Dovedown Hosiery Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1592 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten, harass, engage in surveillance of, or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce the employees of the above-named
or any other employer, in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
SOUTHERN DETECTivES, INC,,
Employer.
By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ----------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix D
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, I hereby notify employees of the National Paper Company that:
I WILL NOT threaten, harass, engage in surveillance of, or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce the employees of the above-named
or any other employer, in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
JAMES M. FIER
By-------------------
Dated------------------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC., D/B/A DOVEDOWN HOSIERY MILLS and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC., D/B/A DOvEDOWN HOSIERY MILLS and
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-
1003 and 10-CA-1039. February $4,1953
Decision and Order
On July 7,1952, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
102 NLRB No. 165.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1593
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair
labor practices, but failed to recommend dismissal of these allegations.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusion,
and recommendations, with the following exceptions, additions, and
modifications : 1
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent inde-
pendently violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the following acts
of interrogation and threats of economic reprisal: (1) Superintendent
Donehoo's questioning of employee Rickels as to whether he belonged
to the Union; (2) Donehoo's questioning of employee Ackiss as to
whether he had any knowledge of the Union; (3) Donehoo's requesting
employee Brooks for a description of the union organizer to whom
Brooks had given an authorization card; 2 (4) Donehoo's statements
to some employees that, in the event the Union won the election, there
would be a cut in the piece rate and an elimination of time work; S and
(5) General Manager Shapard's threat that, before he would undergo
another strike, he would close his mill and go back to farming.'
2. The Trial Examiner found that Superintendent Carr had been
discharged for failure to report, as requested by Shapard, on the union
3 The Intermediate Report contains certain misstatements of fact and inadvertences,
none of which affects the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclusions or our concurrence therein.
Accordingly we note the following corrections : ( 1) The Trial Examiner states that em-
ployees Bogan and Bennett complained to Carr who in turn reported the matter to Shapard.
The record shows that these employees spoke directly to both Carr and Sbapard , and that
Carr did not report this matter to Shapard ; ( 2) the Trial Examiner states that Shapard
devised a plan whereby one knitter with the aid of a helper would operate two machines.
The record reveals that the idea for this plan originated with Carr.
2 Such a request has an inherently restraining effect on employees and we have con-
sistently held it to be a per se violation of the Act. See Jacksonville Motors, Inc., et at.,
88 NLRB 181; Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Co., fib NLRB 135$.
3 Taylor Manufacturing Co., Inc., 83 NLRB 142 ; Florida Telephone Corp., 88 NLRB 1429.
The Respondent contends that the testimony of employees Tingle , Belk , and Hubbard cor-
roborates Donehoo's denial that he made such statements . We have considered such testi-
mony and we find that it neither contradicts the Trial Examiner 's finding nor our
concurrence therein. Nowhere in the record does Tingle deny that Donehoo made the
statements attributed to him. Belk could not recall being present at the locale where the
statements were alleged to have been made. Hubbard was uncertain as to whether he
was at that locale and as to what was said.
A The Respondent challenged the crebility findings of the Trial Examiner with regard
to a number of the 8 (a) (1) violations . We do not overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolu-
tions as to credibility except where the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence
convinces us that the Trial Examiner's resolution was incorrect. Valentine Sugars, Inc.,
et al., 102 NLRB 313 ,. In the present case, we cannot say, on the basis of the record,
that this finding of the Trial Examiner is of such a character.
1594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizational activities of the employees, and that such discharge
was a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We disagree.
Numerous explanations were given by the Respondent as to why
Carr had been discharged. Indeed, the Trial Examiner accepted the
fact that one of these reasons, an apparently deliberate lie by Carr to
Shapard, the Respondent's representative to whom Carr was respon-
sible, might normally have provoked a supervisor's discharge.'
Although certain inferences may be drawn in support of the Trial
Examiner 's finding of illegal motivation, the record considered as a
whole fails to support by a preponderance of the evidence, the Trial
Examiner's finding that Carr was discharged for failure to keep
Shapard advised of the employees' organizational activities.6 Accord-
ingly, we find that Carr's discharge did not constitute a violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act?
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Griffin Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
d/b/a Dovedown Hosiery Mills, Griffin, Georgia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership
or activities; threatening its employees with economic reprisal or with
any changes in working conditions if they should select the Textile
Workers Union of America, CIO, or any other labor organization to
represent them in collective bargaining; and threatening to close its
mills in order to discourage unionization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
6 See Valentine Sugars, Inc, et al, supra, where the Board held a lie by an individual
In the course of his employment was sufficient to warrant his discharge In addition, it
may be noted that , as observed by the Trial Examiner , there is uncontradicted evidence
in the record to the effect that Carr had engaged in prounion activity , which conduct, if
also found to be the motivating cause of the Respondent 's action, would in itself justify
Carr's discharge . N. L. It. B. v. Edward G. Budd Mfg . Co., 169 F. 2d 571 (C A. 6), cert.
denied 335 U. S 908.
G Member Murdock is unable to agree that the record does not support the Trial Exam.
Iner 's finding that Shapard discharged Carr because of the latter 's failure to keep Shapard
advised of the progress of the Union in the plant. However, consistent with his dissent
In H. N. Thayer, 99 NLRB 1122 , he would not find a discharge for that reason a violation
of the Act where ( as in that case and the Instant case ) the supervisor has not been
directed to use unlawful means to obtain the desired information , and it does not appear
that the instructions were intended to encompass the use of unlawful means
7F. W. Woolworth Co., 101 NLRB 1457; see also U. S. Phosphoric Products Division,
Tennessee Corp, 99 NLRB 654.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1595
tion, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and to refrain from any
or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its mill in Griffin, Georgia, copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked "Appendix A." 8 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and main-
tained 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.
(b) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraphs 5, 7, and 10 of the complaint
be dismissed in their entirety for lack of proof, and so much of para-
graph 6 of the complaint dealing with alleged interrogation by
Shapard and Ross be dismissed for lack of proof.
