Globe Cotton Mills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1938

6 N.L.R.B. 461 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of GLOBE COTTON MILLS and TEXTILE WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Cases Nos. C-386 and R-546.-Decided April 6, 1938
Cotton Textile Industry-Interference , Restraint , or Coei cion-1Jnit Appro-
prtate for Collective Bargaining : production employees ; no controversy as to-
Representatives : no controversy as to-Collective Bargaining : meaning of;
negotiations in good faith ; meeting with representatives but with no bona fide
intent to reach an agreement ; adherence to existing wage scale and working
conditions ; counterproposals , failure or refusal to make ; evasive tactics with
regard to embodying present policy in agreement-Petition for Certificatton:
dismissed because of order to respondent to bargain.
Mr. 1V1'arion A. Prowell and Mr. Maurice J. Nicoson , for the Board.
Lee, Congdon cC Fulch,er, by Mr. Lansing B. Lee and Mr. William
P. Congdon, of Augusta, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. L. B. Furtick, of Augusta, Ga., for the Union.
Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 25, 1937, Textile Workers Organizing Committee, herein
called the Union, filed charges, and on October 11, 1937, amended
charges with the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta,
Georgia), alleging that Globe Cotton Mills, Augusta, Georgia, herein
called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On August 12, 1937, the Union filed a petition with the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of the respond-
ent's employees, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act.
On October 18, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Sections 3 and 10
(c) (2), and Article II, Section 37 (b), of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered a con-
461
462 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
solidation of these cases and ordered an investigation of representa-
tives, authorizing the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On November 9, 1937, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
issued a complaint and notice of hearing, copies of which were duly
served upon the respondent and the Union. The complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, in that
the respondent had refused to bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union. The respondent filed its answer on November 13, 1937,
denying the essential allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on the consolidated cases
in Augusta, Georgia, on November 22, 1937, before William R. Ringer,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and
the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by a rep-
resentative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded to all parties. We have reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner on motions and objections to the admission of evi-
dence and find that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
On January 24, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. On
February 3, 1938, the respondent filed its Exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report, excepting to certain findings of fact made by the
Trial Examiner, and to his conclusions. A brief in support of the
exceptions was subsequently filed with the Board by counsel for the
respondent. We have fully considered the exceptions-to the Inter-
mediate Report and find them without merit.
Upon the entire record in both cases, the Board makes the
following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
0
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Globe Cotton Mills, is a Georgia corporation, with
its principal office and place of business in Augusta, Georgia. The
respondent is engaged in the manufacture and production of cotton
goods. The number of its employees varies between 125 and 225.
Cotton is the principal raw material, approximately 15 per cent of
which is derived from outside of the State of Georgia. Approxi-
mately 90 per cent of the finished products are shipped and sold
outside the State of Georgia.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 463
It was stipulated that the respondent, during the past 3 years,
has done an average annual business of between $400,000 and $500,000,
and of this amount approximately 90 per cent is realized in commerce
among the various States of the United States.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED _
Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization. It admits
to membership all production employees of the respondent exclusive
of supervisory and clerical employees.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit
It was stipulated by the parties that for the purpose of this pro-
ceeding, the employees of the respondent, exclusive of supervisors
and clerical employees, composing what is known as the "production
employees", constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We see no reason
to alter the agreed unit.
We find that the production employees of the Company, excluding
supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure
to employees of the Company the full benefit of'their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the
policies of the Act.
B. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
It was further stipulated by the parties that the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee was the representative selected by a majority
of the production employees of the respondent for collective bargain-
ing purposes, and was so recognized on July 27, 1937, and at all
times thereafter.
We find that on July 27, 1937, the Union had been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, on that date and at all
times thereafter, the Union has been the exclusive representative of
all employees in the unit for such purposes.
C. The refusal to bargain
On May 17, 1937, the Union made its first attempt to enter into
negotiation with the respondent at a meeting between L. B. Furtick,
local representative of the Union, and J. C. Fargo, president of the
464 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent. Furtick informed Fargo that a majority of the respond-
ent's employees had chosen the Union to represent them for purposes
of collective bargaining and offered a written proposal for a contract.
Fargo refused to accept or to read the proposal and declared that the
respondent did not intend to take part in collective bargaining.
Subsequent to the Union's filing charges against the respondent,
three conferences were held between representatives of the Union
and the respondent, the transcripts of which have been incorporated
in the record by the stipulation of the parties.
