by Greenwood, Gordon began to speak.
He stated that he had not seen the employees in 3 or 9 months, that "like Presi-
dent Roosevelt said about Mussolini," he had not expected a "stab in the back" as
he thought most of the employees were his friends. He declared that he had
never recognized the Union and would not recognize it, that he could get away
from the Union, that he had closed four plants to dodge it and could close this
plant also and would do so before recognizing the Union and that the employees
would be out of work. Gordon also told the employees, that 99 percent of the
plants in the industry located in the South were unorganized, that the one per-
cent that were organized and the mills in the North were working half-time and
that the union organizers were working for interests in the North. Greenwood
interposed a remark that if the Union were successful white women would have
to work with negroes. Gordon declared that he had not intended to raise the
race issue, but that Greenwood's statement was correct He then mentioned the
fact that he had determined to grant the employees paid vacations, but had tried
to withhold the announcement until Christmas. He further said that respondent
would try to obtain permission to effect wage increases He concluded by stating
that the Union could not offer the employees more than respondent would do
for them.
At the conclusion of his speech, Gordon told the employees to hold a meeting
and let him know what they intended to do and to see if they could still be
"friends." The employees held a meeting and discussed the question of con-
tinued adherence to the Union. Lonnie O'Steen reported to Gordon that the
employees were unable to reach an agreement. Gordon then suggested to
Harrell, Vickers, and Stacy O'Steen that they call themselves a committee and
summon the employees to the plant that evening to decide whether or not they
wanted the Union. Harrell and Vickers proceeded to carry out this suggestion
and succeeded in securing the attendance of 35 employees at a meeting held at
the plant that night. A secret ballot was conducted and the employees voted
to adhere to the Union
Virgil Harrell and Jack Minix proceeded to the plant office to notify Gordon
of the results of the vote. They found Foreman Dove and Rogosky there and
asked them to summon Gordon. When the foremen learned of the results of
the voting, Rogosky said he was "packed and ready to go move out," and Dove
said he was "half-packed already." -
° Both Harrell and Vickers were in substantial agreement as to the gist of this conversa-
tion. Vickers was a witness for respondent.
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1287
When Gordon returned to the plant he addressed the assembled workers once
more. Lonnie O'Steen summarized his talk as follows :
He said he was sorry to see the attitude they had taken about it; when
they left there that afternoon, he thought they were friends, but since that
is the way "you feel about it, I won't ship any more yarn to this mill.
You can go hunt a job tomorrow or run up the yarn that is here and then
go." And brushed his hands off like that (indicating), turned his back
and walked away.
Gordon's threat to cease operation had an immediate effect upon the
employees, particularly the girls, who comprised about two-thirds of the group
They did not want the plant to close nor did they want to leave Douglas to look
for work elsewhere.' A mass withdrawal from the Union began the next day.
When Gordon began his first speech the Union represented a majority of the
workers. By Saturday, October 7, there had been almost a 100 percent with-
drawal. This mass defection will be discussed in detail later in this report.
Respondent does not deny that its supervisory officials, especially Gordon,
made the statements attributed to them, nor did it seek to dispute the obvious
purpose of respondent to interfere, restrain, and coerce its employees in the
exercise of their' right to self-organization. Its defense was confined to an
effort to prove that individual witnesses did not believe Gordon, or paid no
attention to his threats, and were not actually coerced. It relied heavily on
the testimony of Stacy O'Steen, Verdayne Lankford, and Allen Vickers. These
three had taken active parts in the organization of the Union, and had coop-
erated with representatives of the Board in the preparation of its case. At
the time of the hearing, however, they were in open sympathy with respondent,
denied making statements attributed to them by the Board's representatives,
and sought to picture respondent's conduct in the best light.' Their testimony
for the most part, did not contradict that of the Board's witnesses. Indeed,
they corroborated that testimony and added to it. It waS only on the question
of their reasons for withdrawal from the Union that they were at odds with
other witnesses. Stacy O'Steen testified that he withdrew from the Union of
his own free will and not because of anything Gordon said. Some of his tes-
timony on this point is as follows :
The girls called us up that afternoon, whenever Mr. Gordon got through
talking, and said they didn't need no union and they told us, the leggers
[knitters], when we went around there, that they could not benefit; that it
could not benefit them.
I figured we didn't need a union and the girls called us up and they was
all wanting to come out from under and I figured the best thing to do was
drop it where it wjas at, because I wasn't much for it, nohow.
Vickers also testified that he withdrew from the Union of his own free will.