8In 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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 61 Stat . 136 (herein called the Act ), was heard in Griffin , Georgia, on
October 22, 23, and 24 , 1951, pursuant to due notice to all parties . The com-
plaint, issued on September 28, 1951, by the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board ,' and based on charges duly filed and served , alleged in
substance that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by (a) discharging Cecil L. Carr and thereafter
refusing to reinstate him; (b ) interrogating its employees concerning their
union membership and activities ; ( c) requesting certain employees to gather
information on the union for the plant management ; ( d) warning its employees
that if the Union won a Board-conducted election economic reprisals would be
imposed ; and (e ) threatening its employees that the plant would be closed if
the employees engaged in union activities . In its answer, duly filed , the Re-
'The General Counsel and his representative at the hearing are referred to herein as
the General Counsel and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board. The above-
named Company is referred to as Respondent and the Textile Workers Union of America,
CIO, as the Union.
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations but
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented at the hearing by
counsel and the Union by its field representatives. At the outset of the hearing
a motion to sequester the witnesses, made by the General Counsel and unopposed
by the Respondent, was granted. All parties were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evi-
dence, to argue orally and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions.
Oral argument was had by the General Counsel. Subsequent to the close of the
bearing, counsel for the Respondent submitted an able brief which has been
carefully considered by the Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Georgia corporation, maintaining its principal office and
place of business at Griffin, Georgia, herein called the Dovedown plant, is en-
gaged in the manufacture and sale of full-fashioned hosiery. The Respondent's
annual purchases of raw materials and supplies are valued in excess of $230,000,
approximately 90 percent of which is purchased outside the State of Georgia, and
shipped in interstate commerce to the Dovedown plant. Its annual sales of
full-fashioned hosiery manufactured there are valued in excess of $500,000, ap-
proximately 75 percent of which is shipped in interstate commerce to customers
outside the State of Georgia. Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes,
and I find, that the Griffin Hosiery Mills, Inc., d/b/a Dovedown Hosiery Mills,
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and sequence of events
For several years the Respondent bargained with the American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, and its predecessor, Textile Workers Organizing Committee,
after the certification of the latter in 1939 as the bargaining representative of its
production and maintenance employees. Insofar as the record indicates, the
first contract between that union and the Respondent was consummated in
1945. A 10-week strike occurred at the mill that year and later, in June 1948
the employees went on strike again. The latter strike continued until June
1949. Although the plant remained closed for some time after the initiation of
the strike in 1948 it reopened in the fall of that year and soon thereafter ac-
quired a full complement of employees. In a subsequent representation pro-
ceeding the Board found that the Hosiery Workers had disclaimed interest in
all the employees eligible to vote in an election and, accordingly, dismissed a
decertification petition. Griffin Hosiery Mills, Inc., d/b/a Dovedown Hosiery
Mills and Alton Ross, Case 10-RD-41.
Early in March 1950 certain of the employees initiated an organizational move-
ment on behalf of the Textile Workers Union of America, CIO. Shortly after
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1597
this campaign began the Respondent discharged its plant superintendent. Cecil
1. Carr. On March 24, that Union, the Respondent, and the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region of the Board entered into an agreement for consent election.
On April 5 this election was held. Out of approximately 52 eligible voters, there
were 24 votes for the Union, 26 against the Union, and 2 challenged ballots.
Later, on February 7, 1951, after consideration of objections filed by the Union,
the Regional Director set aside the election of April 5.
Prior to the initiation of this case there had been no other charges filed
against the Company which had resulted in the issuance of a complaint and
a formal hearing on any alleged unfair labor practices.
B. The dismissal of Carr
Cecil L. Carr first went to work for the Respondent in 1922. Except for one
short period thereafter he remained in the Respondent's employ from then
until his discharge on March 9, 1950. In 1943 Carr was promoted to foreman on
the second shift, later he became the head fixer and in November 1948, Evander
Shapard, III, vice president and general manager of the Respondent, made Carr
superintendent of the mill, a position which Carr held from that time until his
dismissal.
The General Counsel alleged that Carr was discharged for failing to report on
the union activities of the Company's employees. This was denied by the Re-
spondent. In its answer, the Respondent set forth, by way of an affirmative
defense, that Carr was discharged solely because of dissatisfaction with his
handling of the mill which arose out of a conviction reached by the management
that the hiring and firing of female employees at the mill had been determined
by Carr on the basis of personal preferences and prejudices instead of efficiency ;
that Carr was guilty of deliberate misrepresentation to Shapard ; and that there
existed between Carr and Claude Donehoo, second in authority to Carr, a degree
of antagonism which was resulting in dissension among the employees.
The General Counsel endeavored to prove that Shapard, as general manager
and vice president of the Company, was strongly opposed to any union attempts
at organizing the mill, that he relied on Carr to carry out this policy and when
it appeared that Carr had not kept him fully informed as to the extent of an
organizational drive by the Union in March 1950, and had failed to interfere
with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent summarily dismissed him.
Carr credibly testified' that after the decertification proceedings in 1949
Shapard told him he did not want a union back in the plant, and instructed him
not to hire anyone who had been out on strike. Carr further testified that on
various occasions thereafter Shapard asked if he had heard any of the employees
discussing a union and when Carr replied in the negative Shapard told him
"Well, if you ever hear or see anything about the Union, get them out one way
or the other." Later, several of the ex-strikers applied to Carr for work but
Carr told them he could not hire them, that they would have to get the approval
of Shapard. At the time Carr rejected these applicants there was work avail-
9 As is often the situation in cases of this character, the record abounds in conflicting
testimony. Moreover, in resolving these conflicts, on the basis of my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses and an analysis of the record, I have concluded that the testi-
mony of several of the principal witnesses in the case can not be credited in toto. Conse-
quently, it will appear hereinafter that the testimony of certain witnesses has been credited
in part and rejected in part. Thus, Carr, although in general a credible witness , was not
such as to several matters covered at the hearing. These incidents are discussed below.