The first conference was on July 27, 1937. The employees were
represented by A. Steve Nance, Southern Director of the Union,
L. B. Furtick, and three employees of the respondent. The respond-
ent was represented by J. C. Fargo, H. R. Davis, superintendent of
the mill, A. S. Boyce, and L. B. Lee, attorney. -
Nance opened the meeting by setting forth the general operation
and aim of the Union. Lee reserved his rights to rebut any pre-
sumption that the respondent was subject to the Act. Nance then
presented the written draft of a tentative proposal, which was read
aloud by Lee. The substance of the proposed agreement can be
summarized as follows: Introductory clause; seniority in lay-offs and
reemployment to be observed; workweek not to exceed 40 hours, con-
sisting of 8 hours per day; wages to be increased 15 per cent; parties
to cooperate to secure proper legislation for the benefit of the in-
dustry, and children under 16 not to be employed ; the respondent
to retain right to free choice in the hiring of employees; disputes
to be adjusted by a Plant Committee and by arbitration; the Union
to cooperate with the management if the employees should take
action contrary to the agreement.
A discussion of the respondent's financial condition ensued. Fargo
explained the circumstances which the respondent considered made
the 10-hour day schedule a necessity and added that the 10-hour
day represented the employees' choice in preference to a reduction
of wages or-the closing down of the mill. Fargo indicated, however,
that the hours were to be reduced as soon as goods could be sold
for prices based on an 8-hour daily schedule. Nance agreed that
Fargo's statements concerning the respondent's financial condition
were essentially correct but reiterated the Union's desire to work
out the adjustments with the respondent on the basis of collective
negotiations. The meeting adjourned and the respondent agreed to
consider the proposed contract.
On August 3, 1937, a second conference was held by the two com-
mittees. Fargo, on his physician's advice, was not present, but he
sent a letter which was read by' Lee. In the letter Fargo -discussed
each section of the submitted contract. The substance of his ' com-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 465
ments may be summarized as follows : The introductory clause deals
with generalities and nothing is to be gained from writing it into a
contract ; seniority is an established practice of the respondent, and
the employees have expressed no complaint in that respect ; with
regard to hours and wages no action can be taken other than as out-
lined at the first conference ; it is of no interest to either party to
contract with reference to future policies ; the respondent does not
employ child labor, and as such employment is prohibited by State
law there is no necessity for a contract in the matter ; the employees
have the assurance already that respondent will at all times confer
with them and there is no reason for an additional contract on this
subject; the last section is interpreted as prohibiting the hearing of
grievances of employees who are not represented by the Union and
is therefore found unacceptable.
In the discussion which followed each clause was separately treated.
Lee and Davies further elaborated on Fargo's written answers. Con-
siderable time was spent in debating the seniority provision, Lee
maintaining the position that they preferred to handle each case
involving seniority as it arose without an agreement on the subject.
On September 28, 1937, the third conference was held with Fargo
participating . Furtick requested counterproposals from the man-
agement without result. He then presented a new proposal for a
contract . This second proposed agreement differed from the first in
that it provided for a 25-per cent wage increase, for a closed shop
and check-off system. During the discussion , however, after objec-
tions by the respondent , Furtick offered to eliminate the new
provisions . When Lee reiterated the respondent 's policy with regard
to child labor and seniority , Gay, a Union representative , asked that
the respondent draft their policy as a basis for an agreement. Lee's
response was: "We think it would be a useless and unnecessary thing
to enter upon a contract that would have nothing in it but the
company's policy in regard to child labor and in regard to seniority
rights, and that would be all that would be in that.contract." Fur-
tick asked for agreement on the 8-hour day which already had been
put in effect by the respondent ; he was told that it would be continued
as long as the' respondent was able to do so but that an agreement
was not feasible on the subject.
Toward the end of the last meeting the representatives of the
Union asked Fargo and Lee repeatedly to write up their present
policy in the matters discussed and submit it as a counterproposal.
Respondent 's officers were unwilling to do that at any point during
the negotiations.
In the first proposed agreement, the Union requested a reduction
in daily hours from ' 10 to 8. The request was discussed but the
466 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent would make no commitment. During the course of the
negotiations, the respondent did reduce its daily hours from 10 to 8
without any reference to the Union's request.
Summarizing the facts we find : The respondent recognized the
Union as the chosen representative of its employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining ; it was ready and willing at all times to meet
through its officials with the Union to discuss proposals submitted
to it; proposals which would necessitate a change in its present policy
were opposed on the ground that the respondent's financial condition
did not permit them, and that the present arrangement had always
been the most workable one; proposals which in effect embodied the
present policy of the respondent were eliminated on the ground that
the respondent considered it useless to have an agreement concerning
them and, furthermore, in regard to the seniority provision, the
respondent maintained a preference for dealing with the individual
seniority problems as they arose; the respondent made no counter-
proposals at any time during the negotiations.