He admitted, however, that he had made his decision to do so after he had heard
Gordon's speech. Lankford testified to the same effect.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this report to- evaluate in detail the
testimony of Stacy O'Steen, Lankford, and Vickers. Their testimony was char-
acterized by evasion, loss of memory, and change of mind with respect to state-
4 The plant was the largest manufacturing plant in the area and the only hosiery mill.
8 For instance, Stacy O'Steen denied that Gordon had threatened to close the plant His
testimony on this point was, "He didn't threaten to close it. He said there wouldn't be
any more yarn shipped in We could run up what we had, or start looking for other jobs."
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ments previously made.' The undersigned does not credit their testimony that
Gordon's speech had no effect upon them. Even if that were the case, the
testimony of Harrell, Lonnie O'Steen, and other witnesses indicates that the
great majority of the workers decided to withdraw their affiliation because of
Gordon's threats and the undersigned so finds.
After the employees had withdrawn from the Union, respondent still re-
mained on guard to prevent any re-affiliation. Lankford, appearing as respond-
ent's witness, testified that on or about November 6, Greenwood asked him and
Stacy O'Steen how the Union was "coining along." They said they did not
know. Greenwood then said, "Well, I see them fellows [union organizers] still
hanging around here. There is just enough of you boys to take him by the seat
of the pants and run [or 'throw'] him out of town."
The undersigned finds and concludes' that by statements that unionization
of its employees would not be tolerated, by threats to cease production rather
than to permit such self-organization by its employees, by a campaign of dis-
paragement of the Union," and by its unilateral action in awarding paid vaca-
tions to employees, together with its promise of wage increases," all of which
practices were expressly admitted in the respondent's answer, or impliedly ad-
mitted by the failure to offer testimony in rebuttal, and by the totality of the
acts and statements of its supervisory officials, respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
B. Domination of and interference with the formation and administration of
the Committee'
1. The formation of the Committee ; respondent's assistance, domination-and
support of the Committee
Gordon's speeches in the afternoon and evening of October 4 caused con-
sternation 'among the employees. Gordon indicated what the next step should
be by telling some of the girls that they did not have to belong to the Union
if they did not want to ; and that they, could form a committee of their own
and withdraw their membership.
The employees quickly followed this suggestion. When Harrell reached the
mill the next morning he found that about 15 girls wanted to withdraw from
the Union and they asked him how they could do this. Harrell said he did not
know. He then spoke with Greenwood. Greenwood said that Gordon thought
the majority of the women had turned their back on the Union, that respondent
O The Board offered in evidence Board's Exhibit 10, a sworn statement made by Stacy
O'Steen to a representative of the Board Stacy O'Steen admitted that his signature
appeared on every page of the statement , but denied that he had read it or that it had
been read to him Decision was reserved as to the receipt in evidence of this exhibit.
Respondent 's objection thereto is overruled . The Exhibit is received , but not as affirma-
tive evidence, per se, of the truth of the contents thereof.
10 See H. J. Heinz Co. v. N L. R. B., 311 U S. 514, 518; American Smelting & Refining
Co v. N L R. B , 128 F (2d) 345, 346 (C C. A 5) ; N L. R B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co.,
133 F (2d) 988, 989 (C C. A 5) ; Humble 0sl & Refininq Co. v. N. L. R. B , 140 F. (2d) 777,
778-9 (C. C. A. 5) ; Sewell Hats, Inc. v. N. L. R. B, 143 F. (2d) 450, 451-2 (C C. A 5).
11 See H. 0 Hill Stores, Inc, 140 F. (2d) 924 (C C. A. 5).
12 The narrative of events in this section is based chiefly on the testimony of Virgil
Harrell, Stacy O'Steen, Verdayne Lankford, and Allen Vickers. The witnesses were in
substantial agreement as to the basic facts. In cases of disagreement or lapse of memory,
Harrell's testimony is credited . Harrell acted as leader in organizing the Union and also
acted as leader of the Committee . His testimony impressed the undersigned as sincere
and straightforward , in marked contrast to the evasive quality of the testimony of the
other three witnesses.
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1289
did not have to recognize the Union, and that the men might just as well "come
11on across."
Harrell then conferred with Vickers, Lankford, and Stacy O'Steen. They all
agreed to withdraw from the Union. They proceeded to the mill office and
spoke with Gordon. Harrell's uncontradicted testimony as to the conversation
is as follows :
Well, we got to talking about it, and he said that he didn't think the
employees wanted a Union. He said most of them said they didn't want
no union of the girls, he said that. I told him that some of them wanted
to know how they could get out of the Union He said that we could call
ourselves a committee, and that we could get a petition fixed up by a
lawyer, and he told what kind of petition. In other words,, kind of worded
one off like it would be, and so on, and they could sign that petition. We
could mail one to the National Labor Relations Board in Atlanta, Georgia,
and one to.Mat Lynch in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
*
He gave us two sheets of paper to have the petition fixed up on there.