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
able for them' Later, in November 1949, Edna Kinard, a former employee whose
husband had been on strike, applied to Carr for a job. At the time there was an
opening available for which she was qualified. Carr referred her to Shapard.
Carr himself subsequently asked Shapard whether he would give any thought
to hiring her since she was the wife of one of the strikers. Shapard made it
clear that the latter fact made her ineligible and that she should not even be
considered.'
In July 1949 two of the knitters, Leon Bogan and John Bennett, complained
to Carr regarding the piece rate then in effect at the mill. On reporting this
matter to Shapard the latter told Carr to get rid of the two because if a union
came back to the plant they would be at the head of it' Carr then spoke to
each of the knitters individually, and told them that those not satisfied with
their working conditions should quit. In January 1950, Shapard asked both
Carr and Claude E. Donehoo, the head fixer, whether they had heard Bogan
say anything about a union and when they replied in the negative Shapard
told them he understood Bogan had attempted to contact an organizer a short
while before.' Late in 1949 or early in 1950 Carr hired one Jack Waits, as an
apprentice knitter. Immediately thereafter, Davis Williams, secretary-treas-
urer of the mill, telephoned Carr to ask whether Carr realized that Waits'
father was a "ringleader of the CIO at Crompton-Highland," a nearby mill.
Carr assured Williams that he had known Waits a long while and had never
heard him say a thing about the union.'
In the fall of 1949 Shapard devised a plan whereby one knitter with the aid
of a helper would operate two machines, a job that normally would require two
journeymen knitters. Once the details of the plan became known to the knit-
ters it was not well received. One evening in October, Shapard asked Carr to
accompany him to the mill. There Shapard told the employees about his plan
for using one knitter for the operation of two machines. The knitters mani-
fested their opposition and told Shapard that his plan was impractical. When
it became apparent that they were opposed to the plan Shapard told the em-
ployees he would drop it and that "before he would have trouble like he did
before . . . [referring to the strike] he would close the plant down, go back to
Arkansas."'
8 Carr testified that among these applicants were ex-exployees named Land , Kimball,
Falkner, and Holt. Respondent offered evidence that at least Land and Falkner were
back in its employ at the time of the hearing . There was no evidence offered, however,
as to whom they were rehired Shapard testified that he could not recall ever telling Carr
not to hire any knitters who had been out on strike , but his testimony in this connection
was not convincing.
4 The foregoing finding is based on Carr's credited , undenied testimony . Carr's testi-
mony in connection with Shapard 's attitude toward those employees who had been out
on strike and toward labor unions generally was corroborated by the frank and forth-
right testimony of Audrey Jackson.
3 This finding is based upon Carr's credited testimony . Shapard could not recall having
made any such remarks.
6 This finding is based on the credited , undenied testimony of Carr
T Waits was never dismissed and was still in the Respondent 's employ at the time of
the hearing . The above finding is based on the credited testimony of Carr Williams, who
impressed the Examiner as a frank and honest witness, testified that although he might
have had such a conversation with Carr he had no recollection of it.
"The quotation is from the credited testimony of George W. Carson. one of the knitters
present Carr and David Chambers testified to the same effect According to Carr,
Shapard declared on this occasion that "before he would let the mill get messed up with
a union he would shut the mill down and go back to his farm in Arkansas ." Sbapard de-
nied that he made any such threat and several of the knitters present at this meeting
likewise denied bearing Shapard make any such remark as that attributed to him by
Carson, Carr, and Chambers.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1599
Subsequent to this incident, according to Carr, he told Shapard that no one
could satisfy the Company, that he, Carr, was going to quit, that Shapard then
begged him to remain, that as a result Carr promised to stay until Christmas,
and that later, when Shapard asked him to stay beyond that time, he did so.
Shapard, on the other hand, testified that after the meeting with the knitters Carr
conceded that he had not handled the situation properly and offered to resign.
According to Shapard, he urged Carr to remain until Christmas and at that
time, no replacement having been found, he asked Carr to forget about the
whole matter and stay on. To the Examiner, Carr's version of this incident
is the more credible and is accepted.
In the fall of 1949 the Respondent began the installation in the Dovedown mill
of new type, 60-gauge knitting machines. Donehoo, as the head fixer, was
responsible for their maintenance. It appears that the first of these new models
had certain mechanical defects which made it difficult to keep them in operation.
Since the knitters were paid on a piece-rate basis, time lost for maintenance of
the machine was reflected in the daily wage. On the other hand, the 60-gauge
machine offered greater earning potentialities for the knitters since its output,
when operating efficiently, was considerably higher than an older type, 45-gauge
machine, still in use at the mill. J. D. Woodruff was at the top of the seniority
list among the knitters, having been one of the first to return to work during the
strike in 1948. Consequently, he was assigned to operate the first 60-gauge
machine which the mill installed. The mechanical difficulties experienced by
Woodruff in its operation, and Donehoo's failure to solve them, however, caused
Woodruff to ask that Carr transfer him back to an older type machine. Carr
did this by permitting Robert Bennett, who was then operating a 45-gauge
machine, and Woodruff to exchange places. Shortly thereafter, Woodruff was
once again dissatisfied and became concerned as to whether he could return to
the 60-gauge machine or whether he had lost seniority in his exchange with
Bennett. Carr testified that several times prior to March 9 Woodruff asked that
Carr speak to Shapard to determine how much seniority he still had. It appears
that Carr never spoke to Shapard about this matter.
On about March 3, 1950, Woodruff contacted W. F. Barker, field representative
of the Union in Griffin. He told Barker the employees were interested in a
union because Donehoo, the head fixer, was unable to keep the machines in
working order and much dissatisfaction had arisen since blame for the resultant
poor work was borne by the knitters The following day Woodruff revealed
his plans to Carr. According to the latter's testimony, Woodruff said to him
at that time :
Doe,9 a bunch of the boys has got together and says they are going to put
the mill in your hands where you can run it like a man ought to run it, see
that every man gets a fair deal. And I said if there was anything I could do
to help the mill get straightened out, I said, I appreciate that the men feel
that way. He said, "No it has got too big for you . . . It will take a union
to stop Donehoo and Shapard."