The respondent has taken the position all through the conferences
that the Union should "let things alone and let then- stay as they
are now." No concessions have been made by its officers and although
negotiations were pending the Union was deliberately ignored when
the respondent decided to reduce daily hours from 10 to 8. The
respondent's president flatly stated that he could see no reason for an
agreement with the Union, that a written contract embodying the
present practices and policies of the Company would be useless.
From the foregoing recital of the facts, it is apparent that on May
17, 1937, the respondent did not intend under any circumstances to
negotiate or enter into any type of collective agreement with the
representatives of its employees. Although in subsequent months, the
respondent met with the Union representatives, received proposals,
accorded such proposals ostensible consideration, and engaged in dis-
cussions of them, an analysis of this conduct compels the conclusion
that in fact the respondent did not recede from or alter in any mate-
rial particular its position of May 17. Throughout the conferences,
the respondent not only systematically rejected each and every Union
proposal, including those which were admittedly unobjectionable, but
also persistently declined to make any counterproposals. Counsel
for the respondent argues in his brief that since it expressed its views
in open conference and since its ideas were not acceptable to the com-
mittee, it would have been a vain and foolish thing to submit a formal
proposal to the same effect. This argument has a surface plausi-
bility but the difficulty with it lies in the fact that while rejecting the
Union's proposals in open discussion the respondent not only did not
give but in fact carefully avoided any affirmative indication of pos-
DECISIONS AND ORDEIIS 467
sible terms upon which it would be willing to agree. It is obvious
that this technique was calculated to and did make any productive
negotiations impossible.
Counsel for the respondent further contends that at the third
conference a contract as to seniority and child labor alone was re-
jected by the Union. The conversation alluded to is evidence to
the contrary.,
The question before us for decision is clear. Did the respondent
fulfill its obligation under-the Act by meeting and discussing pro-
posals submitted to it by the representatives of its employees in
the manner hereinabove described? In our opinion it did not.
In platter of St. Joseph Stock Yards Co.,2 we said :
An assertion that collective bargaining constitutes no more
than discussion designed to clarify employer policy and does not
include negotiations looking toward the adoption of a binding
agreement between employer and employees is contrary to any
realistic view of labor relations. The development of those
relations had progressed too far when the Act vas adopted to
permit the conclusion that the Congress intended to safeguard
only the barren right of discussion.
The term collective bargaining denotes in common usage, as well
as in legal terminology, negotiations looking toward a collective
agreement. If the employer adheres to a preconceived determination
not to enter into any agreement with the representatives of his em-
ployees, as we have found here, then his meeting and discussing the
issues with them, however frequently, does not fulfill his obligations
under the Act.3
The respondent's tactics in readily participating in discussions in
which its agents carefully avoided any semblance of agreement to
proposed terms and offered no suggestions for changes acceptable
to them convince us that the respondent only sought to give the
appearance of obedience to the Act without ever entering into genu-
ine collective bargaining.
Accordingly, we find that the respondent at all times since July
27, 1937, has refused to bargain collectively with the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee 'as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
'Board Exhibit 23, p. 44.
Mr Lee. Suppose we add to our sixteen years that we would continue to do as to
seniority as we have already done, would you.be willing to sign that?
Mr Furtick . With the sixteen year old matter and seniority we will take them as
two clauses We come on down and agree on these two pacts and take up another.
Mr Lee: We have not agreed on then what else are we going to agree on?
22 N. L.R.B 39.
In Mattel of S. L Allen & Co, lee, 1 N L R B 714 -
468 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
We find that the aforesaid activities of the respondent have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
THE PETITION
In view of the Board's finding in Sections III and IV above,
it is not necessary to consider the petition of the Union for certifi-
cation of representatives. Consequently, the petition for, certification
will be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the Board makes
the following conclusions of law :
1. Textile Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production employees of the respondent, excluding super-
visory and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3. The Textile Workers Organizing Committee was on July 27,
1937, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative
of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively
with the Textile Workers Organizing Committee as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the above-stated unit, the respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within
the meaning of Section 8 (15) of the Act.
5. By refusing and continuing to refuse to bargain collectively
with the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, as above-stated,
and thereby 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 469
Globe Cotton Mills, Augusta, Georgia, and its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for' the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act;
(b) From refusing to bargain collectively with Textile Workers
Organizing Committee, as the exclusive representative of all its
production employees, except supervisory and clerical employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Textile Workers
Organizing Committee as the exclusive representative of all its pro-
duction employees, except supervisory and clerical employees, with
respect to rates of pay, hours of employment and other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached on any such
matters, embody said understanding in an agreement for a definite
term, to be agreed upon, if requested to do so by the Union;
(b) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous
places within the plant, stating that respondent will cease and desist
as aforesaid; and maintain such notices for a period of at least thirty
(30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(c) 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.
The petition for certification of representatives is hereby dismissed.