He said whatever the expense would be would be taken care of by them
[respondent]."
2. The activity of the Committee in securing defections from the Union
domination by the respondent
The four, acting as a committee, went to an attorney and had a petition
drawn as suggested. They returned to the plant and showed the petition to
Gordon and Greenwood, who approved of it, but told the Committee to take it
out of the office as it was against the law for them to have anything to do with
it. The Committee then borrowed Gordon's pen and laid the petition in dupli-
cate on a table on the plant premises and invited the employees to sign it. The
plant was not in operation that day, October 5, and they secured only 25 names
from employees who had congregated at the plant. In the process of signing,
one of the girls dropped the pen and broke the point. Vickers returned to the
office and secured another one from the respondent.
After the Committee had secured as many signatures as they could they
showed the petitions to Gordon and Greenwood. Gordon counted the signatures
and said that they did not have enough, that they had to secure a majority.
The men asked Gordon_ whether they should take the petitions to the homes
of the employees that night or wait until the next morning. Gordon told them
to finish that night.
Discussion then ensued as to the means of transportation to be used by the
Committee. Greenwood refused to furnish an automobile. Vickers had an
automobile, but said that he did not have sufficient gasoline. A "C" gasoline
ration stamp was furnished for the trip by Greenwood. The Committee, accom-
panied by Hadsock thus was able to continue about its business."
The Committee endeavored to reach all the employees that night. At least
two of the Committee, Harrell and Vickers, suggested to the employees that
they might be discharged if they did not sign or that the mill would close if
is Harrell paid the disbursements , but was never reimbursed.
"During the evening , Vickers damaged his car. Harrell testified that Vickers told him
that Foreman Rogosky had reimbursed him for the repairs. Vickers denied this. Har-
rell ' s testimony is credited.
'1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the majority did not sign .'5 The next morning, Harrell showed the petitions
to Greenwood who said, "You boys have done a good job." The petitions,
which now contained the signatures of a majority of the employees, were
notarized and dispatched to the- Board and the Union.
Later that same day, according to Harrell, Greenwood asked him how the
Union was "coming on." Harrell replied that he did not know much about it.
Greenwood then said, "Well . . . if they keep talking it around in the mill
there is about a dozen here I can fire. I can run the mill without them," and
he referred to some of the non-signers by name. Harrel became fearful that
his brother-in-law, Jack Minix, would lose his job and mentioned this conversa-
tion to him.
The next morning, Saturday, October 7, Minix told Harrell that the non-
signing group was now ready to sign and requested a copy of the petition. Har-
rell had a copy prepared and delivered it to Minix at the plant. Minix then
stopped working and called thirteen others away from their work to a meet-
ing on respondent's premises. The meeting lasted for about an hour with-
out any complaint from management over the loss of working time. Myrtice
Poole testified that she and others of the group felt that they might lose their
jobs if they did not sign the petition, but that they wished to remain loyal
to the Union. Minix reported that Matt Lynch, the representative of the
Union, had told him that-the employees could protect themselves, if they wished
to do so, by signing the petition, that that act would not affect their mem-
bership. Accordingly, those employees signed the petition. Thus, within 3
days-after Gordon's speeches, the Committee had secured almost 100 percent
withdrawal from the Union.
3. Other activities of the Committee
On the following Monday, Gordon summoned the members of the Committee
and Minix to the office. According to Minix, who had given the clearest ac-
count of that meeting, Gordon said to them, "You fellows are the committee
and I will recognize you as a committee to handle all grievances that come
before the employees and the management as [are] necessary." He instructed
Greenwood to recognize and deal with them.
It is undisputed that the Committee functioned and represented the em-
ployees in the adjustment of individual grievances and general working con-
ditions.10 The last matter with which it was concerned prior to this hearing
was in December 1944.
4. Financial assistance by respondent to individual members of the Committee
Respondent proved appreciative of the work of the Committee . During
the week of October 2 the employees at the plant did not work a full week.
Yet the members of the Committee received their average weekly earnings
plus 5 hours overtime. Stacy O'Steen testified that he understood that all
employees were to be similarly treated. However, in at least one case, that of
Lonnie O'Steen, this was not done.