Woodruff and two other employees returned to the union hall on March 6 at
which time Barker gave them a supply of authorization cards for distribution
among their coworkers. On the following day enough signed cards were returned
to Barker to support a representation petition. On March 8 Barker met with
Woodruff and several of the other employees who were most active in the cam-
paign. The group decided at that time to petition the Board for an election.
Shortly after the meeting disbanded Barker received a telephone call from
*This was the name by which Carr appears to have been known by all personnel at the
mill.
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Woodruff in which the latter asked that the filing of the representation petition
be delayed on the ground that it appeared that some of the trouble at the mill
was going to be remedied. Woodruff refused to give any details, however, and
Barker told him that unless he could offer some concrete reason for not doing
so the petition would be filed the next day. On March 9 Barker filed the Petition.
The following day be wrote the Respondent, requesting that the Union be recog-
nized . This request was received by the Company on March 11.
When Shapard came to the mill on the morning of March 7 he told Carr that
during the night he had received a call at his home from a former employee who
reported that 16 or 17 of the Dovedown employees had joined a union . Carr told
him that he felt the report was without foundation and suggested that the inform-
ant was an ex-striker who was merely attempting to annoy him.10 Shapard
expressed doubt as to this attitude and told Carr "if they are organizing there
must be some friction out here and I would certainly like to get that cleared
up . . . I would appreciate it if you would find out if there is any friction out
there, and if they are organizing you will probably hear it and I would love
to know about it." 11
On the afternoon of March 8 one of the knitters, Billy G. Brooks, told Carr
that 16 or 17 employees had joined the Union. Later that day, Brooks gave the
same information to Shapard and left Shapard with a card bearing the name of
C. V. McClain, one of the organizers .12 After receiving this information from
Brooks, Carr testified that he relayed it to Shapard. The latter then asked
whether there were any employees to whom they might talk about the matter.
Carr proposed J. D. Woodruff and Robert Bennett. According to Carr, he
suggested those two "because they knew what the grievance or trouble was in
the mill and I thought they would tell him." It developed, however, that neither
of these employees was available at the time."
That evening Carr returned to the mill. Shapard was there at the time, talk-
ing with a group of knitters in the men's dressing room ; Brooks was nearby.
When the employees returned to work, Shapard showed his superintendent the
business card which Brooks had received from McClain and asked whether Carr
had seen and talked with any of the other knitters. Carr told him that he
had not. Shapard then suggested "Let's go home and pray over it tonight." 34
10 Hubert Anderson, the informant who called Shapard, was in fact one of the employees
who had gone on strike in June 1948 and had never been reemployed. He testified that
after learning that an organizational drive had started at the Dovedown mill , he called
Shapard because he did not feel the personnel then employed there, whom he described
as strikebreakers, deserved a union.
31 The quotation is from the credited testimony of Shapard . The testimony of both Carr
and Shapard was not in conflict as to this conversation.
12 The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Carr and Brooks The
latter was called as a witness for both the General Counsel and the Respondent. In this
connection another issue should be mentioned. As a witness for the General Counsel,
Brooks testified that at the time he gave Shapard the organizer's card Shapard asked for
no Information on the Union. Later, when called as a witness for the Respondent, he re-
iterated that testimony. On cross-examination, however, the General Counsel produced
an affidavit which Brooks had given the field examiner In which he stated that "Shapard
told me to let him know anything more that I found out about the Union." While freely
conceding that he had signed the affidavit, Brooks testified that he could not recall any
request from Shapard that he report on the employees in the mill. I have considered the
passage from this affidavit which was offered at the hearing only with respect to the matter
of Brooks' credibility. It has not served as the basis for any Independent finding of fact.
Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co., 185 F. 2d 285, 289 (C. A. 2) cert. denied,
342 U. S. 812.
18 The above findings are based on the credited testimony of Carr ; Shapard could not
recall this Incident.
1* Shapard testified that on the evening of March 8 Carr assured him that rumors of
friction and dissatisfaction among employees at the mill were groundless.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1601
Shapard testified that while he was still at the Respondent's downtown office,fs
on the morning of March 9, Carr came to tell him that there was a union in the
mill, that certain of the employees did in fact have a grievance and, further,
that Woodruff and Bennett had told Carr that they had been to see Shapard
about their difficulties in the mill but that he had done nothing, as a result of
which they had decided to take matters in their own hands. Shapard testified
that this was the first time that Carr reported to him that there was any dis-
satisfaction in the mill's According to Shapard he immediately went to the
Dovedown mill where, in talks with Bennett and Woodruff, he asked whether they
bad told Carr that they had been to see Shapard about difficulties in the mill and
had received no satisfaction from him. Both, according to Shapard, stated that
they had never done so. Shapard testified that Woodruff volunteered the infor-
mation that he was organizing a union . Shapard then called on Carr to join him
and Woodruff. According to both Carr and Woodruff, Shapard then asked Wood-
ruff whether there was any trouble in the mill. The latter replied, "I can't tell
you what the trouble is in the mill . . . we are getting organized . . . we are get-
ting organized to help you." 14 Shapard, according to the other two present, be-
came very nervous and disturbed at this point, and exclaimed, "that is what they
said before . . . that is what they said before." Carr then asked Woodruff
whether the men were satisfied with their jobs and the rate of pay and Woodruff
replied in the affirmative. Shapard, however, testified that in his conversation he
again asked Woodruff whether he and Bennett had told Carr that they had made a
futile visit to Shapard's office about difficulties in the mill . Shapard testified that
Woodruff denied once more that he ever made such a statement and that Carr then
"spit and sputtered and stammered and turned white and says `I must have
misunderstood you."' As to this last phase of the conversation, Woodruff cor-
roborated Shapard in large measure . Although Carr denied that Shapard had,
in his presence, interrogated Woodruff in connection with any alleged prior visit
to Shapard's office by Woodruff and Bennett, his denial was not convincing.