15 Respondent objected to this testimony and moved to strike it as not binding upon it.
Decision was reserved . Respondent had authorized and directed the circulation of the
petition . It was in reasonable contemplation , particularly in view of the threats openly
made by respondent's supervisory employees ; that- the Committee would make the state-
ments that they did make . In fact, as hereinafter mentioned , Greenwood , the next morn-
ing, made an open threat to discharge nonsigners . Also, by accepting the fruits of their
activity, respondent ratified the acts of the Committee The motion to strike is denied.
10 Minix never took part in the activities of the Committee.
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1291
During the week after Gordon left, Greenwood called Minix aside and
told him that he was giving him a raise retroactive for the previous 6 weeks.
He then handed him $2475 in cash. Employees were invariably paid by check.
This payment was never entered on the pay-roll records for social security
or other purposes.
Harrell did not go to work on October 19, because he understood that there
was a shortage of yarn at the plant. He was scheduled to work on the da}y
shift with the other active members of the Committee. Foreman Rogosky came
to his home and told him to report for work, that he had removed yarn from
other machines, but would see to it that the members of the Committee would
not lose any time. He said, "Let the others that wanted the Union so bad sit
on the outside and look in for a while " Rogosky also told Vickers, Lankford,
Stacy O'Steen, and himself to take the yarn out of their machines at the end
of their shift so that the next shift could not work The shortage continued
for several days during which some employees were sent home, but the Com-
mittee kept wgrking. Finally, the Committee itself protested a specific case,
that of James Sapp. Stacy O'Steen told Greenwood, "If Mr., Sapp' s case isn't
discrimination, I don't know what is."
Conclusions as to the Committee
The Committee came into existence as the result of Gordon' s suggestion He
assisted in its formation, supervised its operations, dominated its activities, gave
it full freedom at the plant, and later outlined the scope of its relations with
management. Respondent's activities were openly curried on and were freely
admitted in its answer, and also by the failure of the respondent to produce any
of its supervisory officials, especially Gordon, as, witnesses.
The undersigned concludes and finds that the Committee is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act."
The undersigned further finds that the respondent has dominated and inter-
fered with the formation and administration of the Committee, has contributed
support thereto and that respondent has thereby inerfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in sec-
tion 7 of the Act 18
C. The refusal to hargacn collectwely
1. The appropriate unit
Respondent employs approximately 65 workers in its plant at Douglas, Georgia.
All manufacturing operations are carried on in this single plant and the duties
of the employees are closely interwoven. The complaint alleges that " all em-
ployees of the respondent in its Douglas, Georgia plant, exclusive of watchmen,
clerical, and all supervisory employees with authority to lure, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act." The answer
admits this allegation and respondent so stipulated at the hearing.
The undersigned finds that all employees of respondent in the aforesaid unit at
all times material herein constituted and they now; constitute a unit appropriate
17 Section 2 (5) of the Act provides :
The term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind , or any agency
or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and
which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part , of dealing with employees concerning
grievances , labor disputes , wages; rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions
of work.
1B Matter of H. McLachlan & Co., Inc., 45 N . L. R. B. 1113, 1136.
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
or other conditions of employment and that said unit insures to employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
It was stipulated that respondent's pay roll as of September 28, 1944, contains
the names of 65 employees, of whom five were not eligible in the appropriate
unit.10
Matt Lynch, a representative of the Union, testified that on September 27 he
secured signed membership cards from 45 of the employees in the unit. Harrell
and Minix corroborated his testimony, and the signed cards admitted in evidence
as Bd. Ex. 5 verify the count. Lynch further testified that by October 6 he had
secured a total of 55 cards.
The undersigned finds that on and at all times after September 27, 1944, the
Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the
Union was at all times material herein and is the exclusive representative of all
the employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, or other conditions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
Lynch testified, without contradiction, as to his negotiations with respondent
concerning recognition, and his testimony is credited.
On September 28, Lynch went to the plant and had a conversation with Green-
wood. He told him that he represented a majority of the employees and asked
for recognition. Greenwood replied that he could not give him an answer until
he had spoken with General Manager Wilcher, who was in Manchester, New
Hampshire, that lie was telephoning Wilcher, and would- have an answer for
Lynch later that day.
Lynch returned later and Greenwood told him that Wilcher had said that he
could not give a final answer until he had spoken with the head of the company.
Greenwood then told Lynch to deal directly with Wilcher and gave him Wilcher's
address. Lynch relayed this information to the Philadelphia office of the Union
and requested that a representative be sent to see Wilcher.