Carr himself testified that on the preceding afternoon he had suggested that
Shapard join him in talking with Woodruff and Bennett to discover the source
of any trouble or dissatisfaction in the mill which might explain employee
interest in organizing a union. Whether this had led to a misunderstanding on
Shapard's part or whether Carr had, in fact, told Shapard the story on the
morning of March 9 concerning which the latter testified , is difficult to determine
from this record. Although neither Shapard nor Woodruff impressed me as
being entirely credible witnesses, I am satisfied that Shapard, whether cor-
rectly or otherwise, understood from Carr that Woodruff and Bennett had re-
ported an unavailing effort to get Shapard interested in their difficulties.
About 1 p. in. that afternoon Woodruff asked Carr as to the whereabouts of
Shapard. Carr located the general manager at the downtown office and told him
that Woodruff wanted to see him. Shapard came to the Dovedown mill imme-
diately and sought out Woodruff. The two of them then departed in Shapard's
automobile for a period of over an hour. Both Shapard and Woodruff denied
that on this occasion Woodruff told Shapard that on the preceding Saturday he
had disclosed his organizational plans to Carr. These denials, however, were
15 This office was located some distance from the Dovedown mill and at another plant
operated by the Respondent in the city of Griffin.
19 Carr was asked no questions about having been to see 8hapard at the Respondent's
downtown office early on the morning of March 9. At no time did he deny that he had
made such a visit. On cross-examination , Carr testified that it was not until the day before
his discharge [March 8] that he "knew the union was in the mill."
11 The quotation is from Carr's credited testimony.
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
most unpersuasive." At 3: 30 p. in., Shapard returned to the mill and asked that
Carr report to the downtown office at 4: 30 p. in.
When Carr arrived at the appointed hour, Shapard and the Respondent' s secre-
tary-treasurer, Davis Williams, were waiting for him. The meeting was very
brief. According to Carr, as he entered the office, Shapard declared "I went to
Bob Bennett this morning and he said there wasn't any trouble in the mill .. .
Woodruff also told me . . . there wasn't any trouble in the mill . . . they tell
me you know all about the union and I am going to let you go." Carr's testimony
was corroborated by that of the Respondent's secretary-treasurer. According to
Williams, Shapard stated, "I am going to have to let you go, Doc. I just learned
you knew all about Deedy" and them others." 20 Carr did not wait to hear any-
thing further and immediately left the room.
After Carr's departure Donehoo replaced him as superintendent. On the
morning of March 9 Donehoo had asked Henry J. Rickels, a knitter on the first
shift, if he belonged to the Union. Rickels replied in the negative. Donehoo then
stated that he had heard rumors that Rickels had joined, and the employee con-
ceded that that was, in fact, the case. Donehoo then remarked that he had like-
wise heard rumors that Carr was "trying to get the union in." n On March 12,
Donehoo visited Carr at his home. During the course of a conversation which
they had at this time concerning Carr's dismissal, Donehoo told him that he had
been withholding union information and was not a loyal company man.'
During the week of March 13, Shapard gave a short speech to the employees
as to his reasons for discharging Carr. Shapard testified that he told the men
that he had let Carr go for misrepresenting Woodruff and Bennett "and for other
things." Several of the employees present testified that Shapard described Carr
as a good superintendent who did his work well "until the lying came up" and
one, Brooks, credibly testified that Shapard told the employees that he
... had caught Doc in a lie, was the reason he fired him ; said he couldn't
work a man that told him a lie on his job and that was what hap-
pened . . . ; He claimed that Doc knew about the union and hadn't told him,
and he found that [Carr] had known, and he asked Mr. Carr about the
Union, and he claimed Mr. Carr said he didn't.20
1" Woodruff testified that he wanted to see Shapard on this occasion because he felt he
should "tell him why we was organizing . He [Shapard ] didn't even know ." Although
Woodruff had been one of the prime movers in the initial effort to organize the mill, it is
apparent that at some point during the week of March 6 he began to doubt the need for
completing the campaign he had started . Woodruff's action in seeking out Shapard to
explain why the employees were organizing is at least enigmatical in view of other testi-
mony he gave in which he stated that "we all figured that if they [ the Company ] knowed
about it we probably would get fired."
11 This was the name by which Woodruff appears to have been known among his fellow
employees.
20 Shapard denied Carr 's version of events and testified that he said "Doc, I am going to
have to let you go for misrepresenting . . . Woodruff and . . . Bennett, and you knew it
all the time . And other things." The testimony of Carr and Williams as to the conversa-
tion at this meeting was the more persuasive and I credit it.
21 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Rickels who impressed the
Examiner as a thoroughly reliable witness . Donehoo at first denied Rickels' testimony
and asserted that the employee had asked for his ( Donehoo's) advice on the Union. Most
of Donehoo's testimony in this connection, however, was contradicted by an affidavit which
he had given some months before, and by his later testimony on cross-examination. In the
light of these facts and from my observation of Donehoo while he testified I consider
Rickels the more credible and so find.
22 This finding is based on the credited , un'enied testimony of Carr.
23 At the time Brooks gave the foregoing testimony he was appearing as a witness for
the Respondent.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1603
At the hearing Shapard gave several reasons for his ultimate decision to dis-
charge Carr: (1) "that lie quit two or three times"; (2) that he was dissatisfied
with the manner in which Carr had handled the proposal to have one knitter
operate two machines; (3) that he understood Carr had dismissed two of the
women working at the mill for refusing to "date" him; (4) that Carr and Done-
hoo did not get along together; and (5) that Carr had misrepresented Woodruff
and Bennett.
Although Shapard referred to Carr's having quit "two or three times," there
is evidence in the record of only one instance in which Carr declared that he
was leaving the mill-the occasion in October 1949 when Shapard had proposed
to have each knitter operate more than one machine. Despite the likelihood
Shapard may have been dissatisfied with Carr's disposition of this matter it is
apparent from Shapard's own testimony that he made every effort both then and
later to induce Carr to remain at the plant as his mill superintendent.
Shapard testified that on the morning of March 9 he decided to reexamine
the cases of two employees whom Carr had dismissed. These were Lucille
Flint and Elisha O'Neal zi Carr had discharged Flint the preceding November.
Shapard testified that on the morning of March 9 he recalled that shortly after
her discharge Donehoo told him that Carr had fired Mrs . Flint because she
had refused to "date" him. According to Shapard, he relayed Donehoo's remarks
to Carr and the latter said at the time "That is just Claude and his wife trying
to frame me." Carr was not asked whether he had heard of such a remark by
his colleague. He denied ever having heard from Shapard that Mrs. Flint had
alleged that she was dismissed for refusing to pay any attention to Carr out-
side the mill. Carr credibly testified that subsequent to her discharge Shapard
told him that Mrs. Flint had called him to complain about her dismissal but
that he had told her that if Carr had discharged her he had done so for a good
reason and refused to discuss the matter any further.' Although it is obvious
that in November and at the time of her dismissal Shapard displayed no ap-
parent concern about the matter, on March 9 Shapard and his attorney sought
out Mrs. Flint, then working at another mill, to question her concerning the
circumstances of her discharge. Shapard conceded that on this occasion she
stated that Carr had never asked her for a "date." 26
Mrs. O'Neal was discharged on March 8 or 9.14 Carr had hired her as an
inspector the preceding December. At various times after coming to the mill
she borrowed a total of $60 from him. About a week before her discharge Carr
asked when she intended to make repayment. Shortly thereafter O'Neal called
on Shapard to tell him that "unless I date Doc . . . I will be fired " 28 Carr
testified that on about March 7, Shapard told him of O'Neal's visit. That eve-
ning Carr told Shapard that in view of her attempts to circumvent his author-
ity by going to the general manager "the mill is not big enough for me and
24 At the time of the hearing Mrs. O'Neal had remarried and was then known as Mrs.
Elisha Ford. She is referred to by the latter name in portions of the transcript.
The Respondent offered some testimony to prove that Mrs. Flint's work had been
satisfactory and could have had no connection with her discharge. On the other hand,
it is clear, particularly in view of the wholly credible testimony of Pascal Moore, one of the
other supervisors, who at Carr's request inspected Mrs. Flint's work prior to her dismissal,
that she had been deficient.
1e Mrs Flint was called as a witness. She Impressed the Examiner as being forthright
and unevasive. She conceded that Carr had never asked her for a "date."
24 Carr testified that he discharged her on March S ; Shapard and Mrs. O'Neal testified
that it was March 9.
28 The quotation is from Shapard's testimony.
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M rs. O'Neal both" and that he planned to discharge her the next morning.
Shapard agreed with this decision.R°
Shapard testified that shortly before O'Neal's discharge Donehoo told him
that Cart was going to fire her unless she "dated" Carr ; that, later, he relayed
Donehoo's conversation to Carr and that the latter replied "That is Claude
Donehoo trying to frame me." Shapard then declared "That being the case,
if it is true, fire them both [Claude Donehoo and Verlie Donehoo, his wife, like-
wise an employee of the mill]. I don't want that kind of people in the mill .. .
I told him if it would make it any easier on him to keep them from running to
me when he fired them, I would be glad to leave town. And he said that wouldn't
be necessary."
Carr's testimony corroborated most of Shapard's on this point. Thus accord-
ing to Carr : On about March 7 or 8 Shapard told him that he wanted Claude
and Verlie Donehoo discharged, and at first suggested that if it would make the
matter any easier for Carr to accomplish , he, Shapard would leave town for a
few days. After a moment's further reflection, however, Shapard asked that
Carr take no action until Shapard had an opportunity to confer with the Respond-
ent's counsel. Shapard then did this and a short while later stated that Mr.
Cumming, his attorney, had suggested that Carr and Donehoo sit down at a
table and "get this trouble ironed out here in the mill." Shapard added, how-
ever, that he disagreed with this suggestion, and could not follow such a pro-
posal because "the things Claude said about you would cause trouble." At the
hearing Carr disclaimed any knowledge of the reason for Shapard's suggestion
that the Donehoos be fired. This professed lack of knowledge is very difficult
for me to believe. Under the circumstances present here I am convinced that
Shapard's explanation as to the background for his suggestion that the Donehoos
be discharged is credible. I so find. Carr freely conceded that Mrs. O'Neal was
efficient and, although denying that he had ever asked her for "dates," '0 he
placed his decision to discharge her on a purely personal basis, i. e., her attempt
to thwart his authority in the mills by asking that Shapard dismiss him. It is
likewise apparent that, at the time, her elimination on this ground was satis-
factory to Shapard.
The evidence as to the working relations between Carr and Donehoo was
rather inconclusive. The two men had known each other and worked together
at the Respondent's mill for almost 30 years. At the hearing Donehoo testified
that he had never had a "falling out" with Carr, and Carr declared that, insofar
as he knew, "Claude was my good friend the day I was fired." Shapard referred
to what he described as a "time or two" when Donehoo had spoken to him about
friction between him and Carr and there is, of course, the testimony about the
occasion on March 7 or 8 when Shapard suggested that both Donehoo and his
wife be dropped.
It is undisputed that prior to Carr's dismissal the employees had never con-
sidered Carr as a union adherent or as one who was sympathetic toward organ-
ized labor. Nor had he at that time engaged in any campaign work for the
Union. It was likewise undisputed that subsequent to his dismissal Carr became
an active proponent of the Union in its drive to organize the Dovedown em-
ployees. Carr himself testified that after March 9 he induced most of the
employees who were still nonmembers to sign authorization cards. In a con-
"This finding is based on Carr's credited testimony. Shapard conceded that he may
have given his assent to Mrs. O'Neal's discharge and that he "believed" that he knew of
the proposed dismissal before it was put into effect.