The next day September 29, Greenwood told Lynch to communicate with Gordon
and furnished him with his address. Lynch felt, as he put it, that he was being
given a "run-around." He telephoned his Atlanta representative and instructed
him to file a petition for certification of representatives. He left Douglas on
October 1. Before he left, he heard from employees that pressure was being
exerted by Greenwood and Rogosky to force the employees to withdraw from the
Union. He then took steps to have charges of unfair labor practices filed against
respondent.
On October 5, Lynch received word that Gordon was in Douglas. Lynch was
then in Indianapolis. He telephoned Gordon and asked for an answer to his
request for recognition. He summarized the conversation in the following
language:
I asked him for an answer to our request for recognition, and he told me he
had talked to some of the employees and they had told him they didn't want
the,Union and that he couldn't give us answer.
19 These five were Vera O'Steen, Alice Williams , Dannie Burkhalter , J. S. Hadsock, and
W. A. Clements.
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1293
Lynch told Gordon that he would see him the following Monday. However, he
decided to proceed immediately to Douglas.
Lynch had a final interview with Gordon on the afternoon of October 6. His
summary of this conversation is as follows :
I again repeated our request for recognition and Mr. Gordon said that
a majority of the employees had signed a petition withdrawing from the
Union, and that he couldn't recognize the Union, and that question would
have to be decided by the proper Governmental agency.
This conference ended the negotiations between respondent and the Union.
Gordon refused to recognize the Union, claiming that it did not represent
a majority. If respondent had not been guilty of any unfair labor practices
and if the employees had signed the petitions free from any interference by
respondent, Gordon would have been justified in taking the stand that he did
take. However, respondent's supervisory officials, particularly Gordon, had
applied great pressure on their employees to withdraw from the Union. The
evidence is clear that employees signed the petition as a result of respondent's
coercive activities and not of their own free will. Respondent cannot take
advantage of its unfair labor practices to thwart the purpose of the Act 2u
The undersigned finds that on or about October 6, 1944, and at all times there-
after, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Raving found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the polices of the Act.
It has been found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with
the administration of the Committee and has contributed support thereto. Ac-
cordingly, in order to effectuate the polices of the Act, to restore to the employees
the full measure of their rights guaranteed under the Act, and to free them
from the domination and interference, and the effects thereof, which constitute
a continuing obstacle to the exercise by the employees of the rights guaranteed
them by the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent withdraw all
recognition from the Committee as the representatives of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor
disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work,
and to disestablish it as such representative.
It has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit. It will therefore be recommended that respondent upon
request bargain collectively with the Union.
20 N. L. R. B. v Bradford Dyeing Ass'n, 310 U. S 318; N L. R. B. v. P. LoriUZard Co.,
314 U. S 512, N. L R. B. v Blanton Co., 121 F. ( 2d) 564 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Wm.
Tehel Bottling Co., 129 F. ( 2d) 250 (C. C. A. 8).
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organization, and the Committee are labor organizations within the
,meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the administration of the Committee,
and contributing support to it, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (2) of the Act.
4. All employees of the respondent, excluding watchmen, clerical, and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, at
all times material herein constituted, and now,constitute, a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
5. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, CIO, at all times material herein
was, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
6. By refusing on or about October 6, 1944, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with American Federation of Hosiery Workers, CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the
entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent, Douglas
Silk Products Company, Incorporated, its officers, agents, successors and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist, American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 010, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or
other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
(b) Dominating or 'interfering with the administration of the Committee, or
with the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its em-
ployees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions. of work ;
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit. -
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
DOUGLAS SILK PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1295
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the Committee as the representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or condi-
tions of work, and completely disestablish the Committee as such representative ;
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all its employees, excluding
watchmen, clerical, and all supervisory employees, as afore-mentioned;
(c) Post at its plant, at Douglas, Georgia, copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report, herein, marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(d) File with the Regional Director for the Second Region on or before ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of-this Intermediate Report, a report in
writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent
has complied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
Nationaal Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writ-
ing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
SIDNEY L. FELLER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 11, 1945.
APPENDIX A
;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 National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We hereby disestablish The Committee as the representative of any of
our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any successor thereto
for any of the above purposes.
We will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
We will bargain collectively upon request with the American Federation
of Hosiery Workers, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours
of employment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is: All employees of the respondent in its Douglas,
Georgia plant, exclusive of watchmen, clerical, and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action.
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named recognized representative or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free to become
or remain members of this union or any other labor organization.
DOUGLAS MLR; PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
By----------------------------
Dated ------------------------
(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.