80 As to this, Carr's testimony was convincing. Mrs. O'Neal's account, on the other
hand, consisted largely of argumentative inuendo that was not entitled, in the opinion of
the Examiner, to any credence.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC. 1605
versation with Donehoo during this period Carr told him that he would endeavor
to organize the mill 100 percent."
Carr, in fact, learned of the employees' plans to organize at the outset but he
did not reveal this information to Shapard. He later told Donehoo that he had
never disclosed it to Shapard because he had promised Woodruff to keep the
matter confidential." Woodruff credibly testified that one day during the same
week that Carr was discharged he discussed with the superintendent the matter
of the Union's filing a representation petition and that Carr hold him not to
file it because "something was happening." 3 Woodruff asked that Carr let
him know when it could be filed. Later Carr told him to "go ahead if I wanted
to." " It was at about this same time that Shapard first suggested that Carr
discharge both Claude and Verlie Donehoo and then, a short while thereafter,
changed his mind.
Concluding Findings
The testimony about an accumulation of complaints against Carr which arose
prior to March 9 does not appear adequate to explain Carr's discharge on the
grounds advanced by the Respondent. Moreover, although it is clear that on
March 9 Shapard may have felt that Carr had misled him as to Woodruff and
Bennett, whether through a misunderstanding or otherwise, and even though
under normal circumstances this might have provoked a supervisor' s discharge,
I do not feel that in this case it was the motivating factor for Carr' s summary
dismissal.
Shapard may not have been "an anti-union ogre," to borrow a phrase from the
Respondent's brief, but it is patent that he was not looking forward to the
unionization of his mill with any enthusiasm. When Shapard first heard that
the union might be organizing the employees he told Carr that since Carr would
"probably hear it" he, in turn, would like to know about it. At the outset of the
movement Carr had, in fact, learned of this employee sentiment from Woodruff.
Throughout the course of the succeeding days, however, he did not disclose this
information to Shapard. On March 9, Shapard heard from Woodruff that the
employees were organizing a union. I am convinced that in a subsequent meeting
with Woodruff that afternoon, Shapard learned that Carr had been apprised
of Woodruff's efforts from the beginning. He thereupon notified Carr to report
to his office and then told him he was being discharged because Shapard had
"just learned you know all about [Woodruff] and them others." Later in speak-
ing to the employees, as found above, Shapard declared that he "had caught Doc
in a lie . . . that Doc knew about the union and hadn't told him, and he found
that [Carr] had known, and he asked Mr. Carr about the union, and he claimed
Mr. Carr said he didn't." In the light of the foregoing, I am convinced and
find that the primary reason for Carr's sudden dismissal was his failure to keep
81 One employee, Lawrence Miller, testified that Carr told him that if he was reinstated
"anyone that didn't go along with the Union, he was going to let them go." This was
denied by Carr. Miller was an unimpressive witness and his testimony was not convincing.
In view of these circumstances, Carr's denial is credited.
82 This finding is based upon Doneiioo's credited, undenied testimony concerning a meeting
he had with Carr subsequent to the latter' s dismissal.
82 Carr testified that he told Woodruff to "hold up on whatever they had started."
81 Woodruff's testimony in connection with these events was not in conflict with that of
Carr. Woodruff did not recall the exact day of these conversations, other than that they
took place during the same week that Carr was discharged. Woodruff testified that the
union organizers wanted him to call them about the petition Barker testified that
Woodruff called him on March 8 to ask that he delay the filing of the petition because
some new development had arisen. From these facts it is my conclusion that the conversa-
tion with Carr, referred to above, took place on March 8.
250983-vol. 102-53-102
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shapard advised of the employees' organizational activities.' The Board has
held that it is a violation of the Act for an employer to require that his supervisors
reveal all the information they may have on the organizational activities of the
employees. Inter-City Advertising Company, 89 NLRB 1103, 1107 (enforcement
as to this phase of the order denied on the ground that the finding on which it was
predicated was not supported by substantial evidence, N. L. R. B. v. Inter-City
Advertising Company, 190 F. 2d 420, 422 (C. A. 4) ). In accordance with the
Board's holding in that case, the discharge of Carr in this instance constituted a
violation of the Act, as the General Counsel alleged. I so find.
C. The period subsequent to Carr's discharge
There were several instances about the time of Carr's dismissal wherein
supervisory personnel interrogated employees with respect to their union ac-
tivities or sympathies. Donehoo's questioning of Rickels has already been dis-
cussed, supra. During the same period Donehoo asked another knitter, Roy
E. Ackiss, whether he had any knowledge of the Union," and on about the same
day he accosted Brooks to ask for a description of the union organizer to whom
Brooks had given an authorization card'
Later, on April 5, the day of the election, in a conversation with several of
the employees in the men's dressing room Donehoo said that in the event the
union won there would be changes at the mill including a cut in the piece rate
and the elimination of time work.'
The Board has held that the interrogation of employees as to their union
activities such as Donehoo conducted, the prediction of economic reprisal con-
tained in Donehoo's comments made on the day of the election, and the threat
implicit in Shapard's remarks in October 1949, that before he would suffer an-
other strike he would close his mill and go back to farming, all constitute inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion. Accordingly, I find that by this conduct the
Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Three to four days after the election Alton Ross, one of the foremen, spoke
to Wilborn Shivers as the latter was finishing a shift, and said that he had
heard Shivers "went to Atlanta to protest the election, held the preceding
week." 3' Shivers passed off the question with the remark that one might hear
36 Shapard freely conceded that he felt that his supervisors should report to him on the
employees' union activities. In connection with the instructions he gave to Carr and
Donehoo at the time he made them superintendent and head fixer, respectively, he testified
as follows :
Q. You also at that time told them both that you wanted them to report when they
first found out any union activity going on in the mill')
A. I wanted to know everything going on in the mill.
s s a t ♦ s a
Q. And you expected a superintendent to let you know the first moment he knew a
union was organizing the employees?
A. I thought he would, yes . . . I would say a man loyal to the mill would do
that.
This finding is based on the credited testimony of Ackiss. Donehoo's denial was not
persuasive.
37 This finding is based on the credited testimony of Brooks.
31 Time work was an allowance made to the knitter for any period when his machine was
undergoing repairs.
This finding is based on the credited testimony of David Chambers, who, although a
very nervous and retiring witness, impressed me as being honest and truthful. Doneboo's
denial was unconvincing, as was the testimony of Robert L. Bogan, an employee who was
present and who testified chat Donehoo never uttered the predictions attributed to him by
Chambers.
1' This is based on the credited testimony of Chambers and Shivers, Ross' denial is not
credited.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY NIILLS, INC. 1607
almost anything at the Dovedown mill . Ross' interrogation of the employees
generally as to the Union's proposed course of action subsequent to the election
might fall within the proscription against questioning plant personnel on their
organizational activity . In this situation , however, I do not think the general
rule is applicable. Shivers had been the union observer at the election. As
such he, of course, had certified the results of the balloting, along with a man-
agement representative. Under all the circumstances present here, and consid-
ering the nature of Ross' remark to Shivers I do not think it was coercive and
so find.40
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 as 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 burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, it will be recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Under normal circumstances where a supervisor has been discharged for
refusing to cooperate with an employer in restraining or interfering with union
activity of subordinate employees the Board has held that it is not without power
to order the reinstatement of that supervisor with back pay. Inter-City Advertis-
ing Company, supra; Salant & Salant, Inc., 92 NLRB 343, 375-377, order vacated
and complaint dismissed on other grounds, July 16, 1951. N. L. R. B. v. Vail
Mfg. Co., 158 F 2d 664, 666 (C. A. 7), cert. denied, 331 U. S. 835, rehearing denied,
332 U. S. 826, motion to amend and modify, decree denied February 10, 1948 (C.
A. 7), cert. denied, 334 U. S. 345. In the present situation, however, Carr's posi-
tion was not comparable to that of the foremen and minor supervisorial person-
nel involved in the above cited cases. Carr was superintendent of the mill at the
time of his dismissal, a position second only to Shapard, the Respondent's vice
president and general manager. Consequently, in the light of these facts, I do not
believe it would be appropriate to recommend that he be offered reinstatement
90 A few days before the election the Respondent posted a notice on the plant bull,2tin
board which the General Counsel appears to consider a further violation of the Act. This
notice stated that rumors had come to the management that some of the employees m'ght
walk off their jobs on April 3 ; that it was assumed that if such action were taken it w' 'uld
be for the purpose of influencing the Board election on April 5 ; but that regardles3 of
whether the rumors were unfounded, in any event, the employees were advised that the mill
would be open on April 3 and thereafter for all employees desiring work. This notice was
posted on about March 31 and remained on the bulletin board for several days. The Gen-
eral Counsel offered some evidence tending to prove that the Union had no intention of
calling a strike at the time and that there was no basis in fact for the alleged rumor
purportedly prompting the notice. Mr. Cumming, counsel for the Company, however,
credibly testified that he had drafted the notice himself after an employee had told him
there was a rumor current in the plant to the effect that some of the employees were going
to strike the following Monday and close the mill. The General Counsel offered no argu-
ment in support of his apparent position that the posting of this notice was coercive.
After an examination of the notice and the above testimony I do not feel that the notice
or its posting constituted interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of the
Act. I so find.
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with back pay to his former or substantially equivalent position. Wells, Inc. v.
N. L. R. B, 162 F. 2d 457,460 (C. A. 9)!'
Because of the Respondent's unlawful conduct and its underlying purpose and
tendency, I find that the unfair labor practices found are persuasively related
to the other unfair labor practices proscribed and that danger of their commis-
sion in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's con-
duct in the past. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guar-
antees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby
to minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus
effectuate the policies of the Act, I will recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. Pure Oil Company (Illinois Producing Division), 90 NLRB 1661,
1663.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLusIONs OF LAW
1. The Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization 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 (a)
(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid 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 in this volume.]
u Cf. Pacific American Shipowners Association, 98 NLRB No. 99, and the Board's citation
(fn. 24), in commenting upon the meaning of the amendment to the Act which excludes
supervisors from the definition of "employee," of House Report No. 245 on H. R. 3020,
80th Cong., at p. 17, which reads :
What the bill does is to say . . . That no one, whether employer or employee, need
have as his agent one who is obligated to those on the other side, or one whom, for
any reason, he does not trust.
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPIAYEEs
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their membership in,
and activities on behalf of, the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisal or with any
change in working conditions if they should select a union to represent them
in collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our mill in order to discourage membership
in the Union.
WE WILL NOT request or require that our supervisors inquire into our
employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
COURTAULDS (ALABAMA) INC. 1609
organizations , to join or assist the TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
GRIFFIN HoSIP:RY MILLS, INo.,
d/b/a DOVEDOWN HOSIERY MILLS,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
COURTAULDS ( ALABAMA ) INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 505, AFL; INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS, AFL; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE
No. 261, AFL; AND TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 991, AFL, JOINT PETITIONERS. Case
No. 15-RC-864. February 24, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c} of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 1 hearing was held before Paul A.
Cassady, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
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-
bel panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer .3
I During the hearing one of the Joint -Petitioners, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers , Local 505, AFL, requested withdrawal of its separate petition in Case No.
15-RC-849. The motion is granted.
3 Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 991 , AFL, moved
to join the proceeding as a Joint-Petitioner . As none of the other parties objected, the
hearing officer properly granted the motion.
8 Textile Workers' Union of America , CIO, and International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , AFL, moved to participate in the proceeding as Inter-
venors and such motions were granted.
102 NLRB No. 172.